FROM THE PUBLISHER
A WING AND A PRAYER — PIPER SPAR AD UPDATE
A recent crash of a Florida family of four on a trip to a funeral in Indiana in a Piper PA-31T has brought the focus of many in the General Aviation community on a Proposed Piper wing inspection AD focused on inspection of Piper PA-28 (several models) and PA-32 wing spars since at least 2018. Although the data on what might have caused this accident is only just being collected on this accident, as well as there being a suspicion of a line of thunderstorms in the area that may have impacted this particular flight — a wing of this aircraft was found separated and laying in a field. It’s worth noting that the PA-31 is not listed as an affected model in the notice of proposed rulemaking. However, this does nothing to quell the nerves of Piper owners in the aviation community. This accident came only three
PUBLISHER
GREG NAPERT
gnapert@DOMmagazine.com
days after the FAA extended the comment period on a proposed Spar Inspection Airworthiness Directive via a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which the FAA revised its original plan by removing some PA-28 models (notably the PA–28-140, PA–28-150, PA–28-160, PA–28-161, and PA–28-180) and adding the PA- 32R-300, PA-32RT-300, and PA-32RT- 300T to the list of applicable aircraft. The original Proposed AD was issued in 2018 after a fatal accident in which a wing separated during a flight in which Pilot Zack Capra, a 25-year- old Navy veteran was performing take offs and landings for FAA examiner John Azma in a Piper Arrow owned by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. It was determined by the NTSB that the cause of the wing separating at 900 feet AGL was metal fatigue. The NPRM originally focused on inspection criteria for a “difficult to access” area of the wing spar on these aircraft. The procedure recommended
50 |
DOMmagazine.com | july 2020
in the NPRM specifies removal of lower main wing spar bolts and an Eddy-Current inspection of the spar through those specific bolt holes. Aircraft affected by the AD are determined not only by make and model, but by use of the aircraft as a training aircraft, as well as the number of hours flown in specific flight environments. A formula for calculating whether or not the aircraft is impacted by the AD is provided in the NPRM. Additionally, the SNPRM addresses the use of “used” spars for replacing spars that are found to have cracks. The FAA is now requiring the use of only new parts for repair. As some these aircraft have been
around more than 30 years, with many of them operating in excess of 10,000 hours and often used in training environments and/or in corrosive environments, there are many owners who are taking the initiative to have the eddy current inspection done on their aircraft — if nothing else for piece-of-mind.
As I scan some of the Facebook
forums and Piper owner groups, I am frequently seeing posts asking for where this eddy-current inspection can be conducted post-haste. From a business perspective there are more than 8,000 aircraft in the industry that will be in need of this inspection. Perhaps this justifies the purchase of eddy-current inspection equipment and the proper training to accomplish the task. For a complete read of the proposed AD and to comment on the AD, go to
https://beta.regulations.gov/ document/FAA-2018-1046-0180. The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by July 20, 2020. Thanks for reading.
Greg Napert, Proud to be an A&P
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
