Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cessna 172-182-206-207-210 strut attachment AD

This inspection has been part of the Cessna SIDS program……. so it’s hardly a surprise.

The AD is now effective. No doubt, most owners will postpone it until the latest possible moment, but some will go for it soon I guess, due to the timing of their annual.

Would be interesting to collect outcomes here from the operators of affected aircraft…

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Ok so I will start to tighten down a little more.

I have upgraded my wheel chocks so that they don’t allow her to ‘walk’ around very much.
I also now only really chock the mains to reduce the strain on the nose gear.
Perhaps I will start to tie the tail too.
Maybe out at 30deg either side.
We do get some strong winds these days.

United Kingdom

The last very detailed reference to tying down, which I have seen in a Cessna POH is the the 1958 182A. In the POH, (page 6-1) it says: “…. To tie your airplane securely proceed as follows: (1) Tie sufficiently strong (700 pounds tensile strength) ropes or chains to the wing tie down fittings…..”, and the accompanying picture shows the plane with taught chains to the wings.

The negative G affect of tight tiedowns is not a factor, it’s less than one negative G, well within the limits of the airframe. It’s the airplane “walking” in the wind you want to prevent – the motion of the upper cabin and wings relative to the floor and landing gear, that’s what must be minimized. It’s unlikely that taking measures now will make a lot of difference, the damage is probably already done, but good care is always a good idea.

The good care now is a really effective inspection – a good cleaning, and a good view of the area, with a camera of sufficient resolution to see a crack if it were there. Its not easy to see:

So have a clean area, and a good image. This photo shows the cracked part I removed. The crack is just barely visible in the photo, but you can see where i have bracketed it. It is 7/16" in total length. I have seen photos of longer ones.

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

Can we revisit the tying down thing…….

Scenario 1. Tight tie downs.
Some negative G effect on the airframe all the time.
Increased negative in gusts depending on the angle and intensity of the gust.
Scenario 2. No slack in tie downs.
No negative on the airframe except in gusts, but a possibility of the whole airframe ‘walking’ about on the spot, possibly ending up displaced so the rie downs become tight.
Scenario 3. Loose tie downs.
No negative G but possibility of snatching if the wind is strong enough to cause the airframe to try to ‘fly’ and just serves to prevent it flipping or seriously displacing from it’s intended spot.

Obviously just a quick summary.
What does everyone think?
What if anything is said in the Manuals?

P.

United Kingdom

@Pilot_DAR many thanks and glad the 182B which is my favourite is not affected:)

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

Really good input, Pilot_DAR! Thanks!

ENOP ENVA

The later model 172’s and 182’s have a different design in this area of the fuselage structure, so are not vulnerable to the cracking.

The most important thing is to do the inspection. If no cracking is found, try to prevent the conditions which would promote cracking. Less rough ground taxiing, and if you’re tying it down outside, use ratchet straps, and make them tight to minimize motion of the plane on the ground in the wind. If I owned a 172/182, knowing what I know now, I would install either cross bracing wires* or a “V” brace. I prefer the cross bracing wires, as they are structurally more effective, and interfere less with the view out the windshield. For those not familiar, the cross bracing cables look like this:



However, the cross bracing cables are not compatible with some avionics. For the 182 in the video, I put the GTN750 on top, as its display is shallow, and the cables pass behind. With long radios, the first couple of inches of radio stack are lost. The steel tube “V” brace allows the full use of the radio stack, but is not as strong, and I have seen them really damage the top of the glare shield.

I question whether the Cessna kit results in a stiff enough final product to prevent future cracking, so I consider the added bracing to be a part of the best solution.

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

boscomantico wrote:

172s: all models up to „M“ (1976) are not affected

Also the later models (R/S) are not affected. But this may be due to lower age rather than a different design.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 13 Oct 13:07
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Yes, the earlier 172’s, and 182’s have fuselages more like the 180/185, which are not affected, the structure is different. Though being parked outside may be a factor, it is not the only factor, the damage concern is based upon a strain on the fuselage due to cyclical loading, which may be from taxiing, sitting in the wind, or flying. Interestingly, the flying part itself is probably less a concern, as the fuselage is not being subjected to opposing loads between the wings and landing gear – essentially, the floor happily follows the ceiling around. It is the opposing forces between floor and ceiling which are creating the strain.

It’s just an aging airplane thing. Though these planes may last forever, they need maintenance to get there….

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada
18 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top