Mooney Elevator AD

[PT20J]

27 minutes ago, takair said:

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

Because even the weakest N35 grade neodymium magnet is >10,000 Gauss.

[Gary0747]

I don’t know the Gauss or material but a small telescoping pick up tool magnet will attach strongly to a hybrid weight leaving no doubt.

[PT20J]

3 minutes ago, Gary0747 said:

I don’t know the Gauss or material but a small telescoping pick up tool magnet will attach strongly to a hybrid weight leaving no doubt.

I have two of those. My newer one has a very strong magnet - probably neodymium. Sometimes it is  too strong and attaches itself to something I don’t want it to on its way to the screw I’m trying to retrieve. So, I have an older one with a much weaker magnet that won’t pick up anything heavier than a short AN3 bolt. Sometimes that’s the better tool. So, you can see how difficult it is to specify the tool. Neodymium magnets are cheap.

[Gary0747]

3 hours 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 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. 

Given that the corrosion products occupy more volume than the original materials I think any serious corrosion like this can be detected by looking for bulging and increase in size regardless of the amount of paint.  I think most of the photos I have seen of bad weights confirm this.  They grow and crack and eventually lose structural integrity.  

[Raymond J1]

I like it when the FAA explains to mechanics how they should do their job...
But I noticed that the FAA does not like it when someone explains to them that they are not doing their job well.
When for the next AD that corrects or cancels the previous one ?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, cferr59 said:

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.

Oh come on! It’s not like you have to fly to Texas to get it done. Most people are looking for somewhere to fly anyway.

[Pinecone]

FYI, for most people this is the one time inspection and log book entry.

A MAXIMUM of less than 4.5% of the aircraft could have these weights.

It is a PITA and I do question the 2 week compliance.

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, MikeOH said:

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?

Next annual. 

[A64Pilot]

7 hours ago, Raymond J1 said:

I like it when the FAA explains to mechanics how they should do their job...
But I noticed that the FAA does not like it when someone explains to them that they are not doing their job well.
When for the next AD that corrects or cancels the previous one ?

I still can’t find the “A” version of the SB, all Google is getting me is the plain 345 dated Oct 6.

 

[AIREMATT]

12 hours ago, kortopates said:

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

Here it is again for you.

[RobertGary1]

Why was the F included? Are there any smooth skin F elevators?

[Gary0747]

8 hours ago, M20Doc said:

Oh come on! It’s not like you have to fly to Texas to get it done. Most people are looking for somewhere to fly anyway.

Come on guys in all seriousness this thing is a mess!  Over 3000 aircraft needing immediate inspection and log book entry by an inspector.  In my view all that was needed is the FAA to allow an immediate owner inspection guided by the photos and info in the SB to locate any serious corrosion overlooked in previous inspection.  Then at next annual and when Mooney has parts available complete what is need to be done with the weights.  Nobody is going to fall out of the sky going this way.  
 

There is a chance the FAA might make some changes so be sure to give them your comments.

Go to:  regulations.gov and search for FAA 2023-24

[A64Pilot]

46 minutes ago, AIREMATT said:

Here it is again for you.

Thank you, not sure why Google wouldn’t find it for me, but I still don’t see where weight is required to be removed, except to be replaced.

I do see where elevator is removed, paint removed from weight, weight inspected with 10x magnifier, weight repainted and elevator balanced. As it’s such a small amount of paint that’s being replaced it shouldn’t affect balance.

I do think elevator removal is excessive, but that’s my opinion.

Requiring paint removal and a 10x magnifier means yes, they are very concerned.

If I was one of the few that has a hybrid weight I’d have replacements on order, I suspect very few will actually be affected though, be interesting to see how many, I suspect any that are will post.

I’m still waiting for the NBS I paid for last May so it may be prudent to get to the head of the line.

I think it would be a good idea next time you’re at your airplane to take a good strong magnet with you, you couldn’t sign anything off, but you would know. 

But this AD I say again in the AD world is nothing, it’s not like getting a letter in the mail and finding out your cylinders are bad, or your crankshaft, both of which I narrowly missed on my last airplane, or an AD on the wing spar on the other one.

 

[AdamJD]

26 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Thank you, not sure why Google wouldn’t find it for me, but I still don’t see where weight is required to be removed, except to be replaced.

The elevator must be removed and the paint must be stripped for the inspection.  It doesn't say that the weight itself has to be removed.  But it's still a pretty labor intensive job for inspecting the weights.

"1.3. If the balance weight is determined to be a hybrid weight 430018-1, and initial inspection shows no sign of cracking or chipping, Continue to STEP 2 for further action."

"STEP 2 - Detailed Inspection of 430018-1 weights:"
"2.0 - REMOVING ELEVATOR WITH 430018-1 WEIGHTS"
"2.3. Strip paint from balance weight per applicable Service and Maintenance Manual Section XI"
"2.1.0 BALANCE ELEVATOR With 430018- 1 Weights (Complete and Painted)"

"STEP 3 - Replacing 430018-1 Hybrid Weights with 430016-7 Lead Balance Weights:"  So Step 3 is the actual replacement if the weights are found to be cracked or corroded. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I still can’t find the “A” version of the SB, all Google is getting me is the plain 345 dated Oct 6.

 

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

from the Mooney.com website under technical publications

[Jim Peace]

Is this AD coming to people in the mail?  

