Obituary – Death – Cause of Death News : The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is inviting comments on a proposal regarding certain Piper model airplanes, following the issuance of AD 2020-26-16. This proposal aims to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes, prompted by an accident involving wing separation on a Piper Model PA-28R-201 airplane. The FAA is seeking written relevant data, views, or arguments on the proposal, with comments due by a specified closing date. Confidential Business Information (CBI) is exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and submissions containing CBI should be clearly designated as such.
The FAA has determined that further rulemaking is necessary, leading to the issuance of this proposed AD. The agency will consider all comments received and may amend the proposal based on feedback. Comments not designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. The proposal requires calculating the FSH for each main wing spar, inspecting the lower main wing spar bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any cracked main wing spar. Only certain airplanes with a higher risk for fatigue cracks, such as those with a significant history of operation in flight training or high-load environments, will be subject to the inspection requirements.
You may also like to watch : Who Is Kamala Harris? Biography - Parents - Husband - Sister - Career - Indian - Jamaican Heritage
Overall, the FAA is seeking input from stakeholders and interested parties on this proposal to ensure safety and compliance within the aviation industry. Comments can be submitted to the FAA following the instructions provided in the proposal document. The FAA has determined that additional action is needed regarding the inspection reports submitted by operators as required by AD 2020-26-16. This includes requiring repetitive inspections of the lower main wing spar bolt holes for crack(s) and non-crack damage, as well as replacement or modification of the main wing spar. Using CSH instead of FSH to determine times for required actions, the FAA also revised the applicability by removing certain serial-numbered Piper Model PA-32-300 airplanes and all Model PA-32R-300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT-300T airplanes, as they will be part of a separate rulemaking action. Additionally, Piper Model PA-32S-300 airplanes have been added to the applicability.
The FAA analyzed the accident history of airplanes affected by AD 2020-26-16 and other similar Piper airplanes. Fatigue cracking was present in the main wing spars of various Piper models that were involved in accidents, including Piper Model PA-28-181 and Model PA-28R-201 airplanes. The NTSB reports related to these accidents can be found on their website.
Following the release of AD 2020-26-16, over 2,800 bolt-hole eddy current inspection reports were received by the FAA and Piper, with some indicating fatigue cracks. Further detailed inspections revealed a mix of observations, including features not consistent with a crack, corrosion pitting, scratches, and threading marks. While not all indications were confirmed as fatigue cracks, corrective action is necessary to prevent the formation of such cracks.
In addition to non-crack hole damage, several cracks were found in and around the bolt holes during inspections, with some verified by the NTSB or Piper. Other cracks may be present among the unconfirmed reported indications, indicating the importance of thorough inspections and corrective measures. Overload cracks have also been discovered, highlighting the significance of operating airplanes within their limits to prevent such issues. The recent AD 2020-26-16 inspection report highlighted the need for additional inspections to ensure the long-term operational safety of the fleet. While the immediate safety concerns were addressed, ongoing inspections are necessary due to aging aircraft and potential crack development in the main wing spar bolt holes. Crack formation is influenced by various factors such as structural design, flight severity, and manufacturing processes. Over time, small imperfections can evolve into fatigue cracks, weakening the structure and compromising its original stress-handling capacity.
You may also like to watch: Is US-NATO Prepared For A Potential Nuclear War With Russia - China And North Korea?
The 2018 accident and subsequent AD 2020-26-16 inspections underscore the aging fleet’s susceptibility to fatigue cracking, necessitating intervention to prevent critical structural failures. Repetitive inspections are crucial for detecting and addressing detectable cracks before they pose a significant risk. The FAA and Piper have acknowledged that inspections alone may not suffice in maintaining acceptable long-term safety levels, eventually requiring spar replacement or modification. Piper has introduced service actions to mitigate inspection-induced damage and ensure proper care of bolt holes.
The proposed AD outlines specific requirements to address the unsafe condition, reduce inspection burdens on operators, and limit the number of necessary inspections. Grouping airplane models with similar structural designs for extended inspections is crucial, considering factors like spar cold bending and residual stress in bolt-hole areas. Piper’s investigation into residual stresses further emphasizes the need for comprehensive inspections and potential modifications to enhance fleet safety and longevity.
