Understanding the Proposed Piper FAA Wingspar AD InTheHangar Ep16
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 01. 2019
- UPDATE January 15, 2021: The AD is finally out as of today! Read it here: www.federalregister.gov/docum...
If you like the video, please SUBSCRIBE.
Special thanks to TCN Studios studiosattcn.com/
Sponsored by Serendipitous Films s-films.com/
I am at this exact point. My PA28-160 has wing spar issues. I am in the process of replacing one and possibly both wings. Even though my total time is less than 3.800 hours and has never been in a flight school it still had severe problems. I am so grateful to my IA for taking the initiative to do this inspection now rather than wait for the AD. I strongly advise you to have your inspected. No it's not fun to get that kind of news, but much better than the alternative.
Im looking at second hand Arrows/Turbo Arrow IVs and this is the only reason why im not sold on them. The planes i was looking at have around 5000 hours on them and knowing my paranoid ass i probably wouldnt have any peace of mind even after the inspection. Replacing both wingspars is probably way too expensive though, what a shame.
I'm in the market for a PA-28 180, and an airline buddy of mine told me to check on the wing spar issue before buying anything. So, this is the first information I've received on the proposed AD. I know this video is nearly 2 years old with a 6 month old update, but it was right on time for me. Thanks, you guys are awesome.
Thanks for watching! Hope you find your plane.
What did I learn from this video? Bill is hungry, he wants a hamburger and to go to his Grandma's house. Seriously, awesome information. Personally, considering the cost, if I owned a covered aircraft, even if it didn't fall within the factored hours window, I'd get it inspected. Thanks for the great content.
the first failure was actually an Archer used for pipeline patrol....Piper owners, dont feel picked on, Cessna cantilever-wing singles ( 210 177) owners are about ready to head down the same road following a wing separation in Australia on a C210 used in severe duty flying
Thank you for breaking this down, very helpful & clears ambiguity.. Requirement/Frequency/Conditions start at 9:40.
Great visual of the spar issue, till now it's been a bit of a mystery trying to visualize it from the description and pictures. I taught at ERAU DB and have about 700hrs in the PA-28 Arrow, including a dozen or so in the exact aircraft that went down.
GREAT information! Thank you for this clear description of the AD and steps for compliance (well most likely steps).
Great content! Thanks for putting this together and shining some light on ADs.
Currently doing an annual on my PA28 180. Am definitely sold on installing the inspection kit for a few hundred bucks to see what’s actually happening to the wing spar. Will sleep better knowing for sure the wing spar isn’t compromised by stress or corrosion. Just the right thing to do. In my opinion. Fly safe and smart.
yah...factoring blah blah blah...who's gonna be the first one to find out thats not sufficient....not me
It is not possible to see the area they are talking about with out removing the wing. The eddy current inspection is the only other method. The inspection hole cut in the wing bottom checks a different issue.
what inspection Kit? lol
I agree with @Graeme Williams , better safe than sorry. Its you and loved ones up there, go ahead and get the inspection even if its not mandatory for your particular Piper.
Wow that was really informative. I have a 1975 Warrior with 2100 hours but i bought it used a few hundred hours ago so when the next annual is due i'm going to get the spar checked regardless. I've had a few good hard landings myself and who knows if the past owners may have had some as well. Better to be safe than sorry! Thanks for discussing this topic. Joe from Toronto.
Thanks Joe! Totally agree.
Great video. As Piper owner, I now have a better understanding how the proposed AD will affect me. Thanks!
I would inspect whether it needs it or not.
Totally agreed, is there a way to beef this up and make it more robust?
This is a very informative video; it is going to effect many aircraft. The cost to inspect is going to be great and if need be replace a wing. The cost to replace maybe be so costly and time to rebuild wings will put some aircraft in the scrap or salvage yard. Thank you for have this video to explain the many different situations and how it will involve the owners aircraft
Excellent information about the PA-28 spar issues.
Excellent information and explanation!! Thanks for putting this out!
My back ground is aircraft structural analysis, stress, ultimate, fatigue and durability. Corrosion makes matters worse (pitting causes stress concentration). These two Fastener holes in the lower cord are definitely fatigue critical.
Excellent presentation!!!!!!
Great info I have a PA-28 (140) coming in my shop and was wondering how to sign it off now at least I can put the costumer at ease a little
Awesome video I rent a warrior and this helped me better understand the issue and also feel better since the time on it is well under the 5k factored hours.
The root cause is aircraft that cost 20k new in the 70's now cost almost half a million today. People don't own a plane, they are care takers until the next guy/gal. The GA fleet is 40+ years old because the forces that be, don't want the general public to be able to fly. At least it feels that way.
Why does there always have to be a conspiratorial explanation?
@@owisagrom "Forces that be" is short hand for insurance rates, fuel prices, avionics prices, cost to acquire rates, medical exams, hanger fees, airport use fees, luxury taxes, education fees, license fees, annual inspection fees, mandatory engine overhauls, mandatory AD inspections, and a host of other things one might have to suffer just to be a private pilot. It's not conspiratorial. It's factual. When my family started flying in 1976, it was affordable to do so on a middle income. To enjoy the same level as I did, you need to have 6 figure income on the higher end. There are cheap ways to fly today. You can still find good deals on planes and a outside tie down today. But due to the above, your severally limited to how many hours you can fly... Like owning a ski-boat in northern Canada,
@@hawkdsl But why wouldn't they "want" the general public to fly?
