Pa28 spar as a renter?

Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)

Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
853
Location
NE Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
Terry
I know we are reading and seeing/hearing a lot around the potential AD, the cost to comply, impact on market value etc.

Especially the A&Ps, what’s your read for a rental pilot?

Sounds like many owners want to minimize the cost, which makes sense, except this seems to be a safety item.

Would you change your rental habits away from high time pipers? I spoke to one flight school owner who poo pooed the whole thing. “People are exagerating and being dramatic. There was one incedent with how many flying hours on the airframe.”

When I pointed out ERAU was the second incident, they dismissed the first altogether saying it was unrelated.

Curious what people think from a safety viewpoint.
 
As an 1975 arrow owner. My opinion, my opinion is that the incident was a one off. I think that as a trainer, the aircraft had been a victim of unreported damage, hard landing perhaps. I think that trainers may warrent extra scrutiny.
I Just this weekend pulled the tanks to the inspect the spar for SB 1006. It looked brand new. I recently flew my daughter, who I adore, and my wife to KSJG and back. I gave the issue no thought.
 
Last edited:
There was an NTSB letter in reply to the FAA's proposed AD, dated 15 February, which stated that they support the AD for PA28-235, All PA28R series aircraft, and the PA32-260 and PA32-300 aircraft.

It goes on to say that for all other aircraft included in the proposed AD, (PA28-140 included) the risks from "disturbing the joint" (wing spar to spar carry-through) outweigh the risks of undiscovered metal fatigue in those locations.

Even on those aircraft more likely to be subject, the list would be further pared down with 2 hours of review to determined "factored" time in service, at a cost of about $170. Then, those subject to eddy current inspection would cost a few more hours and about another $380 to complete the inspection and do the paperwork.

Those that fail the inspection would require complete new wing spar replacements at a cost of somewhere around $18,000 (ouch).

I suspect the actual number of aircraft that will be impacted by this AD will be a lot smaller than many people are saying.

Other than doing a good preflight (particularly on unfamiliar aircraft), I wouldn't be too concerned about this in regard to a typical fixed gear flight school Cherokee.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that video was debunked a while ago and that aircraft had its wing removed for some issue already.

Anyway, the ERAU incident was probably a result of a combination of factors unique to that operation. Nothing but carrier landings for years and maybe an aircraft that had some metallurgical irregularity that was affected by it.
 
N1120A said:
I'm pretty sure that video was debunked a while ago and that aircraft had its wing removed for some issue already.

Anyway, the ERAU incident was probably a result of a combination of factors unique to that operation. Nothing but carrier landings for years and maybe an aircraft that had some metallurgical irregularity that was affected by it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But don't let a good overreaction go to waste, especially on an oft-scoffed-at airframe in the personal owner market.

wilkersk said:
There was an NTSB letter in reply to the FAA's proposed AD, dated 15 February, which stated that they support the AD for PA28-235, All PA28R series aircraft, and the PA32-260 and PA32-300 aircraft.
Click to expand...

You only quoted the first part of the letter. They actually went further than that. The only one they found to merit the invasive/damaging inspection over the useful life of the airframe was the one, and only, PA-28-235. Variant which is about as removed from an ERAU complex fleet trainer as it can pretty much get. File that under irony in the cabinet of FAA knee-jerk.

To be fair to the FAA, they are exercising a much greater degree of nuance this time around compared to the last time they went wing-pulling on the PA-28s in the 80s. We're more than a year from the accident flight and so far nobody has died on account of wings falling off, which by the way the thing read initially I should have lost both wings by now. :dunno:. So kudos to the FAA for exercising some modicum of common sense on this one...so far.

The family of the commercial applicant have already sued Piper over it. Frankly I think they're barking up the wrong tree, but the lawyers probably saw bigger pockets. Who he should have sued for wrongful death is ERAU. Nothing will bring their son back; I wish them peace and closure in their lives moving forward. I'm in support of the NTSB and Piper's joint position on the matter.

Of course, nothing will come of it. The ACS change has basically made the issue moot for greedy piggy ERAU to address. Saved by the bell.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
So you wouldn’t be concerned as a renter?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be, as long as the outfit you're renting from takes care of their airplanes. A well cared for rental airplane is probably in as good or better shape than many privately owned airplanes are.

Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
What if that wing walk area was a little weak? That’s normal?
Click to expand...

