Piper Crash at Embry Riddle: How Should Piper Owners React?

Rocky Landsverk

Please note the update on the article about the Piper PA-28R-201 that crashed at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
You can read the NTSB report there, and there is a link to download the NTSB's full-length PDFs also.

Also see Scott Sherer's letter on the topic here.

Topics of note in these articles: The NTSB is looking back at ADs and Service Bulletins from years ago, concerning similar situations. Read more in their article linked-to above.

Your Turn

Do you have a PA-28 and if so, does this concern you? What do you plan to do next?

If you don't have a PA-28 does this still concern you? What do you plan to do next?

arthursautot

I do have a PA-34-220T with around 5700 TT. I think i'll inspect the wings even if the plane only have 300 hours of training on it.
But my school in FL does have a PA-28R-201T with only primary training since a long time so I'll definitely not fly this plane anymore until further inspections.....

Scott Sherer

Good judgement on your part. I'm doing the same thing here with my plane. Safe flying.

mattreedy

Thank you for the enlightening article and for sharing your perspective. I own a 1969 PA28R-200 with 6800 hours TT. It was used as a trainer for its first year (700 hours), but has been used much less in the years since then. I am indeed concerned about fatigue and as you suggest, at the next annual (October), will have the wing attach bolts inspected via eddy current testing whether there is an AD or not. My hope is that if the FAA does issue an AD, they will be reasonable in terms of recurring & costly inspections.

Scott Sherer

Roger that! Thanks for your comments, Matt.

Scott Sherer

So, my aircraft has 5300 hours total time, and was used for primary
training in the past (I can tell that from the maintenance paperwork in
the records binder). Given the above information, and the fact that I have
it in for annual right now, I'm wondering if we should go ahead and do the
inspection of the wing attach bolts via eddy current testing, as mentioned
in the article.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,
Kelly

Scott Sherer

elly,

Yes I saw an advanced copy of his article. A couple things, first off
cracks have been found in Piper Arrows but the Warrior is much lighter, has
less power and isn't a retractable landing gear airplane. While very
similar in design, these are important differences.

Next, until the AD is issued there aren't any specs or criteria to follow
to do an inspection. We would have no idea how to do the test, who could
do the test (there are different levels of NDT certifications), what would
be acceptable, and what wouldn't be acceptable. If we performed a test and
any part of the test differed from the AD we'd have to do the work all
over again to meet the criteria in the AD.

Removing bolts just to check would likely cause more damage than good
until it is known what will be called out.

We can do a good visual on the attach points, but beyond that we advise
everyone to wait and see what happens in terms of what the FAA comes up
with. The FAA was just out this morning on an unrelated matter and we
asked them a few questions about the situation, and they concur with our
thoughts at this point.

Its very unlikely your airplane has any cracks, I wouldn't loose any sleep
over it at this time.

~Erich Rempert

aerobuffet

It's my understanding that one of more of the main spar bolts have to be removed to do the eddy current inspection. If that is true, you have steel bolts going through an aluminum spar with very tight tolerances - and bolts that have been untouched since (in the case of my Archer, 43 years). I've been told that any scratches created by the removal of those bolts will cause an eddy current inspection failure.

The alternative inspection solution - assuming what I've read and been told is correct - couuld create more risk of a wing separation; the other could yield a false positive. Any A&P told me the last time an AD on this sort of thing required the wings to be removed for inspection, there were dozens of crashes caused by wing separation.

Sounds like the FAA should be giving some thought to "first do no harm." I'd love to read an objective assessment of the risks of each inspection. Obviously, no one wants to experience wing coming off and it's hard to put a price on not doing the inspection. I just don't want to be the first "oops" - with the NTSB determining that the act of doing the inspection was the cause of the accident.

Scott Sherer

I couldn't agree more! Nicely put.

Cuban8

Damn, I hadn't heard this logic before and was relieved to have my Arrow pass the SB 1345 recently. Thought I'd be doing the best thing following the SB whilst making myself more comfortable with the aeroplane's airworthiness. Hopefully any future AD accepts this SB's specifications for a pass.

Scott Sherer

Thanks for your post.... fingers crossed!