Since the Embry-Riddle accident, I've been waiting to see what form this AD Note would take. I find myself pleasantly surprised that the FAA is taking into account not just the quantity of hours, but the TYPE of hours (flight school versus Part 91 daily driver accounted for in the 100-hour inspection verbiage) in the construction of the AD and the method of compliance.
I have seen a number of low total time airplanes that were poorly maintained and suffered more as a result of sitting, but at least with regard to training airplanes, high total time in a training environment is - overall - worse than low total time and the ill effects of inactivity. It's a pity that cycles (takeoffs and landings) don't appear to be accounted for in the construction of the AD.
Also good news that eddy current inspection is being used and that replacement wings of unknown history are also going to require an inspection . We just installed some components on the Bellanca that came from a salvage airplane and I was very happy to be able to have access to the logs of the salvage airplane, which manifested in a log book entry along the lines of: "installed tailwheel strut, spring, and wheel assembly as removed from Bellanca N*****, Serial # *****, having **** TTSN following cleaning, inspection, and servicing of the applicable parts. See attached copies of last log pages from N*****, Serial # ****". And of course, we attached copies of those pages to the aircraft logs. A little extra paperwork, but it could potentially pay dividends should an AD Note or regulatory change ever require closer scrutiny of the service history of used parts - which is a topic of interest to the FAA.
A major AD Note is never good news for those who own an affected airframe, but it appears in this case that the FAA is using some degree of common sense in their approach. And kudos to Bill Goebel! Local maintenance guru done good!
Been a while since I've worked on PA28's, but I got the impression the inboard spar was basically the same on all models from the early 140's, right up to Arrows and Archers?
As fatigue is primarily a function of cycle and load, this would place the heavier models at higher risk than the lighter 140's and Warriors, although I would also suggest that models with the tapered wings would be slightly higher on the list (than the 'Hershy' models of similar weight) due to the longer bending moment.
That was explained really well. Thanks!
Good information, even though it is a PR nightmare. Many hours in this type. Better to find out now than while in the air.
I bought my PA28-140 in 1976 it was a 1968 Cherokee with 14.500 training hours from the south shore of long island, it was one of a fleet of 8 or 10 140s and several arrows, all the 140s had well north of 14 thousand hours, I was told by someone at the time there had not been a engine failure or structural failure in the whole fleet to the end of the schools closing! On my way back to long island from a vacation in the Bahamas at night, from S Carolina to Farmingdale airport we were in severe turbulence, I was probably the only GA light plane flying on the east coast that night. going past Kennedy airport at 500 feet just over the ocean was a intense ride, the ocean below was wight waves, heavy traffic was so low on final I had to call the tower and told them where I was and if the line of heavy's did not get up over 500 feet one of them is going to have a new hood ornament, every heavy immediately climbed not a word was said on the radio, they all heard me. I landed a short time later at Farmingdale the tower said no need to acknowledge his calls as I was about one mile out, 38 mph @33 44 mph 39 mph etc etc,I do not think he took his finger off the mike switch till I landed, I stuck it on , nice to have wide gear spacing and a short fat wing sometimes. I had just under 90 total hours, training and pic when I did my log book the next day, If I had cracks in my wing spare I would not be here to wright this, the g forces that night were impressive! Glad I did not know about the future spare cracking issue, the airport my plane came from had some pretty big pot holes in the runway, close to salt water and almost all training was done at low altitude over the bays and ocean, all motors were majored at Matituck (they were the best of the best). just makes me wonder if they fail at 7 thousand hours why none failed at over double that in this environment ? I believe the 1980s wing fail was on a power wire inspection plane, with lots of damage history, wire inspection flights are pull up -push down over and over again, I believe the AD was performed on 500 aircraft, the only one found with cracks was the sister plane of the wire inspection company doing the same job! Sorry for all the verbiage, by the way my trip back to long island was on friday the 13th through the Bermuda triangle!
so so Lame
thanks for the info, great video.
Thank you! Breathing a bit better now! An IA friended emailed me the proposed AD a few months ago. I bought my Cherokee and learned to fly in it and received my certificate in August.
My first few read throughs, I thought I had to shell out major bucks for this test.
Yeah at first glimpse, it looks like an $8K AD. But I think most people won't have to do that. Just the inspections. And the "factored" hours suddenly make sense.
@@TakingOff So if a plane is operating in an environment that requires 100 hr inspections, the plane has been subjected to "EXTREME SERVICE," and has greater need for inspection of bolt holes in spar?
@@birdwing98 If you are flying the airplane less than 100 hrs per year, you do not need 100 hours inspections. Only yearly inspections. Of course, an airplane being used in a flight training school could easily get 100 hours of use every two weeks.
Thank you very much for this video.
For acouple hundred of dollars, I'd just get my aircraft inspected. That's cheaper than cleaning the human pancake off of the ground.
Agreed Sir!!
