Beech Skipper Wing Life

[Ventucky Red]

Anyone her know if the Beech Skipper has a wing life similar to the Piper Tomahawk? Mr. Google is not giving me any help with this.. A friend is looking at a high time air-frame, but very well maintained Skipper as a cheap to fly toy..

Thanks

 

[Kenny Phillips]

This would be one item where a call to Textron would be in order.

 

[MauleSkinner]

i wouldn't recommend flying it to within an hour or two of its wing life...I had 4 cycles to go on a jet engine that came apart once.

(Of course, I found out after the fact that the A.D. Had come out the day before.)

 

[Ventucky Red]

Found the answer... I was as able to find a POH on line... 12,000 hours...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

My opinion is that such a limitation would be in an airworthiness directive and, if it existed, fairly easy to find.

 

[Tom-D]

verification:
Note 3 in the TCDS

Mandatory retirement times for all structural components are contained in the POH and FAA Approved AFM (P/N 108-590000-5) Limitations Section. These limitations may not be changed without FAA Approval.

I can't find any ADs on the wing structure

 

[Bell206]

such a limitation would be in an airworthiness directive

Or the in a stated Limitations section as mentioned above. There are relatively few airworthiness limitations in Part 91 GA aircraft as most "limits" are only recommendations like engine overhauls.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Or the in a stated Limitations section as mentioned above. There are relatively few airworthiness limitations in Part 91 GA aircraft as most "limits" are only recommendations like engine overhauls.

verification:
Note 3 in the TCDS

Mandatory retirement times for all structural components are contained in the POH and FAA Approved AFM (P/N 108-590000-5) Limitations Section. These limitations may not be changed without FAA Approval.

I can't find any ADs on the wing structure

Thanks both for the correction to my response.

As the question has been answered, how does one find out such a limitation if it is applied after the plane has been on the market for some time? The original POH or AFM wouldn't have it.

 

[Bell206]

how does one find out such a limitation if it is applied after the plane has been on the market for some time?

It depends on how the new limitation will be presented to the FAA and implemented. In general, the only means of adding an airworthiness limitation to existing aircraft is through the AD process as you mentioned above.

However, if an OEM does want to add a new limitation to their approved documentation (POH/AFM/ALS), they have to go through a specific administrative process which can be rather long. It's similar to the NPRM process.

As to finding out about any new limitations, in either of the above examples, the owner is regulatory obligated to ensure their aircraft meets all applicable limitations via AD listings or a current ALS/AFM/POH.

Cessna tried to circumnavigate this process when they revised the Airworthiness Limitations Section on the 210(?). They slipped a mandatory inspection schedule into a revision and it got approved by a FAA office without going through the APA(?) process. Once the dust cleared, the FAA came back and stated the new revision only applied to new aircraft manufactured after the date of the ALS revision and was not applicable to any prior aircraft. If I recall, this revision came out around 2012 and the affected model was last produced in the 80s so it was not applicable to any current aircraft.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

It depends on how the new limitation will be presented to the FAA and implemented. In general, the only means of adding an airworthiness limitation to existing aircraft is through the AD process as you mentioned above.

However, if an OEM does want to add a new limitation to their approved documentation (POH/AFM/ALS), they have to go through a specific administrative process which can be rather long. It's similar to the NPRM process.

As to finding out about any new limitations, in either of the above examples, the owner is regulatory obligated to ensure their aircraft meets all applicable limitations via AD listings or a current ALS/AFM/POH.

Cessna tried to circumnavigate this process when they revised the Airworthiness Limitations Section on the 210(?). They slipped a mandatory inspection schedule into a revision and it got approved by a FAA office without going through the APA(?) process. Once the dust cleared, the FAA came back and stated the new revision only applied to new aircraft manufactured after the date of the ALS revision and was not applicable to any prior aircraft. If I recall, this revision came out around 2012 and the affected model was last produced in the 80s so it was not applicable to any current aircraft.

One way I would find out about the new ALS/SFM/POH by asking the manufacturer. Are there any other ways to get this information?
Thanks for bearing with my questions.

 

[Eric Stoltz]

Anyone her know if the Beech Skipper has a wing life similar to the Piper Tomahawk? Mr. Google is not giving me any help with this.. A friend is looking at a high time air-frame, but very well maintained Skipper as a cheap to fly toy..

Thanks

Does this Skipper/Owner belong to the Beechaeroclub.org? AFAIK, that wing on the baby beeches, like mine, is nothing near the same as a thawk. What is high time? Can you point us to a listing? Also, what's the tail number? I can run it over to the BAC site and see what the real experts have to say, they are a great resource.

And, it is a Beech, so you know it is overbuilt, to a fault in some places, like wings, gear...

Oh, and Skippers and Scooters, you know the saying.

 

[Bell206]

Are there any other ways to get this information?

Not that I know of unless one of the Type clubs offered that info. But some newer AFMs I've seen are now aircraft S/N registered.

But to clarify a bit. If the OEM were to pursue a limitation change in their documentation via the APA process you would hear about it. Just like the new Piper spar AD making the rounds. Any other type revision would not be applicable to existing aircraft. The "current" 40 year-old POH/AFM/ALS now in an aircraft is still valid. This is why you never see OEMs push to make their "mandatory" SBs actually mandatory by regulation because the APA process is costly/lengthy to go through.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Not that I know of unless one of the Type clubs offered that info. But some newer AFMs I've seen are now aircraft S/N registered.

But to clarify a bit. If the OEM were to pursue a limitation change in their documentation via the APA process you would hear about it. Just like the new Piper spar AD making the rounds. Any other type revision would not be applicable to existing aircraft. The "current" 40 year-old POH/AFM/ALS now in an aircraft is still valid. This is why you never see OEMs push to make their "mandatory" SBs actually mandatory by regulation because the APA process is costly/lengthy to go through.

Thanks. Appreciate the information.

 

[Ventucky Red]

Does this Skipper/Owner belong to the Beechaeroclub.org? AFAIK, that wing on the baby beeches, like mine, is nothing near the same as a thawk. What is high time? Can you point us to a listing? Also, what's the tail number? I can run it over to the BAC site and see what the real experts have to say, they are a great resource.

And, it is a Beech, so you know it is overbuilt, to a fault in some places, like wings, gear...

Oh, and Skippers and Scooters, you know the saying.

As noted I found a POH on line and found the answer, and thanks for the offer...

Not listed anywhere... local airport community sale.. 6200 on the air frame, 2300 on the engine... from what I am being told current owner has had it for a number of years and it was flown regularly now and be just stepped up to a 182... from what I understand....