National Aeronca Association Bulletin Board

From Della Swartz:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are extending the comment -requested-by date for the Airworthiness
Concern Sheet to March 1, 2009. This will allow time for comments after
the publication of the next issue of the Aeronca Aviator.

Below is a revised copy of the ACS with the new response date. Thanks for the great information I've been receiving, and keep it coming!

http://www.aeroncapilots.com/SedanACS.pdf

Della Swartz
Anchorage ACO
voice: (907) 271-2672
fax: (907) 271-6365
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to keep everyone going, I assume that all of the Sedan owners on this thread and hopefully watching this bulletin board have sent an email to Ms. Swartz? I contacted her months ago and hope everyone else has.

If not, lets get going and get her some information.

Joe A

Joe,
I sent her a reply about the same time you did. I looked at the historical SDR's and couldn't find many pertaining to wing corrosion on file. We have owned two Sedans and one had no problems. The other had corrosion but was found by inspection. I'm not sure that inspection of a wing that fell off a truck is sufficient to warrant a Airworthiness Concern Sheet. Some of the information included is speculation. It would be a shame to ground a specific fleet type via an AD brought on by the Airworthiness Concern Sheet.
Paul

Paul,

Agree totally and hope that the FAA takes a good look at this before doing anything. As well I hope that Ms. Swartz is seeing some of the comments here and I have a gut feeling that she may be on the forum from time to time, which would be excellent.

With your years of maintenance background and having owned several, this helps. I have only been involved with them for a year or so but still have not seen any issues that would warrant an AD, but would not mind a SB from Burl advising everyone to keep an eye on their wings, especially on airplanes that have been on floats.

Joe

Just wanted to report in on this situation.

Finished up the annual on the Sedan just before Christmas.

Discussed the situation with my IA about possible corrosion in the wings so we spent extra time looking the entire wings over. Found absolutely NO corrosion anywhere on the wings (or the entire airplane for that matter) and they were very clean inside. That said, this plane does not have the float fittings on it so am pretty confident that its never been on the water either and that helps.

Hope everyone else is finding the same things when they are looking inside their Sedan wings.

Joe A

Have just gotten some scuttlebutt on a new and difficult situation. Have been told that it appears that the FAA is now forging ahead and trying to do the very same thing that they did with the Chief's and Champs years ago regarding the wing spar on the Sedan.

Problem is that from what I hear they want us to start cutting holes in the wing and adding inspection ports and so on, exactly like they did with the Chief/Champ wings. While it would be nice to be able to see more of the inside of the Sedan wing (especially in the fuel bladder area!) the abortion that many Chief/Champ owners did to their wings in the early days by putting inspection holes and covers all over the top of the wing really does not need to be repeated again here on the Sedan.

From what I hear nothing is "cast in stone" at this time, and that more info will be coming out in the near future, but I wanted let everyone know that this has not been forgotten and if the FAA gets their way on this, all Sedans may be grounded until new inspection holes will be cut into their wings. What perturbs me is that many of our airplanes wings have been inspected in a manner that makes sure that the wings and spars/spar caps are in excellent and airworthy condition (using a borescope or having inspected the insides during other repairs/mods to the wings) yet if this passes we may not have any other option than to start cutting holes in our wings.

If anyone hears anything new on this, please post here about it.

joea wrote:Have just gotten some scuttlebutt on a new and difficult situation. Have been told that it appears that the FAA is now forging ahead and trying to do the very same thing that they did with the Chief's and Champs years ago regarding the wing spar on the Sedan.

Problem is that from what I hear they want us to start cutting holes in the wing and adding inspection ports and so on, exactly like they did with the Chief/Champ wings.

If anyone hears anything new on this, please post here about it.

The Ercoupe folks suffered through this issue about 15 years ago. I remember all the local guys getting together one weekend and swiss cheesing the underside of their wings. Not a happy time.

I wonder, if becoming proactive regarding this issue might yield a more favourable result for the Sedan owners than just waiting and hoping that the FAA will deem any measures unnecessary. Especially now that we know, they obviously have not forgotten about it. For example, if the Sedan owners, possibly represented by the NAA or by Burl Rogers, came up with an amendement to the service manual themselves, e.g. "Once every 100 hours, the wing spar caps shall be inspected for corrosion by any appropriate means like, for example, a borescope or a mirror." I have no idea, if the FAA would ever agree on such a proposition, but it might be worth a try. Maybe someone has a good connection to an FAA person. In any case, I would much rather borrow a borescope from a maintenance shop, once a year, than cut dozens of holes into intact wings!

