[Jen D]

Jen D on August 25, 2020 at 2:07 pm #20151

The comment period has been extended once again, to September 18, 2020. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/04/2020-16225/airworthiness-directives-piper-aircraft-inc-airplanes

[William]

William on June 18, 2020 at 9:55 am #19996

Thank you, again, Steve. At the risk of sounding like I want more government intervention, would it seem reasonable to you (and allow for more accurate risk assessment) to require that the shops doing the eddy current testing provide certain data to the FAA in order to make better decisions about included aircraft?

[STEVE]

STEVE on June 18, 2020 at 8:45 am #19993

Hi William;
I have reached out to well known firm that has done the eddy current inspection on 65 Piper PA airplanes affected by the NPRM. I don’t know if they are -28s or -32s. I have asked for information about cost. The company is in SoCal, it’s http://www.aerohoff.com.
The owner is Jim Hof. He told me that he had found cracks in 3 of the 65 airplanes he’s tested.
I have asked him to look into his records for information on the N numbers, types and airplane serial numbers.
My gut feeling is that you’re airplane is not a candidate for cracks, but that is a feeling, not a fact.
If it were my airplane I would get it tested for peace of mind.
I have attached a Cessna bulletin with a list of NDT testing facilities. Find one near you and ask if they have done these tests, and what they charge. I believe the cost should be less than $500, not including the removal and re installation of new bolts.
Keep in touch.
Steve

Attachments:

• SEL-20-01NDTTESTINGList_2020-06-18.pdf

[William]

William on June 18, 2020 at 6:27 am #19991

Thanks, Steve. My plane was never used for training, has no 100-hour inspections and only 3800 hours on the airframe but I’m still uneasy about what could be there. Have you heard from any pilots who have had the eddy current test done and what it’s cost? I’m also a bit uneasy about the proposed latitude in how the eddy current inspection is done and the equipment that needs to be used. Variations would seem to invite false negatives (or positives?) that no one wants to discover when the wing has separated from the fuselage.

[STEVE]

STEVE on June 17, 2020 at 1:26 pm #19989

According to the wording in the SNPRM, analysis of design load factors were the basis for excluding some models and adding new models.
Yes, the first step to take is to do the research of the airplane records to determine how many 100 hour inspections have been logged and how many total airframe hours. Plug these numbers into the formula to determine the number of “factored” hours.
If that number is 5,000 or more, you will most likely be mandated to do the eddy current inspection.
Let’s remember, the FAA has not issued an AD; therefore you don’t really have to do anything.
If I owned your airplane I would get the inspection done. Cheap insurance, in my opinion.

[William]

William on June 17, 2020 at 7:50 am #19985

I can’t find anything that indicates why the certain models weren’t excluded. I own an Archer and, although I may have missed it in the Federal Register (despite doing a word/phrase search), it seems they’ve singled out the Archer simply because there were two accidents in Archers involving the wing spar.

I’m assuming that the logbook check is still the first-line criteria for whether the eddy current inspection must be done or not.

[Jen D]

Jen D on June 8, 2020 at 4:10 pm #19977

Update: Affected models list has changed. PA-28-140, -150, -160, -161 and -180 models have been removed from the applicability page of the AD. Some PA-32 models have been added

[Jen D]

Jen D on June 3, 2020 at 2:39 pm #19953

Affected models list has changed. PA-28-140, -150, -160, -161 and -180 models have been removed from the applicability page of the AD. Some PA-32 models have been added
The comment period has been reopened for the proposed AD regarding the Piper Cherokee wing spar. See PDF attached. Steve Ells will have commentary on this in a couple of days, so stay tuned.

Jen

Attachments:

• SNPRM2018-CE-049-AD.pdf