The interesting thing is, they have two conflicting statements in the proposed docket. At first it said aircraft that had past replacements wouldn’t need to have the inspection, because cracks would have likely been found while the repair was being done. On the other hand a bit further down, it says that any aircraft that had a spar or wing replacement would need the eddy current. Did I read that right?
I’ll have to go back and find it in the docket.
That's what I thought too.. so I assume it might be related to weights and speeds and overall loads. I think the taper wings are a larger wingspan
FWIW: What I find interesting is there are 10,000 affected aircraft and only 168 comments submitted to the NPRM. If you read the SNPRM comment discussion section they made a number of "positive" changes based only on those 168 initial comments. I wonder how many more inspection criteria the feds would change if they received 5000 comments to the SNPRM? For those who have never participated in a NPRM process, this is the route to make a difference especially if you own an affected PA-28 or PA-32.
The potential to damage planes conducting the inspection is high on my list of why not. The NTSB also raised the issue. If it was such a screaming danger, you would think the AD would have been issued a long time ago. It's been over two years since the ERAU crash. Here's some verbiage from the NTSB on the crashed trainer The NTSB reported that the accident aircraft had accumulated 7,690.6 hours and 33,276 landing cycles prior to the crash, averaging 4.33 landings per hour of flight time. The board also found reports of reported flap extension overspeed, gear extension overspeed and hard landing events in the aircraft’s logs, but noted that airframe inspections had been performed after each event with no defects noted.
no, the 161 and 151 have the same spar, the 181 has a different part number for the spar.
Any idea why? The Archer I fly had a wing replacement about twenty years ago as well, after someone ran it off the runway and hit a tree.
FYI: one item noticeable in the updated discussion is the mention, several times, that they will address AMOCs on a case by case basis for those owners who have possible "unique" circumstances. Perhaps get with your APIA and go over possible AMOC submissions for your specific aircraft. You never know.
Good luck man
FYI: this was addressed in the SNPRM comments section as others brought this up. The feds disagreed and provided the reasoning why.
Someone on PoA also had 1345 done for $600.
FWIW: From my experience, a number of people do not know or understand the details of the inspection. I've been following this AD and the SB for a couple old clients who have PA-28s. It seems the minute eddy current was required most people knee-jerked and saw nothing but $$$. However, with a SNPRM being released it's obvious the feds are rethinking a number of requirements. But as it stands now, if the owner/pilot remains allowed to do the mx research, the eddy current inspection criteria standard is expanded, and they keep the AMOC ability, I think this inspection will be very affordable and manageable in the end.
So did you post your "principles" to the comments page for the NPRM as the other 168 people did?
. i am still on the hook