Cessna Fuel Bladder AD 84-10-01

robertb

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
76
Location
San Diego
Display Name

Display name:
robertb
My mechanic was reviewing the AD list for my Cessna 182P and ran across an item he questioned. AD 84-10-01 seems to apply to my aircraft but had never been mentioned in past annuals by other mechanics. I took a look at the AD and it appears to apply based on aircraft serial number and I did not see any obvious exemptions. Am I missing something? Our plane has the raised fuel caps and not the flush ones.

Thanks in advance!
 
At an earlier date the AD required a procedure to determine if water could be

trapped by bladder wrinkles. If it did not “ trap “ more than 3 ounces no further

action is required.

If it did trap more than 3 ounces there were 2 choices:

1. Install the “Wing Shake “ placard or

2. Install raised caps.

The raised caps eliminated the recurrent inspection of the filler area.

However; the raised caps offer no protection from water being introduced

from an unfiltered source.

My personal thought is if you cannot determine if you are trapping more than

3 ounces via checking the Aircraft Records than it’s best to assume your are.

So if you refuel from an unfiltered source ( cans?) it is best to do the “ shake”.

I’ve seen what happens when people don’t .
 
Am I missing something?
I cant download the AD but since you mentioned the fuel caps I'll take a guess and ask if you have Monarch fuel caps installed? If so then Monarch has a letter stating the AD is not applicable with their caps installed.
 
I am not familiar with the AC, but the 1984 date may suggest is was complied with when new bladders.
 
I cant download the AD but since you mentioned the fuel caps I'll take a guess and ask if you have Monarch fuel caps installed? If so then Monarch has a letter stating the AD is not applicable with their caps installed.
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...7CA32CBFD7107A87862569B9004D1566?OpenDocument

The AD requires the water-retention test and recurrent inspections of the bladder through the filler cap plate. Installing the raised caps eliminates the repetitive bladder inspection, but does not eliminate the initial water-retention test.

It was a poorly-written AD. There was lots of discussion about it over the years. I installed at least one set of sump drain valve relocation kits to pull the wrinkles out of the bladder. https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=25673 and https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=29432
 
It seems there are 2 issues involved with the 182 bladder system.

1. Rain water entering through the original, flush “ Killer Caps”.

2. Contamination introduced into the system when fueling with

cans or other non- filtered systems.

The AD only addresses the former.

When mo- gas first arrived on the scene folks were eager to save money.

Many systems were developed to enable this.

Some were not so good.

A classic was the 100 gal (?) home heating oil tank .

They must have cleaned it with a gallon of some solvent.

Oil that was trapped in seams was loosened by the mo-gas.

It arrived at the carb with a load of skydivers over the city!

Sumps had been checked before flight but wrinkles in the bladder prevented

the contamination from reaching the drain point.


Another 182 went down on a railroad track after the second take-off of the day.

Sumps were only checked prior to first takeoff.

Maneuvering in flight works water around the wrinkles and to the tank outlet.

The preflight “ Wing Shake” accomplishes the same but allows it to be

drained at the sump.
 
There was lots of discussion about it over the years.
That was the AD. But i took the question to be on the recurrent part which is what I run across given he mentioned the recent annuals. While the AD states installing the raised fillers per Cessna kit as terminating action it doesn't list the Monarch fillers. Seems there are some people unfamiliar that Monarch also has a letter terminating the AD recurrent task.
 
I agree with Dan regarding “ poorly written”.

My belief is new style caps should not be Terminating Action.

If contamination is introduced while fueling there may still be problems and

the Terminating Action has provided a false sense of security.

My thought is the Wing Shake placard should still apply when refueling regardless

of type of cap.

The two examples I cited did not involve rain water.
 
Thanks everyone for your info!
I spent a little time going over the fragile logbooks and found a couple entries from quite a few years ago which referenced 84-10-01 and am feeling better. I was not looking forward to draining a bunch of fuel out of the plane (or circling the field until nearly out of the magic "go" juice). I'll upload the logbook entries here but am feeling a lot better now that I found these entries.
 

Attachments

  • Logbook 84-10-01 - 1 of 2.JPG
    Logbook 84-10-01 - 1 of 2.JPG
    250.1 KB · Views: 14
  • Logbook 84-10-01 - 2 of 2.JPG
    Logbook 84-10-01 - 2 of 2.JPG
    175.3 KB · Views: 12
Congrats on your find and condition!

Suggest you update your AD Status and insure it includes all the details

and little letters and numbers.

p/c/w is not enough.
 
My mechanic was reviewing the AD list for my Cessna 182P and ran across an item he questioned.
Curious. What was your mechanic's original concern? The AD hadn't been complied with, or that the yearly recurrent inspection hadn't done during the recent annual cycles?
 
Congrats on your find and condition!

Suggest you update your AD Status and insure it includes all the details

and little letters and numbers.

p/c/w is not enough.

That was just a scan of the logbooks from 30+ years ago. The plane has a new AD log which is modern and current.
 
Curious. What was your mechanic's original concern? The AD hadn't been complied with, or that the yearly recurrent inspection hadn't done during the recent annual cycles?
Yes, my mechanic did not see the entry from years ago and he questioned it there had been any inspections done to comply with the AD.
 
Back
Top