|
|
Post by roger on Jul 22, 2016 13:57:29 GMT -9
Was greeted this morning with ANOTHER tail SB in my email. Number is 1289, and it's for the station 332 bulkhead for cracks around the reliefs for the longitudinal stringers. Timing kind of sucks as it would have been a lot more efficient to do the inspection during the station 317 mod, I'm thinking we may put off the SB until next year when we do our annual/extended down time. Other thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Glubaskas on Jul 24, 2016 5:18:29 GMT -9
Kinda seems like piper (and this whole ad process) has been pretty disjointed.....
A little more thought by them would have been appreciated....
We will probably start taking a look at this 'new' area after the summer flying season is over
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jul 25, 2016 8:46:44 GMT -9
Kinda seems like piper (and this whole ad process) has been pretty disjointed..... A little more thought by them would have been appreciated.... We will probably start taking a look at this 'new' area after the summer flying season is over Geez, I hope this doesn't turn into an AD. If nobody's had a tail fall off at 36,000 hours tearing into 10,000 hour airplanes to repair this is, in my not-so-humble-opinion, counterproductive. |
|
|
|
Post by Kristin on Jul 25, 2016 11:57:02 GMT -9
Kinda seems like piper (and this whole ad process) has been pretty disjointed..... A little more thought by them would have been appreciated.... We will probably start taking a look at this 'new' area after the summer flying season is over Geez, I hope this doesn't turn into an AD. If nobody's had a tail fall off at 36,000 hours tearing into 10,000 hour airplanes to repair this is, in my not-so-humble-opinion, counterproductive. Based on the FAA's pattern with past structural cracking issues I would bet that it comes out as an AD. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jul 25, 2016 12:55:36 GMT -9
Geez, I hope this doesn't turn into an AD. If nobody's had a tail fall off at 36,000 hours tearing into 10,000 hour airplanes to repair this is, in my not-so-humble-opinion, counterproductive. Based on the FAA's pattern with past structural cracking issues I would bet that it comes out as an AD. Unfortunately, you're probably correct. Not having the repair kit in hand, I'm not sure if the horizontal needs to come off to install it or not. If so, what a pain. I'm not trying to come off as some sort of unsafe aeronautical pirate, but I honestly believe that in some of these cases we're doing more damage tearing things apart to do the terminating action than just repetetively inspecting any fatigue damage that might exist. Just like some of the Cessna Caravan NDI inspections... |
|
|
|
Post by navajoflyer on Jul 26, 2016 10:15:33 GMT -9
I totally agree with you. I don't want my guys flying around in an unsafe airplane but it seems to me that there is very little logic behind a lot of these AD's. Why for instance shouldn't we just be able to keep inspecting FS 317. If cracks are discovered then you are required to install the reinforcement kit. This is the approach that is being taken with SB 1289, at least for now anyway. My guess is that there is going to be an AD issued for SB1289. When I read these SB's from Piper they always seem like the AD is a forgone conclusion they're just waiting for the FAA to catch up.
