Pa 28/28R and PA32 Spar AD open for comments again

asikora1

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-11343.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0HopJzFwySk_Sk4J600N2PiE_kSpUAd2pQ2QGTD-BqMufYxe_WtlFdC3E

asikora1

If you want to make an formal/official comment go here and click submit a formal comment https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/03/2020-11343/airworthiness-directives-piper-aircraft-inc-airplanes

Scott Sherer

And so it begins, again. Ugh.

asikora1

if you look at the formula.... seems it will exclude many aircraft for a long time but seems I want to get it done in the next few months just for piece of mind. So do you think if you get the inspection done under the Service Bulletin, you would be covered under the AD. Using their formula, I don't think my Arrow ever gets to 5000 with me owning it. But thats another story

Johnjetman

I own a PA28-151 that would be included, yet the -161 would not. What is the difference besides the additional 10hp? If I were to put a 160hp on my airplane, would that then exclude it?
I’m no aeronautical engineer so what do I know.

asikora1

HI John, I wondered the same thing as I thought most of the fuselages were identical and only the engine was bigger. Other than I thought there was a change in length at some year!

johnsouthworth

I believe the PA28-151 is proposed to be excluded in the last cut.

ravpa28

How about PA28-140?

Johnjetman

The PA28-140 looks like it may be excluded.

Johnjetman

According to the above posted proposed AD the PA28-151 is included. I don’t get it🤔

Johnjetman

Here is the list of affected aircraft.

ravpa28

Thank you

Scott Sherer

Thanks for posting the affected aircraft list, John. And everyone, take a deep breath and see how this plays out. With the NPRM going through the end of the year it could be yet another year before the AD is actually issued. Then you'll have implementation time after the AD comes out. If it turns out an engine change could exempt you from the AD then you can research that change. Be calm.

Angle228

I have a pa-28-180.... not included but the 181 is. What’s the big difference. Nobody I have asked really seems to know. It makes me wonder is I should just have the testing done just to be safe. But then all the talk about disturbing the joint and causing damage just to do the testing. It’s a pickle for me.

Scott Sherer

Wait a year and see how it shakes out. There's no rush.

Angle228

Scott,

That is what I was thinking. Let a few 1000 of these other models be tested and see what the true rate of incidence is for this issue.... that is what my logical side of my brain said.

My worry wart side says do it now..... I guess we shall just have to wait and see.

griff390

It's a risk vs peace of mind discussion, and both sides are valid.

I'd bet a lot of us are thinking about a preemptive inspection. My plane isn't on the list either, but its got me thinking.

As Scott suggested, I'm going to wait it out and see where it goes.

Johnjetman

Keep in mind that this is the comment period. This is the time to give the FAA any input or suggestions. When they introduced the original NPRM they received many comments. This resulted in some changes to that proposal and I expect there will be changes to this one as well.

jimcurns

Angle228 wrote: I have a pa-28-180.... not included but the 181 is. What’s the big difference. Nobody I have asked really seems to know. It makes me wonder is I should just have the testing done just to be safe. But then all the talk about disturbing the joint and causing damage just to do the testing. It’s a pickle for me.

I have a 180 too, and my personal pet theory is this. When stresses are measured, a load moment can be used to calculate stress, similar to a weight and balance computation. The "short wing" 180 I believe has the same spar structure as the "long wing" 181 as everything from the flaps in I think is the same. Factor #2 is the 181's have a bit higher gross weight. Those two things make the load moment greater on the newer model spars. The two factors are likely enough to make the difference. Similarly the Arrow l and ll is our same wing with folding feet, but at a bit higher gross weight and about 20 knots greater speed. Both of those factors create more load. This is my assumption so do not take this to the bank.

No theory is able to account for hard landings, really rough weather, self taught acro and knucklehead maneuvers, or that guy we've sometimes called captain kangaroo. I guess that's what the testing is for.

I'm expecting I will get mine tested even if not required. I have a panel upgrade in mind and really would not like a big surprise afterward. I have looked at mine and don't think pulling those spar bolts out for testing is going to be all that bad.

Jim

Johnjetman

Here is the response I received from the FAA when I asked the question about why the PA28-151 was included in the proposed AD and not the -161. This did not completely answer my question. I’m hoping that as this moves along, they will will further analyze the different stc’s and common airframes.

John,
Thank you for your question. Variations in maximum weight and certified V-speeds among the various models may affect the flight loads. During the proposal comment period we are continuing to evaluate the effectivities based on computed loads along with voluntary inspection reports from the field. Keep in mind that most aircraft will not be affected by the NPRM based on the factored hours formula.

Regards,

Dan McCully
william.mccully@faa.gov
Airframe Branch, AIR-7A1
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
404.474.5548

Scott Sherer

Thanks for all of the posts, fellows. We're all learning and the end result will be that we're all safe. Of course, our useful loads will all be higher because our wallets will be lighter, lol. Safety first.

ravpa28

Lol agree with Scott

asikora1

Scott, you have been around a long time. Are you going to get yours checked when you are finished with the remodel or will you wait till the AD comes out?

Scott Sherer

Hi Andy,
I've already talked to my shop about it. My annual comes up in January and my IA will help me make an evaluation then on whether to do it at the annual or later, if necessary. My plane has 4300 hours and no hundred hour inspections, which is good. So we'll see. But I have to admit that every time I hit a bit bump I get anxious. So we may do it just to get rid of the anxiety.

asikora1

Scott,
Thanks for the honest reply. I feel the same way. We have just purchased this Arrow and it is amazing to fly. Doing a few maneuvers the other day made me think. 3800 hours and no 100 hour inspections also. I think I will get it done just to put my mind at ease also. just checking to see if I am over reacting or not. Thank you!

Scott Sherer

You're welcome, Andy

Cuban8

My 1967 PA28-180R with close to 7600 TTIS has just passed SB 1345 without any issues. I'm really hoping that everyone else has as smooth an experience as mine. Certainly more at ease now and fingers crossed any future AD is no more onerous than this inspection.

Waylau@comcast.net

Good hear that you had no issue. Question: What was cost for SB1345 inspection, better yet how many hours this your shop charge.

Cuban8

Haven't got the bill yet however it was no more than 3 hours to get the aircraft prepared and inspected, all done as part of the annual. I'm in Australia so the cost may not be comparable.

Pistoll7

We have been restoring a PA28-181 with about 5000 hours time and decided to have the bolt holes checked, the guy was here for the Cessna 210 AD eddy current so it may have been a bit less but his change was $500 and it took my guys about 2-3 hours to remove and reinstall them.

Scott Sherer

Thanks for the info.