Piper SAIB Wing Spar

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,489
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
Although not required this SAIB is linked to the wing AD 2020-26-16 and could add a lot more aircraft to it.
  • SAIB Number: 2022-20
  • Document Type: Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB)
  • Subject: Wing Spar
  • Status: Current
  • Issue Date: 10/19/2022
  • Make: Piper Aircraft Inc.
  • Model/Series: PA-28-140 | PA-28-150 | PA-28-151 | PA-28-160 | PA-28-161 | PA-28-180 | PA-28-181 | PA-28-201T | PA-28-235 | PA-28-236 | PA-28R-180 | PA-28R-200 | PA-28R-201 | PA-28R-201T | PA-28RT-201 | PA-28RT-201T | PA-28S-160 | PA-28S-180 | PA-32-260 | PA-32-300 | PA-32-301 | PA-32-301FT | PA-32-301T | PA-32-301XTC | PA-32R-300 | PA-32R-301 (HP) | PA-32R-301 (SP) | PA-32R-301T | PA-32RT-300 | PA-32RT-300T | PA-32S-300Show less
  • Product Type: Aircraft
  • Product Subtype: Small Airplane
 
The mention of the possibility of life limits is concerning.

It was interesting how many cracks were found in 28-161's. I wonder if there were more produced, or if it's a function of them being used as trainers.
 
There is nothing in the SAIB document that broadens the scope to the fixed gear, Hershey bar Cherokee's. Not sure the listing in the OP is correct. PA-28 140, 160, 180 were not in scope of the AD and there is nothing in the text of the SAIB to add them.

In addition, I question their data. When the AD first came out, there were a lot of false positives that were negative on a 2nd inspection. Things like cleaning the bolt holes moved from a fail to a pass for example. Not sure there was any effort to double check the testing used in the chart on the document. Lastly, the possibility of MIF is high when you look at some of the damage done to the holes from improper bolt removal.
 

Attachments

  • SAIB_2022-20.pdf
    660.6 KB · Views: 25
Hang 4 said:
There is nothing in the SAIB document that broadens the scope to the fixed gear, Hershey bar Cherokee's. Not sure the listing in the OP is correct. PA-28 140, 160, 180 were not in scope of the AD and there is nothing in the text of the SAIB to add them.

In addition, I question their data. When the AD first came out, there were a lot of false positives that were negative on a 2nd inspection. Things like cleaning the bolt holes moved from a fail to a pass for example. Not sure there was any effort to double check the testing used in the chart on the document. Lastly, the possibility of MIF is high when you look at some of the damage done to the holes from improper bolt removal.
Click to expand...
They noted that roughly 25% of failures were false positives due to corrosion or damage during bolt removal.
 
Still no answer as to why this happened or a proposed solution. One accident not counted as a wing spar separation was due to overloading. I wonder if that is referring to W&B or exceeding airspeed limits / G forces.
 
Hang 4 said:
There is nothing in the SAIB document that broadens the scope to the fixed gear, Hershey bar Cherokee's. Not sure the listing in the OP is correct. PA-28 140, 160, 180 were not in scope of the AD and there is nothing in the text of the SAIB to add them.

In addition, I question their data. When the AD first came out, there were a lot of false positives that were negative on a 2nd inspection. Things like cleaning the bolt holes moved from a fail to a pass for example. Not sure there was any effort to double check the testing used in the chart on the document. Lastly, the possibility of MIF is high when you look at some of the damage done to the holes from improper bolt removal.
Click to expand...
The 235 is a fixed gear hershey bar cherokee.

I see a lot of complaining about this (not from anyone here, but in general). Just get it done. I had mine checked because I was worried there may be a crack from the previous owner ripping the landing gear off after a botched landing. It was like 300 bucks for the peace of mind and an hour of your time. No big deal at all.
 
I told y'all this wasn't the end of their moral hazard antics.
 
Last edited:
Riddle must have one hell of a lobbyist that instead of shutting down Riddle's fleet they went after the entire fleet instead.
 
Hang 4 said:
There is nothing in the SAIB document that broadens the scope to the fixed gear, Hershey bar Cherokee's. Not sure the listing in the OP is correct. PA-28 140, 160, 180 were not in scope of the AD and there is nothing in the text of the SAIB to add them.

In addition, I question their data. When the AD first came out, there were a lot of false positives that were negative on a 2nd inspection. Things like cleaning the bolt holes moved from a fail to a pass for example. Not sure there was any effort to double check the testing used in the chart on the document. Lastly, the possibility of MIF is high when you look at some of the damage done to the holes from improper bolt removal.
Click to expand...
I read the SAIB more carefully and it includes all PA-28 variants. What’s less clear is what action it’s actually causing. I stand by my second paragraph that the data quality is suspect and removing the bolts is not risk free.
 
Todd82 said:
Riddle must have one hell of a lobbyist that instead of shutting down Riddle's fleet they went after the entire fleet instead.
Click to expand...

I had a rant ready to flame and stew on that exact matter, but decided to redact it. You summed up my follow-on comments on the specific moral hazard actor in question.

