|
Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
22 messages
• Page 1 sur 2 • 1, 2
Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?La FAA est en train d’étudier à savoir s’ils vont produire une Directive de Navigabilité (AD) contre les PIPER CHEEROKE, ARROW & CHEEROKE SIX (PA-28-XXX et PA-32-XXX) suite à l’accident survenu en Floride le 4 avril 2018, sur un PIPER ARROW (PA-28R-201) de l’« Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) » à l’aéroport de Daytona Beach International. Au moment de l’accident l’avion avait moins de 8,000 heures de vol et n’avait que 25 heures depuis l’inspection annuelle. Lorsque une aile se détachas de l’avion près de l’enplenture, au décollage à environs 900 pieds AGL après un posé décollé. Il fût déterminé que l’aile se sépara due à de multitude fractures due à la fatigue dans l’aluminium du longeron principale qui avait débuté aux alentours des trous des boulons d’attache d’aile.
Cette procédure pourrait s’appliquer à environ 20,000 avions aux États-Unis seulement et combien (?) au CANADA? L’inspection des longerons principales s’appliquerons au avion ayant 5,000 heure et plus de vol depuis l’origine ou depuis le remplacement des ou du longeron(s) principale. Selon l’article, l’inspection devrait prendre 1,5 heures de mécanicien (à $90.00/ l’heure x 1,5 heures = $135.00). Cependant s’il faut changer un (1) « SPAR » alors ça va coûter cher un estimé en dollar américain ($USD) de $8,260USD ($11,375.08 CDN). Pour plus de détail, S.V.P. lire l’article en Anglais si bas. Proposed AD Could Affect 20,000 Pipers, December 24, 2018 KATE O'CONNOR (AVWEB Magazine) The FAA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the adoption of an airworthiness directive (AD) that would require wing spar inspections on nearly 20,000 Piper aircraft. According to the FAA, the AD comes after an investigation into the report of a fatigue crack on a Piper PA-28R-201 “revealed that repeated high-load operating conditions accelerated the fatigue crack growth in the lower main wing spar cap.” The FAA also noted that the area where the crack was found was “inaccessible for a visual inspection.” The proposed AD would cover PA-28 and PA-32 aircraft with wing spar structures similar to the PA-28R-201. It would apply to aircraft that have 5,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), have had a main wing spar replaced with a spar with more than zero hours TIS or have missing or incomplete maintenance records. The AD would require “calculating the factored service hours for each main wing spar to determine when an inspection is required, inspecting the lower main wing spar bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any cracked main wing spar.” The FAA estimates that 19,696 U.S.-registered aircraft would be affected. According to the administration, the inspection would take approximately 1.5 hours and cost $147.50 USD ($202.50 CDN) per wing spar. Estimated cost of replacing a wing spar is $8,260USD ($11,375.08 CDN) per spar. The proposed AD is an interim action. The FAA has stated that it could initiate further rulemaking based on the data gathered by inspection reports. The AD is open for comments until Feb. 4, 2019. Comments can be made and the complete text of the proposed AD (FAA-2018-1046) can be viewed at regulations.gov. NTSB Report Out on Fatal Embry Riddle Crash The board issued its preliminary findings on the crash. Here’s what to expect next. Published April 20, 2018, (Plane&Pilot Magazine) The NTSB has issued its preliminary, factual report on the crash of a 2007 Piper Arrow PA-28-R201 on April 4th, 2018. Zachary Capra, 25, an Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) student was taking a checkride with 61-year-old FAA designated flight examiner John Azma. On takeoff following a touch and go landing on Runway 25L at Daytona Beach International Airport the plane was climbing out and at approximately 900 feet agl it went out of control and crashed, killing both occupants instantly. Investigators immediately discovered that the plane’s wing had detached in flight, causing the Arrow to go out of control. In its report the NTSB found that the wing that broke off suffered from metal fatigue in multiple locations. At the time of the accident, the plane had just less than 8,000 hours total time and had accumulated just over 25 hours since its last annual inspection. In its report the NTSB found that “left wing separated from the fuselage near the wing root and exhibited mid-span buckling of the surface skin…..and that ..”preliminary examination of the left wing main spar revealed that more than 80 percent of the lower spar caps and portion s of the forward and aft spar doublers exhibited fracture features consistent with metal fatigue.” In the wake of the accident, ERAU grounded its fleet of Arrows indefinitely. The FAA has yet to issue guidance for increased inspections of the affected aircraft models, though it is likely that the FAA will issue an AD for inspections of the wing of some range of PA-28 aircraft at some point soon. Dernière édition par VMF-214 le Ven 28 Déc, 2018 13:26, édité 1 fois.