Good life insurance (bolt hole inspection) is worth $1000.
12/31/2019
A couple of hundred? Dream on sucker! Try $600. Otherwise, you are correct.
I just have to say I dont think you understand how low wing airplane with landing gear in the wings work ...Every hard landing or bounce results in stress on the spar . Unless you are the first owner you wont know how bad the stress the spar had . As most pilots Dont log hard landings. Looking for cracks is A good Idea but if the wing is not cracked and you dont see the spar after every flight. It can bite you at anytime. High time trainers get hard landings almost every flight.
p.s. cessna type high wings dont have this issue and why fly low wing anyways it blocks the view having A big wing under you.
Love this content!!
Interesting. Thanks for the info. : )
To get a much stronger spar and get rid of those weakening lower holes narrowing the flange tensioned material in that critical position, the lower flange should be made longer to extend further into the box and so the lower holes would be much further inside the box where the leverage of the longer lower spar at its inner end would exert a downward force component in the box rather than a shear force as it is. The fulcrum will remain where it is on the upper flange which is in compression, so it is fine. There would no need to drill holes where they appear in the lower flange as is, as those ten holes are reducing the tensile strength of the lower flange, hence cracks. Fewer holes deep inside the box would be enough as with making the lower flange longer into the mounting box, there is a different mode of operation on that spar. ( Fulcrum at the middle of a straight lever rather than a crank effect at 90 degrees involving a lot of shear on the bolts and high tension on the remaining material in the holed lower flange. If the spar is tapered towards the lower flange the web edge could be reflanged to make it stronger as it would be acting in compression.
Great information.. What about other Piper aircraft like the Seminole, Seneca based on the Cherokee series. or the Comanche series both the single and twin or even the Apache or the Aztec's?
Hi great video. Any information on the pa34 wing? Is it much different than the pa28/32?
Thank you 👍
Questions please:
1. The very first entry in original logbook for a Cherokee on 07/27/1966 shows a 100 hr inspection at only 48 hours total time. Do I have to count this as a 100 hour in the formula?
2. Immediately after above, the same original logbook has a “25 hour post delivery inspection” recorded just 1 week later on 08/03/66 at 53 hours total time. Do I have to count this?
3. There is an annual 08/30/68 at 608 hours ... a “50 hour” inspection on 01/24/69 at 778 hours ... another annual on 05/02/69 at 884 hours. Do I have to count the “50 hour”?
4. I have found a couple instances in 1981 & 1982 where BOTH an annual and a 100 hr inspection were recorded by the same A&P/AI on the same date with the same tach time. Do I have to count these as 100 hr inspections?
5. There is an annual 08/25/86. Then, from 09/11/86-07/09/87, there are 5 entries for “Piper Progressive Inspection Program”at various short hour intervals (all less than 100 hours). Then, another annual on 04/17/88 (just 1.4 hours after the last “progressive” inspection. What do I do with the “Progressive Inspection Program” entries?
There are nothing but annuals after that for the life of the plane.
Thanks!
Anything similar to the Beech 18 spar strap AD expected for the PA-28’s?
If you have a Piper with less than 5,000 TTAF do you still need to have this AD done?
Wow. I cannot wrap my head around your calculations from the examples. Can you show the equation?
When we fly IMC we are pressure washing the plane too
Or rain
I could be wrong but idk.. a good gas pressure washer even if you've got it fairly close to the plane when ur pressure washing it - is a whole lot more powerful than flying thru rain .. I pressure washed houses for years, I accidentally sprayed across my arm one time and it ripped a huge chunk of skin off pretty deep
Been enjoying your Channel. My experience is from Engineering Development and Building then having to live with the developments throughout their use. Most metals will work harden in areas that experience flexing. Over time the more serious hardened areas will eventually crack thus causing a break. As the cracks deepens the overall designed element strength diminishes eventually causing component failure. Hence, older well used Planes are thought to more likely experience these problems.
Keep in mind that Aluminum built Airplanes are assembled with solid rivets with a few steel bolts. Disassembly is very tedious and time consuming. The only structure welded as one piece is the Engine Mount. Planes designed to minimize flexing as in example cantilever vrs outer strut supported wings might offer some resolve. But the problem with flexing remains.
Composites offer improvements but there isn’t a lot of experience yet to make everyone run to buy them. Strength Testing shows improvements but very long term use isn’t known.
12/28/2019
What does a “few” aircraft mean? 3? 10? 50.? 450?
Another in-flight break up happened when a PA-28 was flying over Mississippi in April of 2019. Preliminary report is on the NTSB website.
I couldn't find it on the NTSB website.
pdutube Just checked and it’s still on the website. Sorry, I had put the wrong occurrence month. Happened in April.
Date fatality occurred was April 14, 2019. Date of report is May 9, 2019
For anyone else looking for reports:
Go to NTSB Website
investigations
Aviation Database
I used Mississippi and Piper as my search criteria
Also try using the search word “breakup”
@@MaggyMay42 Found it, thanks! Accident ID: CEN19FA120 and aircraft registration N4890L.
Can't be donne holes on the upper or lower plate,cause there are the most requested efforts,and the plate between them that unit then,this one may have the holes for connectors. Those holes must be provided of a reinforcement ring on then.
