Beech AD

[VH-XXX]

CASA issues directive on light planes | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/casa-issues-directive-on-light-planes/story-e6frf7jx-1226243962836)

Just noticed this in the news. Quite unusual for an AD to make it to a standard news paper...

[T28D]

CASA using the popular press to cut AOPA off from legitimate objection to the punitive issues in the proposed AD

[baron_beeza]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/....ory-inspection/

AD/BEECH 35/74 - Beechcraft Forward Elevator Cable - Replacement (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00044)

http://www.aopa.com.au/information-centr....ft-proposed-ad/

All very good. This is how the airworthiness system is structured to work.
More often most AD's are issued on the basis of an overseas experience. The normal case being the Service Bulletin and then FAA AD route.

Here we have CASA reacting to an issue discovered within the country, - CASA Schedule 5 is similar to what NZ used to have when we certified iaw Part 43 App C.
I use Schedule 5 on most inspections for one fleet in Australia....in my mind it is not the best way to perform aircraft maintenance. Like the App C inspections, Sched 5 was generic and was really meant for aircraft types where the manufacturers schedule was not up to it.

Obviously the problem here is not that the cables were frayed. That is to be expected in any aircraft. The issue is that the fraying was never detected until way too late.


I think it just highlights the recent reforms we have had regarding light aircraft maintenance.

NZ and Australia have taken different paths and it is widely accepted within the community that CASA should have followed NZ's lead.

There will be some questioned asked of the Sched 5 Inspection in the next few weeks.

The entire NZ system, loosely based on the FAA regs, is so much more user friendly than the Australian equivalent.

The NZ AD's are issued at the end of each month. I would not be at all surprised to see an AD for those aircraft published. You would have hoped that by then the owners would have reacted already.
I have not seen the maintenance schedule for these particular aircraft but they may have already been called up under the NZ system.

[Jabawocky]

T28

I think you will find support of Casa from AOPA, and not as you suggest. What did I not see that CASA would fear AOPA would go against? Is there some hidden agenda?

From AOPA website
Airworthiness Directives for Beechcraft forward elevator cable

The following Airworthiness Directives for the Beechcraft forward elevator cable inspection and replacement are being issued by CASA today and will be published shortly (this afternoon).

The ADs are identical and are repeated to cover the different series that are affected.

The ADs essentially require immediate inspection of the forward elevator cable assembly, but allow for cables that have been inspected/replaced within the last year and also allow a positioning flight for the inspection.

Replacement of cables that have been over 15 years in service is required within 60 days.

Phillip Reiss
President AOPA

BEECH33-048

BEECH35-074

BEECH36-054

BEECH50-034

[grip-pipe]

It is a disgrace, CASA knew about this problem for the past ten years and refused to do anything about it, despite a BASI/ATSB investigation into the Euchuca incident and others elsewhere. They were supposed to integrate AD's with o/s stuff five years ago, and now today they are trumpeting this safety action to ground the Beech's for inspections.

In the meantime how many people were a serious risk from a control cable failure? everyone who flew in one.

CASA incompetence and stupidity and knowall nothingness continues unabated.

[Desert Flower]

There was an article about this in the latest Flight Safety publication - damn scary stuff!

DF.

[Grogmonster]

So can we assume that this will apply to B55 and B58 Barons? or do they already have an AD?

Groggy

[Typhoon650]

I received this AD by email yesterday, sorry I seem to have deleted it.
It covered BE33/35 and twins sharing the same basic structure.

[Jabawocky]

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100142/jan-feb2012.pdf

Page 39 :eek:

So why then has it taken so long? Article written how long ago before printing? Letters to HBC. No noises from HBC or the FAA.

So had this been so urgent that an immediate grounding is justified, why take so long to release it? Christmas holidays perhaps?