It's not normal, but it is a different problem. The walkway doubler is cracked and needs replaced if the wing walk area is soft.
 
I know this is an old post, I have been for a while thinking the same thing in relation to the renting option thing, I am a PPL with little over 100 hrs, my flight school had an arrow which I flew about 4 times for my complex endorsement, there is no question in my mind that I would have given up flying Cessnas entirely in favor of the arrow if it wasn't for the wing problem, I just loved flying the arrow, I might have researched this problem more than anyone and for an extended period of time, and it sometimes really frustrates me that something like thing can happen to airplane with Piper corporation and the FAA not doing enough about it because for me it means I won't be flying the arrow for my safety and that is what happened. In my opinion this has to get more attention, the spar inspection SHOULD be a part of the 100 hour inspection by removing the wing, and preferably making spar replacement mandatory at the annual inspection which costs $147 per spar according to this https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/03/proposed-ad-could-affect-almost-20000-piper-aircraft/). The arrow wing is always loaded, on the ground and in the air in addition to landings load, I absolutely believe this at this point, this step should be taken by the FAA, Piper aircraft must also be held responsible to some degree for this, at least for future potential accidents, god forbids.

Unlike the majority of pilots I have observed whether on this website or at the airport, I am not AT ALL leaning toward giving big corporations a break, what I can not understand is how pilots (who are actually the receiving end of potential risk) can give excuses for corporations greed whether it's Boeing or Piper or any other, well I am not, and never will be on their side on this.
 
aeronav said:
and preferably making spar replacement mandatory at the annual inspection which costs $147 per spar according to this https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/03/proposed-ad-could-affect-almost-20000-piper-aircraft/).
Click to expand...
FYI: Per your same link it's not $147 per spar but $8,260 per spar. But a more realistic price is closer to $10-12k per spar or $24k per aircraft. At that price I doubt you won't have to worry about any Arrows again as I doubt anyone will spend that kind of money on that particular aircraft. But to keep things in perspective, perhaps you may want to take up gliders instead of airplanes. Because if you research aircraft engine catastrophic failure rates and compare it to the Arrow wing catastrophic failure rates you may be surprised at what you find.;)
 
aeronav said:
the spar inspection SHOULD be a part of the 100 hour inspection by removing the wing
Click to expand...
The spar is inspected by removing inspection panels at the wing root, not the entire wing.
aeronav said:
preferably making spar replacement mandatory at the annual inspection which costs $147 per spar according to this
Click to expand...
Add a couple zero’s to that and you’d be in the ballpark.
 
aeronav said:
Unlike the majority of pilots I have observed whether on this website or at the airport, I am not AT ALL leaning toward giving big corporations a break, what I can not understand is how pilots (who are actually the receiving end of potential risk) can give excuses for corporations greed whether it's Boeing or Piper or any other, well I am not, and never will be on their side on this.
Click to expand...

Where does corporate greed come in from Piper's perspective? Heavily used tools wear out and eventually break. I'd prefer that everything I own last forever, but that isn't realistic.
 
Bell206 said:
perhaps you may want to take up gliders instead of airplanes. Because if you research aircraft engine catastrophic failure rates and compare it to the Arrow wing catastrophic failure rates you may be surprised at what you find.;)
Click to expand...

That is statistically True, but attempting to glide an aircraft after engine out to safety in comparison to a wing falling off and entirely losing control is not a fair comparison IMO.
 
aeronav said:
I know this is an old post, I have been for a while thinking the same thing in relation to the renting option thing, I am a PPL with little over 100 hrs, my flight school had an arrow which I flew about 4 times for my complex endorsement, there is no question in my mind that I would have given up flying Cessnas entirely in favor of the arrow if it wasn't for the wing problem, I just loved flying the arrow, I might have researched this problem more than anyone and for an extended period of time, and it sometimes really frustrates me that something like thing can happen to airplane with Piper corporation and the FAA not doing enough about it because for me it means I won't be flying the arrow for my safety and that is what happened. In my opinion this has to get more attention, the spar inspection SHOULD be a part of the 100 hour inspection by removing the wing, and preferably making spar replacement mandatory at the annual inspection which costs $147 per spar according to this https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/03/proposed-ad-could-affect-almost-20000-piper-aircraft/). The arrow wing is always loaded, on the ground and in the air in addition to landings load, I absolutely believe this at this point, this step should be taken by the FAA, Piper aircraft must also be held responsible to some degree for this, at least for future potential accidents, god forbids.

