CASA puts 15 year life limit on

bnt83

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
9,845
Location
Lincoln NE
Display Name

Display name:
Brian
flight control cables :hairraise:
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/AIRGEN/GEN/GEN-087.pdf


Applicability: This AD applies to any aircraft fitted with primary flight control cable assemblies using terminals constructed of SAE-AISI 303 Se or SAE-AISI 304 stainless steel which have total time in service of, or exceeding, 15 years unless the:

(a) aircraft is maintained to MSG-3 methodology; or

(b) instructions for continuing airworthiness for the aircraft specifies a life limit for the primary flight control cable assemblies that is less than 15 years of total time in service and the instructions are complied with.

Note: Affected terminals include, but are not limited to, terminals manufactured to MS20658 (AN658), MS20667 (AN667), MS20668 (AN668), MS21259 (AN666) and MS21260 (AN669 or NAS650), which may be stamped on the terminal.

Requirements: For all aircraft:

1. Unless previously accomplished, remove each affected primary flight control cable assembly from service.

2. Ensure any affected cable assembly that has been removed from service is mutilated in a manner that ensures the cable assembly can no longer be used in an aircraft.

Compliance: 1. The action in Requirement 1 must be taken as follows:

(a) for primary flight control cable assemblies with total time in service of, or exceeding, 15 years - before 1 January 2018;

(b) for primary flight control assemblies where total time in service or control cable terminal material cannot be determined - the following applies:

(i) for aircraft manufactured in or before 2002, compliance must be achieved before 1 January 2018;

(ii) for aircraft manufactured in or after 2003, compliance must be achieved before the aircraft reaches 15 years since date of manufacture;

(c) once compliance with paragraph 1 (a) or paragraph 1 (b) has been achieved - every 15 years thereafter.

2. The action in Requirement 2 is required upon the completion of Requirement 1.
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes2: Can't wait to see how many maintenance-induced accidents this causes. (What could possibly go wrong?)
 
That's some dumb eurotart style logic right there.
 
Coming soon to an FAA think tank near you! :mad: :no:
 
old news. The US FAA rejected this notion when it first came up last year. You have to remember that australia is the ultimate nanny state
 
old news. The US FAA rejected this notion when it first came up last year. You have to remember that australia is the ultimate nanny state

:yeahthat:

Nuff said.
 
old news. The US FAA rejected this notion when it first came up last year. You have to remember that australia is the ultimate nanny state

What do you expect a debtor prison to turn into? Aussies have a convict mentality.
 
There's gonna be a lot of out of rig airplanes in Aus after this. :nonod:
 
Odd thing is this calls our the cables, but it would seem more likely the pulleys are where the problems begin.
 
I believe the German LBA and possibly the Swedish turn Service Bulletins (or any manufacturer recommendations) into ADs.... As a result of the Cessna spar inspection SB many German owners are re-registering their airplanes in the UK or the US.... If I owned a plane in Australia I would stay on the N register for sure!
 
I have read somewhere on a different message board about an even more intrusive and expensive examinations for all light GA planes, involved x-rays and other expensive type inspections on internal structures. I wish I could find the link rather than posting what I think I remembered.
 
I have read somewhere on a different message board about an even more intrusive and expensive examinations for all light GA planes, involved x-rays and other expensive type inspections on internal structures. I wish I could find the link rather than posting what I think I remembered.

Well, that's probably coming. Piper put out a corrosion SB on about every part of the airframe on their PA28/PA32 aircraft. The only one I'd take seriously is the wing spar one. IMHO that weakens the urgent-ness of complying with SBs.
 
Back
Top