PIPER Wing Spar AD - Final Ruling

Racerx said:
Ive often wondered why the semi tapered wing gets more attention. Were they used more as trainers than the hershey's? Is it because they're heavier? Is there an aero dynamic reason?
Click to expand...
Just a guess, but the tapered wings being significantly longer gives them a longer moment, and i presume more stress on the spar/carry through joint.
 
Are the wheels and tires the same between different Cherokees and Arrows? Also, is the Arrow landing gear width different than a Cherokee?

I'm thinking spin-up loads and landing loads resulting in larger fore and aft forces IF the wheels and tires are bigger on one vs another OR if the gear on the Arrow has a wider track.
 
The Airframe guys from Kendallville YouTube videos are well worth watching to understand this AD.
 
Jim K said:
I find it odd that the Dakotas aren't on the list. Do they have a heavier spar?
Click to expand...

Pilawt said:
The way I read it, none of the fixed-gear, Hershey-bar-wing PA-28s -- other than the PA-28-235 -- are affected.

If so, that means the Cherokee 140, the old Cherokee 150 and 160, and the Hershey-bar Cherokee 180, up through the 1975 Cherokee Archer (not Archer II) are home free. All Arrows (except those individual serial numbers listed) are on the hook, which makes it all the more curious why the PA-28-236 Dakota and PA-28-201T Turbo Dakota are not listed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Dakota (PA-28-236) has a heavier spar, about twice the thickness as all other PA-28’s including the similarly capable -235. PA-32’s (Cherokee6, Saratoga) from 1979 onward also have beefed up spars relative to 1978 and earlier counterparts. Dakotas first appeared in 1979.
 
WannFly said:
its out... see attached.
PDF available here to download https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_...69cdce7d8625865e005b20fe/$FILE/2020-26-16.pdf
Click to expand...
I am new here folks but not new to Pipers. I owned a PA32 30 years ago then a PA28 Cherokee. Fine birds. I am considering buying back my old PA32R 300T and this AD has NOT been complied with. Do any of y’all have advice on the 32? The present owner has agreed to doing the eddy check and it just completed its annual. This bird never flew part 135 or Flight instruction, just many trips to Alaska. I appreciate ANY and ALL advice. God Bless.
 
tretpflyr said:
I am new here folks but not new to Pipers. I owned a PA32 30 years ago then a PA28 Cherokee. Fine birds. I am considering buying back my old PA32R 300T and this AD has NOT been complied with. Do any of y’all have advice on the 32? The present owner has agreed to doing the eddy check and it just completed its annual. This bird never flew part 135 or Flight instruction, just many trips to Alaska. I appreciate ANY and ALL advice. God Bless.
Click to expand...

Can't comment until we know the factored hours on your proposed purchase.

Let us know.
 
this is becoming a mess, over at piper forum people are reporting cracks found on a/c that doesnt meet the factored TIS. someone spoke to airframe components and they are seeing a whole lot more than expected and apparently expanding this AD and removing some restrictions (like the factored TIS) is in discussion at our friends at FAA. even more concerning is the availability of a new Spar if someone needs it. my inspection is tomorrow and i am heading out to the local bottle shop to stack up on bourbon...
 
I am in the midst of selling half of my arrow to a partner. This may become an issue even though I don’t meet the requirements. If it becomes an issue, I’m going to pickle my engine, pull the flight instruments, radios, everything out of it and put it in a box and start building the RV 14 with proceeds from my 401(k). The Wife won’t be happy with all of my time in the shop but oh well. Figure that the arrow is paid for, no debt. $40K for the kit plus a paint job and I’ll be doing loops, rolls and cruising at 160 kts. makes me think...
 
Last edited:
You would think there would be approved corrective actions to take with a discrepant hole, like ream it oversize, reinspect, and if good then install over size fastener.

It wouldn't be the first time reaming a hole oversize removed a crack indication...
 
bnt83 said:
You would think there would be approved corrective actions to take with a discrepant hole, like ream it oversize, reinspect, and if good then install over size fastener.