[grip-pipe]

Because the model regulator is ten years behind the rest of the world and twenty years behind the industry and when somebody finally looked in somebody elses intray or worktray lo and behold - in the meantime they made life hell for some good intentioned folks down south who tried over and over again to get CASA to act. Act they did and persecuted the unfortunate individual who demanded they do something for other stuff as usual.

Bullies and fools.

[Jabawocky]

So reading further it seems that if you have a single pole Beech, which are all over 15 years old anyway, that unless for some reason you have replaced this cable recently, which is unlikely, you are grounded as per Requirement 3 in 60 days time, even if you get it signed out today, until it is replaced.

If you did replace one in the last 15 years, inspect now and annual/110 until it is replaced down the track.

I bet most have never been replaced, but hopefully inspected carefully each year.

Why can't these guys write these with some simple plain english statements:ugh:

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Does anyone else find it slightly amusing that they issued the AD on a Friday? I know safety doesn't take a holiday, but an AD requiring compliance before further flight (except a positioning flight with only the pilot on board).

Did someone piss off Peter Boyd during the week?

[Clearedtoreenter]

Well said Clinton!

I’m yet to be convinced that there is any ‘ageing aircraft’ issue that would not be adequately addressed by proper compliance with Schedule 5 by type-experienced engineers (in combination with proper pre-flight inspections and recording of defects by pilots).

A lot of these AD's and aging aircraft regs would not be necessary if Schedule 5 was not used by some as an excuse for doing things on the cheap. The alternative is the other extreme of the often ridiculous Manufacturers' schemes, where many perfectly serviceable componets have to be replaced for no good reason at all.

[baron_beeza]

A lot of these AD's and aging aircraft regs would not be necessary if Schedule 5 was not used by some as an excuse for doing things on the cheap

That was my thinking. I thought that many countries I have worked in, especially Africa and the Pacific but also some companies in Oz, spend every 100 Hr inspecting the same areas.
If you are not finding problems or issues then perhaps you are looking in the wrong place.
The other thing is that you can't just do 100% inspection, some time has to be spent on defect rectification and preventative maintenance.

I find the beauty of some maintenance schedules, like the Piper Equalised ones, great in that you have plenty of time to thoroughly inspect each area.
Some hangars really are guilty of lifting the same panels each and every inspection, especially on Cessna 100 and 200 series where there are so many to be lifted.

Obviously these Beechcraft cable have not been checked.....what have the maintainers done to review their procedures and schedules ?

I have the feeling some of these issues have been around for a while, at least within Australia.... has AOPA, or it's Safety Officer, been pro-active and addressed this ?

I am seeing the bad reporting, Yahoo even had a new C172 as their accompanying photo. I also noted the Friday afternoon timing from CASA.

The way I was reading the AD I believed very few aircraft would be 'grounded' as a result. Sixty days seems ample time to address a new cable.

I am very concerned that a frayed, indeed broken, cable has not been detected. I can remember the days when we pulled all cables every 4 years.... we should have no reason to even consider going back to the 'dark ages'.

Owners, operators and, maintainers need to realise the days of the one day 100 Hrly have long gone. At least now, going by the Cessna schedules they are impossible.
I still see some very nice well maintained older machines.... if the sloppy anchor nuts and similar small defects are dealt to at each maintenance input the rest just falls into place.

Even in the days of the generic inspections, the manufacturers schedules were still followed as they had the notes referring to the SB's for example.
We all know what is going to happen if you neglect to do the 400 Hr fuel cock inspection and lube.... that is where I have my issues with Sched 5.
The operator will still argue about the time and cost of the inspections, -Schedule 5 only makes life difficult for the LAME's there.

From my experience the really good machines are maintained to Sched 5 PLUS....

Not the cheaper version of it.

[TBM-Legend]

you can't blame the regulator for poor maintenance practices by some. The big question to me is this is such a public event given that dozens of AD's are issued every year on all types.

