Mooney Elevator AD

[MikeOH]

16 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The way I read it is that all potentially affected aircraft are subject to an initial inspection to determine the type of weight installed. I am not sure whether this determination needs to be made by a credentialed maintenance professional or if the owner can make the determination.

If it is determined that the aircraft has hybrid weights installed, The elevator is subject to a recurring inspection. The AD can be terminated by installing non hybrid weights.

Then, if I understand you correctly ALL elevators need to inspected, not just smooth skinned?

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Then, if I understand you correctly ALL elevators need to inspected, not just smooth skinned?

Smooth skinned is referenced in the Background section of the AD. However, the Applicability section makes no mention of skin type, only serial number and model.

 

 

[Jim Peace]

I have a 64C that has a smooth elevator and I do not have the weights that are in question....

So I am good to go?

[cferr59]

6 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

I have a 64C that has a smooth elevator and I do not have the weights that are in question....

So I am good to go?

I don't think so. You have until Feb 13th to take your aircraft to a duly certificated mechanic to confirm that your original elevator has not be besmirched by the installation of the parts from an M20F. If you don't like that, you have until March 13th to submit comments. Go FAA!

[bonal]

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.  

[cferr59]

There are a few issues I have with this AD process:

1.) It is overly broad. It applies to models (CDE) where the problematic part number was not installed at the factory. It is true the parts could have been replaced, but if that is the standard, many more ADs need to be issued. Someone might have some ECI Cylinders on their Lycoming; better issue an AD for all Lycoming Engines giving them 2 weeks to be inspected.

2.) It was issued with insufficient notice and the remedy for failure to comply grounds aircraft. I find this especially problematic in light of item 1.

3.) It was issued without the opportunity to comment on it before it goes into effect bypassing the normal rulemaking process.

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rjfanjet said:

68C. I don't have the hybrid weight.

Neither does my Comanche!

[Shadrach]

2 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.  

One of the problems is that there is no way to distinguish which parts are which by part numbering . As far as I can tell, the parts manual for 1967 has but one part number for the elevator balance weights (430018-1) but both hybrid and solid weights (430016-7) were installed on 1967 model year aircraft.  With the age of the fleet and the number of salvage parts that have been installed over the last five decades, I understand why they want to cast a wide net.

[Guest]

Doesn’t look very difficult, FAA estimates 1 hour to stick a magnet to the weight.  Again panic mode set to maximum 

[Igor_U]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

There are obviously a lot more publications out there than I have seen, where are you getting removal of the elevator and or weight?

you should read the SB M20_345A (that's Rev A) and get your facts from the horse's mouth. 

Also, AD has few details about time and cost (at $85/h) for inspection and eventual replacement.

[Gary0747]

6 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I thought the SB said Mooney had contracted with someone to build new ones?

 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.  

[Gary0747]

What could cause the difference in these two hybrid counter weights?  Both 55 years old.  One on the bottom the (good one) has flown 6500 hours in a wide variety of weather and to many locations over those years.  Is it suddenly going to disintegrate like the one one on the top?  Or is an annual inspection simply looking for cracks and expansion around the exposed end going to be adequate versus elevator removal counter weight removal repainting and rebalancing the elevator every hundred hours?

[takair]

19 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m sure it’s because a neodymium is a very strong magnet, if you don’t specify then someone could use a very weak one and miss the insert.

Aircraft inspections have to by nature be very specific, I’ve seen a min lumen output specified for the UV light to do dye penetrant inspections etc.

But unless you have the authority to sign off the AD, I’d just worry that it was a good strong magnet, one that I have that doubles as an inspection mirror and magnetic retrieval too I’m sure would work. 

I say this often, but for those that don’t like that an A&P or higher is required to do inspections etc., there is a class of aircraft especially for you, use to be they were all rag winged lawnmower powered things, but for several years Experimental's have been available that easily outperform most Mooney’s.

Go Experimental and don’t be aggravated anymore.

The AD specifies any aircraft I believe that could use smooth skinned elevators, because they could have had a discrepant part installed at some time during its life.

But no one says an owner can’t stick a magnet to the part to make sure, you just can’t sign off the AD. Silly as this sound even though I have a J, I tried sticking my magnet retrieval tool to mine when I first heard of this, why not?

Worst case if you have a hybrid weight it’s a 100 hr inspection that the logbook entry takes longer than the inspection, this one is as easy as it gets. Of course if you have an unsafe one, you want it out.

Even as you yourself suggested, you have a generic magnet…how do you know it met the spec?  Why not use a method to quantify the strength of a magnet, such as a magnet that can pick up a certain size (weight) piece of standard hardware.  Or a magnet of a certain weight that can stick to a vertical steel surface.  The specification of neodymium magnet does not guarantee is is a strong enough or adequately sized, or even truly neodymium, does it?  Can I use one from Amazon and know that it is adequate?  I am also not implying that there should be a special part number magnet sold only by Mooney, just a better way of quantifying what is needed.  Anyway, not worth spending too much time discussing my pet peeves, but this is one reason that there is usually a comment period prior to release.