Unlike the majority of pilots I have observed whether on this website or at the airport, I am not AT ALL leaning toward giving big corporations a break, what I can not understand is how pilots (who are actually the receiving end of potential risk) can give excuses for corporations greed whether it's Boeing or Piper or any other, well I am not, and never will be on their side on this.
Click to expand...

You necro a thread and come in foaming at the mouth, and you're a renter? All due respect, you're clueless on this front. You also seem peculiarly umbraged about not getting to fly a low wing trainer vs a high wing trainer on account of this aversion of yours. That seems outright petty and inane, in the context of the bigger issue here.

I happen to be an arrow owner. I presume to have the same level of self-preservation as you do as someone who flies my family on this clap trap, and I can tell you based on your comments 1) your understanding of the maintenance induced damage proposed, and 2) your notion of the cost of said inspection, are woefully underinformed in both fronts. It is not an insignificant nor EZ-bake oven inspection, and it is destructive to the attaching boltware. It's much more expensive, especially on a recurring basis, as proposed.

The good news is that my wings haven't fallen off yet. And neither have any Arrow wings anywhere in the US since ERAU stopped flying them. If you need the placebo of high wing in order to get your training done, by all means fly the high wing. Training is pointless if you're not comfortable getting on the airplane long enough to learn to fly. As it is, the complex requirements are pretty much an anachronism nowadays with the advent of the TAA supplement to the ACS . So you don't have to stop flight training just because you're scared of flying an Arrow. Any fixed gear airplane with TAA allowances will do.

As to the whole corporate conspiracy, again you're barking up the wrong tree. ERAU is the entity that is obfuscating and notching, not Piper. Direct your indignation to that outfit, they're the ones who killed those two.

Breathe man, it's gonna be alright. Next time remember to Load, aim, then fire. :D
 
kyleb said:
Where does corporate greed come in from Piper's perspective? Heavily used tools wear out and eventually break. I'd prefer that everything I own last forever, but that isn't realistic.
Click to expand...
Yup. These machines are OLD, yet we want them to last a long time because we paid so much for them. That's just wishful thinking. How many 1968 cars are running around that haven't been totally apart and restored at least once in that time? Or boats? Motorbikes? And yet, we have 1960's and '70s airplanes that have never had a serious look at the stuff in them. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff I found in airplanes of that vintage, which is why I make noises here all the time about paying for and getting decent and detailed annual inspections, not glorified walkarounds. Stuff fatigues and corrodes and wears, and it's often left to do that until it breaks. In flight. I have found that mechanics who are also pilots tend to be a lot more thorough in their inspections.
 
hindsight2020 said:
You necro a thread and come in foaming at the mouth, and you're a renter? All due respect, you're clueless on this front. You also seem peculiarly umbraged about not getting to fly a low wing trainer vs a high wing trainer on account of this aversion of yours. That seems outright petty and inane, in the context of the bigger issue here.

I happen to be an arrow owner. I presume to have the same level of self-preservation as you do as someone who flies my family on this clap trap, and I can tell you based on your comments 1) your understanding of the maintenance induced damage proposed, and 2) your notion of the cost of said inspection, are woefully underinformed in both fronts. It is not an insignificant nor EZ-bake oven inspection, and it is destructive to the attaching boltware. It's much more expensive, especially on a recurring basis, as proposed.

The good news is that my wings haven't fallen off yet. And neither have any Arrow wings anywhere in the US since ERAU stopped flying them. If you need the placebo of high wing in order to get your training done, by all means fly the high wing. Training is pointless if you're not comfortable getting on the airplane long enough to learn to fly. As it is, the complex requirements are pretty much an anachronism nowadays with the advent of the TAA supplement to the ACS . So you don't have to stop flight training just because you're scared of flying an Arrow. Any fixed gear airplane with TAA allowances will do.

As to the whole corporate conspiracy, again you're barking up the wrong tree. ERAU is the entity that is obfuscating and notching, not Piper. Direct your indignation to that outfit, they're the ones who killed those two.

Breathe man, it's gonna be alright. Next time remember to Load, aim, then fire. :D
Click to expand...