|
|
|
|
Post by navajoflyer on Jul 31, 2016 10:07:33 GMT -9
Here is a link to a picture of the reinforcement plates for the FS332 bulkhead. The kit included these two plates, a couple of cotter pins, and a couple of turnbuckle safety clips. 1drv.ms/i/s!AoEFYII8iUNIhUyGlC3SxPdvJt9H Here is a link to the kit instructions. 1drv.ms/b/s!AoEFYII8iUNIhUvcE0ZmP5_-NcFI The kit cost is a bit more reasonable than the FS 317 kit, less than $300, lots of labor involved in the install. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Aug 1, 2016 9:01:48 GMT -9
Here is a link to a picture of the reinforcement plates for the FS332 bulkhead. The kit included these two plates, a couple of cotter pins, and a couple of turnbuckle safety clips. 1drv.ms/i/s!AoEFYII8iUNIhUyGlC3SxPdvJt9H Here is a link to the kit instructions. 1drv.ms/b/s!AoEFYII8iUNIhUvcE0ZmP5_-NcFI The kit cost is a bit more reasonable than the FS 317 kit, less than $300, lots of labor involved in the install. Yeah eff that. Pretty inconsiderate move to do this right on top of the FS317 AD, seems like it would have been a lot more efficient to do both at the same time. Like I said earlier, people have run these things to 36,000 hours, seems stupid to just now start triggering all these fatigue-related inspections for 3,000 hour airplanes (are there even any Chieftains in the world that have less than 3,000 hours?). Maybe inspect at 15,000 or 20,000 hours, sure, but it seems like these 3,000 hour numbers are pulled out of thin air with little/no basis in real world experience. |
|
|
|
Post by navajoflyer on Aug 3, 2016 5:11:43 GMT -9
I agree, I went ahead and bought kits for all our aircraft and will probably install them as I do the FS317 AD or when I get time, unless it becomes an AD. We are just now doing our first FS317 modification which I think is totally unnecessary, I think the repetitive inspection would have been more than adequate unless you discover a crack.
As far as the inspection for SB 1289, you're going to do more damage getting in there and chemical stripping the area to be inspected every 200 hours. I'm sure the inspection works great when you have a spare bulkhead sitting on the bench and you can get at everything easily.
As a group we need to watch what Piper is doing carefully. They seem to be going the same direction as Cessna did with the 300/400 series aircraft and using the AD system to force maintenance to be performed that may not really be justified and is really only designed to limit their liability.
|
|
|
|
Post by roger on Aug 3, 2016 8:11:56 GMT -9
I agree, I went ahead and bought kits for all our aircraft and will probably install them as I do the FS317 AD or when I get time, unless it becomes an AD. We are just now doing our first FS317 modification which I think is totally unnecessary, I think the repetitive inspection would have been more than adequate unless you discover a crack. As far as the inspection for SB 1289, you're going to do more damage getting in there and chemical stripping the area to be inspected every 200 hours. I'm sure the inspection works great when you have a spare bulkhead sitting on the bench and you can get at everything easily. As a group we need to watch what Piper is doing carefully. They seem to be going the same direction as Cessna did with the 300/400 series aircraft and using the AD system to force maintenance to be performed that may not really be justified and is really only designed to limit their liability. I think the best thing to do is give them some data on high time aircraft-if the problem isn't showing up until ~15000 hours or something, we have good ammunition to raise the initial compliance with the SB. I also think that there's absolutely no reason this can't be a simple visual inspection. If the area is kept clean (but still primed) these cracks will show up easily to the naked eye before they reach a critical length. Doing a strip and dye pen or whatever seems way excessive. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Glubaskas on Aug 6, 2016 12:34:23 GMT -9
We are on our 3rd aircraft above 35000 hours - just retired one at 39,300
have 3 more above 30k and many above 20k
We have never had an issue in this area -
15 total flying at the moment
Would be interesting to see exactly which planes this issue was occurring in
-----
Searching the SDR database from 2000 until today under Piper 31350
There are zero hits for 'bulkhead' or '332' or '40655' (part number) out of 1416 records....