[Jabawocky]

I was lucky enough to be able to take a look at the cable and pulley system on one of the affected Bonanza's today. This plane is being refurbished by a semi retired LAME and just happens to have the insides removed. The cable in his 50 year old machine is seemingly OK, and possibly been there since new?

The problem is the lower pulleys are buried under the floor and behind a aluminium support that totally hides them from view. What this means is the very section of cable you really need to see may not be readily visible and possibly for decades LAME's have been inspecting but not realising the hidden bit was so well hidden.

The pulleys up under the dash where the pole goes through are probably easier to get to, but only just, and again a small length of cable may be missed forever even if the LAME thinks he has inspected it all.

Now the next big deal might be the R&R. Perhaps later models have a better system of the lower pulley shaft mounting, but this old one is going to have a lot of derivetting cutting, doublers and rebuilding to get the pulley shaft and cables out. It looks like it went in one way, and there to stay. Unless there is a hidden trick this old LAME does not know about there will be some big jobs ahead. Perhaps the newer models are better, I do not know.

Good luck folks!

[baron_beeza]

Thanks Jaba, some interesting stuff.

So what is the history on this defect ? Normally someone in the States initiates events with a Major Defect Report which the manufacturer then responds to.
That would normally be in the form of a SB or advisory of some nature. The FAA may then get interested and raise an AD which in turn generally gets accepted and promulgated by other regulators in the various countries.


Are we to believe that this cable, which seems difficult to inspect properly, has not caused any problems before ?

I can see why CASA have been forced to react.. it is not a good look to have a second aircraft inspected, on the same field even, and it to be found U/S also.

Any ideas on where the FAA are at with this one ?

[Jabawocky]

BB,

No idea at all where it came from, but surely that article in FSA was about an event some many months back, it did not magically appear in print while in the post! CASA must have been on this case for a while and maybe the time taken has found others or similar.

Maybe the two Bo's at the same field is a coincidence. They do not say anywhere why they failed, perhaps seized bearings / pulleys and a cable pulling over the sheave for some long period of time. I do not know. I have no inside scoop.

I do know from seeing the early model FTDK at YCAB today that it is quite possible for a defect to go unseen for some time even if the cables etc were "generally inspected".

I agree with Clinton's summary of what a schedule 5 inspection is meant to do, but just how in depth is a generic inspection requirement? Does it mean a non-removable hard mounted assembly has to be drilled out every year?

We used a boroscope with a 45 degree mirror to have a look out of curiosity.

As for the FAA....who knows, but them Yankee's will start a civil war over an AD like this, and you can bet your house on HBC not having enough stock to cover the Asutralian demand for the next few months, let alone 15-20 times that.

Will be interesting to watch! Thats about all I have on this one. Even our mate Forkie was taken by surprise.

[beachbunny]

Thanks for the info Jabawocky.

It's definitely a maintenance issue, but as so often is the case, there can be always be specific "type" issues. (not necessarily Beech)

A pre-flight trick I developed years ago while flying old aircraft was a careful control check on first entering the cockpit, while everything is still quiet. Listening, and feeling, for cables, either scraping of frayed wires, or a pulley not rotating, sounds which can me masked by the engine running, which is when "Controls free" checks are usually done.

Can recall 2 occasions when problems were detected.

BB

[Up-into-the-air]

The questions I ask are:

1. Who has some information on the incidents at Echuca;
2. What actually happened;
3. When did it happen.


This is the casa press release.


"Hundreds of light planes have been grounded because of potentially faulty cables.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has ordered the flight control cable of all Beechcraft Debonair and Bonanza planes in Australia to be inspected before they can fly again.
About 270 Beechcraft single- and twin-engine planes are in operation in Australia and are used mostly in the private sector.
CASA spokesman Peter Gibson says the flight control cable in some of the aircraft have found to be frayed and almost broken.
“The risk is that the control cables will break,” he said.
“If that happens, the nose of the aircraft will pitch down and the pilot will have a great deal of difficulty in controlling the aircraft.
“It’s very important to do the inspections and replace cables if necessary.”
Mr Gibson says an investigation into the light planes uncovered the potential fault.
“There were two incidents at Echuca in northern Victoria,” he said.
“One where a control cable broke; another where a control cable was found to be frayed and almost broken.
“We formed an investigation after those problems were found and we’ve determined that it’s a potential failure for these types of aircraft.”"

