New PA28 AD

So, where does the AMOC get sent? To the DC office? To my local FSDO? To the guy in Atlanta (
Ronald Segall, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA )? The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch? All of the above?

Found this but still not sure who/where to send the AMOC:

Atlanta ACO
107 Charles W. Grant Parkway
Suite 201
Hapeville, GA 30354

Mailing Address:
1701 Columbia Ave.
College Park, GA 30337

PH: (404) 474-5500
FAX: (404) 474-5606
 
Last edited:
murphey said:
So, where does the AMOC get sent? To the DC office? To my local FSDO? To the guy in Atlanta (
Ronald Segall, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA )? The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch? All of the above?

Found this but still not sure who/where to send the AMOC:

Atlanta ACO
107 Charles W. Grant Parkway
Suite 201
Hapeville, GA 30354

Mailing Address:
1701 Columbia Ave.
College Park, GA 30337

PH: (404) 474-5500
FAX: (404) 474-5606
Click to expand...
I sent it to Mr. Segall. From FAA guidance it appears that any FAA person who receives an AMOC request is supposed to forward it to the appropriate person.
 
murphey said:
So, where does the AMOC get sent? To the DC office? To my local FSDO? To the guy in Atlanta (
Ronald Segall, Atlanta ACO Branch, FAA )? The Manager, Atlanta ACO Branch? All of the above?

Found this but still not sure who/where to send the AMOC:

Atlanta ACO
107 Charles W. Grant Parkway
Suite 201
Hapeville, GA 30354

Mailing Address:
1701 Columbia Ave.
College Park, GA 30337

PH: (404) 474-5500
FAX: (404) 474-5606
Click to expand...
upload_2018-1-25_13-51-49.png
 
Bell206 said:
First, iamtheari gets the Gold Star for the week!
Click to expand...
I humbly decline the Gold Star and accept only the lesser award of Zinc Star, which I just made up. Also, it comes with double prize money.

It wasn't even my idea. You get credit for post #57:
AMOCs are only given to owner/operators or manufacturers so everyone affected would need to submit. I would think getting a 100 AMOC requests would have more impact than a 100 docket comments.
Click to expand...

I hope everyone's AMOC is approved and that the people behind this AD are a little more measured in their future reactions to situations like this, where the planes in question were manufactured up to 58 years ago (PA-28's first flight is January 14, 1960, according to Wikipedia), the affected part is not subject to change over time (such as a cracked rib or a corroding spar), the SB was issued over 3 months ago (October 10, 2017), there are no actual incidents of loss of power in flight due to the problem, and the inspection to determine if your plane is affected or not is so easy that a caveman could do it. There is simply no call to require that every PA-28 ever built have an A&P look at the fuel selector cover before it can be flown again, with only 2 weeks' warning. This is the product of someone at the FAA acting first and thinking second. The FAA doesn't seem to have an institutional culture of doing things that way, and I hope that this AD is an outlier that they do not repeat.
 
i really don't get it' this AD is as simple as taking a look, yea, they are in the right spot write in the log book complied with ad.... by inspection sign my name and number. done deal. anybody that is concerned about having to have an a&p sign it off taxi by my hangar and i will do it for free........

bob
 
unsafervguy said:
i really don't get it' this AD is as simple as taking a look, yea, they are in the right spot write in the log book complied with ad.... by inspection sign my name and number. done deal. anybody that is concerned about having to have an a&p sign it off taxi by my hangar and i will do it for free........

bob
Click to expand...
I'd love to, but your hangar is thousands of miles from me. I am lucky enough to fly often, pay attention here on PoA and to my FAASTeam e-mails, and have a good A&P employed full-time at the field, so it wasn't that big of a deal for me. But of the 18,000 affected PA-28s out there, how many don't meet those requirements? How many people will be flying a legally unairworthy PA-28 when April comes around and they jump into their PA-28, tied down on the ramp at Podunk Rural Airport (~50 nm from the nearest A&P) since fall, and take off to go sight-seeing, without having heard of this AD?

I think that's what is driving most of the angst. I didn't like bothering my A&P about it but at least I knew about the AD right away and had an A&P who likes me enough to look at my plane really quick while I was getting fuel. There are a lot of Cherokees that aren't so fortunate.
 
there is really no reason for an owner not to know about an AD or S/B. sign up at piper.com and they will email them to you, i have recieved the two new ones last week. the FAA mails A/Ds to affected owners. I think requiring it by feb 7 is a little drastic,and it should be a owner allowed inspection and sign off if no change is needed or N/A since it only applies to the new design selector cover. but the service letter has been out since october. a good portion should have been done by now at annual.

bob
 
iamtheari said:
I humbly decline the Gold Star and accept only the lesser award of Zinc Star, which I just made up. Also, it comes with double prize money.