ETA: To make it even more obvious the externalization of cost that occurred here, ERAU dispensed with their Arrow fleet immediately upon the ACS providing the TAA substitution provision, while this miscarriage of admin law was being boofed up the six of recreational/non-revenue owners. Some even made it to T-A-P with the ERAU livery still intact; the corpses of the two they killed not even mummified yet. You couldn't make it up.
 
Last edited:
Hang 4 said:
I read the SAIB more carefully and it includes all PA-28 variants. What’s less clear is what action it’s actually causing. I stand by my second paragraph that the data quality is suspect and removing the bolts is not risk free.
Click to expand...

Of course the removal of bolts is damaging and a self-fulfilling prophecy. They should be laughed out the building for escalating the moral hazard based on the garbage-in garbage-out that's come out of that field eddy current submissions from the worry wart crowd. Garbage condition by their own stipulation (25% false pos), according to their own SAIB, plus the "volunteer" stuff they've voluntarily thrown out from the no-standing, worry wart rec crowd sending their own gah'bage. Number of wing failures since ERAU stopped squeezing money from Arrows flown by airline puppies 5 years ago? Goose egg. Some emergency alright.....

They don't care about collateral damage. It ain't like the OEM is on the hook, which is why this will be allowed to proceed, like everything else in this busted @ss side of the hobby. That entity is about gesturing in lieu of regulating in good faith. Not the only admin law entity to be guilty of that to be clear.

Anybody who thinks this won't yield an expansion to the interim AD whereby they institute life limits on the PA-28 and 32 variants, and a recurring destructive inspection of those spar holes, (which were never meant to be handled like they are brake calipers mind you), I have a timeshare in Aleppo I'd like to pitch to them.
 
The only AD should be against Embry-Riddle and their CFIs who flogged the hell out of the two planes that had a problem. Tens of thousands Cherokees out there flying with no wings folding up, and their owners have to pay the price for 275 hour CFI kids who over-G their Arrows hotdogging and doing carrier landings.
 
ateamer said:
The only AD should be against Embry-Riddle and their CFIs who flogged the hell out of the two planes that had a problem. Tens of thousands Cherokees out there flying with no wings folding up, and their owners have to pay the price for 275 hour CFI kids who over-G their Arrows hotdogging and doing carrier landings.
Click to expand...

No matter what though, it’s a horrible design compared to so many other wing attachments on other aircraft. My opinion, which isn’t worth anything.
 
hindsight2020 said:
They don't care about collateral damage.
Click to expand...

This is by design. The FAA's policies do not allow for considering maintenance-induced failure in their "solutions". Same thing happened with the AD for ECI cylinders a few years ago. The ECI cylinders that had cracks were used in a very small number of engines that were not representative of the engine stress or work environment that applied to the vast number of cylinders that ended up being covered under the AD. The FAA assumes that nothing bad could ever happen when you take a perfectly well-functioning engine and do a top overhaul on it.

It isn't just the FAA. Government environmental remediation policies are the same construct. In order to save X (a very low number) number of people from potentially getting cancer, they will perform really difficult remediation jobs involving lots of heavy equipment, drilling, etc. There is no factor in the equations that allow you to assume that for every X number of hours of heavy remediation work, X numbers of workers might be killed or injured. All the work is always assumed to be perfectly safe with zero impact to life and health.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
This is by design. The FAA's policies do not allow for considering maintenance-induced failure in their "solutions". Same thing happened with the AD for ECI cylinders a few years ago. The ECI cylinders that had cracks were used in a very small number of engines that were not representative of the engine stress or work environment that applied to the vast number of cylinders that ended up being covered under the AD. The FAA assumes that nothing bad could ever happen when you take a perfectly well-functioning engine and do a top overhaul on it.

It isn't just the FAA. Government environmental remediation policies are the same construct. In order to save X (a very low number) number of people from potentially getting cancer, they will perform really difficult remediation jobs involving lots of heavy equipment, drilling, etc. There is no factor in the equations that allow you to assume that for every X number of hours of heavy remediation work, X numbers of workers might be killed or injured. All the work is always assumed to be perfectly safe with zero impact to life and health.
Click to expand...
Well, they at least acknowledged that some of the Eddy current failures were due to bolt extraction. So if they were to make this a recurring thing, I would hope they come up with an alternative bolt to replace it with. Something like a sex bolt where there's no external threads to gall the spar on its way out.
 
Racerx said:
Well, they at least acknowledged that some of the Eddy current failures were due to bolt extraction. So if they were to make this a recurring thing, I would hope they come up with an alternative bolt to replace it with.
Click to expand...

lulz, wish in one hand and chit on the other, see which one fills up first. These people may have not invented moral hazard, but they made it an art form.

To be clear, I'll get rid of this thing precisely on the grounds of that repetitive imposition. Not even the life limiting hit to my wallet is an inflection point to haste an early exit from the type for me, provided the life limiting is done in lieu of repetitive inspections. The life limiting may be govt theft (given I purchased it before it had life limits), but it doesn't kill me. The other COA otoh, is govt theft and it can kill me. I am grateful for the SAIB in that it telegraphed their hand, which helps me plan well ahead of the market flood.
 