[Ragsf15e]

1 hour ago, M20Doc said:

Doesn’t look very difficult, FAA estimates 1 hour to stick a magnet to the weight.  Again panic mode set to maximum 

Mine happened to be in annual this week.  I showed my IA the AD (it wasn’t in adlog yet), he inspected, tried the magnet, signed off and charged.25 hours.  No bad weights.  Good deal!

[takair]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Mine happened to be in annual this week.  I showed my IA the AD (it wasn’t in adlog yet), he inspected, tried the magnet, signed off and charged.25 hours.  No bad weights.  Good deal!

I don’t think the AD is active until February, is it?  I think one can only sign off on the SB at this point.  
 

Edit:  My statement is not correct..  

(f) Compliance

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

Edited January 28 by takair
Correction

[tony]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

One of the problems is that there is no way to distinguish which parts are which by part numbering . As far as I can tell, the parts manual for 1967 has but one part number for the elevator balance weights (430018-1) but both hybrid and solid weights (430016-7) were installed on 1967 model year aircraft.  With the age of the fleet and the number of salvage parts that have been installed over the last five decades, I understand why they want to cast a wide net.

Ross, the factory should have the as built configuration of every serial number.  If they don't, I hope the MIDO fines them.  The AD is way to broad.  It puts the burden on the operator, and none on the manufacturer.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, tony said:

Ross, the factory should have the as built configuration of every serial number.  If they don't, I hope the MIDO fines them.  The AD is way to broad.  It puts the burden on the operator, and none on the manufacturer.  

Even if Mooney’s records show the configuration as the plane went out the door, they have no control over the maintenance completed in almost six decades since.

[tony]

1 minute ago, M20Doc said:

Even if Mooney’s records show the configuration as the plane went out the door, they have no control over the maintenance completed in almost six decades since.

You could put that in the AD.  Quality escapes, along with ADs need to be bounded. 

[Ragsf15e]

58 minutes ago, takair said:

I don’t think the AD is active until February, is it?  I think one can only sign off on the SB at this point.  

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.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, tony said:

You could put that in the AD.  Quality escapes, along with ADs need to be bounded. 

The AD is as simple as possible.  Have your maintainer try to stick a magnet to the weight, if it doesn’t stick you don’t have the hybrid weights, make a log entry to terminate the AD,

If the magnet sticks, inspect the weight for cracks at time intervals and as an option replace the weights (when they become available) to terminate the inspection.

[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.

Not trying to be a downer, but the Federal Register shows the effective date as 2/13/23, so best I know, one has to sign it off after the effective date.  I don’t know that you can sign off ahead of that.  All it would take would be a new entry.  
 

Edit:  my statement is not correct.  

(f) Compliance

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

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, tony said:

Ross, the factory should have the as built configuration of every serial number.  If they don't, I hope the MIDO fines them.  The AD is way to broad.  It puts the burden on the operator, and none on the manufacturer.  

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.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Igor_U said:

you should read the SB M20_345A (that's Rev A) and get your facts from the horse's mouth. 

Also, AD has few details about time and cost (at $85/h) for inspection and eventual replacement.

SB’s are not mandatory, they are usually a very good idea though, but not mandatory.

If you’re concerned with what you have to do, only look at the AD, although they often incorporate the manufacturers SB, an SB is usually where AD’s come from

I still don’t see where you guys are getting elevator removal and rebalancing etc every 100 hours though

[TCC]

…
But it seems in this case they jumped straight to final rule, so yes the FAA thinks it’s SERIOUS.…

Or not.

Direct final rulemaking allows bypassing the front end but significant adverse comments submitted still count and can alter destiny.
“In a direct final rule, the agency states that the rule will go into effect on a certain date, unless it gets substantive adverse comments during the comment period. “

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

FAA issued direct final rules in December around commercial balloon medicals that also fixed the BasicMed safety pilot fiasco and around aircraft registration periods that extended most to 7 years (backdating some) Not always bad or serious, moreso that FAA believes there is consensus on the best path forward.

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, cferr59 said:

There are a few issues I have with this AD process:

1.) It is overly broad. It applies to models (CDE) where the problematic part number was not installed at the factory. It is true the parts could have been replaced, but if that is the standard, many more ADs need to be issued. Someone might have some ECI Cylinders on their Lycoming; better issue an AD for all Lycoming Engines giving them 2 weeks to be inspected.

2.) It was issued with insufficient notice and the remedy for failure to comply grounds aircraft. I find this especially problematic in light of item 1.

3.) It was issued without the opportunity to comment on it before it goes into effect bypassing the normal rulemaking process.

 

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.