It wouldn't be the first time reaming a hole oversize removed a crack indication...
Click to expand...
there is at least one instance reported on this, they needed a DER to sign off, but it has been done
 
WannFly said:
there is at least one instance reported on this, they needed a DER to sign off, but it has been done
Click to expand...

Any idea what the DER fee was? Was the DER related to Piper or completely separate from the mother ship?


Note: Third party companies engineer repairs on products they didn't build every day, not necessarily wings spars but if the repair seems super simple it may be.
 
Jim K said:
Just a guess, but the tapered wings being significantly longer gives them a longer moment, and i presume more stress on the spar/carry through joint.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The bending moment in flight is going to be a function of the lift distribution along the spar, and that requires integrating (calculus rears its ugly head again :D) the loads along the length of the spar. One would need to know which load condition creates the worst case (moment of lift off from the ground at gross?).

Even though the wing is longer its a similar issue to that of fuel carried in inboard tanks being worse than fuel carried in outboard tanks or tip tanks. My uneducated guess would be there's not much difference b tween the Hershey bar and semi-tapered wing in that respect. Did Piper modify the wing attach hardware and design when they introduced the semi-tapered wing?

Having owned 4 different Piper Cherokee derivatives in the past, given the last few posts above I must say I am happy not to have to deal with this new complication. I sure hope we don't see a major part of the fleet scrapped. Maybe Bo is the right answer after all :eek:, although they've had their problems with spar cracks too.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
You would think there would be approved corrective actions to take with a discrepant hole, like ream it oversize, reinspect, and if good then install over size fastener.

It wouldn't be the first time reaming a hole oversize removed a crack indication...
Click to expand...

That was the proposal for how to remedy the problem on the spar I mentioned earlier in the thread. It was a no-go from Piper engineering. I havent heard anything about the plane lately or what direction they're going with it but if the DER avenue is a realistic option it might be a good one.
 
bnt83 said:
Any idea what the DER fee was? Was the DER related to Piper or completely separate from the mother ship?


Note: Third party companies engineer repairs on products they didn't build every day.
Click to expand...
no idea. someone at the piper forum reported going thru the process
 
mondtster said:
That was the proposal for how to remedy the problem on the spar I mentioned earlier in the thread. It was a no-go from Piper engineering. I haven't heard anything about the plane lately or what direction they're going with it but if the DER avenue is a realistic option it might be a good one.
Click to expand...

There can be conflicts when you start looking at substantially modifying an OEM's product, even with FAA/EASA/TCCA approved STCs.

OEM -- "You have aftermarket __________ installed on your wings? We will NOT issue repair data for your airplane anymore, contact the STC holder."
 
@bnt83

the DER was a FAA Consultant DER

in this particular case, the spar was fine, but the inspection had failed (a number of reports on that as well, the inspection failing due to a burr on the hole etc), after removal of the wing it was found that "bur on the hole from the top cap had caused this issue."
 
GRG55 said:
And, having owned 4 different Piper Cherokee derivatives in the past, given the last few posts above I must say I am happy not to have to deal with this new complication. I sure hope we don't see a major part of the fleet scrapped. Maybe Bo is the right answer after all. :eek:
Click to expand...
You're telling me. I had heard a 4% failure rate; but if that holds up that's still a lot of airplanes. The problem is the number of parts and the number of shops...it could be YEARS to get through the backlog. Good luck pickling your engine until they can get to you.

I would hope that if the problem is truly widespread Piper would come up with a stiffener of some kind to reinforce the joint. I can't imagine the entire 28/32 fleet being grounded permanently; that would quite literally be the end of GA.
 
Fleet is getting old. You can expect to see more, not less of this sort of thing in the future. I think I unloaded my Cherokee just in time...
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
There can be conflicts when you start looking at substantially modifying an OEM's product, even with FAA/EASA/TCCA approved STCs.

OEM -- "You have aftermarket __________ installed on your wings? We will NOT issue repair data for your airplane anymore, contact the STC holder."
Click to expand...

