---------------------------------------------------------- TeamGrumman-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 06/15/11: 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:15 AM PST US From: "Dean White" Subject: RE: TeamGrumman-List: 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 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" Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:41 AM Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:42:58 AM PST US From: flyv35b Subject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:29:35 PM PST US Subject: TeamGrumman-List: Re: Jaguar Cowling questions Part 5 - painting From: bvnj@yahoo.com 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message teamgrumman-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/TeamGrumman-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/teamgrumman-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/teamgrumman-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.