It wasn't even my idea. You get credit for post #57:


I hope everyone's AMOC is approved and that the people behind this AD are a little more measured in their future reactions to situations like this, where the planes in question were manufactured up to 58 years ago (PA-28's first flight is January 14, 1960, according to Wikipedia), the affected part is not subject to change over time (such as a cracked rib or a corroding spar), the SB was issued over 3 months ago (October 10, 2017), there are no actual incidents of loss of power in flight due to the problem, and the inspection to determine if your plane is affected or not is so easy that a caveman could do it. There is simply no call to require that every PA-28 ever built have an A&P look at the fuel selector cover before it can be flown again, with only 2 weeks' warning. This is the product of someone at the FAA acting first and thinking second. The FAA doesn't seem to have an institutional culture of doing things that way, and I hope that this AD is an outlier that they do not repeat.
Click to expand...
I think this AD is political. Some manager said: we need to justify our jobs during shutdown, somebody publish a no-notice AD so it looks like we are important...just remember that it can’t bother airlines or jet airplane owners.
 
Great now that everyone is asking for a AMOC they the powers that be will find some small error in the AD and send out another with a revision that has to be signed off by another A&P.
 
unsafervguy said:
the FAA mails A/Ds to affected owners.
Click to expand...

I have never received one and my aircraft is on the list of serial numbers and has been registered to my name and current address for over 2 years. Might have to sign up for that email, I'll have to see if my A&P already did it. It had an annual done earlier this month and nobody mentioned it but that doesn't mean it wasn't complied with anyway.
 
brien23 said:
Great now that everyone is asking for a AMOC they the powers that be will find some small error in the AD and send out another with a revision that has to be signed off by another A&P.
Click to expand...
Well it is true that aircraft fly by proper function of placards so this AD is critical and must have every detail absolutely correct.
 
cowman said:
I have never received one and my aircraft is on the list of serial numbers and has been registered to my name and current address for over 2 years. Might have to sign up for that email, I'll have to see if my A&P already did it. It had an annual done earlier this month and nobody mentioned it but that doesn't mean it wasn't complied with anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, gotta sign up for the notifications. The AD just came out so it couldn’t have been complied with yet. The service bulletin may have been complied with but that wouldn’t cover the AD sign-off. It’s a strange bureaucratic world...
 
Clark1961 said:
Yeah, gotta sign up for the notifications. The AD just came out so it couldn’t have been complied with yet. The service bulletin may have been complied with but that wouldn’t cover the AD sign-off. It’s a strange bureaucratic world...
Click to expand...

§39.9 What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does not meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?
If the requirements of an airworthiness directive have not been met, you violate §39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or use the product.



The ad says the inspection called for in 1309 must be done by feb 7. If the S/B has been done and documented I think the faa would have a hard time proving the ad was not complied with even without a signoff for the ad. All the ad says is you must comply with the S/B. There really is nothing in the farms that say you must "sign off on the a/d" there must be documentation that the "requirements of the a/d are met". In this case, a entry that the S/b has been complied with meet that requirement.

Bob
 
unsafervguy said:
There really is nothing in the farms that say you must "sign off on the a/d"
Click to expand...
Not quite. When an OEM bulletin is referenced in a AD it becomes part of the AD. The AD is still required to be signed off regardless if you previously signed off the SB as in this case. You can reference the previous compliance of the SB in your AD sign off but each applicable AD requires its own sign off. And since the AD is an amendment to a regulation and a required item for airworthiness the FAA would have a very easy time in proving the violation as you referenced under 39.9.
 
Bell206 said:
Not quite. When an OEM bulletin is referenced in a AD it becomes part of the AD. The AD is still required to be signed off regardless if you previously signed off the SB as in this case. You can reference the previous compliance of the SB in your AD sign off but each applicable AD requires its own sign off. And since the AD is an amendment to a regulation and a required item for airworthiness the FAA would have a very easy time in proving the violation as you referenced under 39.9.
Click to expand...
Never underestimate the ability of a bureaucracy to elevate form over substance.
 
