This raises a question of terminology which has bugged me for years. The FAA discusses "composites" meaning both composite construction where a structure is fabricated from details (fibre composite or metal) which are bonded together and they also use the same term for fibre composites. (See AC20-107B) I would be surprised if EASA and many OEMs did not have the same mixed terminology. I personally prefer to reserve the word composite to mean fibre composites and describe structure made up of bonded details as bonded structure. No confusion.
If my theory is correct, the only difference the spar material will make is the visible part of the back of the spar will be black for composite or metallic for the alternative materials. Irrespective of the material actually used to make the spar, the strength of the bond should always be greater than the strength of the core. Hence, if there is core still attached to the rear of the spar, then my theory is not applicable, move on. If however the bond to the rear of the spar was weaker than the strength of the core, there will be an absence of core residue at the rear of the spar and there may be a problem. A simple five minute look at the rear of the spar is all that is initially required.
Circular/fragmented arguement. Wait for the report.
Last edited by blakmax; 3rd December 2009 at 20:11.
Reason: typo