Mooney Elevator AD

[A64Pilot]

9 minutes ago, TCC said:

unless it gets substantive adverse comments during the comment period. “

https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

Do you see that here? What possible substantive negative comments could there be?

 

[tony]

24 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Perhaps they do but the IPC for the 1967 model year only shows one P/N for the F model balance weight and it’s the hybrid number from the SB/AD. My F model received its airworthiness certificate in July of 67 and has the solid weights. There is no reference to the solid weight P/N in my IPC for the F model.

so the IPC is wrong....and thats an FAA approved document.

[cferr59]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

A C, D or E it would seem have the same elevator, so you get hail damage or hangar rash or whatever and get a replacement over the years, you could have picked up a bad weight that way. Not all maintenance actions make the book, they should but people are afraid of “damage history” so they take the advice of someone and require the maintenance to be put on a sticky that falls out of the book in a year or so, so you can’t go by maintenance records unfortunately.

The inspection is seeing if a magnet sticks to the weight, what could be easier than that?

Then if it does the weight has to be inspected visually to ensure it’s not falling apart. I still don’t see removal of the elevator, etc. 

If you replace the weight then yes you have to rebalance and that means removal, but it’s a terminating action, and that’s the best answer for any AD, make it go away. No repetitive removals etc., or am I missing something?

Do you guys realize what the AD is hopefully preventing? Possible loss of the entire empennage and you getting to watch the ground getting rapidly closer before you and everyone in the airplane die a gruesome death.

Sticking a magnet to the weight and seeing if it sticks is too hard to prevent that possibility?

Way I interpret it is you don’t even have to replace the weight if it’s not cracked up, just inspect it every 100 hours, which is about the number of hours most fly in one year, so in Annual the IA has to look at the weight, which has been pointed out they should have been doing anyway.

This has to be about the easiest and cheapest AD’s with just about the worst possible outcomes if not complied with of any AD that I can remember.

I agree that it is a good idea to check the balance weights and I did that when the SB came out. However, it is heavy handed to require that we fly our aircraft to a maintenance shop with 2 weeks notice and have an inspection performed on the elevator. If the inspection was required at the next annual, it would be much less of an issue.

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, bonal said:

My 64d has the four rib elevators not the nine as indicated however the way I read this the “potential” that the weights may have been replaced requires the inspection regardless of elevator type.  Seems this could apply to the entire fleet unless there was a change in the weight design for later models.  I inspected mine visibly and do not appear to be hybrid.  Will check with a strong magnet next time I visit hangar.  Is there a way to get the PN visually from the weight itself.  If the magnet doesn’t stick is this enough to avoid having to RandR the elevators.  If not why even mention the procedure, type of magnet etc. in the first place.  

Usually the dimpled design of the newer elevators is heavier, and that would of course need a heavier weight to balance, so you couldn’t balance a dimpled elevator with a hybrid weight if I’m right, but take a magnet to it anyway, can’t hurt.

I don’t know where this R&R of the elevators is coming from, only if you are replacing the weight would you have to remove them, unless of course there is something I haven’t read.

See @M20Doc post above, he’s telling you what you need to do, if a magnet doesn’t stick, AD complied with, if it does visually inspect it and again in 100 hours, or until you replace the weight. If I had hybrid weights I’d order new ones and put them in at Annual, thereby terminating the AD.

[kortopates]

7 hours ago, Gary0747 said:

Yes, and what is the underlying reasoning for this 100 hour elevator removal and weight disassembly?
All the photos I have seen of totally messed up weights show the parts inside the elevator to be fine.  This stands to reason since all the bimetallic parts subject to galvanic corrosion are well outside this area and can be easily inspected with out disassembly and rebalance.  In fact I think all this elevator removal reassembly creates the increased likelihood of a “maintenance induced failure”.   Not to mention cost and down time  

Corrosion isn't always visible till the weight has been removed and the paint removed to look it over. We have one client whose weight had enough paint on it that it didn't look problematic. But when it was removed it too disintegrated where the solid bolt like material went through it - like the picture Don showed above. That was very surprising to the owner. So I get why Mooney requires removal and paint stripping to give it a detailed visual inspection. 

Then after refinishing them and re-installing them the SB echo's the MM to rebalance the elevator. 

Its really a ticking time bomb as some others have mentioned. And why I think just one visual inspection is enough to buy time to get the new weights when they're available and be done with the inspections.

