Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:36 AM - Re: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise (Gary Vogt)
2. 09:48 AM - Re: Re: Jaguar Cowling questions Part 5 - painting (Gary Vogt)
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: | Re: AD 95-19-15 R1 and SB-185A - word to the wise |
Like I said before, I measured the bolts I checked with a digital micromete
r. =0A Both old and new bolts were .3741 with and without cad.=0A=0ABased
on the way the new AD is worded, it would be legal to sign off the plane
=0Aas having the AD complied with if the original AD had been previously co
mplied =0Awith. =0A=0AWith regard to paragraph (g): =0A(g) You must do th
e actions required by this AD following the instructions in =0AAmerican Gen
eral Aircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No. SB-185-A, =0ARevision A,
dated January 10, 2005."=0A=0Athe SB is only referred to in paragraph (e)
and then only as to procedures =0Arequired to comply with actions required
by the AD.=0A=0AThe gray area is (1) inspect any inboard wing attach should
er bolt using the =0Aprocedure in SB-185A. Problem is, the compliance colu
mn stops me from going to =0Athe procedures since it's already been previou
sly accomplished. =0A=0AToo bad someone at Tiger LLC didn't work with the
FAA to resolve this problem.=0A=0ARegarding the new wing design. Personall
y, I say, "Bullshit." I'd like to see =0Athe revised drawings before I bel
ieve that.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: flyv35b <
flyv35b@minetfiber.com>=0ATo: teamgrumman-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, J
une 15, 2011 10:40:16 AM=0ASubject: Re: TeamGrumman-List: AD 95-19-15 R1 an
lyv35b <flyv35b@minetfiber.com>=0A=0AMy thoughts on some of this:=0A1. It
used to be that an AD note would state whether or not the AD was =0Arecurri
ng in the AD no matter if a SB was referenced or not. The original =0AAD95
-19-15 was never considered to be recurring to my knowledge.=0A=0A2. AD95-
19-15R1 makes the following statements:=0A"What events have caused this AD?
The FAA has received four report (three in =0AEngland and one in the Unite
d States) of wing attach shoulder bolt failure on =0ATiger Aircraft LLC (Ty
pe Certificate A16EA formerly held by American General =0AAircraft Corporat
ion (AGAC) and Grumman American Aviation Corporation (GAAC)) =0AModels AA-5
, AA-5A, AA-5B, and AG-5B airplanes. Investigation reveals that =0Aexcessiv
e wing to center spar clearance could have contributed to the bolt =0Afailu
res;=0Ahowever, in each of the four instances, the bolts failed before reac
hing the =0Aservice life of 7,250 hours time-in-service (TIS). The FAA has
determined that, =0Ato assure the safety of these airplanes, the=0Aestablis
hed service life of these bolts needed review. Our review of service =0Alif
e on Tiger Aircraft LLC (Type Certificate A16EA formerly held by AGAC and
=0AGAAC) Models AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B, and AG-5B airplanes caused us to issue
AD =0A95-19-15, Amendment 39-9377 (60 FR 48628, September 20, 1995). AD 95-
19-15 =0Acurrently requires the following on Tiger Aircraft LLC (Type Certi
ficate A16EA =0Aformerly held by AGAC and GAAC) Models AA-5, AA-5A, AA-5B,
and AG-5B airplanes, =0Aall serial numbers:"=0A=0A"AD 95-19-15 was written
to apply to all serial numbers of all models. A design =0Achange was made i
n this area beginning with serial number 10175 of the Model =0AAG-5B airpla
nes. Therefore, FAA determined that the action should not apply to =0AModel
AG-5B airplanes with a serial number of 10175 or higher."=0A=0A3. So did
any shoulder bolt failures occur on any AG-5B Tiger Aircraft produced =0Aai
rcraft? And what was the design change that made the FAA believe that they
=0Adid NOT need to be included in the AD note. I wonder if the AD was rev
ised at =0ATiger Aircraft's urging so that new aircraft would not need to c
omply with the =0AAD within 100 hrs TIS as they had not previously complied
with the AD.=0A=0A4. The AD states at the beginning of the regulatory por
tion:=0A"What Must I Do To Address This Problem?=0A(e) To address this prob
lem, you must do the following, unless already done:" =0ASo it would appea
r that if AD95-19-15 has be previously complied with that =0AAD95-19-15R1 d
oes not apply.=0A=0A5. The format of AD's has changed since this one was f
irst issued. Now there =0Aare 3 columns for Actions, Compliance and Proced
ures. I see nothing here that =0Astates that this AD is recurring at any i
nterval. The only significant change =0AIMO other than the exclusion of AG
5B's after serial #10174 is that "wear" of the =0Ashoulder bolt is defined
to include removal of the cad plating from the shoulder =0Aarea of the bolt
as copied below. This in effect means that any time a bolt is =0Aremoved
for inspection (required by the SB and maybe by the AD not if you =0Abeliev
e that) that a new bolt will need to be installed as the cad plating gets
=0Adamaged by installation and removal.=0A=0A"(e)(6) Do not install any win
g attach shoulder=0Abolt that has wear resulting in removal of=0Athe cad pl
ating from the shoulder of the=0Abolt or if the threads contact the shoulde
r=0Abevel of the shoulder bolt profile"=0A=0A6. Section (g) of the AD note
says that "You must do the actions required by =0Athis AD following the in
structions in American General=0AAircraft Corporation Service Bulletin No.
SB-185-A, Revision A, dated January =0A10, 2005." So I suppose that this i
ssue is still debatable!=0A=0ACliff=0A=0A> I=99ve seen both arguments
here and putting on a lawyer hat would argue=0A> that while the AD points
to the SB for the required ACTIONS, it fairly=0A> clearly states the FREQUE
NCY of those actions on its own. So it is easy=0A> to consider this a one-t
ime item, especially using the common sense=0A> applied by Cliff. Yes, it i
s ambiguous and Garyshould know that the=0A> government always expects us t
o do better than they do =93 they do not=0A> lead by example, instead
they follow poorly.=0A> =0A> My 2 cents worth for you all,=0A> =0A> Dean
===================
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: Jaguar Cowling questions Part 5 - painting |
Boris,
My answer would be: probably.
For certain, 1 quart of paint is enough. Primer depends on how picky you are
regarding the surface quality of the final product.
Imron is mixed 3:1. 3 parts paint, 1 part 192S. As far as I know, you can only
buy the 192S in a quart. And that it's very expensive.
Gary
________________________________
From: "bvnj@yahoo.com" <bvnj@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 2:49:15 PM
Subject: TeamGrumman-List: 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! --
|