Beech AD
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not engineering savvy, but.
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 ??.
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 ??.
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!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
3 bonanzas at YCAB one really old one, was ok, but the newest and most pristine F33A had a stuffed cable
Having just come back from a trip to Victoria I bet he is glad to see that
Not heard about number 3 yet.
Seems this is not as rare as you would like to think.
Having just come back from a trip to Victoria I bet he is glad to see that
Not heard about number 3 yet.
Seems this is not as rare as you would like to think.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First class
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.
Avweb has picked this up too:
No FAA Bonanza Cable AD
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.
No FAA Bonanza Cable AD
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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 ?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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-a...42b-1-1-a.html
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ap-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.
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
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-a...42b-1-1-a.html
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ap-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.
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!!
"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!!
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!
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'.......
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'..??
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'...??
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'.......
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'..??
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'...??
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 26th Jan 2012 at 03:40.
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.
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.
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
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