Huh??
A Piper went down with A wing missing this week it was caught on video flat spinning . Weather was bad at the time But not so bad that the wing should come off . Maybe The pilot over stressed it maybe it was A spar fail. I will be watching for updates on the crash 5killed in Georgia/ I wonder if it had the spar fix ?
Great to know that this issue has to be very important because of a lot of Flight Schools that own and operate PA-28 and other Piper Aircraft in their fleet . As of the cost of getting this done will hurt the Owners and mostly Flight School will lose a lot of their Aircraft
Looks like a lot of flight schools will be looking at Diamonds. 😁
Great video with great information! I may not be the tallest tree in the forest, but I find the formula to calculate the hours a little confusing. Even I have read the instruction in the AD a couple of times; I fail to be certain in my calculation.In my case, my PA28-140 (1965) have 4100 hours TTAF. Am I in the clear no matter what?? Or do I now have to trawl old logs for the last 50 years to find the number of 100 Hours inspections?? If so and the logs are not available will I still be in the clear, or will the missing logbooks mean that even the below TTAF hours the inspection need to be done??s not a question of saving some hundred $$, as the inspection (only) in my country will end up in close to 2.000,00 $ and question is now, if the money is better spend in trading the old lady in for some newer hardware, as the inspection regardless of result properly will not add on the price for the plane.Happy flying all!
Per the proposed AD, if you had no 100 hour inspections done (the formula for factored service hours does not count the annual inspection as a 100 hour...) your equation would be (0*100)+(4100-(0*100))/17 =241.2, and if you had 41 100 hour inspections your Factored Service Hours would be 4100.
There will be no airplanes with the number of 100 hour inspections being equal to TIS/100 because many of those inspections would have been done as an annual; an airplane flown 300 hours in one year would have one annual inspection and two 10 hour inspections.
The formula for excel would be =(A2*100)+(B2-(A2*100))/17 with the number of 100 hour inspections in cell A2 and the time in service in cell B2.
Hello all,
I am in the middle of purchasing a 1969 Cherokee PA 140 with 6200 airframe hours. The plane has just passed an annual. The date of the annual was July 2021. If my plane falls into the AD inspection category is it safe to say that this would be caught and recognized in the most current annual or even last years annual? I don’t have the log books we are in the beginning stage or purchase. In other words is the AD law now so no one could sign off this plane as being airworthy?
Why isn't there depot maintenance for GA aircraft? I was in the military. We sent kc135s to depot maintenance at the Witchita plant. They tear the aircraft down and xray airframe structures for cracks, upgrade avionics, propulsion, and other systems. I know it's military and it's expensive, but we had to get every hour out of the aircraft because we didn't have new airplanes to replace them with. When they got so tired at the end, we sent them to the bone yard in Tucson. Each manufacturer of US aircraft should have a maintenance depot. Perhaps this could have been caught an prevented.
Would not even matter if that existed, because none of us normal people could afford it.
Very informative, I can’t see why you wouldn’t do the inspection regardless of hours
3:00 Something bad happened. Yea, the wings fell off.
one of the key engineering specifications for an aircraft is Wing should not fall off. They are extremely difficult to fly with only one wing. I just abut managed it with an RC extra 300.
@@dr_jaymz RC planes fly so fast compared to their size, it's not an impossible thing.
Oh wait, never mind
czcams.com/video/M359poNjvVA/video.html
They usually try to build things so parts don't fall off
czcams.com/video/3m5qxZm_JqM/video.html
Would be curious to know what metallurgical analysis of the steel reveals. Cant they fabricate some sort of reinforcement structure bolt on?
Like the Beech 18 spar straps? Good question.
Looks like the perfect part to fabricate a left and right hand sandwich repair part. Not only drill and install Huck bolts in the 8 top and 10 bottom locations, but thru the cross section while being bonded with a good corrosion inhibiting sealant.
Works on P3 aircraft that that much higher loads on landing and harsher environments.
@@gungadinn Huck Bolts are one of the greatest inventions ever.
For me, I would prefer to just replace the wing spar, no matter the cost, for peace of mind that I’m flying a safe aircraft. If it’s $8k, that’s nothing compared to the value of my life.
Wing spar replacement will run closer to $14,000 per.
Thanks I am going out to buy some Pipers Thanks for the info
My Archer II is maintained on the EASA schedule so I don't know the FAA system. Can someone please explain why two aircraft that have flown the same hours but one with 100 hour inspections and the other not, are treated so differently? The more it has been checked the higher the risk? I don't get that.
I think it’s not the “100 hour” inspection as much as it’s the fact that if 100 hours are required, then the plane is getting a whole bunch of commercial use (hard on the plane type hours).
05:50..."8 bolts on the top, 10 bolts at the bottom because higher loads at the bottom"...The static load should be the same at top and bottom, unless there is a difference of the lower and upper spar-cap thicknesses.
When I design my first airplane, I'm making the spar for the entire wing and thru the fuselage One continuous spar, no bolts lol. Idfk if that's possible but hey
This is one of life's paradoxes. The wing spars will tear at the location of the drilled holes for the bolts but yet toilet paper never tears where perforated.