I think my suggestions were really aimed at flight schools and renting FBO's where different levels of experience exists, where the use is more frequent and landings are probably not as graceful . It is understandable that individual owners like yourself are likely to put a lot less hours and stress on the aircraft and I did not mean to imply that this should go for everyone.
 
aeronav said:
...is not a fair comparison IMO.
Click to expand...
Until you look at the survival rate of aircraft engine failures, catastrophic or not. In the past 6 months, there have been at least 6 fatal accidents due to engine failure. Compare that to 2 PA-28 wing failures in 50+ years. While statistics are great you have to keep them in context. If the Piper wing failures rattled you at your current experience level, then perhaps you may want to read up on what catches most other pilots off guard and mitigate those faults and failures first. Because, statistically, the latter list will catch you way before the former reason. Good luck to you.
 
The AD shouldn’t be on Arrows, it should be on ERAU. Of all the PA-28s out there for the last 60 years (ok, 50 or so for Arrows), the ones with problems were from the same flight school.

I’ve flown Arrows before, will again and if I need a four-seater I would be fine with owning one. It’s a PA-28 - they’re solid.
 
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago) said:
Would you change your rental habits away from high time pipers?
Click to expand...
No. If it's your time to go it's your time to go. I did some heavy poo poo'ing in the forum here a while ago about the overall design, gear, etc., but I still fly them. At the end of the day, if Emrby had been properly inspecting and operating their planes that accident likely wouldn't have happened. Granted.. is there potentially some other rental out there that was slammed into the ground with a pencil whipped annual that is now just moments away from failure?? Maybe.. but Pipers fly great and it's still my rental of choice.. up until this COVID 19 thing I was doing 1-2 flights per week in a PA28

TangoWhiskey said:
Just add "wiggle the wing" to your preflight inspection
Click to expand...
You say that jokingly, but I actually do now give the wings a firm wiggle

**PS.. there are 210s that have lost their wings too, and many other frames, hell a 707 fell apart in the sky once. I think only Cirrus (maybe?) and I know Socata Trinid/Tobago have never had an inflight breakup, if we're talking production GA planes
 
ateamer said:
The AD shouldn’t be on Arrows, it should be on ERAU. Of all the PA-28s out there for the last 60 years (ok, 50 or so for Arrows), the ones with problems were from the same flight school.

I’ve flown Arrows before, will again and if I need a four-seater I would be fine with owning one. It’s a PA-28 - they’re solid.
Click to expand...

Oh I hear ya. Wish in one hand and s--- on the other, see which one fills up first though. We privatize profits and socialize losses. Hostage dynamics, captive audience, pick your platitude. ERAU craps the bed and we all get told to wear diapers. In the case of aviation, we don't even get the benefit of the OEM covering the "recall" cost like the automotive industry, as a result of lack of economies of scale and thus no political critical mass to push back. So double whammy.

The closest we've come to a resolution to what I call the 'revenue/non-revenue chasm' is of course: primary non-commercial. That got tossed during the part 23 re-write. Some on here purport a "part 21 re-write" is where this would all get solved.

A second solution I would support with my hard earned dollars would be to expand the LSA category to include heavier and more importantly, faster airplanes (majority of the existing EAB 2-4 seat 150knot market for instance), while gaining/retaining the inspection authority allowances of E-LSA. That would do wonders for the hobby, especially the medically challenged crowd and those of us who don't want to be tethered to "specialty gurus" for our hobby's enjoyment regardless of where in the CONUS we decide to live or move to.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Oh I hear ya. Wish in one hand and s--- on the other, see which one fills up first though. We privatize profits and socialize losses. Hostage dynamics, captive audience, pick your platitude. ERAU craps the bed and we all get told to wear diapers. In the case of aviation, we don't even get the benefit of the OEM covering the "recall" cost like the automotive industry, as a result of lack of economies of scale and thus no political critical mass to push back. So double whammy.

The closest we've come to a resolution to what I call the 'revenue/non-revenue chasm' is of course: primary non-commercial. That got tossed during the part 23 re-write. Some on here purport a "part 21 re-write" is where this would all get solved.