I think I’m done with the PA-28 simply on the grounds that the FAA might impose some God-awful AD on it, and there goes your hull value.

I’d ask if New Piper had any plans to redesign the wing attach on the new airplanes, but anymore these aircraft companies are shells of their former selves without engineers on staff who are up to a task besides changing the trim packages and avionics offered in 70 year old designs…
 
How is my Comanche spar different from the arrows and other planes that are being analyzed?

I'd love to know that it isn't going to break in flight due to 61 years worth of prior owners plunking it on.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
How is my Comanche spar different from the arrows and other planes that are being analyzed?

I'd love to know that it isn't going to break in flight due to 61 years worth of prior owners plunking it on.
Click to expand...


One was built by Florida Man, one was not.

Seamax are also assembled by Florida Man and the wings fall off those too.
 
I understood Comanche = Mooney = P51?
 
I recently started flying our club's Twin Comanche. The whole "it's a Piper, will the wing break off" thing concerned me too.. but based on the super scientific evidence of looking at photos on Google the [at least twin] Comanche spar looks far more robust

Twinkie:
upload_2022-10-24_15-46-54.png

PA-28:
upload_2022-10-24_15-47-24.png

..."yes, let's make the most critical load tension bearing part of the plane a tiny little two inch tab" said a group of drunk engineers interested in saving a few pounds



I love Pipers, and I still fly Arrows and Warriors and Cherokees... but what the hell Piper!
 
Did not realize it was this small. I get that its a handful out of hundreds of millions of flight hours but this video does not inspire much confidence.
I guess I am more surprised that they stay on at all. On the other hand, I am not an engineer so I have no concept of the forces and strength involved.

 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I heard Al Comanche was 7 feet tall.
Click to expand...

“Did I ever tell you about the time Al Mooney took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can’t find one. Finally, Mooney takes me into a vacant lot and says, ‘Here we are.’ Well, we sat there for a year and a half. Sure enough, someone constructed a bar around us. Well, the day they opened it, we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burnt the place to the ground. Mooney yelled over the roar of the flames, ‘Always leave things the way you found them!'”
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Did not realize it was this small. I get that its a handful out of hundreds of millions of flight hours but this video does not inspire much confidence.
I guess I am more surprised that they stay on at all. On the other hand, I am not an engineer so I have no concept of the forces and strength involved.

Click to expand...
Supposedly the factory flex tested that spar to some absurd amount of cycles. Someone else I'm sure has the actual data. There are only two failures (the SAIB notes 3, but the third was a flight into a T-storm) of the spar. This on an airframe second only to the 172 in numbers flying. I agree it looks like it could have been designed differently, but I don't think it's defective in any way.
 
Hang 4 said:
Supposedly the factory flex tested that spar to some absurd amount of cycles. Someone else I'm sure has the actual data. There are only two failures (the SAIB notes 3, but the third was a flight into a T-storm) of the spar. This on an airframe second only to the 172 in numbers flying. I agree it looks like it could have been designed differently, but I don't think it's defective in any way.
Click to expand...
I can't remember the exact number of cycles but the test stand broke before the spar.

Test completed
 
Welcome to the Decathlon-Citabria wood wing spar AD club. We've got jackets.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
How is my Comanche spar different from the arrows and other planes that are being analyzed?

I'd love to know that it isn't going to break in flight due to 61 years worth of prior owners plunking it on.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered how the 140 was different than the others too.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Welcome to the Decathlon-Citabria wood wing spar AD club. We've got jackets.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These chuckleheads don't understand the second tier effects of moral hazards, by opting to look at these edicts from the myopia of their little single-type tribe. Add the Commanders in there while you're at it. Their time in the barrel is coming, this can happen to anybody who chooses to dabble in fac-built. "it hasn't affected mine[insert lawnmower here]...." is such a painfully myopic way to miss the forest for the trees.
 
EdFred said:
“Did I ever tell you about the time Al Mooney took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can’t find one. Finally, Mooney takes me into a vacant lot and says, ‘Here we are.’ Well, we sat there for a year and a half. Sure enough, someone constructed a bar around us. Well, the day they opened it, we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burnt the place to the ground. Mooney yelled over the roar of the flames, ‘Always leave things the way you found them!'”
Click to expand...
Al "Brasky" Mooney, lol.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Exactly. These chuckleheads don't understand the second tier effects of moral hazards, by opting to look at these edicts from the myopia of their little single-type tribe. Add the Commanders in there while you're at it. Their time in the barrel is coming, this can happen to anybody who chooses to dabble in fac-built. "it hasn't affected mine[insert lawnmower here]...." is such a painfully myopic way to miss the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...
Not just factory builds. Those Zodiac 601's had the whole damn fleet grounded.
 
.. have to say, as much as I hate high wings there is a certain peace of mind knowing how solid 172 and 182 are.. virtually no inflight breakups
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top