Bell206 said:
Not quite. When an OEM bulletin is referenced in a AD it becomes part of the AD. The AD is still required to be signed off regardless if you previously signed off the SB as in this case. You can reference the previous compliance of the SB in your AD sign off but each applicable AD requires its own sign off. And since the AD is an amendment to a regulation and a required item for airworthiness the FAA would have a very easy time in proving the violation as you referenced under 39.9.
Click to expand...

i disagree. from the A/D

(f) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
(g) Inspect Fuel Selector Cover
Before further flight after February 7, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), inspect the left and
right fuel selector cover placards
for proper installation using Part I of Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper)
Service Bulletin (SB) No. 1309, dated October 10, 2017. If the fuel
selectors placard
s are properly
installed, no further action is
required.

since the A/D say to inspect in accordance with S/B 1309 and there is a logbook enty showing that S/B 1309 has been complied with doesnt that mean that is is already done?
that means to me that the entry does not have to be done by feb 7 and can wait until the next maintenance visit if the S/B has already been done and signed off.

bob
 
well hell ... that explains why I never have to put gas in the Dakota. I always fly locally on left tank only, and when I check the fuel, the left tank is always right where it was when I took off. :)
 
gkainz said:
well hell ... that explains why I never have to put gas in the Dakota. I always fly locally on left tank only, and when I check the fuel, the left tank is always right where it was when I took off. :)
Click to expand...
You have awesome qualifications. Have you considered working for the FAA?
 
unsafervguy said:
since the A/D say to inspect in accordance with S/B 1309 and there is a logbook enty showing that S/B 1309 has been complied with doesnt that mean that is is already done?
that means to me that the entry does not have to be done by feb 7 and can wait until the next maintenance visit if the S/B has already been done and signed off.
Click to expand...

I think you need to look at this from one level higher. It’s not how the AD is written but what an AD is in the big picture. Every Airworthiness Directives is part of FAR Part 39 and requires a separate write up and sign off to show compliance, when applicable, regardless of its subject matter. That is the law. And since standalone SBs are not mandatory for 91 ops, but all ADs are, your sign off of only SB1309 does not substitute for that specific AD legal requirement. So no AD sign off by Feb 7 puts you in violation of the AD provided you "operate" the aircraft. Don't fly no problems until the AD is signed.

Also without a sign off of this AD in your aircraft record, you would be in direct violation of 91.417(v), plus your IA or mech could not sign off your next annual or 100hr as airworthy. There are a number of FAA guidance docs on ADs. Here is one from AC39-7D:

10. AD COMPLIANCE. ADs are regulations issued under part 39. Therefore, no person may operate a product to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of that AD. Owners and operators should understand that to “operate” not only means piloting the aircraft, but also causing or authorizing the product to be used for the purpose of air navigation, with or without the right of legal control as owner, lessee, or otherwise. Compliance with Emergency ADs can be a problem for operators of leased aircraft because they may not be aware of the AD and safety may be jeopardized.

You’re always entitled to your own interpretation, but as often quoted on this forum “if it’s not in the logbook it didn’t happen” this is the one example of not making the entry that will come back to bite.
 
Last edited:
So funny story, I emailed a copy of this AD to my mechanic. He said he hadn’t gotten it yet either. Interesting. I bet there are going to be a lot of non-compliant pipers out there with oblivious owners with the short timeframe they’re giving.
 
cowman said:
So funny story, I emailed a copy of this AD to my mechanic. He said he hadn’t gotten it yet either. Interesting. I bet there are going to be a lot of non-compliant pipers out there with oblivious owners with the short timeframe they’re giving.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly consider non-compliance with such a vitally important placard AD on these 40 year old aircraft that have been operated without a documented mishap attributable to referenced placards as funny? Are you mad? Better mend yer ways before the man comes to mend them for you! Mark my words!
 
Clark1961 said:
How can you possibly consider non-compliance with such a vitally important placard AD on these 40 year old aircraft that have been operated without a documented mishap attributable to referenced placards as funny? Are you mad? Better mend yer ways before the man comes to mend them for you! Mark my words!
Click to expand...
The government doesn’t understand irony for the same reason that the tree doesn’t understand the forest.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
anyone have mis-marked fuel selectors? o_O
Click to expand...
I'm thinkin' mis-fueling accidents far outnumber accidents from mis-marked fuel selectors. Can we get an emergency AD on all aircraft fuelers?
 
Bell206 said:
I think you need to look at this from one level higher. It’s not how the AD is written but what an AD is in the big picture. Every Airworthiness Directives is part of FAR Part 39 and requires a separate write up and sign off to show compliance, when applicable, regardless of its subject matter. That is the law. And since standalone SBs are not mandatory for 91 ops, but all ADs are, your sign off of only SB1309 does not substitute for that specific AD legal requirement. So no AD sign off by Feb 7 puts you in violation of the AD provided you "operate" the aircraft. Don't fly no problems until the AD is signed.