[Kharon]

I am puzzled; why does Mr. Gibson go to all the trouble of a press release for but one of this months some 25 published AD (many urgent) for 'big' and little aircraft and not the others.

The Dash 8 thing is curious in that does rate a national press release.
The A 380 have AD (about engines) and the public do'nt have an AD press release in their morning paper. Crikey, even Sandilands has made a (slightly bemused) stab at getting the CASA message out there.

I just wonder why this AD of all the AD in all the worlds AD gets its very own, publicaly presented 'press release'.

Probably a first class answer out there; somewhere ??.

[P51D]

So my question to learned ppruners. Would CASA have gone to the trouble and inspected a number of other Bonanzas/Barons before deciding to take the action they have or have they just done this based on 2 aircraft at Echuca. Who knows what the maintenance history of those 2 aircraft has been. The sensationalism of Peter Gibsons media release and targeting a very capable and well manufactured aircraft leaves me pretty pissed off in how they've gone about this. For example was the Australian Bonanza Society or others consulted. Seems to me like a sledge hammer to kill an ant. Not happy Jan!!!!

[Jabawocky]

I believe some consulting with some groups happened, and if it had not we may have seen something much more severe. This might also explain a bit of the delays in getting the AD out.

I think the reason for public exposure is, a dashing eight AD is easily spread to all operators, few phone calls.

If you have 200 odd Bonanzas scattered over the landscape, and an immediate AD there could be many who would not know for weeks. So the media is useful for a change, even if not accurate.

[kingtoad]

The equivalent Baron one is out now too ...

[Jabawocky]

3 bonanzas at YCAB one really old one, was ok, but the newest and most pristine F33A had a stuffed cable:eek:

Having just come back from a trip to Victoria I bet he is glad to see that:uhoh:

Not heard about number 3 yet.

Seems this is not as rare as you would like to think.

[Kharon]

If you have 200 odd Bonanzas scattered over the landscape, and an immediate AD there could be many who would not know for weeks. So the media is useful for a change, even if not accurate.

Cheers Jabba - that makes perfectly good sense. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Old Akro]

Avweb has picked this up too:

No FAA Bonanza Cable AD (http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/No_FAA_Bonanza_Cable_AD_206087-1.html)

The disparity between the conclusions of the FAA & CASA suggests one of them is plain wrong. If the ABS is correct in saying it has no reported incidents of control cable issues, it would point to a localised poor maintenance issue in Australia rather than a systemic problem. 2 instances in Australia should translate to 40 - 50 instances in the USA.

Another CASA knee jerk?

Surely in the current era of cheap fibrescopes, there is no real excuse for a not doing a full inspection of the cable. Clinton's post also correctly notes that a frayed cable is almost certainly a symptom of another problem - wiring interference, contact with a bulkhead, frozen pulley, etc.

[baron_beeza]

What do I think...

I believe most of the guys in the States would have no idea of the condition of their cables.

We can all see that it should not be an Aussie or NZ peculiar problem. The cable could wear and fray in any aircraft and location.

Has anyone heard any reports of the aircraft that have been inspected in recent weeks ?
I am at a loss to explain the 15 year life... perhaps we will hear more about that later.

As for the Americans, well this is what I wrote on a similar site a few months ago.

Re: [Cessna 172] Cost of Annual

I think the cost can vary with many factors to be considered.
Of the aircraft I maintain the C172 is not the worst model but it is far from the easiest to do.

I am a little surprised at the low figures. In my experience the cost here would
be in the range $1500 to $4000. It is often more directly related to the owner
than the aircraft itself.

