anyone have thoughts on Pipers comment to the proposed Spar AD? I found it a very interesting take on the spar issue and it sounds like Piper actually believes it should have been caught with 100 hours inspections or annuals well before anything happens.
My '69 PA28-R200, with only 3700 total time hours, never used as a trainer and no 100 hr checks so I will just wait and see what happens. Just finished the annual so now is the time to fly, not obsess over something that might or might not happen. Driving to the airport is more of a risk IMHO.
Jim Torley
CFI-A/I/G
1969 Arrow 200
Based at KFLY (Colorado Springs, CO)
Roger that, Jim. I read Simon Caldecott's letter to the FAA. Very inclusive and thorough, methinks. It will be interesting to see if the FAA bends or simply says "too bad, so sad" to all of us. Stay tuned! Don't change that dial!
Scott Sherer
Wright Brothers Master Pilot, FAA Commercial Pilot
Aviation Director, Piper Owner Society Forum Moderator and Pipers Author.
Andy, thanks for posting the memo from Piper. The letter is exactly what I'd expect from the CEO of a company doing his best to protect his brand from the negative consequences stemming from ratification of a major airworthiness directive. Among his arguments:
The NTSB Chair's opinion cannot be trusted, as he's a graduate of Embry-Riddle, and recipient of an honorary doctorate.
The eddy current method is insufficient, since cracks initiate outside the bolt hole circumference.
If Embry had complied with our instructions in the service manual and mandatory service bulletins (MSB), the crash never would have happened.
Some of the most eye-opening text from MSB 978 appears in the second paragraph on page two, in the discussion about mandatory inspections for aircraft operated primarily below 1000' AGL. The implication of that paragraph is that if you're a flight school, like Embry-Riddle, and you conduct 800 hours of training operations in your Arrows every year (as Embry did), it is MANDATORY for you to remove, inspect, and reinstall both wings at every annual inspection. Think about that. Rigging on the flaps and ailerons, hydraulics for brakes and gear, draining the fuel tanks, electrics for the lights...That operation will likely double the cost and downtime of every annual. And it's hard for me to believe with all that removing and replacing, there won't be a major maintenance-induced failure along the way. I'll bet there isn't a single flight school in the world that follows this directive. What on earth was Piper thinking?
I agree they cannot reasonably expect any flight school to remove the wings for inspection. They obviously have many lawyers working to save them from any liability with this issue . The other side to this coin is, these planes have flown many many hours for 50 to 60 years in many cases without this being a problem. So is it manufacturing problem or just an old age problem. To think every flight school that does pattern work regularly with their plane is considered severe usage seems absurd. It seems this is a very complex issue with no gleaming correct answer starring back at you!
Andy Sikora
1972 PA28R-200
X51
Retired Miami ATCT/Tracon
You hit the nail on the head: It's a mess and what can we do about it?
I discussed this with a friend of mine up here in Boston, who teaches structural engineering (MIT), and who has alot of experience designing spars for transport category aircraft. His take is that FAA and Piper did a VERY competent job of setting certification standards, and designing, testing and manufacturing the aircraft, based upon our knowledge back in the 1960s. But given what we've learned about fatigue mechanics over the past 50 years, we'd never design a new spar like that today. Could you imagine if the service manual on your new A321ER required a wings-off inspection every 800 hours? BTW, he also agrees with Mr. Caldecott's opinion regarding the inadequacy of eddy current testing.
A new spar design, forged out of 6061, would add about 5K to the production cost of an Arrow. Peanuts. The cost of R&D and airworthiness testing would unfortunately run well into the millions. Piper shouldn't have to bear these costs. Given the contribution Piper and the Arrow make to training our future commercial pilots, and ensuring the safety of our air transport system, a strong case can be made to invest federal dollars in the effort. If DOT and FAA wanted to demonstrate impactful leadership, this would be a great place to start.