A second solution I would support with my hard earned dollars would be to expand the LSA category to include heavier and more importantly, faster airplanes (majority of the existing EAB 2-4 seat 150knot market for instance), while gaining/retaining the inspection authority allowances of E-LSA. That would do wonders for the hobby, especially the medically challenged crowd and those of us who don't want to be tethered to "specialty gurus" for our hobby's enjoyment regardless of where in the CONUS we decide to live or move to.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many million a cirrus would cost if they had to cover recalls ad Infinitum.
 
Tantalum said:
I think only Cirrus (maybe?) and I know Socata Trinid/Tobago have never had an inflight breakup, if we're talking production GA planes
Click to expand...
IIRC Diamonds have never had an inflight breakup. Diamonds are also stupid safe for a variety of reasons and I think they're a great airframe. I also once heard (but have not verified) that no strut-winged Cessna has had a wing failure while flown under-gross and under-VNE.

Snapping a wing off is pretty hard to do... Most planes are kinda designed that way. I have to imagine there are many, MANY types that have not had a wing failure.
 
Last edited:
Mtns2Skies said:
IIRC Diamonds have never had an inflight breakup. Diamonds are also stupid safe for a variety of reasons and I think they're a great airframe. I also once heard (but have not verified) that no strut-winged Cessna has had a wing failure while flown under-gross and under-VNE.
Click to expand...

As I recall there's been only one in-flight breakup of a metal-spar Mooney as well, and that one exception involved flying it into a thunderstorm.

aeronav said:
I know this is an old post, I have been for a while thinking the same thing in relation to the renting option thing, I am a PPL with little over 100 hrs, my flight school had an arrow which I flew about 4 times for my complex endorsement, there is no question in my mind that I would have given up flying Cessnas entirely in favor of the arrow if it wasn't for the wing problem, I just loved flying the arrow, I might have researched this problem more than anyone and for an extended period of time, and it sometimes really frustrates me that something like thing can happen to airplane with Piper corporation and the FAA not doing enough about it because for me it means I won't be flying the arrow for my safety and that is what happened. In my opinion this has to get more attention, the spar inspection SHOULD be a part of the 100 hour inspection by removing the wing, and preferably making spar replacement mandatory at the annual inspection which costs $147 per spar according to this https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/03/proposed-ad-could-affect-almost-20000-piper-aircraft/). The arrow wing is always loaded, on the ground and in the air in addition to landings load, I absolutely believe this at this point, this step should be taken by the FAA, Piper aircraft must also be held responsible to some degree for this, at least for future potential accidents, god forbids.

Unlike the majority of pilots I have observed whether on this website or at the airport, I am not AT ALL leaning toward giving big corporations a break, what I can not understand is how pilots (who are actually the receiving end of potential risk) can give excuses for corporations greed whether it's Boeing or Piper or any other, well I am not, and never will be on their side on this.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out already, you are behaving irrationally. There's not a lot of room for that in aviation if you want to fly safely and successfully for years to come. Every single time you get into a light GA airplane you face risks of far higher probabilities than a wing falling off a Piper Arrow. You should maybe think about taking up some other pastime.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
No. If it's your time to go it's your time to go. I did some heavy poo poo'ing in the forum here a while ago about the overall design, gear, etc., but I still fly them. At the end of the day, if Emrby had been properly inspecting and operating their planes that accident likely wouldn't have happened. Granted.. is there potentially some other rental out there that was slammed into the ground with a pencil whipped annual that is now just moments away from failure?? Maybe.. but Pipers fly great and it's still my rental of choice.. up until this COVID 19 thing I was doing 1-2 flights per week in a PA28


You say that jokingly, but I actually do now give the wings a firm wiggle

**PS.. there are 210s that have lost their wings too, and many other frames, hell a 707 fell apart in the sky once. I think only Cirrus (maybe?) and I know Socata Trinid/Tobago have never had an inflight breakup, if we're talking production GA planes
Click to expand...

When flying Young Eagles (in my cherokee), I have them do the walkaround with me....they watch me check the flaps for no movement, ailerons for correct opposite movement, rudder for naught, elevator for movement correct and.....I wiggle the ends of the wings. As I tell the kids, I don't want the wings to fall off in flight, makes for a really rotten landing.
 