We will contact piper next week and see what dataset they are using when they 'review of service history' this -
Will also request pics of cracks found
Was interesting - when this tail AD started I contacted the Atlanta ACO and asked if this actually occurred in the 31350 series and was told it had - when I requested pics so my guys had an idea of what they were looking for the pics couldn't be found
Will see how this contact goes with piper
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Glubaskas on Aug 8, 2016 9:58:12 GMT -9
Had a great talk today with both Keith at the Atlanta ACO and a bit with Piper on the AD process in general and this SB in particular. It does appear it will more than likely be a proposed AD at some point - NPRM first of course I will summarize the discussions I had with piper and Keith and Atlanta ACO and post here shortly Enclosed is a pic of one of the findings - not a great one but gives the general idea anyway Attachments:
8110.107A.pdf (880.09 KB)
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Glubaskas on Aug 9, 2016 7:23:28 GMT -9
Had a great talk yesterday with both Keith at the Atlanta ACO and a bit with Piper on the AD process in general and this SB in particular. Keith informed me that these cracks were found in 2 of the planes that were retired and had tear-downs conducted on them. One done by LabCorp and one done by NAIR. Here is a copy of the SDR for the one done by LabCorp - Aircraft had 26,704 hours on it. 20160808_SDR_Exportv1.xls (23.5 KB) The SB is currently making it's rounds through the FAA and there sounds to be a good possibility that the MSB will become an AD - NPRM first, of course, to which I hope you will all comment your concerns to. I did express the frustration operators have when left in a sort of vacuum on this type of thing and told them it would be great if they would visit on here every once in a while and keep us in the dialog. Did also convey the frustration in this coming almost directly on the heels of the last AD in that area and how much better it would have been for all of us if they would have been issued together, etc. It was a good conversation with both, overall, and I know Keith was taking notes as we spoke which show interest in industry concerns (to me anyway) and I requested he and piper attempt to use us industry folk more in the future and when needed. If you all want to review the process the FAA uses to assess service issues it can be found in the following: 8110.107A.pdf (880.09 KB) They reinforced to me that they don't make these decisions lightly and that both Piper and the FAA are involved. Keith also assured me that many times when they discuss these matters Piper and the FAA take no further action on items that seem to be isolated and they have done that quire a bit. In the end, compared with 17 or 18 years ago, I am pretty happy with Piper all n all - their engineering support for this model has been pretty spot on, and though sometimes it feels of little comfort to us 'in the trenches,' at least an SB exists to deal with this issue - I do hope the FAA can revisit the due times and recurring inspection intervals though - Piper took the extra measure this time (since the time frame was off quite a bit in the 317 AD) to actually have Ameriflight install a kit in one of their planes and it took 30-35 hours not counting the stab/cable work.... Piper also mentioned that a lot o work went into the design of the kit to ensure it should cover almost any circumstance we may run into while installing. I talked with Ameriflight yesterday and I will attach what they ran into while doing this next post - also of note is they made a little jig to help with the install |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Glubaskas on Aug 9, 2016 7:33:02 GMT -9
From Ameriflight - I confirmed he was okay to share this prior Tim, Attached are some pictures of the Mod- the shop aid is just a piece of wood with two L angles no big deal but it help a lot for drilling purpose. It took around 30 to 35hrs for the Mod- only. Does not include removal of the stab and cables and electrical wires. We did not have any issues on the removal,drilling and installation of the plates very straight forward. No need for blind fastener either. If I can help you with anything feel free to call me Regards, Bertin Castro Structures Manager 4700 Empire Avenue Hangar 1 Burbank, CA 91505 818-847-0000 ext 103 Cell 818-621-5569 Note from Tim - we do end up cutting skin etc in some places for those of you that haven't got a kit yet  Prior to Modification  L-Channel Jig made to help with the holes, etc  Reinforcing Plates Located (More Follows) |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Glubaskas on Aug 9, 2016 7:35:02 GMT -9
332 Pics, Continued    Looks like it's going to be an involved process all in all and is definitely unfortunate we couldn't do both of these together.....turned out is wasn't an advantage to start on the other AD early since now we get to take the Stab and associated cabling on n off once again Also - a note from Piper'We are phasing out the old solid green primer in our factory. The new primer is very thin, a kind of translucent yellow. You can actually see through it, to the bare metal underneath. It almost looks like there is no primer at all. We made this change because this is a much better product. The change was NOT to save money. AmeriFlight thought their parts were not primed, so they applied another coat of primer, the solid color you see in the photos. So, the parts you will get in the kit are primed, but may not look like the color in the photos.' |
|
