Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:24 AM - Re: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise (Dean White)
2. 10:42 AM - Re: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise (flyv35b)
3. 03:29 PM - Re: Jaguar Cowling questions Part 5 - painting (bvnj@yahoo.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise |
Good morning,
I've seen both arguments here and putting on a lawyer hat would argue
that
while the AD points to the SB for the required ACTIONS, it fairly
clearly
states the FREQUENCY of those actions on its own. So it is easy to
consider
this a one-time item, especially using the common sense applied by
Cliff.
Yes, it is ambiguous and Gary should know that the government always
expects
us to do better than they do - they do not lead by example, instead they
follow poorly.
My 2 cents worth for you all,
Dean
Dean White (Tiger N81166)
Edmonds, WA 98026
dmwhite@e3ra.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-teamgrumman-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Vogt
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the
wise
Thanks Kevin,
I've been doing them each 500 hours. I even have a calculation in my
data
base for each of the planes I maintain showing # hours until the next
inspection. It's a shame the AD isn't written to address the frequency
of
inspections.
As part of a PMA application I had to submit drawings that were clear
and
non-ambigious. Anyone should be able to take a drawing and make a part.
I
think the least the FAA could do would be make sure Airworthiness
Directives
were clear.
Thanks for the feedback.
Gary
_____
From: Kevin Lancaster <jkevinl@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, June 13, 2011 7:19:23 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise
Hi folks. This question was brought to my attention and I thought it
sounded like it needed to be cleared up - Maybe I can help.
First, be sure you are reading the latest revisions of the SB and AD.
There
were some clarifications in the revision intended to help clarify the
proper
compliance issues here.
As you know, Service Bulletins are not mandatory. They are "words to
the
wise."
The process the FAA uses to make them mandatory is to reference them in
the
Administrative Directive.
So in this case, the AD makes the SB mandatory.
Page 7 of the AD contains the following Question and Answer:
"Does This AD Incorporate Any Material by Reference?
(g) You must do the actions required by this AD following the
instructions
in American General
Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. SB-185-A, Revision A, dated
January 10, 2005."
That means that the SB is mandatory and if you read the SB it clearly
requires recurring checks every 500 hours.
Options? Back to the AD:
"May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?
(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD
by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes
otherwise, send your request to
your principal inspector."
The question Gary asks about the "unless already done" statement (in the
Compliance column of the chart explaining how to address this issue) is
a
good one. The statement applies to the initial inspection required
within
the next 100 hours Time in Service (TIS). I agree that his is
confusing.
Remember that when the AD was revised it was likely that the inspection
had
already been done as the original AD had already required the inspection
and
the SB (word to the wise) was out prior to that - the intent was not to
make
everyone who had just inspected their planes do it again within the next
100
hrs. Once the initial inspection was done, the next column instructs
the
reader to follow the SB going forward.
As for the source of the AD, Cliff is close but he has his stories a
little
mixed up. The planes that were damaged by hail were at Embry Riddle's
Prescott campus and E.R. performed the wing panel replacements and that
had
no bearing on this AD. There were never any planes hail damaged on the
ramp
at American General.
According to Loyd, who helped author the AD, it originated out of a
flight
school in the UK that had removed and replaced the wings without
properly
shimming them. They had 3 (yes, 3!!) instances of spar bolt fretting
due to
improper shimming, over torqueing or some other undetermined practice.
There
was also one instance reported in the US on an earlier model Grumman
which
is how they were all swept up in the FAA net and included in the AD.
So the "word to the wise" is, follow the SB, check the bolts within 100
hours and every 500 hours thereafter - I do. And, "word to the legal"
per
the AD, perform the inspections according to the SB which says to check
them
every 500 hours. Being legal is up to you and your A&P, but please be
wise!
J. Kevin Lancaster, President
True Flight Aerospace, LLC
----- Original Message ----- From: "flyv35b" <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A
<flyv35b@minetfiber.com>
>
> I agree. The AD is NOT recurring. If it was performed properly and
the
wing spar clearance is correct and/or was shimmed properly if needed
then
that doesn't change and the only thing beneficial would be to check the
spar
bolt torque to see if they are secure. There have been some bolt
failures,
possibly due to loose fitting wing spars which worked back and forth and
apparently loaded the bolts causing fatigue failure. And of course bolts
could have been over torqued. The AD came about after American General
replaced a bunch of wings that were hail damaged at the factory sitting
outside. Draw your own conclusions.