Lol!
Oh thank god, I thought it was just me. Also those things on the top of milk bottles or when cutting glass, somehow the material is weaker where you haven't scored it.
Hey Dan, could you guys do an update on this? I'm at about 13,800 TTAF on my former flight school Warrior II. My understanding is that the AD never dropped and is sitting out in FAA proposal land.
Hey Kevin-- let me check on that.
One thing I didnt get, aren't 100 hour inspections mandatory for every operator? So how would two planes with the same TIS have a different number of 100 hour inspections?
100 hour inspections are a great idea, but not mandatory for all operators. Only certain commercial endeavors. (Of course, it is for this situation)
@taking off this guy (Bill) really did explain things easily. Do you know if he has any youtube channel or any other mean to know further about him & his work? Thanks!
Bill is great! His channel is czcams.com/channels/YA9CFYqaWU6udlzMUXtheg.html
Another great informative Video. Is this directive world wide or just in the US. Our local flying school in Australia has a couple or Warriors. Are there any similar directives for Cessna 172s or similar?
The rules the FAA mandates are for US operations. However, most other countries airspace authorities often adopt FAA regs? The Cessna's wing designs are significantly different-- so I'm not aware of any AD's for Cessna wings.
Definitely not with Cessna, not hard to find one with nearing 30k hours or commercial use before it retired to private use.
There had an issue on some of the early Cessnas with the wing support strut causing metal fatigue near its attach point on the fuselage near the door. In comparison to the cost of a wing spar inspection/repair it’s chump change.
The retractable gear Cessnas can have metal fatigue issues on their gear. But again nowhere near what you can expect to pay for replacing a main spar.
born2flyau This "proposed AD" will only apply to certain PA-28 aircraft. No Cessna aircraft are being questioned. Do some study on the differences of how the wings are attached on a Piper vs a Cessna. Seems the Cessna system is more robust because the wing is supported by the strut which acts as an angle brace, whereas the Piper wing is a cantilever. Also, if a Cessna is slammed into the runway, the landing gear stresses the "box" of the fuselage, unlike in a Piper, where the landing force is transmitted to the wing. See below excellent videos detailing Piper vs Cessna wing. czcams.com/video/YsKaNEt1A2Q/video.html
Cessna Wing Attach points...... czcams.com/video/WIMm75BtsMA/video.html
birdwing98 old Cessnas can get fatigue cracks, but they form near the door on the fuselage where the wing strut attaches. There is a proposed AD for it but it’s a very cheap inspection typically done with the annual anyways. Repair if an issue is found is also very cheap due to the easy access to the location,
I don't own any airplane, but a PA-28-201T is on my wish list. I suspect that Piper, unfortunately, is going to take a lot of heat over this. I also wonder if Cessna and Diamond are going to see an increase in sales. Cirrus might also, for the SR-20. Truly unfortunate for Piper and owners of the PA-28 series airplanes.
Thanks for sharing this.
I would think the non piper used aircraft will get a bump over piper... but new aircraft probably not much change. Just my guess.
@@TakingOff I don't know. I mean, the PA-28 has a pretty rock solid foundation, but this is going to shake it down to the core, at least in the minds of people who are considering this. But, I think the biggest factor is going to be the schools who are going to be looking to update their fleets. Unless Piper comes out with a complete redesign of the lower spar cap, then this issue is going to repeat itself, and at the appointed 5,000 service hours, it's going to get expensive. ERU, NDU, ATP and other large flight schools who use the Piper aircraft may very well consider going to Cessna or Cirrus. The only advantage that Piper has is that they are the only company producing a twin engine trainer in the Seminole, and I'm' pretty sure sure the spar cap is going to be of a like design, even though it may be more robust.
@@GaryMCurran Yeah, I have no doubt its going to hurt Piper. Just not sure on the new models.
@@TakingOff, actually, I think the new buyer that isn't a school isn't going to have any worries. Even if you fly 300 hours a year, which is a pretty good amount, it will take you fifteen years to hit the 5,000 service hours. But, a flight school where that airplane is in the air 6-10 hours a day, that service time is going to come pretty fast.
That's also something else I don't understand. If I'm a flight school, and I have 50 one hundred hour inspections, I've hit the service 5,000 hours, but if I fly the airplane 500 hours a year on business, and just do the annuals, I'm good at 5,000 hours? That doesn't make any sense to me.
@@GaryMCurran That part actually makes sense to me. The loading and wear and tear on a flight school plane is significantly higher-- goes back to Bill's paperclip example in the video. If you're an woner just doing the occasional trips to grandma's house, maybe you put two takeoff/landings on the airframe... but a flight school might do 15 to 20 *hard* landings a day. That "paperclip" is getting bent back and forth a WHOLE lot more.
If I had a later p-28 With several thousand hours I think I would have the wings pulled back and inspected both visually and ndt. Secondly there should be a determined number of hours frame time in which the manufacturer (Piper) should pay the cost of inspections and if needed repairs. Owners shouldn’t have to pay for correcting design issues. Automobile manufacturers do. Can you imagine the government telling everyone with a car that had Takata airbags they are responsible for the cost of repairs and their car is “grounded” until it’s done?