Just the conformity inspection element of the annual here is typically $600,
that can of course be much higher if there has been unrecorded maintenance.

The 100 Hourly inspection/servicing would run to another $600 to 800 and then there is preventative maintenance and defect rectification on top of that.

AD's, SB and 100 Series Continued Airworthiness Programme requirements have to be included.

I think most owners would be delighted to see a $2000 bill.

That was in reply to many saying that they were paying $400 to $600 for the annuals.

The days of the one day annual for a Cessna 172 are long gone.
If the A&P is expected to do a thorough inspection, especially with Sched 5, then it will be two days work.

How the Yanks can pay their A&P (and IA) less than $800 and expect good service is beyond me.
These are the very same guys that complain bitterly when faults occur or Bulletins and AD's are issued because of substandard maintenance.

Yes, the cables should have been inspected and detected much, much earlier.
Now CASA have dictated that ALL owners have to pay much more for their maintenance.
Who are we blaming again ?

[baron_beeza]

I'm please to hear that Clinton. Hopefully the guys gloating about cut price maintenance on the other forums are just the vocal minority.

At least with the new Cessna programmes we now have to look into certain areas that may have been missed previously.. in terms of not had the time available to concentrate on any one area.

I like the equalised maintenance programmes but of course they are not utilised on aircraft achieving less than say 200 hrs pa. At least you have a few hours to do a thorough inspection of say the cabin.. and every 200hrs is fine for some of those difficult to get to places anyway.

I have not looked at the Beech owners site but I noted Jaba's comments here about how the cables are difficult to inspect properly.
How have the guys in the States been doing it ?

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Very interesting the FAA felt no need to issue an AD. Perhaps CASA need to review the need for the AD now? Unless something unique to oz . I always thought casa were slow to issue AD's.

[baron_beeza]

Thanks for the links, all good reading although I could not view the photos.

While I agree with most of the comments I think we were only looking at a small sample of Beech owners. There was certainly a lack of understanding of the regs on display and the associated comments suggested most were owners/pilots... not so much of an engineering input.

The guys certainly seem more concerned about safety rather than expense that you may see in other forums.
Yahoo! Groups (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cessna172/message/8732)

I would not be at all surprised to see a major revision of the CASA and NZ CAA AD.... they must be having a rethink in light of the stance the FAA has taken, - surely..

I still see it as a maintenance programme issue. I was alarmed to see the draft for the Schedule 5 replacement.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/474775-draft-caap-42b-1-1-a.html

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/maint/download/draft-caap-42b-1-1.pdf

Someone in the NZ CAA produced something similar as a proposed replacement for their AC43 App C, - I think it was well shot down. The LAME's were not at all impressed with the effort.

Something like that seems to have Air Force written all over it. Not a modern and informed military at that.

I have seen schedules like James used on their Fletchers in the '70's that were much more viable than a far ranging generic job.

The Beechcraft cables should have been inspected, I still think those machines would have been maintained to Schedule 5,

I personally see a revision of the Maintenance Programme being of more benefit than a SAIP or AD. Then again I tend to disagree with the intent of so many of the ones issued these days anyway. Have you ever noticed how many AD's eventually get re-issued or cancelled ?

A one-off fleet inspection should have done the job I would have thought. That could then have been followed up with an amendment to the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual.

I am sure that is what the RNZAF would have done.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From the AvWeb site..(US)..... Today 25/1/12....

"NO FAA BONANZA CABLE AD
The FAA has decided against issuing an airworthiness directive (AD) like those issued by Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Administration (CASA) last week grounding most Beech Bonanzas, Barons and Debonairs in the country. In a news release on Tuesday, American Bonanza Society President Tom Turner said that instead the FAA will issue a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) that will serve to remind mechanics to inspect the full length of the elevator control cables at annual inspection. CASA ordered immediate inspection of elevator control cables in the entire fleet of Beech aircraft with single-pole control yokes after an elevator cable broke on one airplane and another was found to be severely frayed. ABS says there have been no reports of cable problems among its members and it was particularly concerned about a cable replacement requirement in the CASA AD. More..."