>
> Cliff
>
> On 6/11/2011 2:31 AM, Deems Herring wrote:
>> The AD must be completed . Service bulletins are never mandatory for
>> part 91 operations. The AD reference to the SB is simply giving you
an
>> acceptable way to
>> accomplish the requirements of the AD. As always you can apply for
>> permission to use an alternative method of compliance and if approved
>> you would never be required to perform the actions in the SB. Only
the
>> FAA can make actions mandatory. Whether it is prudent to perform SB
185A
>> on a repetitive basis is a different question.
>>
>> Deems
>>
>> teamgrumman@yahoo.com
>> Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A
>> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:50:30 -0700
>> To: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Did this go out to the TeamGrumman-list? I thought someone wouldhave
a
>> comment.
>> *
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise |
My thoughts on some of this:
1. It used to be that an AD note would state whether or not the AD was
recurring in the AD no matter if a SB was referenced or not. The
original AD95-19-15 was never considered to be recurring to my knowledge.
2. AD95-19-15R1 makes the following statements:
"What events have caused this AD? The FAA has received four report
(three in England and one in the United States) of wing attach shoulder
bolt failure on Tiger Aircraft LLC (Type Certificate A16EA formerly held
by American General Aircraft Corporation (AGAC) and Grumman American
Aviation Corporation (GAAC)) Models AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B, and AG-5B
airplanes. Investigation reveals that excessive wing to center spar
clearance could have contributed to the bolt failures;
however, in each of the four instances, the bolts failed before reaching
the service life of 7,250 hours time-in-service (TIS). The FAA has
determined that, to assure the safety of these airplanes, the
established service life of these bolts needed review. Our review of
service life on Tiger Aircraft LLC (Type Certificate A16EA formerly held
by AGAC and GAAC) Models AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B, and AG-5B airplanes caused
us to issue AD 95-19-15, Amendment 39-9377 (60 FR 48628, September 20,
1995). AD 95-19-15 currently requires the following on Tiger Aircraft
LLC (Type Certificate A16EA formerly held by AGAC and GAAC) Models AA-5,
AA-5A, AA-5B, and AG-5B airplanes, all serial numbers:"
"AD 95-19-15 was written to apply to all serial numbers of all models. A
design change was made in this area beginning with serial number 10175
of the Model AG-5B airplanes. Therefore, FAA determined that the action
should not apply to Model AG-5B airplanes with a serial number of 10175
or higher."
3. So did any shoulder bolt failures occur on any AG-5B Tiger Aircraft
produced aircraft? And what was the design change that made the FAA
believe that they did NOT need to be included in the AD note. I wonder
if the AD was revised at Tiger Aircraft's urging so that new aircraft
would not need to comply with the AD within 100 hrs TIS as they had not
previously complied with the AD.
4. The AD states at the beginning of the regulatory portion:
"What Must I Do To Address This Problem?
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless already
done:" So it would appear that if AD95-19-15 has be previously complied
with that AD95-19-15R1 does not apply.
5. The format of AD's has changed since this one was first issued. Now
there are 3 columns for Actions, Compliance and Procedures. I see
nothing here that states that this AD is recurring at any interval. The
only significant change IMO other than the exclusion of AG5B's after
serial #10174 is that "wear" of the shoulder bolt is defined to include
removal of the cad plating from the shoulder area of the bolt as copied
below. This in effect means that any time a bolt is removed for
inspection (required by the SB and maybe by the AD not if you believe
that) that a new bolt will need to be installed as the cad plating gets
damaged by installation and removal.
"(e)(6) Do not install any wing attach shoulder
bolt that has wear resulting in removal of
the cad plating from the shoulder of the
bolt or if the threads contact the shoulder
bevel of the shoulder bolt profile"
6. Section (g) of the AD note says that "You must do the actions
required by this AD following the instructions in American General
Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. SB-185-A, Revision A, dated
January 10, 2005." So I suppose that this issue is still debatable!
Cliff
> Ive seen both arguments here and putting on a lawyer hat would argue
> that while the AD points to the SB for the required ACTIONS, it fairly
> clearly states the FREQUENCY of those actions on its own. So it is easy
> to consider this a one-time item, especially using the common sense
> applied by Cliff. Yes, it is ambiguous and Garyshould know that the
> government always expects us to do better than they do they do not
> lead by example, instead they follow poorly.
>
> My 2 cents worth for you all,
>
> Dean
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jaguar Cowling questions Part 5 - painting |
Hi Gary,
Could you please give me some idea how much paint and primer I need for the cowl?
Would a quart of paint and a quart of primer be enough?
Thank you,
Boris
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|