Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
I’m honored you picked my thread to make your first post in. Even more so because it’s creeping up on a year since you registered!
Piper PA28 and PA32 owners take note
- Thread starter Unit74
- Start date
I’m honored you picked my thread to make your first post in. Even more so because it’s creeping up on a year since you registered!
Marc J Woods
Filing Flight Plan
Thanks, it took me about that long to find my bird!
Marc J Woods
Filing Flight Plan
While I’m here, I’d like to say that I hope AOPA gets involved in this mess, especially in light of Piper advocating so strongly against the AD. Maybe they have and I missed it.
Unit74
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2014
- Messages
- 6,992
- Display Name
Display name:
Unit74
Mark is too busy building hangars for his staff with AOPA funds, er, a local airport to bolster the GA footprint. I got my renewal in the mail last week. Tore it in half and will double my EAA donation.
Ventucky Red
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,179
- Display Name
Display name:
Jon
As I understand it... and the numbers are hypothetical..
(N) 100 hour inspections :10
(T) TIS : 5261
(N x 100) + [T-(N x 100)]/17 = Factored Service Hours
(10*100) + [5261 - 1000]17 =
1000 + 4261/17
1000 + 250.64
Factored Service Hours = 1250.64
Marc J Woods
Filing Flight Plan
Hi Ventucky Red, Thank you for confirming my math and their intention.
TheGolfPilot
Line Up and Wait
I just spent 10k repairing the wing spar on my plane. Was it about to break apart and fall out of the sky. No, not even close, but there was a little bit of wear and corrosion in there. Very few of us are buying brand new Pipers. No matter what the guy before us says, we don’t know for certain how our plane was used before. Ya, I’d rather of spent the money on a new gps, but it is what it is.
SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,415
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
George Mohr
Line Up and Wait
I wonder if folks have considered that Piper has a metallurgy issue in or around this year of manufacture? As far as I know, the only known examples of cracking were from late 2000's PA-28s, is that correct?
SixPapaCharlie
May the force be with you
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,415
- Display Name
Display name:
Sixer
Watch that video I linked above apparently another one had a wing come off back in the 80s
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 2,537
- Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
I'd say he covers it thoroughly, but not sure about well. He really comes across that it's a decided issue that there is a design flaw in the wing design, which is far from a foregone conclusion. We had this same issue back in the 80's, when the pipeline Cherokee also had a separation. Similar AD, and once they started the inspections, they found there wasn't a systemic problem. The separation plane at ER clearly had a crack, but why and how that crack got there is not known. They opened up a bunch of planes after the ER crash and found only one other with a crack, also an ER Arrow. Also, with that one, no root cause identified. There are many people running around, prior to an AD being issued getting their wings inspected. One mentioned their Mech using a torch to get the wing bolt loose. This feels so much like the Audi and Toyota unintended acceleration debacles.
Somebody, please, help me clear up a point of confusion; having read the second the proposed Airworthiness Directive, I assume based upon the estimate of cost for compliance that it is possible to comply with this A/D without removing the wings; otherwise, the estimate of cost is ludicrously low.
Inasmuch as I have never removed the wing from a Cherokee, I cannot personally comment on the process. Educate me, please, oh wise ones.
Inasmuch as I have never removed the wing from a Cherokee, I cannot personally comment on the process. Educate me, please, oh wise ones.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,999
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
Indeed. I find the PA-28 ownership base rather quick to panic as a demographic. I'm at a loss why they're running around like chickens with their head cut off. It's a rather un-nuanced way of behaving to be executing these inspections so soon, especially in light of the proposal not even being finalized, and sometimes not even affecting their own airplane by the very metric of compliance proposed by the not-AD-yet in the first place.
Which is another way of saying, you don't have spar bolthole cracks. You could have said that and be of more use to the topic of the thread. I understand the need to vent about a 10K expense, but that's got nothing to do with the accusation of a fleet problem, which is the issue at hand. We do thank you for confirming that you may have 99 problems with your airplane, but the problem PA-28 owners seem to be freaking out about is in fact, not one of them.
Which is another way of saying, you don't have spar bolthole cracks. You could have said that and be of more use to the topic of the thread. I understand the need to vent about a 10K expense, but that's got nothing to do with the accusation of a fleet problem, which is the issue at hand. We do thank you for confirming that you may have 99 problems with your airplane, but the problem PA-28 owners seem to be freaking out about is in fact, not one of them.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,999
- Display Name
Display name:
hindsight2020
The inspection does not require the removal of wings. Just the removal of the two bottom bolts of interest. Access, is gained, bolts are removed ,(damage is incurred but we're not going to acknowledge that because it doesn't appease our knee-jerk tendencies), Eddy current is accomplished, if negative, data is sent and new bolts are installed.
If test positive for cracks, data is sent, and you need to procure a serviceable spar, which means it's cheaper to procure an entire wing on a labor basis. Those are the outcome options.