Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Proposed AD for PA-28 wing spars

Having removed the wings from a number of PA28’s for various reasons and IMO the risks are being overblown and are almost if good engineering practice is used .

I guess that when faced with an extra expence that is unlikely to find a dangerous problem the usual reaction of aircraft owners is to try to avoid having the work done.

This is a trade off between the extremely tiny risk of a maintenance induced error, and the extremely tiny risk of there being undiscovered cracks.

So whether it is worthwhile taking the maintenance risk depends on one’s view of the risk of there being an issue.

So the NTSB and Piper proposed approach – “let’s do this where the risk of undiscovered cracks is the highest and see how many issues there really are” is eminently sensible.

Biggin Hill

unless it ends up mandated by an AD; it is just an overkill to have this inspection performed unless you have a good reason like if your aircraft has shady history or was used in training etc.I believe that maintenence should always be approached very cautiously. Mechanics can and do mistakes more often than one likes to think. I own an airplane and I am the only one flying it. I am also extremely involved in every small detail of maintanence done on my aircraft. Almost every annual I find a maintenence induced squawk and end up discussing with mechanics to correct their mistakes. Hardly ever big mistakes ofcourse but there is almost always something small if you know how to look for them and are meticulous enough to do proper inspections on your aircraft after maintanence.

Having wing spars inspected for no apparent reason is like having your heart opened up to check there is anything wrong with it and having it stiched back up for no reason. It is not correct to assume the risks are the same as risk of having a spar crack especially in an aircraft with very well documented history and usage type.

Last Edited by By9468840 at 18 Feb 19:55
Switzerland

@By9468840 wrote:

unless you have a good reason

I am absolutely with you on avoidance of maintenance induced failure, but in this case the potential impact is so high, I feel an AD is justified. After experience from findings of several Cessna SIDs I am also leaning towards a similar approach – for awareness a full aircraft manual on how to inspect everything for corrosion – for the other aging GA fleet. I was surprised how even the best looking planes do have their hidden spots.

Well I have had it done. I normally agree totally about Maintenance Induced Failures and would always avoid pulling a cylinder (for example) unless there was no other option. In fact most of my failures have been MIF’s after Annuals.

However in this case, as long as you don’t hammer the bolts out, I think the risks are quite small. You are removing 2 bolts, not the wing. I was doing a £10K Avionics upgrade and a £15K respray + other work so you don’t want to spend £ 25 K on an Aircraft to find you need a new wing due to a 0.1mm crack on the wing spar which you find a year later if/when it becomes an AD

United Kingdom

This NTSB Input released yesterday. Good to see some debate between NTSB and FAA.

Just had the check done successfully on my PA28RT Archer.
Because Archers were the two models that suffered the failure, and because it is a retractable and complex, I felt that it was worth the option.
“Better safe than sorry” was my claim: Although I fully accept that a ‘general’ demand is too onerous for most planes involved in the inspection.

Rochester, UK, United Kingdom

While forums like this one can be quite illuminating very few of us who post have access to the volume of data available and the time to study it that people like the NTSB do.

Their contention that a disproportionate number of failures are likely to be found in the aircraft that have the highest take off weight while not surprising is able to be scientifically proved by the volume of data that they have to hand. My guess is the FAA will act on the NTSB findings and write any AD accordingly .

Peter_G wrote:

Archers … retractable and complex
???
ESMK, Sweden

Arne wrote:

???

Peter_G must have meant “Arrow” and not “Archer”. A Cherokee Arrow is complex under FAA definitions.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top