I don’t believe there were any mods in this case. My information on the response from Piper is second hand however, I was not in the middle of the inspection/repair. From the discussion I had with the mechanic involved in it, it sounded like Piper wasn’t interested in budging on a repair in this area. It sounds like they have limited manpower to analyze the requests, which is likely a contributing factor. I’m sure they took a fair amount of heat on the wing separation as well, so they may just be saying no to everything.

Basically, the problem with the plane in question was the “burr on the hole” that WannFly mentioned.
 
The 4% figure was very much 2nd hand. "The guy that did my inspection said he's seen 4% fail". The same 2nd hand commenter said he addressed one by reaming it and putting in a sleeve or something like that. Which no one has ever stated is an approved repair. Sounds pretty anecdotal to me. I've seen one picture of a failed eddy current test and it was a crack in the circumference of the hole bolt hole, where the failure mechanism on the ERAU plane was a radial crack.

I still worry the risk of damage in removing the bolts is higher than the risk of having an unknown crack in most PA-28's. Agree that those with very high TIS hours should be checked.

It would be great to have some actual certified data vs what we seem to have now which is a lot of testing being done in a panic and in many cases on planes that really don't need it (e.g. Low TIS airframes)
 
WannFly said:
this is becoming a mess, over at piper forum people are reporting cracks found on a/c that doesnt meet the factored TIS. someone spoke to airframe components and they are seeing a whole lot more than expected and apparently expanding this AD and removing some restrictions (like the factored TIS) is in discussion at our friends at FAA. even more concerning is the availability of a new Spar if someone needs it. my inspection is tomorrow and i am heading out to the local bottle shop to stack up on bourbon...
Click to expand...

***TL;DR Warning***


As to piper forum, they're a bunch of tinkering, circle-the-wagon, panicking worry warts over there. I don't contribute there anymore, as they're basically married to keeping an aging fac-built type come hell or high water. Type centric forums can be emotionally invested to a fault that way.

On a personal level, I'm not worried about failing the inspection, but if it does, I won't be putting a new spar. Y'all can have the other wing when I rip out and keep all the radios and CDIs for my next venture, and sell the engine/carcass to whoever gives me 15K and is willing to truck it out. Failing inspections is really not a return of interest on my radar.

The more salient point for me, is the high high HIGH degree of probability this thing goes recurrent. Thaaaaat's my real cue to exit, and the timing of such exit will depend on the interval I'm afforded before having to perturb my wing attachment again. Sticking with the airplane with that AD as a recurrent? Nope, not doing that. Not with a wing attachment hardware that was never intended to be perturbed with the frequency of a brake caliper.

I am DONE with labor-subrogating/logistics-intensive recurring-AD reindeer games. I'm not a retired avocational museum curator, I'm a semi-turnkey sole owner pilot who likes to fly upside down, take the fam across non-driving distances and spend money on the destination and make memories. Things that don't involve sitting in front of 1996 usenet broke-link archives looking for esoteric answers and going on wild goose chases over geo-dislocated, eddy current poke-a-probe technicians or "specialty type gurus" for whatever ancient oral Viking tradition the elders deem necessary for nominal mx actions on what effectively is a flying go-kart. The whole point of going with these lower-performing 4-banger spam cans was ease of mx-access and and fleet proliferation facilitating dispatch off-station. Recurring AD impositions and maintenance/inspection gatekeeping negates that motivation for me.

Everything comes to an end in life. It's been a practical chariot and a pretty good ride all things considered; it's a shame those rapacious puppy mill a-holes at ERAU came around and effed it up. But that's moral hazard for ya. I'm not beholden to sunk cost fallacies though: I'm perfectly capable and willing of walking away from a raw deal, which this one is shaping up to be, if the AD goes recurrent and not the rescindment route like the 1980s one did.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I am in the midst of selling half of my arrow to a partner. This may become an issue even though I don’t meet the requirements. If it becomes an issue, I’m going to pickle my engine, pull the flight instruments, radios, everything out of it and put it in a box and start building the RV 14 with proceeds from my 401(k). The Wife won’t be happy with all of my time in the shop but oh well. Figure that the arrow is paid for, no debt. $40K for the kit plus a paint job and I’ll be doing loops, rolls and cruising at 160 kts. makes me think...
Click to expand...