Yeah, but keep in mind, it was going down that liability trail that killed General Aviation in mid 80's.
True and there certainly should be a cut off point but with the cost of new planes being so unreachable for most, the fleet continues to age. It’s hard to say what that point should be but it’s a shame when a customer has to pay to overcome a design issue. Maybe aviation insurers should offer AD riders for future unknown costly ADs like changing a spar.
My left wing on the lance failed the inspection. There are no new spars available. Piper is not making these spars anymore
Hello 'In the Hanger' great informative episode 16. Disappointing, because these older planes can be affordable: Just like a second hand car.
A good example were eddy current examination would be used in GA.
🌏🦙
Yup.
The only thing not taken into account by “factored hours” is severely bad landings. There is no way to account for them , except if the pilot noted it in the logs ( yeah right ) ,but if an aircrafts history included damage to the main gear , from landing occurrences, I would be concerned no matter the factored hours . I’m getting to the point of not being comfortable flying in a low wing Piper , none are getting any younger.
Airliners have G-meters hidden in them to record hard landings.
Hard landings impose a negative G load. This puts the UPPER spar cap in tension and the lower cap in compression. The lower spar cap is getting cracks from tension loads in flight which is the opposite of a hard landing.
Not correct , flight loads input an upward force on the wings , bottom spar cap is in tension , main gear resting on the ground also impart an upward force on the wings , bottom spar cap still in tension.
Yes that's true due to the position of the gear outboard from the spa / cross member joint. So hard landings will stress the bottom flange and with an impact load do to the sudden vertical deceleration. At least the Oleos absorb some of the deceleration.
I really believe by putting the wings in and out will cause more damage if you did not have it yet
YES that same comment was made to me today by my AME
OK, I see the wisdom of factoring training versus traveling time using 100 hr inspections versus annual inspections as the metric, but what about personal aircraft that have had years of annual inspections that are yearly 100 hr inspections done by A&Ps but then undersigned as annuals by IAs?
This has been a common practice involving many aircraft. I know one Cherokee that had been annualled for years by an A&Ps. They would sign it off for 100hr since they were not IAs, then have an IA come inspect behind them and sign their inspection off as an annual. This airplane is a three-owner personal aircraft, never been a trainer, yet it has a whole bunch of yearly 100 hr inspections followed by annual signoffs. It's old- 1964- and doing the math it is 330 hrs overdue when the AD comes out, yet if all the inspections were simply called annuals, which is all they really are since the airplane did not actually require 100 hr inspections, then it would be far from requiring the inspection.
This is an issue that hasn't been given any consideration with regard to personally operated aircraft.
And, does anybody have any idea why the PA28-235 is the only model of the series to be excluded from the AD?
I agree with avoiding pressure washers. I had to replace a propeller I installed new a few years ago because the owners insist on pressure washing their Beechcraft. It was ruined by corrosion on both blades and in the hub. Beyond repair. Junk. Too new a model of prop to have a bunch of overhauled units available so had to buy another NEW prop. 50 hrs TTSN.
Rogers Hunter
The first scenario makes no sense and I have no idea why it would be “common practice.” First, a 100 hr inspection is only required if the aircraft is being used for hire. Eg: Flight instruction or skydiving, banner towing, or it’s on a 135 certificate. In these cases, the aircraft is more than likely flying more than 100 hrs in a calendar year.
Aircraft owned in a partnership are not usually being used in the cases named above. Therefore, even if they fly 500 hours a year, they do not require 100hr inspections.
That leaves the required “Annual Inspection” as spelled out in 14 CFR 43, Appendix D. This regulation clearly states that for an inspection to be considered an “Annual”, it MUST be performed in its entirety by a mechanic with Inpection Authority (IA). No part of the inspection can be delegated to an A&P who does not hold an IA.
So why on earth were these 3 owners paying for TWO inspections? First, an unnecessary 100hr, followed immediately by an Annual? This seems like a waste of money, unless something shady was going on where the IA was violating 14 CFR 43 by allowing an A&P to inspect the aircraft and then merely signing off the inspection as if the IA had done it himself.
Like I wrote earlier, Something does not add up here.
@@Stepclimb An annual can cover a 100 hr, but a 100 hr cannot be an annual. I agree, just do an annual unless it's flown A LOT more than a hundred hours a year and you just want to fell better with another inspection.
hmmm I wonder what certified aircraft has the least AD's and best safety record!
The DPE killed in the April 2018 accident was my former boss. That hit a bit close to home.
1972 Piper Cherokee 180 that I have to sale will be affected also?
Bernard Anderson yes
Would it not make sense for piper and the FAA to select a random sample for testing, this would give them a range of operating cycles and locations and they would know much more and it wouldn't take years to do.
I could be wrong in my recollection, but I believe they have been inspecting a cross section. And after several years now, still no AD. They rewrote it earlier in the year and posted, basically pulling back on some of the affected models and such.
Much like the AD on the cessna 172s. Very expensive to fix if cracked and on the cessna it's not even the spar
I don't think anybody has found a crack yet. Don't think this AD is going to go.