My money is on someone putting a bug in the FAA's ear. They don't regulate unless asked or forced to do so. If you want to find what or who is behind this, follow the money. Someone stands to make some.
Like I've said in the past the historical information available does not support any maintenance action.
Paul

Paul Agaliotis wrote:My money is on someone putting a bug in the FAA's ear. They don't regulate unless asked or forced to do so. If you want to find what or who is behind this, follow the money. Someone stands to make some.
Like I've said in the past the historical information available does not support any maintenance action.
Paul

Paul,

Agree and we are guessing that we know who put the bug there in the first place and its someone who stands to make $$ from this sort of thing. Hmmm, wonder who makes replacement spar caps for the Sedan?

Joe A

I am looking forward to being able to put inspection holes in my Sedan. I have wanted to do it for a long time, but the FAA has made it damn near impossible to "modify" a certificated airplane. I think it's funny that they would not help me improve the safety of my plane but can now insist that inspection plates are essential.

I do have to take some exception to the tone of this thread about blaming the man who would most benefit from this AD. It's easy to guess who started this, but I like facts so I contacted Burl Rogers directly. It seems that there is another interested party out there who saw a way to make a buck while helping preserve the Sedan. Burl said that someone came up with an idea to install small holes in the wing at strategic places where a boroscope could be used to inspect the spar caps and went to the FAA about it. It seems that this rekindled their interest. If Burl was going to instigate an AD to sell wing parts it's logical that he would have had his supply line all set up and ready to roll. This is not the case. There are no spar caps to be found and anyone who finds corrosion is going to be out of luck until a large enough order can be placed.

I have a spare set of 15AC wings that I am willing to make available to anyone grounded by this upcoming AD while they repair their wings. I just need to install some gas tanks and paint them. I hope that they are never needed.

The problem is that the flying community has been bent over the barrel too many times. Remember the ACA seat AD, metal spar AD just after the company changed hands. Marvel Schebler carburetors is another good example. Every time they change hands we have to change the floats. The venturi AD was another boon-doggle, you had a drop dead date on the AD because it was such a dangerous condition. A few months after the mandatory compliance date, and all of the "new" venturies were sold, the AD was amended to allow a continuous inspection program. Quite a coincidence.

I quick glance at the Airworthiness Concern Sheet says the Type Certificate holder has supplied spar caps for 34 wings and reported that 90/95% were corroded. All of this printed information not only shows fact, but also some speculation. I don't believe this is a responsible position for anyone to be in. If there is a problem with these wings the current inspection criteria uncovers it. If Burl decides to make parts available good for him but the ACS puts him in a very odd position.

Putting holes in a stressed skin aircraft is not a good idea. It can be done but the access panel and cutout need to be structural, not a plate held on with tinner-man nuts. If I've pissed somebody off, I apologize. But I'm getting that same old feeling again, and I don't like it.

Paul

Today I spoke with the FAA engineer who is working on this AD. Unfortunately he said he cannot provide me with any of the details of the AD due to regulations. He said that a NPRM, notice of proposed rulemaking , will be published in the federal registrar sometime in the future. He does not know when he NRPM will be published. When it is published anyone can make comments to the proposed AD. The NPRM will be open for 45 days. He said he could not take comments or suggestions at this time due to regulations. He said he would notify owners groups when the NPRM is published and that he would welcome comments and suggestions at that time. Apparently Della Schwartz is out of the picture on this issue. He did say that he received the comments that were given to her.

Now would be a good time to write down your thoughts and ideas about this issue. The engineer suggested writing a complete procedure proposal. The more owners, A&P's, and IA's that provide useful comments and suggestions the better. Telling the FAA that their idea sucks might be accurate but does not help the situation. If anyone knows a DER that would be willing to chime in that would be helpful.

I'll let you know if I hear anything significant. I do not expect much until the NPRM gets published.

If you want to discuss this with me send me an email and I'll send you my number.

John Poulter
N1051H

poulter1 wrote: I'll let you know if I hear anything significant. I do not expect much until the NPRM gets published.

If you want to discuss this with me send me an email and I'll send you my number.

John Poulter
N1051H

John,

Any idea when the NBRM will be published?

Thx,

Joe A

The FAA engineer did not know when the NPRM would be published.

John