Also without a sign off of this AD in your aircraft record, you would be in direct violation of 91.417(v), plus your IA or mech could not sign off your next annual or 100hr as airworthy. There are a number of FAA guidance docs on ADs. Here is one from AC39-7D:

10. AD COMPLIANCE. ADs are regulations issued under part 39. Therefore, no person may operate a product to which an AD applies, except in accordance with the requirements of that AD. Owners and operators should understand that to “operate” not only means piloting the aircraft, but also causing or authorizing the product to be used for the purpose of air navigation, with or without the right of legal control as owner, lessee, or otherwise. Compliance with Emergency ADs can be a problem for operators of leased aircraft because they may not be aware of the AD and safety may be jeopardized.

You’re always entitled to your own interpretation, but as often quoted on this forum “if it’s not in the logbook it didn’t happen” this is the one example of not making the entry that will come back to bite.
Click to expand...

Who's saying the entry does not have to be done? I'm saying if the s/b is documented then the entry just does not have to be done by feb 7. The compliance section states it must be done by feb 7 unless already done. If the ad did not exist until now, why state unless already done unless they are refering to documented compliance with sb1309.
 
cowman said:
So funny story, I emailed a copy of this AD to my mechanic. He said he hadn’t gotten it yet either. Interesting. I bet there are going to be a lot of non-compliant pipers out there with oblivious owners with the short timeframe they’re giving.
Click to expand...

This is nothing new. How many aircraft logbooks have you seen where there is zero documentation of inspections or maintenance performed between annuals? The ADs don't all magically line up with annual inspection dates yet many only get complied with during that time period, regardless of whether or not the owner knows about the AD.

I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying that it happens quite a bit. This AD, and the recent Lycoming piston pin bushing AD will be no exception.
 
unsafervguy said:
Who's saying the entry does not have to be done?
Click to expand...
You have several times. A signed entry for a Service Bulletin does not cover the requirement for an Airworthiness Directive entry sign off. Bottom line, if the owner of a Piper covered under this specific AD does not have a signed entry showing compliance, or a portion thereof, for AD 2018-02-05 by midnight Feb 07, 2018 then the aircraft is not legal to fly. It is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Political BS on several levels.
 
denverpilot said:
Anybody figured out which Senator’s kid had a scare during flight training somewhere yet? LOL.
Click to expand...
Haven’t heard anything. I’m still thinking this ties to funding.
 
Just a reminder. This AMOC is not a "get-out-of-jail" card. The original AD compliance is still valid unless there is a sign-off in the logbook showing the compliance extension per the AMOC. What I can't advise is whether a pilot can sign-off the AMOC entry. If you decide to use the AMOC, when you call the FSDO to inform of its use, ask them if it can be signed on a PP ticket and if so document that conversation.

I would have expected better from the AOPA since they jumped through the hoops to get a Global AMOC. I would have expected a Global AMOC allowing a pilot sign off of the AD itself.
 
The AD on FAA site still shows the date of feb 7. What am I missing ? I am yet to get a sign off , but the plane isn’t flying right now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
WannFly said:
The AD on FAA site still shows the date of feb 7. What am I missing ? I am yet to get a sign off , but the plane isn’t flying right now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Check to make sure your airplane is subject to the AD. After both the A&P and I dug thru the tiny print, we discovered I've got the 4way switch off-left-right-off which isn't inpacted by the AD.
 
murphey said:
Check to make sure your airplane is subject to the AD. After both the A&P and I dug thru the tiny print, we discovered I've got the 4way switch off-left-right-off which isn't inpacted by the AD.
Click to expand...

Ha... I have the same 4 way selector. I will read the AD again. Thanks
Edit: mine is the one shown in the SB, so needs the sign off. Wondering about the AOPA article that says the timeline has been extended to mar 9.... but the AD still says feb 9

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
Just a reminder. This AMOC is not a "get-out-of-jail" card. The original AD compliance is still valid unless there is a sign-off in the logbook showing the compliance extension per the AMOC. What I can't advise is whether a pilot can sign-off the AMOC entry. If you decide to use the AMOC, when you call the FSDO to inform of its use, ask them if it can be signed on a PP ticket and if so document that conversation.

I would have expected better from the AOPA since they jumped through the hoops to get a Global AMOC. I would have expected a Global AMOC allowing a pilot sign off of the AD itself.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, one of the purposes of asking for the 30 day extension was to allow a meaningful opportunity for comments to be submitted and considered. In AOPA's formal comments, they wrote "with the simple nature of the inspection, AOPA contends that aircraft owners/operators are capable and should be allowed to perform the initial inspection. The agency has a long history of allowing such actions (e.g. AD 2014-23-16). Due to the short timeframe for compliance and an estimated affected fleet of 17,957, permitting aircraft owners to perform the initial inspection will ensure safety, timely compliance, and appropriately limit costs."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top