You and me both. I know my lane, so building is out for me. Currently hunting down built -6As. I'm over this nonsense.
 
hindsight2020 said:
***TL;DR Warning***


As to piper forum, they're a bunch of tinkering, circle-the-wagon, panicking worry warts over there. I don't contribute there anymore, as they're basically married to keeping an aging fac-built type come hell or high water. Type centric forums can be emotionally invested to a fault that way.

On a personal level, I'm not worried about failing the inspection, but if it does, I won't be putting a new spar. Y'all can have the other wing when I rip out and keep all the radios and CDIs for my next venture, and sell the engine/carcass to whoever gives me 15K and is willing to truck it out. Failing inspections is really not a return of interest on my radar.

The more salient point for me, is the high high HIGH degree of probability this thing goes recurrent. Thaaaaat's my real cue to exit, and the timing of such exit will depend on the interval I'm afforded before having to perturb my wing attachment again. Sticking with the airplane with that AD as a recurrent? Nope, not doing that. Not with a wing attachment hardware that was never intended to be perturbed with the frequency of a brake caliper.

I am DONE with labor-subrogating/logistics-intensive recurring-AD reindeer games. I'm not a retired avocational museum curator, I'm a semi-turnkey sole owner pilot who likes to fly upside down, take the fam across non-driving distances and spend money on the destination and make memories. Things that don't involve sitting in front of 1996 usenet broke-link archives looking for esoteric answers and going on wild goose chases over geo-dislocated, eddy current poke-a-probe technicians or "specialty type gurus" for whatever ancient oral Viking tradition the elders deem necessary for nominal mx actions on what effectively is a flying go-kart. The whole point of going with these lower-performing 4-banger spam cans was ease of mx-access and and fleet proliferation facilitating dispatch off-station. Recurring AD impositions and maintenance/inspection gatekeeping negates that motivation for me.

Everything comes to an end in life. It's been a practical chariot and a pretty good ride all things considered; it's a shame those rapacious puppy mill a-holes at ERAU came around and effed it up. But that's moral hazard for ya. I'm not beholden to sunk cost fallacies though: I'm perfectly capable and willing of walking away from a raw deal, which this one is shaping up to be, if the AD goes recurrent and not the rescindment route like the 1980s one did.
Click to expand...
Don’t sugarcoat it, tell us how you really feel. :D

Man, someday I want to meet you over a few beers.
 
I’m figuring that I’ll have to do it sooner or later so I might as well get it over the way sooner even if the partner doesn’t want it.
 
WannFly said:
mine just passed the inspection... time to open those bourbon
Click to expand...
What would you be drinking if it failed?

(I'm glad for you it didn't' but I couldn't pass up the straight line...)
 
Well, I spoke to the inspector, he did a bunch of them so far I think about 20 or so, none has failed, including a few that has over 15k hours on them
 
WannFly said:
Well, I spoke to the inspector, he did a bunch of them so far I think about 20 or so, none has failed, including a few that has over 15k hours on them
Click to expand...

meanwhile over at that type centric forum.....
200_d.gif

:rolleyes::D
 
hindsight2020 said:
meanwhile over at that type centric forum.....
200_d.gif

:rolleyes::D
Click to expand...

Well, I don’t blame the guy who is spending like 16k on one wing.... I agree there is some additional noise and hype around this over there, but kinda expected from type forums, after all nearly everyone flies a piper there lol.

In any case, it’s a piece of mind for many people including me.
 
Just to share a success story: my buddy has a Cherokee-6-260 with a hard-working history of 16,570 flight hours. Much of that was flying part 135 cargo in various locations in the Northeast, Alaska, and other challenging places. With a significant amount of off field and soft-field work. Some of the records were lost to history, but my closest estimate was nearly 10k "factored service hours."

It passed the eddy current inspection with flying colors!

Now back to flying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top