Actually a crack was found in one of the ten airplanes that were examined under NTSB supervision. I think one in ten is pretty terrible odds for wing spar cracks and don't know why an AD hasn't been issued yet. See the May 15th, 2018 update to the investigation. www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180515.aspx
So a mandatory service bulletin is not mandatory?
Here's the comment on that at the FAA website: "Although a service bulletin may be categorized as mandatory by the manufacturer, it is crucial to know that compliance with service bulletins isn't necessarily required under the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) unless the service bulletin includes or is accompanied by an airworthiness directive." So to answer your question, in the eyes of the FAA, a "mandatory" SB is not mandatory unless part of an AD.
@@TakingOff Exactly. An SB and AD are not quite the same thing. Another thing to keep in mind is in the event your insurance company needs to pay-out, they may be able to reference SB non-compliance as a reason to not pay. Just like being out of annual inspection, etc.
Service Bulletins are FAA-Approved publications issued by aviation industry manufacturers.
Airworthiness Directives are publications issued by the FAA and compliance is required for all operations in order to maintain airworthiness. They will often reference particular Service Bulletins, effectively mandating them for all operations. Each AD is essentially an amendment to 14CFR Part 39, so they are literally laws.
The FAA considers Mandatory Service Bulletins (MSBs)to be mandatory for all aircraft operated under 14CFR Part 121 or 135 carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. Aircraft operated for personal use under 14CFR Part 91 are not required to comply with MSBs unless they are mandated by Airworthiness Directives for all operations as I mentioned above.
However, although no action will be taken for simply choosing not to comply with nonAD enforced MSBs on Part 91 aircraft, noncompliance with MSBs can affect insurance coverage and can result in legal action from the FAA and/or any parties involved should an accident occur due to noncompliance with MSBs.
I would think an aircraft manufacturer would know their product better than a govt agency. My wife sustained significant injuries in a ground loop accident. Only after our accident did we learn there was a SB on our Cessna C-120 seatbelt bracket. It was made of aluminum and tears when overloaded releasing the occupants to move about the cabin. Unfortunately a guy died from the same bracket in his C-140. Until 2015 there was no mention to change the bracket to one made of steel. There is still no AD on the bracket. Only a SAIB. (safety bulletin). I've spoke with many mechanics and pilots who ignore SBs because they aren't a mandatory AD. Bottom line, if there's a SB or SL or anything like that, a manufacturer knows there's an issue. BETTER LOOK AT IT.
12/28/2019
Sorry pal. On 12/29/2019, The cost of remedying the wing-spar issue is not $8,000, nor $4,000, it is $20,000
Depending on who does it.
That sucks about all these old cantilever wings cracking. It's going to devastate that market. I'll stick with the Cessna strutted wings and fly without constantly worrying about the wing snapping off if I hit severe turbulance.
This is why I have a Mooney.😁
I wonder if the plane this happened to was my dad's plane.
Until the 1980's my dad owned a 1/4 share in a Cherokee. One of the other partners made an off field forced landing in Mexico. The plane was undamaged but the wings had to be removed to transport the plane to a place they could take off.
Long story short, the insurance didn't want to pay to fly a mechanic down just to remount the wings so they totaled the plane and paid out all the partners.
Some idiot from Texas purchased the plane and not having a clue what he was doing, he mounted the wings wrong, damaging both spars, then tried to fly the plane home. He didn't get far before the wings came off killing himself and his wife.
Not sure why that would generate an AD. The spars were damaged through incompetence, and the wings were not mounted properly in any case.
Let us know if you find out.
@@TakingOff I checked, and my dad wasn't sure. Do you know where this 80's accident took place, or the registration number of the involved aircraft?
N8191V in Marlin, TX., March 30, 1987. NTSB accident number: FTW87FA088
@@pdutube nope, not mu dad's old plane. Still, this one is sad.
funny part is that the airplanes in Alaska are exempt from this AD HOW can this be...
Why do 100 hour inspections impact the math so much? An owner may just do 100 hr inspections over his aircraft's lifetime because he wants to, yet have very light duty because most of his flights are longer. Is the FAA assuming because 100 hr inspections are done then it follows that the aircraft is severe duty and thus needs inspection? What about aircraft that have had the crap beat out of them but no 100 hr inspections? Those are the very aircraft that need to be targeted yet won't get done.
I'll stick to my high wings for now.
Dont all aircraft, other than homebuilts or ultralights, get 100 hour inspections? If a plane has had no inspections for 20 years is it safe to ignore the fact it can still have 8000 hours on it? Hours are hours. Training planes should count for many more hours than purely cross country planes.
No. privately owned aircraft are inspected annually, commercially operated aircraft, including flight school aircraft, require 100 hour inspections.
With these aircraft dropping wings at 6-7k hours and fatigue cracks found in the rest of the Embry Riddle fleet I would want an inspection at 5000hrs. Or with an aircraft nearing 10k hours I would simply want a new spar regardless of what the tests say about its life.
I must say im not really sold on this AD. A mechanic looking at the wingspar through the holes probably wont be able to find small cracks, also metal fatigue isnt always visible and with 40 year old airplanes you never know what the previous owners put them through. Its entirely possible that the wingspar looks ok but is weakened to the point where all it takes is some heavy turbulence and a loaded plane to end it all.
