alioth wrote:
The UK CAA have published a proposed AD for this:
Apart from references to the authority etc. this proposed AD appears identical to the AD proposed by EASA two days ago.
I really don’t understand the rational for the “EASA factored service hours”. The FAA factored service hours attempted to identify aircraft used for training, but I don’t see that here. How is the number of flight hours/year relevant?
I heard the other day that a PA28 in southern Sweden did not make it through the AD. No idea what action they will take though.
I don’t know if this has been posted before, but isn’t there an approved repair kit for the spar?
I have some photos (not for posting) of the Socata solution for TB20 wing spar corrosion. They charge a few k for the design and then you buy the right grade of aluminium, some special screws, and you attach these reinforcements to the spar. Much much easier than replacing the spar, obviously.
Peter
At the moment spar replacement is the only option.
it looks like there are some serious maintenence induced problems coming up from the eddy current inpsections in the US
Apparently many mechanics either installed wrong length bolts and now piper it seems issued a warning that they shipped a wrong batch of 5000 washers which when installed, could create dents on the spar surface which can eventually act as stress raisers. There is a huge discussion on this in the PA28 Spard AD facebook group.
Snoopy wrote:
EASA AD published
That’s a revision of the original AD which was published about a month ago. They have clarified how to compute the factored service hours as they got reports of the AD being applied when not necessary.
Thanks Airborne
They sure like to keep it complicated
One of the victims of this AD.
The Piper build quality and design are terrible though. Steel wing attachment brackets which corrode…
That’s very sad to see.
It looks like it’s outside to be ‘punished’ ….out for everyone to see, rather than quietly waiting in a hangar.
