Beech AD

[VH-XXX]

CASA issues directive on light planes | Herald Sun

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/planetalk...ry-inspection/

AD/BEECH 35/74 - Beechcraft Forward Elevator Cable - Replacement

http://www.aopa.com.au/information-c...t-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]

Its a Disgrace

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]

What about Barons?

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/_asset...an-feb2012.pdf

Page 39

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]

Why so long?

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

[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]

Old Aeroplanes

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]

casa and AD and Echuca

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.”"