Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Piper M600 grounded

https://s3.amazonaws.com/pipercrm/Solution/18981/SB_1317.pdf

The M600 model aircraft features aft wing spars that are designed by Piper
and fabricated by a supplier. It has been discovered that the supplier may have
delivered aft wing spars to Piper that do not conform to Piper’s type design
specifications and requirements. These nonconforming aft spars may have been
installed on some of the affected aircraft.

Serial numbers 4 to 42. That should be everything that was delivered so far. If an aircraft manufacturer doesn’t manufacture the wing spars, what is actually left that makes it an aircraft manufacturer?

Last Edited by achimha at 24 Jul 18:40

My thought is that we are living in a pretty strange period, where manufacturers tends to perform (too often) below-specs parts (guess what I am referring to).

PetitCessnaVoyageur wrote:

guess what I am referring to

You mean smartphones which cost 800+ Euros and whose batteries last less than a day? But then again, the manufacturer does not really build them but has them made in China instead… And Airbus too only does the final assembly of parts and subassemblies which are supplied by dozens of different suppliers from all around the world. Why should that be any different with Piper? But they really have to work on their quality control I guess.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Ugh. So Piper has to ground 38 airplanes of a new series indefinitly? Anything like that ever happened before on similar grounds?

If this is substantiated, then I would not be surprised if the subsequent lawsuits may mean the end for Piper. A M600 costs how much? And it gets delivered with sub spec wing spars?

As a service bulletin, is it legally binding for non commercial ops? Piper considers it compulsory, so I reckon they are going to make it an AD in a big hurry?

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 24 Jul 20:19
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

what_next wrote:

You mean smartphones which cost 800+ Euros and whose batteries last less than a day?

If that’s what it is sold for, more or less, I have no problem with it.

But, actually, I was thinking about the Lyco and Conti stories, which in the end, will populate my (bad) dreams.

But you’re right, we can find many other examples !

PS: maybe China is “how”, in the end, we’ll get better overall specs

Mooney_Driver wrote:

As a service bulletin, is it legally binding for non commercial ops?

Legally binding or not – would anyone really continue to fly an airplane (which cost something like 3M$ by the way) with untrustworthy wing spars? Me not. Not wing spars. Anything else maybe. But not wing spars.

EDDS - Stuttgart

Piper is another very under-resourced company nowadays, which is struggling to make anything, let alone a “complicated” plane. I wouldn’t like to guess what their payment terms to their suppliers are… probably something beyond 120 days, which would make any supplier do everybody else’s stuff first.

Reading the SB, the spars are weaker than they should be. If this was a dimensional issue it should have been obvious on a visual inspection of incoming goods, never mind subsequent installation into the aircraft (the wing is basically built around the spar).

Therefore this may be “bad metal” e.g. wrong type of aluminium or bad/missing heat treatment. The latter is what one would get from a supplier who is on long payment terms… a rush to get the stuff invoiced at the end of the month. Socata’s spar corrosion issue is widely believed to have been caused by substandard metal and/or heat treatment (and these played a part in the Lycoming crankshaft saga) so this is not anything new.

Basically this will mean installing new wings in every affected plane.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Basically this will mean installing new wings in every affected plane.

Exactly. And it is going to be at the expense of Piper, because they all are less than a year old and still on warranty. Good bye Piper, nice to have know you!

Last Edited by what_next at 24 Jul 20:45
EDDS - Stuttgart

what_next wrote:

Legally binding or not – would anyone really continue to fly an airplane (which cost something like 3M$ by the way) with untrustworthy wing spars? Me not. Not wing spars. Anything else maybe. But not wing spars.

Me neither. But that does not mean others won’t.

Some may be tempted to bring it to the home base instead leaving it sitting where it is….. But probably this is academic anyhow as if it is as bad as it looks, I’d be surprised if the FAA did not make it an AD pronto.

what_next wrote:

And it is going to be at the expense of Piper, because they all are less than a year old and still on warranty. Good bye Piper, nice to have know you!

Yep. Which might get some 38 owners ending up owning airplanes which will never fly again

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 24 Jul 20:47
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Would Piper’s demise affect PA46 (piston and turboprop) owners?

On EASA-reg, if the TC owner packs up, the planes are all grounded…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
20 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top