Not worth the risk for me. Im semi interested in buying a plane at some point in future (with the Piper Arrow/Turbo Arrow IV high on the list) but if i do get a PA28 id probably just get both spars replaced. Its not worth the risk.
I’m glad you can afford a second PA-28 into the cost of 1. Labor and replacing the spars is roughly 28k, you can find an entire second plane for about that if you look hard enough.
FullThrottle yeah I liked the Turbo Arrow too, but would want to sell by 6-8k hrs if I owned it. Ended up going for a PA30 instead since it’s about the same in maintenance and operating cost. The TSIO-360 is a pretty expensive poweplant to maintain around here. Can basically overhaul both IO-320’s on my PA30 for bear the cost of one TSIO-360.
do you want to see your airplane
I have never thought pressure washing an aircraft was a good idea. Pushing salt into tight spots and getting water in bearings are just a few problems created.
Translation for non - aircraft owners, a "couple hundred dollars" ; roughly equals $1300.00
Tell me the time, don't build me a clock.
Solution for cracked Arrow spar? Trade for a Mooney.
the piper spar was ill designed as edge distance romcenter of hole to edge of fiiyting is to close and not in accordance with stablished regulatiosi have aroposal to add a strap to nbottom of fuseage fiitig out uder soar and attach to shpar with high sghear bolts this will eliminate the ptroble wit spar racks
well that leave a LOT to consider each time you yell "clear prop".. park and rent a "C" plane
So if you're trying to sell your Arrow, burn it instead for the insurance.
Anyone in college who brags to this girl about their car is gonna get a one up
I'm only 3 minutes in and I'd already have punched the guy in the purple shirt for interrupting me WHILE I'M ANSWERING THE QUESTION HE ASKED. THAT'S "INTERRUPTING WHILE I'M ANSWERING THE QUESTION HE ASKED".
Yeah, he’s the worst! I will say however, he’s aware and interrupts a lot less in the over 100 videos since this one.
@@TakingOff Good. It's never too late to develop self awareness.
It’s good to be self aware.
I've got a pa18, she's got a pa28....its meant to be 😉
Christy doesn't look like she wings off for hamburgers too often in her PA28 .
That girl looks bored
At this point this is a terrible idea and this guy is an alarmist. The AD is written in such a manner as the FAA wants to use said aircraft owners as guinea pigs to find out what the risk pool is. Will create more problems than it solves ie bolt damage to spar on removal and installation, lack of Eddy current inspectors, labor cost are way underestimated, ecetera . The investigation is not complete so maybe an Embry Riddle problem as they found an ERU sister ship with cracks and I don't think they found another airplane that had this problem (maybe 1). Texas School they found no cracks. Also, Piper did not work with the FAA on this as they are completely against this AD in its current form(see their response to the FAA). It is Piper and the NTSB who have been working on the investigation. Also, the 1987 aircraft was an Archer I believe used in low level pipeline inspection (think turbulence and hard turns) not an Arrow, Big Difference!!! Get the facts straight
What’s a “hard” turn? A standard steep turn or something beyond 45 more towards 60 degrees? Even a 60 degree is only a 2g load factor.
Unless Embry Riddle students were going on joy rides doing aerobatics in their Pipers there is definitely something wrong here.
It’s not uncommon to find Cessna 172s retired out of flight schools with over 15000 hours of spins, stalls, steep turns, circuits(low level flying), touch and gos, and rental use under their belt without dropping their wings. Can even find many nearing 30000 hours before being retired from commercial service.
For a wing spar to fail around 6-7k hours in almost every in flight break-up on the Piper is rather alarming.
@@Alex-us2vw High-wing Cessnas have lift struts to distribute load to the fwd door post which is were we are finding cracks.
mutlah yeah certain old Cessna models have that issue, but it’s nothing like this. The inspection is easily done with the annual since the parts are accessible. No massive jobs to remove the wings required, plus this was happening closer to 30k hours, not 6-7k hour in flight break ups.
There is also the Cessna 177 and all the Cessna twins who have cantilever wings like the Piper. They also don’t run into structural issues at low hours like the PA-28.
Yes this is a serious issues , im an A&P and a commercial pilot, engines out no proplems, u can survive those with proper training, wings coming of in flight , THATS INSTANT DEATH, seems LIKE BE RUSSELL is working for piper, or owns one! what piper need to do is redesign the spar make it stronger, and all affected aircraft get the updated spar! . But to be fair, he has a point that the environment and the usage of the plane plays a big role in the spar failure, ! like with anything made man, if u put in a harsh enviroment and putting excess stress on it , i will fail. Ive been in this feild for many years, part 135 aircraft are flown daily and are abused, so u always gonna see more damage and wear and tear on those planes also the worst are pilot schools , they are learning to fly, so high impact landings are common place! But even cessna have wing spar issues so there. My suggesting is to have it inspected regardless, as human life is impoartant. and aircraft is not a car u cant park in the air and wait for a mechanic, so on all aircraft especially those being stress and overloaded constantly , just check your wings spars!
The chart pants are really not a nice look