Edited January 28, 2023 by kortopates

[A64Pilot]

Heck, anyone want to fly to where I live before the 6th of Feb I’ll inspect and sign off the AD for you. If you have hybrid weights and they are good I’ll inspect and write up next insp due in 100 hours. You can determine if your weight is safe to fly I’m sure

97FL Central Fl.

7 Feb I’m getting my third new knee installed

[A64Pilot]

1 minute ago, kortopates said:

Corrosion isn't always visible till the weight has been removed and the paint removed to look it over. We have one client whose weight had enough paint on it that it didn't look problematic. But when it was removed it too disintegrated where the bolt went through it - like the picture Don showed above. That was very surprising to the owner. So I get why Mooney requires removal and paint stripping to give it a detailed visual inspection. 

Its really a ticking time bomb as some others had. And why I think just one visual inspection is enough to buy time to get the new weights when they're available.

So remove the weight then, but why remove the elevator?

AD doesn’t specify anything but the steel slug in the lead weight, screws or iron rivets should be the same for all Mooney’s shouldn’t it?

[TCC]

Do you see that here? What possible substantive negative comments could there be?
 

Do I see consensus? Sure, between the manufacturer and the regulator. Impacted owners can begin to comment on the day it’s published in the Federal Register, which is running at least 14 federal business days behind submission right bow. If you read the submission, it says the submission periods is 15 days, so what I see is some people will be ignorant, some won’t be impacted, and some will get their panties in a knot, impacted or not. Until it’s published in the Federal Register, it’s just a regulatory wet dream.


But ignorance of the rulemaking process isn’t reason to launch the next Boston Tea Party.

[kortopates]

6 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

So remove the weight then, but why remove the elevator?

AD doesn’t specify anything but the steel slug in the lead weight, screws or iron rivets should be the same for all Mooney’s shouldn’t it?

After re-finishing and re-installing the weight, they call for rebalancing the elevator.

SB here:

https://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/sbm20-345A.pdf

Edited January 28, 2023 by kortopates

[A64Pilot]

2 minutes ago, TCC said:

Do I see consensus? Sure, between the manufacturer and the regulator. Impacted owners can begin to comment on the day it’s published in the Federal Register, which is running at least 14 federal business days behind submission right bow. If you read the submission, it says the submission periods is 15 days, so what I see is some people will be ignorant, some won’t be impacted, and some will get their panties in a knot, impacted or not. Until it’s published in the Federal Register, it’s just a regulatory wet dream.


But ignorance of the rulemaking process isn’t reason to launch the next Boston Tea Party.

I’m sorry your point went right over my head.

‘Are you saying this AD is unwarranted or not?

I see the AD as a good thing, I’m real happy no one had to die to get it published. I think we all collectively owe whoever pushed the issue a Beer.

I’m old, off the bed now 

[tony]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Heck, anyone want to fly to where I live before the 6th of Feb I’ll inspect and sign off the AD for you. If you have hybrid weights and they are good I’ll inspect and write up next insp due in 100 hours. You can determine if your weight is safe to fly I’m sure

97FL Central Fl.

7 Feb I’m getting my third new knee installed

I'm on my way!

[tony]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m sorry your point went right over my head.

‘Are you saying this AD is unwarranted or not?

I see the AD as a good thing, I’m real happy no one had to die to get it published. I think we all collectively owe whoever pushed the issue a Beer.

I’m old, off the bed now 

That exactly right, this is an annual issue, nothing more.

[A64Pilot]

Just now, kortopates said:

After re-finishing and re-installing the weight, they call for rebalancing the elevator.

I wondered that, but I contend you could weigh the weight on removal then ensure when you paint it it’s the same weight.

But I don’t see in the AD any mention of removal of the weight to inspect it.

Not arguing, if I had a hybrid weight I’d want it replaced at first Annual, best way to deal with an AD is termination.

[TCC]

I’m sorry your point went right over my head.
‘Are you saying this AD is unwarranted or not?
I see the AD as a good thing, I’m real happy no one had to die to get it published. I think we all collectively owe whoever pushed the issue a Beer.
I’m old, off the bed now 

I don’t know if the AD is warranted or not. That’s entirely a separate discussion from whether a direct final rule was the appropriate way to address the issue.