GRG55 said:
As others have pointed out already, you are behaving irrationally. There's not a lot of room for that in aviation if you want to fly safely and successfully for years to come. Every single time you get into a light GA airplane you face risks of far higher probabilities than a wing falling off a Piper Arrow. You should maybe think about taking up some other pastime.
Click to expand...
Ease up. If the OP is a low-time pilot, he likely has little or no frame of reference to make any judgements to put this thing in perspective. That's why he came to this forum, to see what experienced guys think about it.
 
GRG55 said:
As I recall there's been only one in-flight breakup of a metal-spar Mooney as well, and that one exception involved flying it into a thunderstorm.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was going to say, under normal operation, it would be pretty unusual for a Mooney wing to separate from the airframe and I’m not sure I’ve heard of any accidents involving it before. They’re very strong as you know...
 
Mtns2Skies said:
no strut-winged Cessna has had a wing failure while flown under-gross and under-VNE
Click to expand...
Wasn't that the 210 somewhat recently in Australia, that prompted all the spar AD stuff for 210? I saw a parted out 210 up at SMX once.. the spar assembly is pretty impressive.. but once you introduce any kind of fatigue, cracking, or corrosion.. it's game over. But that will be true for anything. The PA28 in Florida fell apart because of the cracks.. not because the design is inherently defective

*Could the design be better by adopting a Grumman, Traumahawk, Vans, Cirrus, Lancair style gear.. sure.. but ultimately that was an abused plane with crappy maintenance, hence why it came apart. I believe the other PA28 wing seperation incident, from many many years ago, also had cracks that were missed..

PS, I cannot find it now, maybe some lawyer at the post taken down.. but it was somewhere like Pprune were someone had posted emails regarding the accident plane, a passenger a month or two before, from the accident plane, bragging about the maneuvers their pilot buddy was doing to scare and show off to his friends.. snap rolls, spins, etc., and this was with 4 people in it. I wish I could find it now. Either way, that plane was rode hard and put away wet

PPS, Beneteau came under fire after Cheeki Rafiki's keel fell off and everyone onboard died. Like losing a wing on a plane, losing your keel on 30+ foot boat is basically a death sentence
 
I counted 22 wing failures on NTSB for PA28s. Odds are in your favor. ;)
 
Velocity173 said:
22 wing failures on NTSB for PA28s
Click to expand...
Interesting, that's actually higher than I thought. Granted out of 30K+ out there still a good figure. I wonder as a percent of fleet size how that compares with other planes
 
Tantalum said:
*Could the design be better by adopting a Grumman, Traumahawk, Vans, Cirrus, Lancair style gear.. sure.. but ultimately that was an abused plane with crappy maintenance, hence why it came apart. I believe the other PA28 wing seperation incident, from many many years ago, also had cracks that were missed..
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Pipers aren’t like old Jaguars, with lots of built in problems...crummy maintenance creates a crummy plane. Learned in a Traumahawk. Gauge failures, engine failure, etc. Great for learning, lol. The school was flirting with disaster in their maintenance habits. I don’t think Piper should be held responsible for it.
 
Tantalum said:
Interesting, that's actually higher than I thought. Granted out of 30K+ out there still a good figure. I wonder as a percent of fleet size how that compares with other planes
Click to expand...

Yeah when the ERAU crash came out I got on NTSB and did a search. Put “inflight breakup” in the remarks and that brings up some of them. Gotta dig deeper to find the rest. Everyone thinks of the high time PA28 that was a pipeline inspector and the ERAU one, but there’s plenty of others. Some aren’t even listed on NTSB because they happened in other countries. You’ll see some PA32s and PA24s as well.
 
Velocity173 said:
I counted 22 wing failures on NTSB for PA28s. Odds are in your favor. ;)
Click to expand...
Curious. In the discussions over the FAA proposed AD, if I recall correctly, have only reported two (2) incidents of in-flight wing failure due to fatigue. 1st one about 35 years ago and the ERAU one. While there are other failures, it was my understanding it was due to structural overload and not fatigue.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. In the discussions over the FAA proposed AD, if I recall correctly, have only reported two (2) incidents of in-flight wing failure due to fatigue. 1st one about 35 years ago and the ERAU one. While there are other failures, it was my understanding it was due to structural overload and not fatigue.
Click to expand...

No idea on the number just due to fatigue. I was just commenting on on total wing failures. And while yes, you can’t expect a wing to stay together in a thunderstorm or pilot antics, there are aircraft such as Grummans (AA1/AA5) that have never shed a wing during any type of condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top