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Si lors de l’inspection avant vol (Preflight Insp.), l’aile bouge comme la vidéo le montre! Je garderais une petite gène d’aller faire une envolé! Quant pensée vous? Selon l’article, l’inspection devrait prendre 1,5 heures de mécanicien (à $90.00/ l’heure x 1,5 heures = $135.00). Cependant s’il faut changer un (1) « SPAR » alors ça va coûter cher un estimé en dollar américain ($USD) de $8,260USD ($11,375.08 CDN). VMF-214
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?les bibittes ont 50, 60 ans d'usure….c'est pourquoi les inspections sont ''vitales''
comme dans prévenir la mort…. si ont y regarde de plis près on vois que l'aluminium pliée (pour lui donner le la force) c'est pas si épais….alors, une bonne vérification pis si la machine d'école a fait plusieurs ''hard landing'' alors, là, ….
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Il y a aussi les Service Bulletin de Piper à ce questionné, qui sont souvent pas prit au sérieux et pas fait, même ignoré tout simplement. Dans le cas ici il avait de Piper cinq Service Bulletin de niveau « COMPLIANCE MANDATORY » Le SB1304, SB1244C, SB1006, SB977 et SB789B. Ces trois SB sont relié directement a l’inspection et la réparation des spares des ailes. Les première édition de certain de ces Service Bulletin date des année 80 le problème était connu depuis un bout de Piper. Le pourquoi que c’est SB ont été publié. Comment qu’un avion d’école peut ce ramasse avec des troubles de perdre une aile en vole. Faut croire que les Service Bulletin ont pas été fait tout simplement. Les Service Bulletin des manufacturier sont des documents bien fait avec tout les détails pour maintenir l’avion en état. C’est pas rare que le FAA et Transport Canada dans leur publication des AD’s qu’ils ce refaire directement au Service Bulletin du manufacturier pour que le AD (Airworthiness Directive) soie appliqué sur l’avion. Et c’est pas rare que des Service Bulletin de type MANDATORY de structure devienne des AD’s. Pourquoi attendre le AD. https://www.piper.com/technical-publications-documents/ Neil
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Bien dit Neil, et merci de la référence pour les informations sur les « PIPER »! La même chose au sujet des « Directives de Navigation (Airworthines Directives « AD ») » sur les aéronefs de construction amateur. Ici je m’explique, même s’y les "AD's" ne s’applique par aux aéronefs construit sous le Chapitre 549 du RAC. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi une combinaison d’accessoires ou une composante, qui est potentiellement dangereux sur un aéronef certifié, ne le serais pas sur un aéronef de « Construction Amateur (Amateur Built « A/B ») »? Mes deux cents, VMF-214
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?mais le réel problème, si je comprends la situation, est qu'en plus de ne pas être appliqué tout le temps,
les SB ne deviennent pas toujours des AD dont l'application est incontournable je me souviens lors de l'achat de mon poêle, j'avait minutieusement fait le tour du site de Turbo Meca et Airbus pour voir les directives, les SB, et ensuite Trasp Cda pour les AD plusieurs concordences, mais des fois non mais heureusement, la machine propriété du DNR de la NE….ils avaient la sécurité en priorité tout était a jour…... dans le cas du 44, mon mécano chez Passport appliquait et recommandait de les appliquer avant qu'iles ne deviennent AD et je lui en ai été toujours reconnaissant la morale de cette histoire, si vous avez un jou jou de luxe, ayez la discipline pour y mettre tous les soins nécessaires sur ce , Bonne Année a tous, beaux vols et aventures, et jouissez a plein de chaque petite excursion
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsKaNEt1A2Q
Beau cas de corrosion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHNw289csE Neil
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?Merci Neil pour les liens vidéos.
C'est assez épeurant celui de la corrosion du spar. C'est comme si le spar était en train de s'affaisser sur lui-même. Mais dis-moi, il est facile de trouver le liste de ADs de notre machine à partir de du site de TC et celui de la FAA, mais qu'en est-il de tous les SB pour un modèle de machine?? Peut-on les consulter facilement?? Par exemple, sur le C140 on a eu un SB qui est sorti pour remplacer la bracket centrale qui tient les ceintures abdominales. Je l'ai su parce que je suis actif sur les site des C120 et C140 et j'ai commandé la pièce et on l'a remplacée, mais qu'en est-il des autres SB?? J'aimerais bien y jeter un oeil et être préventif si j'en trouve. Martin
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Pour les SB de Cessna il faut s'abonné chez Cessna Neil
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Bonjour Martin Je viens de voir qui a une version gratuite pour les SB de Cessna, pas simple mais oui. http://pubs.txtav.com first visitor créer ton profil log toi Technical Publication Service Information Cessna piston model search après tu va pouvoir cliké sur le numero du document pour le voir dit moi si tu as réussi Neil voici exemple http://pittss2b.com/Cessna140SBMandatory.pdf http://pittss2b.com/140all.pdf
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?un bon mécano vas vous le dire, de la poudre sur l'alu., ou la pièce est piquée…...mauvaise augure…..