An agency can issue a direct final rule when it believes consensus in the affected community exists. Owners still have 15 days from 1/27 to show an adverse impact due to the rule and *potentially* have the rule modified.

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, tony said:

I'm on my way!

I’m sending you a PM with my telephone number

[kortopates]

1 minute ago, tony said:

That exactly right, this is an annual issue, nothing more.

I know one owner that is glad he didn't wait till annual. He complied a couple of months ago and to his and his mechanics surprise saw one of his weights disintegrate while removing it,

[tony]

2 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I know one owner that is glad he didn't wait till annual. He complied a couple of months ago and to his and his mechanics surprise saw one of his weights disintegrate while removing it,

So the SB,  made the IA go look at the weight?  Based on your description were these annuals or a paper work exercises?

[kortopates]

11 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

But I don’t see in the AD any mention of removal of the weight to inspect it.

From the AD:

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. (i) Mooney International Corporation Service Bulletin M20-345A, dated December 13, 2022.

......

(g) Required Action

(2) If any hybrid elevator balance weight P/N 430018-1 is installed, before further flight after the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours time-in-service or 12 months, whichever occurs first, inspect each hybrid elevator balance weight P/N 430018-1 for any corrosion and cracks in accordance with STEP 2 of the Instructions section in Mooney International Corporation Service Bulletin M20-345A, dated December 13, 2022.

[kortopates]

9 minutes ago, tony said:

So the SB,  made the IA go look at the weight?  Based on your description were these annuals or a paper work exercises?

No the owner was concerned enough after reading the SB to ask if his airplane was affected, he personally made the choice and took the SB words "before next flight" seriously. And now he's glad he did. 

[takair]

1 hour ago, Ragsf15e said:

Well it’s in the federal register, my IA found it, found the SB, did the check and signed it off.  I’ll take it.

My apologies, I am wrong.  

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

[kortopates]

6 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Ok, I admit I have not, YET, read the AD.

One question:

1) Do I need to have the inspection since I do NOT have smooth elevators?

IOW, has Mooney/FAA ruled out models with NON smooth elevators?

5 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

1. No

But I did, took 30 sec to see if a magnet would stick, so why not? I know it’s not required, but honestly if something very improbable can happen, it will happen to me. I’m that guy.

I didn’t record it in the book as the AD isn’t applicable to my J

Incorrect, But Ross @Shadrach was correct above.

True it isn't applicable to @A64Pilot 's J model 

The smooth elevators discussion is only mentioned in background discussion which has nothing to do with the applicability section of the AD which states .

(c) Applicability

Mooney International Corporation Model M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, and M20G airplanes, all serial numbers up to 680170 inclusive, certificated in any category.

You have to comply with Step 1 to verify you don't have the composite weights.

[PT20J]

11 hours ago, takair said:

I wonder why they had to specify neodymium magnet?  Why couldn’t they just say “magnet”?  I probably have a dozen magnets in my shop, but I couldn’t be sure if any are neodymium.  It’s the little things that can drive you crazy.

They probably wanted to ensure that the magnet is strong enough to detect the steel tubing unambiguously so that someone doesn't use a refrigerator magnet and pass a bad weight. They could have specified a magnet of 10,000 Gauss or greater, but neodymium is a more easily complied with specification.

[chriscalandro]

4 hours ago, Gary0747 said:

 Contacted two service centers and both had no idea when.  One said perhaps March.  They have been working on this for four months so far.  

I was led to believe that information was flowing from the manufacturer and that production was in place for these parts.

 

odd. 

[takair]

40 minutes ago, PT20J said:

They probably wanted to ensure that the magnet is strong enough to detect the steel tubing unambiguously so that someone doesn't use a refrigerator magnet and pass a bad weight. They could have specified a magnet of 10,000 Gauss or greater, but neodymium is a more easily complied with specification.

I get that, but I don’t know that picking up a magnet called “neodymium”on Amazon gives you any better quality assurance.  

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

(c) Applicability

Mooney International Corporation Model M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, and M20G airplanes, all serial numbers up to 680170 inclusive, certificated in any category.

Given my 1970 M20F has a serial number starting 7000nn, do I correctly conclude this AD does NOT apply to my aircraft (i.e., do NOT have to inspect)?

If true do I still have to have an A&P sign the log book recording of "N/A by S/N" by 2/13/23, or is at my next annual (after 2/13/23) sufficient?