AD 2/2015.

[Kharon]

Just wondered if anyone else had read it:-

AD 2/2015.

There have been a number of reported cases in Australia and overseas of primary flight control cable terminals failing due to stress corrosion cracking. Inspection of primary flight control cable terminals can be difficult and problematic. Surface indication of stress corrosion cracking, such as corrosion pitting or cracking can be very difficult to see, even under 10X magnification and can sometimes emanate from within the sleeve of the terminal. Primary flight control cable terminal failure in flight may result in loss of aircraft control.

This AD has been issued to address the safety concern and feedback received in response to NPRM 1303MS.

[Jabawocky]

Yep!


and another bunch of characters….

[Hasherucf]

That is going to be time consuming trolling logbooks, finding part numbers and dates.

Note: Affected terminals include, but are not limited to, terminals manufactured to
MS20658 (AN658), MS20667 (AN667), MS20668 (AN668), MS21259 (AN666) and
MS21260 (AN669 or NAS650), which may be stamped on the terminal.

I love the word MAY.

[Eddie Dean]

I would be interested in the data on cable ends breaking/corroding.
On the other hand, cable change every 15 years may not be too onerous.
Unlike FAA ADs, I see that there is no costings included in the AD.

[LeadSled]

On the other hand, cable change every 15 years may not be too onerous.
Unlike FAA ADs, I see that there is no costings included in the AD.

ED,
You must be kidding. A mate of mine running (amongst other things) some Citations has been quoted 3 months down time per aeroplane, plus the cost of the compliance.

You don't get moratoriums on the finance charges for something like this.

Of course there is no CASA benefit/cost analysis, if there was, there would be no blanket AD.

Tootle pip!!

[Kharon]

Cheers LS – I wondered about the 'down-time', is it a 'quick' fix?, how long for say a Chieftain or Be 200? Meanwhile, who will service the clients, pay the lease and idle pilots. I was also curious about sourcing parts and qualified engineers and the re-rigging and the test flying. It's going to be quite a bill, one way or t'uther, I imagine.

There's also the cost of 'mutilation' to consider; is there an official definition or standard for that; I mean how is one to know, for certain sure, that one has sufficiently mutilated a control cable. Aye, it's a puzzle.

[Eddie Dean]

Found the cost analysis in the NPRM 1303, CAsa reckon approx $5400 per aircraft. Seems low considering what Leadsled just posted.
60 hours @ $90 per hour

[Frank Arouet]

CAsA wouldn't know if a train ran up their bum. Think of any number and multiply it by any factor over 10, add GST, and divide that by what you estimate the IQ of the proposer of this madness is, then add another factor of 1,000 and multiply that by 1,000 and you may get the salary of the proposer. Now add the "care factor" which is always a minus and multiply this by the negative factor of the salary and you will get the IQ value of the owner who swallows this. Remember the modern adage; "the only person sillier than a pilot is an aircraft owner".


Otherwise it seems like a good idea. Ask Creampuff.

[Jabawocky]

Leadie, while I do not support silly AD's, I also have trouble understanding 3 months to do the job?

There is three years to get up to date so surely during a suitable maintenance check this could be done at the same time without having to be a 3 months overhaul.

I too wonder about the data backing this, the FAA have not issued any AD's and while I understand how the problem starts at time on manufacture of the cable (well before the installation and plane manufacture in many cases) they do not do anything to cover this large variation in reality.

If CASA really had a severe concern you would think they would work hard with the FAA as the worlds biggest regulator to apply sensible outcomes.

[thunderbird five]

Take a bo-peep at Annex A


Civil Aviation Safety Authority - NFRM 1303MS

[thorn bird]

If you understood the history of the turkey who signed the AD instrument and his level of competence, you'd understand why GA in the rest of the world get sensible, cost effective requirements based on evidence and statistics and we in the only third world country where you can drink the water get unmitigated stupidity.

I beg the question "Why go through this farce of "Consultation"? as they call it if it gets totally ignored?

Again another example of CAsA fulfilling the governments policy of squashing GA

Jabba, ever seen the cable runs in a citation?, the AD is for ALL aircraft, ever seen the hourly charge for one of the few 145 maintenance
organisations?

Of course for them that can afford it things like this will just drive them onto foreign registers, so our Numpie regulator will achieve what? A sudden increase in death plunges from 30,000 Ft??? Na, zilch, zero, nothing, just another nail or in this case perhaps another tack in commercial GA's coffin.

Any improvement in safety?? Na, Zilch, zero, nothing.

[Jabawocky]

Thornie, I have not, but i just questioned whether it was a 3 month job?

I am not sure the AD makes sense at all, CASA have a history of doing things out of step with the FAA with AD's.

Usually it boils down to if the maintenance was done right all along the way, there is no problem at all. It is the pencil whipped annuals that create the problem.

[Eddie Dean]

Jabba - It is the pencil whipped annuals that create the problem.


So it's the mechanics fault?

[Squawk7700]

Some more context here on the front page today...

AVweb » The World's Premier Independent Aviation News Resource