Comments
This maybe some good news for some!
http://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/business-aviation-news/faa-proposes-changes-to-cherokee-spar-ad/
73 PA 28 140 based at KUKT
anyone have thoughts on Pipers comment to the proposed Spar AD? I found it a very interesting take on the spar issue and it sounds like Piper actually believes it should have been caught with 100 hours inspections or annuals well before anything happens.
Andy Sikora
1972 PA28R-200
X51
Retired Miami ATCT/Tracon
Thanks for posting, Andy. Reading now.
Scott Sherer
Wright Brothers Master Pilot, FAA Commercial Pilot
Aviation Director, Piper Owner Society Forum Moderator and Pipers Author.
Need help? Let me know!
My '69 PA28-R200, with only 3700 total time hours, never used as a trainer and no 100 hr checks so I will just wait and see what happens. Just finished the annual so now is the time to fly, not obsess over something that might or might not happen. Driving to the airport is more of a risk IMHO.
Jim Torley
CFI-A/I/G
1969 Arrow 200
Based at KFLY (Colorado Springs, CO)
Roger that, Jim. I read Simon Caldecott's letter to the FAA. Very inclusive and thorough, methinks. It will be interesting to see if the FAA bends or simply says "too bad, so sad" to all of us. Stay tuned! Don't change that dial!
Scott Sherer
Wright Brothers Master Pilot, FAA Commercial Pilot
Aviation Director, Piper Owner Society Forum Moderator and Pipers Author.
Need help? Let me know!
Andy, thanks for posting the memo from Piper. The letter is exactly what I'd expect from the CEO of a company doing his best to protect his brand from the negative consequences stemming from ratification of a major airworthiness directive. Among his arguments:
Some of the most eye-opening text from MSB 978 appears in the second paragraph on page two, in the discussion about mandatory inspections for aircraft operated primarily below 1000' AGL. The implication of that paragraph is that if you're a flight school, like Embry-Riddle, and you conduct 800 hours of training operations in your Arrows every year (as Embry did), it is MANDATORY for you to remove, inspect, and reinstall both wings at every annual inspection. Think about that. Rigging on the flaps and ailerons, hydraulics for brakes and gear, draining the fuel tanks, electrics for the lights...That operation will likely double the cost and downtime of every annual. And it's hard for me to believe with all that removing and replacing, there won't be a major maintenance-induced failure along the way. I'll bet there isn't a single flight school in the world that follows this directive. What on earth was Piper thinking?
my $0.02,
Bob T.
I agree they cannot reasonably expect any flight school to remove the wings for inspection. They obviously have many lawyers working to save them from any liability with this issue . The other side to this coin is, these planes have flown many many hours for 50 to 60 years in many cases without this being a problem. So is it manufacturing problem or just an old age problem. To think every flight school that does pattern work regularly with their plane is considered severe usage seems absurd. It seems this is a very complex issue with no gleaming correct answer starring back at you!
Andy Sikora
1972 PA28R-200
X51
Retired Miami ATCT/Tracon
You hit the nail on the head: It's a mess and what can we do about it?
I discussed this with a friend of mine up here in Boston, who teaches structural engineering (MIT), and who has alot of experience designing spars for transport category aircraft. His take is that FAA and Piper did a VERY competent job of setting certification standards, and designing, testing and manufacturing the aircraft, based upon our knowledge back in the 1960s. But given what we've learned about fatigue mechanics over the past 50 years, we'd never design a new spar like that today. Could you imagine if the service manual on your new A321ER required a wings-off inspection every 800 hours? BTW, he also agrees with Mr. Caldecott's opinion regarding the inadequacy of eddy current testing.
A new spar design, forged out of 6061, would add about 5K to the production cost of an Arrow. Peanuts. The cost of R&D and airworthiness testing would unfortunately run well into the millions. Piper shouldn't have to bear these costs. Given the contribution Piper and the Arrow make to training our future commercial pilots, and ensuring the safety of our air transport system, a strong case can be made to invest federal dollars in the effort. If DOT and FAA wanted to demonstrate impactful leadership, this would be a great place to start.
again, my $0.02