In conclusion, regular inspections for fatigue cracks and other structural anomalies are essential for ensuring continued operational safety and preventing catastrophic failures. By implementing corrective actions and prioritizing thorough inspections, operators can proactively address potential safety risks and maintain the airworthiness of their aircraft fleet. This investigation has led to a significant change in the manufacturing process of spars for PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes. All new manufactured spars will now have machined dihedral bends to eliminate residual stresses in the critical area. Despite differences in operational loads and reinforcing structures among airplane models, they all share the same baseline spar with cold bent dihedral. The proposed requirements categorize models into two groups based on operational loads, with a separate action for a third group under a different proposed rulemaking action.
The primary usage profile of the spar and airplane greatly influences the potential for fatigue cracking in the main wing spar bolt holes. Flight instruction and personal use are the two primary usage types, with flight instruction involving more stress on the spar due to lower altitudes, gusts, and frequent takeoffs and landings. An equation established in a previous AD accounts for usage differences and determines inspection timing based on the type of usage.
The fleet corrective actions include initial and repetitive inspections to determine when the spar should be modified or replaced. The FAA and Piper collaborated to develop specific timing for these actions using service data and analysis of the structure’s physical properties to estimate crack formation and growth. The proposed inspection timing estimates aim to locate cracks before they reach a critical size.
Overall, the investigation has led to improved safety measures for PA-28 and PA-32 airplanes, with changes in manufacturing processes and inspection requirements to prevent fatigue cracking in the main wing spar bolt holes. These measures aim to ensure the continued airworthiness of these aircraft models. A tiered inspection approach has been proposed for Group 1 airplanes to reduce the burden on lower Total Time in Service (TIS) aircraft. This approach suggests inspecting less used airplanes less frequently, as they pose the least risk of developing a fatigue crack. As the age of the airplane increases, the risk of a crack developing also increases, leading to more frequent inspections. However, frequent inspections are not practical due to the risks involved.
As airplanes age, the risk of cracks developing increases, necessitating more frequent inspections to detect cracks before they reach a critical length. Fleet-wide aging increases the risk of cracks being missed even with frequent inspections. To mitigate this risk, spar retirement or modification is proposed for the highest age spars in the fleet.
Recent inspections of a Model PA-28-181 airplane revealed cracks earlier than anticipated, prompting the FAA to adjust Group 1 inspection schedules. This adjustment was made to ensure cracks are found before reaching a critical size. The FAA also increased the value in the Critical Stress Height (CSH) to mitigate the burden on Group 1 airplanes resulting from reduced inspection times.
Piper has developed a reinforcement kit as an alternative to spar retirement for certain Group 1 airplanes, extending the life of the main wing spar and reducing the frequency of inspections. New wing spars with machined dihedral bends are available, eliminating the need for inspections. Failure to address potential cracks in wing spars could result in the wing separating from the fuselage in flight.
The FAA has issued this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) based on the determination that the unsafe condition described is likely to exist on other products of the same design. The FAA has reviewed Piper SB No. 1372 in making this determination. This material provides procedures for reviewing airplane maintenance records to determine the number of 100-hour inspections completed on the airplane and any record of main wing spar replacement. It also includes calculating service hours, conducting eddy current inspections of the main wing spar bolt holes for damage, repairing bolt holes with non-cracking damage, installing a main wing spar reinforcement kit for certain airplanes, and replacing the main wing spar if necessary.
The proposed AD outlined in this material would remove certain serial-numbered Model PA-32-300 airplanes and add serial-numbered Model PA-28R-200 and PA-28R-201 airplanes to the applicability. It would also require reporting inspection results to Piper and the FAA if any cracks are found during inspections.
One key difference between this proposed AD and the referenced material is the value used to determine the CSH for Group 1 airplanes. Instead of using a value of 2 as specified in the simplified formula, this AD would require using a value of 3. Additionally, the compliance times for inspections and main wing spar replacement specified in this AD differ from those in Piper SB No. 1372.
The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 10,665 airplanes of U.S. registry. The estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD include reviewing airplane maintenance records and determining the CSH, with an estimated cost of $255 per records review and a total cost of $2,719,575 for U.S. operators.
Overall, this material provides detailed procedures and requirements for airplane maintenance record reviews, inspections, and repairs to ensure the safety and airworthiness of affected airplanes. The agency is unable to determine the exact number of airplanes that may require the specified actions due to the lack of available data. The on-condition costs for these actions vary, with eddy current inspections costing $960 per inspection, report inspections costing $85 per report, repair of holes with non-crack damage costing $190, replacement of main wing spars costing $14,383, and installation of modification kits costing $20,150 per wing spar.