So There!!

:confused::}:eek:

[T28D]

Yup Griffo, This was a typical CASA over reaction, seems the place is full of drama queens.

[Dora-9]

Ah Griffo, speaking of over-reaction from CASA, just wait for them to turn the recent Chipmunk TNS 138 Issue 6 into an AD - not because it will achieve anything, but just because they can!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Crikey Mr 'D',

I Just H O P E N O T !!

We are just 'holding our own' on it at the mo, and that might make the new paint job 'surplus to req's'.......:ooh::ooh:

:ok:

Mind you, I have NO problem with CASA or anybody else in the 'aircraft regulation bizzo' making announcements by the most expeditious means to the wide spread of owners / operators when something NEEDS to be done in a HURRY!

And Jaba's note re the fairly 'new' F-33A would bear this out.

Who wants to be in the middle of the 'smoking hole'..?? :eek:

Its just that I found the FAA approach....different.
Perhaps they have a 'better' maintenance system / more organised notification system..??

In the event of the cable separating, and with the spring doing what a spring does...what else is there to 'pull back on'...??

:sad:

[P51D]

Interesting how the USA FAA and with the intervention of the ABS have dealt with this. Jaba, I can tell you that my F33A is a 1992 model with significant hours. The cable has been inspected and is in very good condition, certainly not requiring to be replaced. My concern with this, irrespective of getting the message out to everybody via the media, is that CASA has reacted too quickly and an Airworthiness Bulletin would have been better. It has alarmed many and the reaction from the US, where there is a greater population of aircraft has been predictable. Will CASA alter their position based on the FAA? Probably not.

[Arnold E]

This AD only effects single pole Boners, so how come there is a claim that over 200 aircraft were grounded, surly there is not that many single pole Boners in Oz.:confused:

[jas24zzk]

Debonairs, Bonanza's, Travel-airs, Barons. All are single pole.

[T28D]

Only pre 90's models

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And..
The latest from Avweb - the FAA have consulted with the American Bonanza Society, and....

Read on;


"No FAA Bonanza Cable AD

The FAA has decided against issuing an airworthiness directive (AD) like those issued by Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Administration (CASA) last week grounding most Beech Bonanzas, Barons and Debonairs in the country. In a news release on Tuesday, American Bonanza Society President Tom Turner said that instead the FAA will issue a special airworthiness information bulletin (SAIB) that will serve to remind mechanics to inspect the full length of the elevator control cables at annual inspection. CASA ordered immediate inspection of elevator control cables in the entire fleet of Beech aircraft with single-pole control yokes after an elevator cable broke on one airplane and another was found to be severely frayed. ABS says there have been no reports of cable problems among its members and it was particularly concerned about a cable replacement requirement in the CASA AD.

In Australia, owners of affected aircraft will have to replace elevator cables that are older than 15 years, regardless of their condition. ABS calls that part of the AD "a difficult, expensive and unnecessary job." Normally, when an aviation safety organization issues an AD like this, agencies in other countries follow suit but ABS says the FAA decided against an AD after consultation with Australian authorities and ABS. "The American Bonanza Society thanks the engineers and leaders of the FAA's office of Continuing Operational Safety for its careful review of the issue before making a rulemaking decision.," the society said.

Cheers:ok:

[Brian Abraham]

CASA came in for some adverse opinion after the S-92 crash in Canada, which resulted in the destruction of the aircraft, 17 deaths and 1 survivor.

Problem was total loss of oil from the main transmission following a stud failure on the filter.

An incident had previously happened at Broome, and some are of the opinion that had CASA been more pro active the subsequent crash would not have happened.

It's natural that organisations/people may be a little gun shy following such events and may explain their stance on this AD.