AD 2017-14-04 Did they screw up?

Firstflight

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
28
Display Name

Display name:
Jimbo
Regarding AD 2017-14-04. From what I read, and looking at the flow chart, if type D is installed the AD is complete. The old AD 95-26-13 had no 100 hour inspection for type D, but an 8 year or 1000 hour replacement requirement. The new AD doesn't require 100 hour inspection or 8 year/1000 hour replacement for type D. What the heck?
 
Help yourself get answers; post the pdf or at least a link? Maybe some context, is this an MD80 or an Ercoupe?
 
Does the aircraft manufacturer have a requirement for inspection or replacement aside from this AD?
I couldn't find a service bulletin covering this. Keep in mind that most light planes built prior to the 70's came equipped with rubber(type c)
hoses. Thing is that per the flow chart, having type D installed "ends" the AD, but a previous AD covering the same issue put a service life on the type D hoses, but that AD no longer exists.
 
I couldn't find a service bulletin covering this. Keep in mind that most light planes built prior to the 70's came equipped with rubber(type c)
hoses. Thing is that per the flow chart, having type D installed "ends" the AD, but a previous AD covering the same issue put a service life on the type D hoses, but that AD no longer exists.
upload_2018-7-30_11-8-17.png

upload_2018-7-30_11-7-18.png

upload_2018-7-30_11-9-55.png

upload_2018-7-30_11-12-16.png
 
BNT83. That's plain as day to me. 95-26-13 is no longer accessible on the FAA database. However, I'm sure I have a copy. When I find it, I'll post it so people can sense my confusion. Just seems like they took a step back.

Its possible that 95-26-13 was misinterpreted to add a life limit to type D hoses and hence this AD to correct it.

This might be an accurate 95-26-13 reference but I wouldn't bet too much on it

http://wwwapps3.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/AWD-CN/documents/US95-26-13.htm
 
BNT83. That's plain as day to me. 95-26-13 is no longer accessible on the FAA database. However, I'm sure I have a copy. When I find it, I'll post it so people can sense my confusion. Just seems like they took a step back.
It would actually be a step forward...they determined that no further inspections were actually required for certain hoses, and removed any requirement for unnecessary procedures (and cost).
 
It would actually be a step forward...they determined that no further inspections were actually required for certain hoses, and removed any requirement for unnecessary procedures (and cost).

Well hopefully so. After all, nobody feels like shelling out maintenance dollars to take care of conditions that don't exist.
 
It would actually be a step forward...they determined that no further inspections were actually required for certain hoses, and removed any requirement for unnecessary procedures (and cost).

its a step back really. type d hoses have alwas been a terminating action for the ad. the change was that someone got a AMOC put through for the old ad that allowed the type c hoses to remain in service beyond 8 years with inspection for condition. the new ad removed that AMOC so it made any type c hose over 8 year old unairworthy. any type c hose over 8 years old must be replaced under the new ad. If the hose is replace with a type c hose, that hose then has a 8 year life limit as per the AD.

bob
 
Back
Top