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Merci beaucoup Neil pour tous les détails. J'essaie ça et je te reviens! Merci aussi pour les PDF...tu viens de me donner pas mal de lecture...j'aime ça! Martin (FJAR)
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?[quote="Neil"]
dit moi si tu as réussi Neil /quote] Super extra. Merci Neil. C'est fait ça fonctionne très bien, j'ai accès. Gros merci Martin ----
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?
Si tu aime la lecture de Cessna, voici la dernière version du Service Manual de la Série 100 avec les revision très importante 7 et 8. Ceux avec de toutes nouvelles règle sur le temps vie sur la structure qui n'y était avant. Pour les 120, 140 et 170 il faut suivre comme guide comme écrit a la page i du service manual. Dans le future tout va ce joué sur ceux qui auront fait cette documentation (REV 7 et REV 8) et ceux qu'il auront pas fait pour appuyé le prix de vente et la qualité de l'avion. http://pittss2b.com/D138-1-13.pdf http://pittss2b.com/D138-1-13REV7.pdf http://pittss2b.com/D138-1-13REV8.pdf Neil
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?Pour appuyer encore plus ce que j'ai écrit a propos comment un école peux perdre un aile en vol.
Le FAA a émit en 2011 une série de Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) au propriétaire et au opérateur https://www.askbob.aero/sites/default/f ... -11-12.pdf https://www.askbob.aero/sites/default/f ... -11-10.pdf https://www.askbob.aero/sites/default/f ... -11-11.pdf https://www.askbob.aero/sites/default/f ... -11-14.pdf https://www.askbob.aero/sites/default/f ... -11-13.pdf Neil
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?J'ai eu un piper pendant plusieurs annees et les mecanos consiencieux ont toujours fait l'inspection sur ce type d'avion afin de s'assurer de la securite et de la presence de corossion a cet effet.
J'ai probablement eu affaire a d'excellent mecanos! J'ai par contre vu un appareil similaire decolle de mascouche avec des ailes basses et aterrir en catastrophe... le fameux mecano avait pose les ailerons a l'envers (apparament)! On a beau faire confiance mais rien de mieux que de lire et de cotoyer des professionel serieux et responsables! Bon vol!
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?NTSB Urges Piper Spar AD Changes BY RUSS NILES The NTSB is urging the FAA to back off on its one-size-fits-all approach to potential wing spar cracking in 20,000 Piper singles, saying the cure may be more dangerous than the condition in some cases. According to the Piper Owners Society, the board says many of the aircraft swept up in the AD are likely at low risk for developing cracks and the pulling everything apart to look at the spars on those aircraft may actually increase the risk of failure. It says the heavier and higher performance planes that use the spar design, including the PA-28-235 (Cherokee 235) model, all PA-28R (retractable gear) series airplanes and the PA-32-260 and PA-32-300 (Cherokee Six) model airplanes, are mostly at risk. “The NTSB notes that the data showed that the risk of fatigue cracking on all affected PA-28 series airplanes other than the PA-28-235 is significantly lower over their assumed useful life,” the board said in a letter to the FAA. “We are concerned that the risks associated with disturbing the joint to complete the inspection may outweigh the risk of fatigue cracking in all affected PA-28 series airplanes other than the PA-28-235 and urge the FAA to reexamine the applicability of the proposed AD.” EAA and AOPA have also weighed in, saying there are less invasive and expensive ways to address the potential problems than a blanket inspection AD. The AD was prompted by the failure of a spar in an Embry-Riddle Arrow in 2018 that killed a commercial pilot candidate on his checkride and the FAA examiner doing the test.
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?Bon résumé des détails autour de la proposition d'AD pour les wing spar sur les PA28.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4bTFtgR9V0
Re: Possible Inspection à venir sur les PIPER PA-28 & PA-32?PA-28R-201, Main Spar, Fatigue Cracking in Fatal ERAU Crash, April 2018, 2019 Sept. 05.
