New Cessna AD proposed

Pilawt

Pilawt

Final Approach
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
9,480
Location
Santa Rosita State Park, under the big 'W'
Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AD-Affects-14653-Cessnas-230257-1.html

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-01/pdf/2018-01923.pdf

172s affected appear to be only the 1980 through 1986 model years (172N, P, Q, RG, R172). '77, '78 and '79 model year 172Ns are not in the affected serial number range.

182s (all variants) from 1962 (182E) through 1986 are affected, as are all 205s, 206s and 207s through 1986.

Among 210s, only the strutted wide-body models (1962-66, 210B through 210F) are included.
 
They're getting old, we'll see more of this unfortunately.
 
Kits to fix cracks are about a $1000, the 30 man hours or so is gonna be hard to swallow
 
I can see a lot of people just saying sell the plane and get out, with these expensive AD's. coming out.

While the fleet is getting older I have to wonder how many cracks will be found or were actually found in the past, and what use these planes had , were they rode hard ?
 
1000 hours repetitive aint that bad, unless you re the guy who gets caught owning the thing when the tach rolls over 1000 since last inspection. of course we have eff all idea what the real all in repair cost for such a finding would be. this is the state of certified GA. we re certainly a captive audience.
 
bnt83 said:
Kits to fix cracks are about a $1000, the 30 man hours or so is gonna be hard to swallow
Click to expand...

Even at $100/hour it doesn’t seem that bad. A repair should be less than 10% of the current valuation of most of the affected airplanes.

And that assumes that a repair is needed. How many of these airplanes will get away with repetitive inspections? Probably most of the fleet.

It is interesting looking at what planes are affected. All tricycle gear and higher gross weight models...
 
A long known issue as Cessna wrote a SB for it in 1995 and I believe Australia issued an AD in 2003.
 
mondtster said:
Even at $100/hour it doesn’t seem that bad. A repair should be less than 10% of the current valuation of most of the affected airplanes.

And that assumes that a repair is needed. How many of these airplanes will get away with repetitive inspections? Probably most of the fleet.

It is interesting looking at what planes are affected. All tricycle gear and higher gross weight models...
Click to expand...

I don't think its all that bad either. Yes it will sting if cracking is found. Yes there will be a few planes scraped when other issues are found.

Its not gonna be the end of the world.

I may buy a kit for Dad's plane even though I know there aren't cracks there.
 
This doesn't seem hugely onerous of an inspection cost wise, the issue is more if you find something. What comes to my mind is you'd want to make sure the person/facility performing the inspection is one that you'd be comfortable letting fix the work if you find a problem.

Compared to a lot of ADs that we've seen recently, this one actually doesn't seem too terrible. I'd rather my wings not fall off, so if I found cracks like that I would want them repaired.
 
mondtster said:
It is interesting looking at what planes are affected. All tricycle gear and higher gross weight models...
Click to expand...
Yes. It includes all of the legacy strutted, wide-body 182, 205, 206, 207 and 210 models, which are all structurally similar in the wing attach area. The narrow-body versions, which includes the pre-1962 182 and 210, all 180 and 185 models, are not affected; nor are the strutless 210s.

Interesting that of the 172s, only the 1980-86 models are included. One of the changes in the 1980 172N was "slimmer door posts." Maybe that had something to do with it.
 
It seems they issue ADs when SBs are ignored. I expect one on the horizontal spar too. I had to replace that spar on a 172 that had been through at least 3 annuals with the damage considering the corrosion on the crack. The horizontal has a mandatory SB that is easy to accomplish, just take a look through a inspection plate.
 
Pilawt said:
Yes. It includes all of the legacy strutted, wide-body 182, 205, 206, 207 and 210 models, which are all structurally similar in the wing attach area. The narrow-body versions, which includes the pre-1962 182 and 210, all 180 and 185 models, are not affected; nor are the strutless 210s.

Interesting that of the 172s, only the 1980-86 models are included. One of the changes in the 1980 172N was "slimmer door posts." Maybe that had something to do with it.
Click to expand...

Agree, I own one of the C172N's not covered. Makes me wonder...
 
bnt83 said:
I may buy a kit for Dad's plane even though I know there aren't cracks there.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. Whatever you pay for the kit now will be less than what they cost in the future. Plus, if the plane gets sold and you don't have the kit installed you can resell it and possibly turn a profit.
 
Pilawt said:
Interesting that of the 172s, only the 1980-86 models are included. One of the changes in the 1980 172N was "slimmer door posts." Maybe that had something to do with it.
Click to expand...

That would explain it. I was wondering what happened to the 172 in 1980 that would prompt the inspection only on those models and newer. I figured gross weight might have changed but changing the structure in that area would definitely create the potential for problems.
 
strangebird said:
I can see a lot of people just saying sell the plane and get out, with these expensive AD's. coming out.

While the fleet is getting older I have to wonder how many cracks will be found or were actually found in the past, and what use these planes had , were they rode hard ?
Click to expand...

Might be a good time to buy a nice 206 or 182 if you can find someone who thinks this is a big deal and is willing to sell a otherwise nice plane for cheap because of it.

Really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
 
At least they found it in a bunch of aircraft, and not just two of them. But yeah, our aircraft are getting long in the tooth, and we can indeed expect to see more of this sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top