New Piper PA-28 AD

1. where in the US did the 2 events occur? Have the airplanes always been located on the coasts-sea air corrosion?
2. what idiot ignored the risk-management statistics of 2 out of how many hundreds of aircraft?
3. of the 2 aircraft that prompted this, how was it identified, what were the factual, objective damages? Or is this an A&P CYA?
 
The corrosion problem has been around for a long while.
It is indeed funny they only list it as 2 examples, as some research even on youtube will show it is much more common than that.
Although it will cost, these plates are actually probably a needed fix. I know if I were looking to buy a Piper I'd not do so without a good spar inspection. A Cardinal either.
but that's me..

At about a year ago this was already being looked into according to this article.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...eeks-information-on-piper-wing-spar-corrosion
 
Seems like Airframe Components in Indiana has a pile of youtube videos about Piper corrosion.
 
"The airworthiness concern sheet was based on a report from a foreign operator"
 
mtuomi said:
It's been a very important SB (SB1006) for a long time.
Click to expand...
Different animal. 1006 inspects spar hidden by fuel tank. The new AD adds inspection plates aft of the spar and inboard of existing inspection plates I believe. The taper wings already have inspection plates there IIRC.
 
181 not in list...phew

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
"PIPER CONSIDERS COMPLIANCE MANDATORY"

Yeah, F Piper. Are they going to be cutting checks to owners?
 
Nope! But as of now part 91 does not have to be compliant of a mandatory SB. If the AD comes about then yeah I'm out supposedly $600..sigh guess my ADS-B $500 rebate will go to my mechanic.
 
I'll ask the obvious question. If those two (or two hundred, as some say) were found without cutting into the wing, how were they found and why can't the AD simply require the inspection, whether by cutting into the wing for inspection covers or by borescope or other non-intrusive methods?

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
I'll ask the obvious question. If those two (or two hundred, as some say) were found without cutting into the wing, how were they found and why can't the AD simply require the inspection, whether by cutting into the wing for inspection covers or by borescope or other non-intrusive methods?

Jim
Click to expand...
wing spar failures. very serious inter granular corrosion of the wing attach fitting, this is a cast milling
 
Tom-D said:
wing spar failures. very serious inter granular corrosion of the wing attach fitting, this is a cast milling
Click to expand...
But as I vaguely recall, you can put one of those "dentist scope" looksee probes at the end of a 3' soda straw that read out on an iThing or an Andernoid machine and see that area quite well. Or maybe I misremember.

Jim
 
paflyer said:
"PIPER CONSIDERS COMPLIANCE MANDATORY"

Yeah, F Piper. Are they going to be cutting checks to owners?
Click to expand...

At least Piper has decent structural repair manuals and seems to support the products, hell you can buy a wing spar splice kit to fix it. http://www.barteltaviation.com/assets/Uploads/pdf/PiperSB1244B.pdf

30+ year old Cessna? Junk structural repair manual and lame service bulletins with very little repair data. Contact structures with a credit card number for disposition. Good luck.
 
weirdjim said:
But as I vaguely recall, you can put one of those "dentist scope" looksee probes at the end of a 3' soda straw that read out on an iThing or an Andernoid machine and see that area quite well. Or maybe I misremember.

Jim
Click to expand...

weirdjim said:
I'll ask the obvious question. If those two (or two hundred, as some say) were found without cutting into the wing, how were they found and why can't the AD simply require the inspection, whether by cutting into the wing for inspection covers or by borescope or other non-intrusive methods?

Jim
Click to expand...

Jim:
These would be the perfect comments to submit to the NPRM site during this comment period. Even if the feds did keep the panel option, using a borescope with todays technology would be an excellent basis for requesting an AMOC to the future AD. Several small holes in the right places and covered by button plugs might do the trick.
 
Last edited:
weirdjim said:
But as I vaguely recall, you can put one of those "dentist scope" looksee probes at the end of a 3' soda straw that read out on an iThing or an Andernoid machine and see that area quite well. Or maybe I misremember.

Jim
Click to expand...
Jim please submit an AMOC.
 
bnt83 said:
At least Piper has decent structural repair manuals and seems to support the products, hell you can buy a wing spar splice kit to fix it. http://www.barteltaviation.com/assets/Uploads/pdf/PiperSB1244B.pdf

30+ year old Cessna? Junk structural repair manual and lame service bulletins with very little repair data. Contact structures with a credit card number for disposition. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Field approval is still a field approval no matter where the data comes from.
No support from the factory ? ? = AC43,13 page and para

I'd bet the cost of a replacement wing is lower than a spar splice.
cost of repair parts+ labor+ =_____?
Cost of wing+ labor+ paint= _____?
the wing must come off to do the repair, and replaced
the wing must come off to replace.
replacing the wing is not a major repair.
consider the time to gain approval, probably the same as shipping.
let's consider the reduction in selling price of the aircraft with a major repair and 337 in the history records.
 
Last edited:
When you think of the selling prices of the PA-28, that will produce a corroded spar, I doubt they will be worth the repair.
 
How's this:

This is how your comment will appear on Regulations.gov:
Comment:Ladies and Gentlemen ...

As a practicing Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic with Inspection Authorization, I have been privileged to inspect a fair number of the aircraft proposed by this action.

You are correct; failure of this component is going to make the airplane in flight "unairworthy in the extreme."

However, I believe that there are alternative methods for inspection that will improve the inspection process, give us far more information than a single hole cut in the wing, and reduce the cost on the owner/taxpayer.

Most of us performing inspections in the field where the item to be inspected is difficult or impossible to see directly have been able to use a number of products that allow us to do the inspection by electronic means. That is, a video sensor at the end of a long maneuverable tube can get into areas that mirrors and other devices just can't see. The common name for this device is "borescope", but modern technology has gone so far past the borescope technology of the 1970s that "borescope" is like comparing a dial telephone to a cellphone. Let's call this device an "inspectoscope".

I also agree that this is a difficult location to inspect, either by mirrors (almost impossible) or borescope (marginally possible by a highly trained person) using currently available inspection openings.

I propose that you modify the Airworthiness Directive to the cutting of two (perhaps three for redundancy) small holes in each inspection area of the wing that an inspectoscope probe can fit into and can see the critical areas which will identify the filiform corrosion that this fitting is subject to. After inspection, the holes may be covered up with spring loaded hole covers (industry term - "botchbuttons"). that can be removed at each inspection and easily reinstalled.

If you adopt this proposed procedure I **URGE** you not to specify that we use the "Acme Model 1234AA-X" inspectoscope as most of us who do this sort of inspection on a regular basis have inspectoscopes that we have found perfectly usable and have, for lack of a better term, become great friends with them and have learned their strengths and weaknesses. You have placed a great faith in our abilities to use the tools necessary to do the job at hand and we have not failed you yet.

Thank you for your time

Jim Weir
2261417 A&P IA
 
I don't see the -181 models listed so I guess I don't need to worry about it.
 
I know I have inspection plates along the bottom of the wings where the wing meets the fuselage. Would those be the ones?
 
Bell206 said:
Jim:
These would be the perfect comments to submit to the NPRM site during this comment period. Even if the feds did keep the panel option, using a borescope with todays technology would be an excellent basis for requesting an AMOC to the future AD. Several small holes in the right places and covered by button plugs might do the trick.
Click to expand...

The proposed AD includes an Alternate Means of Compliance section. If you can stick a camera onto a soda straw and use that to inspect the struts, then use the procedure in 14 CFR 39.19 to submit it to your FSDO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top