SB1400 and SB1400A
Piper just pushed me over the edge with yet another SB number having to do with the wing spars. 1375, 1377, 1372, 1006, 1346, 1400, 1423 - and that doesn't count a half dozen iteration of at least one of them. I think it's time to hang it up for good.
SB1400 arrived in my email on February 11. Today I received SB1400A without ever having digested the first one. And without comparing them word-for-word, I have no clue what changed. Anyone who's worked in engineering knows that you don't release a revised document without a section noting what changed. Worse, can someone tell me what they expect us to do with the grid on page 3? Sounds like a "we're recommending X but you're not required to do a thing. But if the wings fall off, don't have your attorney call us." And how do you get "Initial compliance must occur" followed by "at the owner/operator's discretion"?
I have a PA28-181 that spent its entire life until 2020 hangared in western Pennsylvania. Since then, it's been hangared in Chesapeake, VA. Salt air isn't really an issue 20 miles inland but there is high humidity in the summer. But that's the case along the entire east coast and inland as far as Chicago. So, how are we supposed to objectively judge humidity relative to the bulletin?
With respect to mitigation, we're back into the same objections to messing with wing spars that resulted in separations decades ago. The bulletin lays out what needs to be done as though every shop is prepared to undertake this kind of inspection without doing more harm than good.
Is anyone as frustrated as I am?
Comments
The difference between 1400 and 1400a is "SB 1400A expands the model and serial number effectivity, revises the compliance time for clarification, and revises technical content for consistency." If 1400 has been complied with, adjust to the recurrence schedule in the revision. As far as tools, any shop would have the required stuff to do the inspection. I already remove the wing root fairing and look at the wing attach points on any plane I can, Piper or other. Where it would get sticky is if they have to remove a wing for corrosion repair. I would likely tell the customer to take it to a place that can do that scope of work, in our area (I'm at XSA, Tappahannock), I would work with Classic Aviation in Shenandoah for the repair.
As far as the humidity question, I would say Chesapeake is not a high humidity/salty environment.
This one is not as invasive as the AD, so should be easy to comply with, if you want your shop to do so.
Tom Jackson
PA28RT-201, N3022U
Tappahannock, VA (KXSA)
A&P/IA, Private Pilot, IR/A
The latest issue of Piper Flyer magazine contains an article on this service bulletin. The article contains a North American corrosion severity map that is not attributed in any way. However, within the article it indicates that any location within 100 miles of a coastal shoreline is deemed a high salt high humidity area by the FAA. But, again, that statement is not attributed in any way to an FAA document.
Well that provides some clarity in terms of whether my aircraft is considered in a high salt high humidity environment. It calls into question the genius engineers who came up with the service bulletin. In my case, my Archer spent its entire life in Western Pennsylvania until 2020 when I moved it to Chesapeake Virginia. So only a fraction of its life has been in a high-sold high humidity environment. So, when could deduce that the level of corrosion on my aircraft would be non-existent or minor compared to other folks on my field whose aircraft hispennis entire life in Chesapeake. But of course, neither Piper nor the FAA takes any of those facts into account.
I will, of course, have the inspection done at the next annual but with the caveat that nothing is to be removed and no other work is to be performed if they find anything.