The Paperwork Reduction Act states that individuals are not required to respond to information collection unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The FAA’s authority for issuing rules on aviation safety is outlined in Title 49 of the United States Code, with this rulemaking falling under Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701.
The FAA has determined that the proposed Airworthiness Directive (AD) would not have federalism implications and would not significantly impact intrastate aviation in Alaska or have a significant economic impact on small entities. The proposed amendment to 14 CFR part 39 aims to address unsafe conditions that may exist or develop on aircraft identified in the rulemaking action.
Overall, the proposed AD focuses on promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing necessary regulations for safety. The key subjects covered in this rulemaking include air transportation, aircraft, aviation safety, incorporation by reference, and safety. The agency’s goal is to ensure the safety and airworthiness of all aircraft affected by the proposed actions. The authority citation for part 39 includes references to 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701. The FAA has made amendments to § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-26-16 and adding a new airworthiness directive for Piper Aircraft, Inc. The comments for this AD must be submitted by November 7, 2024. This AD replaces the previous AD 2020-26-16 and applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes with specific model and serial numbers as outlined in the document. The AD addresses the detection and correction of fatigue cracks in the lower main wing spar cap bolt holes to prevent a wing separation from the fuselage during flight. Compliance with this AD is required within the specified timeframes. Additionally, specific definitions are provided for Group 1 airplanes as identified in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1372 dated April 3, 2024. This AD is crucial for maintaining the safety and airworthiness of Piper aircraft and preventing potential accidents due to wing separation issues. Stay informed and comply with the requirements outlined in this airworthiness directive to ensure the continued safe operation of Piper aircraft. For more details and specific information, refer to the official document provided by the FAA. This AD (Airworthiness Directive) requires the review of airplane maintenance records and the determination of calculated service hours for each main wing spar. Group 2 airplanes are identified in Piper SB No. 1372 and Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. Within 30 days of the effective date of this AD and at intervals not exceeding 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 12 months, owners/operators must review maintenance records to determine the number of 100-hour inspections completed and any wing spar replacements in accordance with Piper SB No. 1372.
After completing the maintenance record review, the calculated service hours (CSH) for each main wing spar must be determined using the specified formula for the airplane group. Recalculation of CSH is required after each 100-hour or annual inspection to determine compliance time for subsequent actions. If a factored service hour (FSH) inspection was previously done using specified Piper Service Bulletins, that data can be used to calculate CSH for the next inspection.
Figure 1 to paragraph (h)(2) provides the CSH calculation for Group 1 airplanes, with a note indicating a value of 3 is used in this calculation, different from the value of 2 in Piper SB No. 1372 for Group 1 airplanes. Compliance with these requirements must be documented in accordance with relevant FAA regulations.
Overall, this AD aims to ensure the safety and airworthiness of affected airplanes by accurately assessing the condition of main wing spars through comprehensive maintenance record reviews and CSH calculations. It is crucial for owners/operators to adhere to the specified intervals and procedures outlined in the AD to maintain the structural integrity of the aircraft.
Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes
Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes
Are you familiar with Airworthiness Directives (ADs) and how they impact Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes? In this article, we will dive into the world of ADs and explore how they affect the airworthiness of Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes.
What are Airworthiness Directives and why are they important for Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes? ADs are issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to address unsafe conditions in aircraft. These directives are mandatory and must be complied with to ensure the continued airworthiness of an aircraft. For Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes, ADs play a crucial role in maintaining safety standards and preventing potential hazards.
How do Airworthiness Directives impact the maintenance of Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes? When an AD is issued for a Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplane, owners and operators must take action to address the specific issue outlined in the directive. This may involve inspecting, repairing, or replacing certain components of the aircraft. Failure to comply with an AD can result in serious consequences, including grounding of the aircraft.
What steps should owners and operators of Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes take to ensure compliance with Airworthiness Directives? It is important for owners and operators to stay informed about ADs that apply to their specific aircraft. Regularly checking the FAA website for updates and consulting with a certified mechanic can help ensure that all ADs are addressed in a timely manner.
In conclusion, Airworthiness Directives are a critical aspect of maintaining the safety and airworthiness of Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes. By staying informed and taking proactive measures to comply with ADs, owners and operators can help ensure the continued safe operation of their aircraft.