NTSB Cites Fatigue Cracking In Fatal ERAU Crash. Kate O'Connor, September 5, 2019 The NTSB found that the crash of an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Piper PA-28R-201 that killed two people in April 2018 was caused by extensive fatigue cracking in the left-wing main spar, according to the final report (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... m&IType=FA) issued by the board on Tuesday. As AVweb, the left wing separated from the aircraft shortly after a touch-and-go at Florida’s Daytona Beach International Airport (DAB). A second ERAU Piper was found to have a similar fatigue crack in its left-wing main spar when the school’s fleet was examined after the accident. The board noted that no anomalies in materials or construction of the wing spars were found on either aircraft. “The NTSB concludes that, due to flight training maneuvers, significant operation at low altitudes, and frequent landing cycles, the accident airplane (and its sister airplane in the operator’s fleet) likely experienced landing, gust, and maneuver loads that were more severe than expected for training aircraft,” the NTSB said in its summary (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... m&IType=FA) of the report. “Therefore, the low-altitude flight training and frequent landing environment likely resulted in the accident airplane accumulating damaging stress cycles at a faster rate than a personal use airplane.” 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. The NTSB further established that, due to its location, the fatigue cracking would not have been visible from either the interior or exterior of the airplane. In response to the potential for such cracking to go unnoticed, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... -airplanes) eight months after the accident which suggested required wing spar inspections for nearly 20,000 Piper PA-28 series aircraft. The NTSB said it had “expressed … support of the proposed AD’s inspection requirements but urged the FAA to reexamine the proposed AD’s applicability to certain airplanes based on airplane usage.” Comments closed on the NPRM in February 2019, but an AD has not yet been issued. Proposed AD Could Affect 20,000 Pipers Kate O'Connor, December 21, 2018 The FAA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the adoption of an airworthiness directive (AD) that would require wing spar inspections on nearly 20,000 Piper aircraft. According to the FAA, the AD comes after an investigation into the report of a fatigue crack on a Piper PA-28R-201 “revealed that repeated high-load operating conditions accelerated the fatigue crack growth in the lower main wing spar cap.” The FAA also noted that the area where the crack was found was “inaccessible for a visual inspection.” The proposed AD would cover PA-28 and PA-32 aircraft with wing spar structures similar to the PA-28R-201. It would apply to aircraft that have 5,000 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), have had a main wing spar replaced with a spar with more than zero hours TIS or have missing or incomplete maintenance records. The AD would require “calculating the factored service hours for each main wing spar to determine when an inspection is required, inspecting the lower main wing spar bolt holes for cracks, and replacing any cracked main wing spar.” The FAA estimates that 19,696 U.S.-registered aircraft would be affected. According to the administration, the inspection would take approximately 1.5 hours and cost $147.50 per wing spar. Estimated cost of replacing a wing spar is $8,260 per spar. The proposed AD is an interim action. The FAA has stated that it could initiate further rulemaking based on the data gathered by inspection reports. The AD is open for comments until Feb. 4, 2019. Comments can be made and the complete text of the proposed AD (FAA-2018-1046) can be viewed atregulations.gov. NTSB: ERAU Crash An In-flight Breakup Kate O'Connor, April 18, 2018. The NTSB is officially calling the fatal crash at Embry-Riddle earlier this month an in-flight breakup, although its report thus far is only preliminary. The accident occurred on April 4 and killed ERAU student Zach Capra and FAA DPE John S. Azma. Several eyewitnesses reported seeing the left wing of the Piper PA-28 Arrow separate from the aircraft while it was climbing out after a touch-and-go at Daytona Beach International Airport (DAB). The wing was fo und about 200 feet from the main wreckage. Although the investigation is ongoing, the NTSB’s report notes that “preliminary examination of the left wing main spar revealed that more than 80% of the lower spar cap and portions of the forward and aft spar web doublers exhibited fracture features consistent with metal fatigue.” Fatigue cracking was also discovered in the same location on the right wing. No signs of corrosion or other pre-accident damage to the wings have been found, the NTSB said. The accident airplane was manufactured in 2007 and had 7,690 hours on the airframe. The plane’s most recent annual was completed on March 21, just 14 days before the accident. According to the report, Capra was taking his commercial practical examination at the time of the crash. The rest of Embry-Riddle’s Arrows are grounded with no word yet on plans to return them to service. Two Killed In ERAU Plane Crash Kate O'Connor, April 4, 2018. An Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University student pilot and FAA examiner were killed Wednesday morning when the Piper PA-28 they were flying crashed shortly after takeoff from Daytona Beach International Airport. The aircraft impacted in a pasture and some witnesses said they saw the aircraft’s wing separate from the fuselage before the crash. The wing was reportedly located 150-200 yards away from the primary wreckage site. No distress call was received prior to the crash. This is the first fatal accident involving an ERAU plane at either Embry-Riddle campus since the 2004 midair collision involving two ERAU-Prescott faculty members practicing an aerobatics routine. The last fatal accident involving an ERAU training flight occurred in 1999. “We are cooperating fully with the investigation of this tragic accident,” ERAU VP of marketing and communications Anne Botteri said in a statement to The Daytona Beach News-Journal. “We will be releasing further information as soon as it’s available.” The victims have been identified as ERAU student and U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Capra and FAA pilot examiner John S. Azma. The FAA and NTSB will be on-site to investigate.
22 messages
• Page 1 sur 2 • 1, 2
Retourner vers Nouvelles aéronautiques générales Qui est en ligneUtilisateurs parcourant ce forum: Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 2 invités |
|