I have not received it.  Do we as owners have an obligation to check ADs in other places prior to the annual? Are we supposed to check some website everyday?

If I were not on Mooneyspace I would have never known about this..

 

[Pinecone]

I can see the rebalancing if the weight is stripped and repainted without removal.

If you removed the weight, then you could weigh it, strip, inspect, repaint, return to the pre-stripping weight.

But might be a pain to remove and replace the iron rivets.

[Ragsf15e]

3 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Why was the F included? Are there any smooth skin F elevators?

Yes, mine is 68-0164, F.  Smooth skin, not hybrid weight thankfully.  Already signed off!

[Vance Harral]

35 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

Is this AD coming to people in the mail?  

I have not received it.  Do we as owners have an obligation to check ADs in other places prior to the annual? Are we supposed to check some website everyday?

If I were not on Mooneyspace I would have never known about this..

 

ADs are no longer mailed to aircraft owners, though that used to happen.  As I understand it, in the modern era, you're expected to sign up for e-mail notifications at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USFAARGL/subscriber/new?pop=t.  I believe the FAA's position is that failure to do so is a violation of https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-39/section-39.7. Please note that I'm not arguing this is a reasonable position for the FAA to take, just explaining my understanding.

In practice, being a member of your aircraft's "type club" is usually sufficient to be informed.  Regularly checking here on Mooneyspace is in certainly in the spirit of that.

[AIREMATT]

You are subscribed to the FAA's GovDelivery service for Airworthiness Directives and Other Airworthiness Information, which are also posted in our Dynamic Regulatory System (DRS) at https://drs.faa.gov

[MikeOH]

I am subscribed to the FAA's AD notification service.

I received notification yesterday, 1/27/23, via email with a direct link to the AD.  Much better than getting it mailed, IMHO.

[skykrawler]

1 hour ago, Jim Peace said:

Is this AD coming to people in the mail?  

I have not received it.  Do we as owners have an obligation to check ADs in other places prior to the annual? Are we supposed to check some website everyday?

If I were not on Mooneyspace I would have never known about this..

 

As the owner operator you are responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft.  This includes knowing that all ADs, one-time and recurrent, are complied with.  For example, the operator knows how many hours the engine is operated and should know the 100hr AD for the fuel injector line inspection is due.  Or a prop hub inspection.

[Jim Peace]

2 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

As the owner operator you are responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft.  This includes knowing that all ADs, one-time and recurrent, are complied with.  For example, the operator knows how many hours the engine is operated and should know the 100hr AD for the fuel injector line inspection is due.  Or a prop hub inspection.

yes I get that....but when a new AD pops up how would I know unless its annual time and the AD check is performed...

I did just now subscribe to the FAA AD service.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, skykrawler said:

As the owner operator you are responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft.  This includes knowing that all ADs, one-time and recurrent, are complied with.  For example, the operator knows how many hours the engine is operated and should know the 100hr AD for the fuel injector line inspection is due.  Or a prop hub inspection.

Except the fuel line AD is 110 hours.

ii) Thereafter, re-inspect after any maintenance is done on the engine where any clamp on a fuel injector fuel line was disconnected, moved, or loosened, and within every 110 hours TIS and after each engine overhaul.

[Gary0747]

9 hours ago, AdamJD said:

"STEP 2 - Detailed Inspection of 430018-1 weights:"
"2.0 - REMOVING ELEVATOR WITH 430018-1 WEIGHTS"
"2.3. Strip paint from balance weight per applicable Service and Maintenance Manual Section XI"

I have not been able to find the referenced section X1, but it sounds like they are telling us to chemically “strip a corrosion sensitive” part?    This appears to be ignoring the later guidance in M20J Service and Maintenance Manual section 20-00-02 on Corrosion Detection and Prevention.  They are looking for microscopic cracks which must be a new standard for condemning counter weights.   From my knowledge of corrosion and as indicated in the M20J manual you should not get solvents into cracks and locations where they are hard to either neutralize or wash out.  Using a stripping solvent with a chlorinated hydrocarbon component has damaged a number of aircraft in the past too.  They don’t say that directly but I have seen this and have a background dealing with this type of corrosion.    
In any case these hybrid corrosion sensitive weights were likely manufactured with microscopic seam cracks between the steel tube and the lead.  You can see this area in my previous posting of photos of two hybrid weights that had been in service for 55 years.   I was asking if anybody knew why one was still in perfect shape and one was totally destroyed to see if anybody understood the mechanisms at work here.  Nobody answered so here is what I think based on my background.  The round seam on the side is a microscopic crack that if not adequately sealed will allow water and contaminates and paint stripper in when exposed to that.   The liquids essentially become electrolytes allowing a galvanic cell and the resulting corrosion.  The key here is you can have dissimilar metals in contact but if you eliminate the electrolyte there will be no corrosion.  You can see in the photo the good weight has had paint and a sealant covering the crack between the steel and the lead.  The airplane also has been well maintained and kept in a good dry environment.  It has not been tied down near the ocean which can be an extreme hazard for galvanic corrosion over time.  I believe the hybrid weights are a risky design that obviously fail much easier if not properly maintained.  But I think the hybrid weights can last indefinitely if the side seams are kept sealed.  I know this thinking is contrary to some who think all hybrid weights are a ticking time bomb.  But I don’t think they have an adequate understanding on the mechanisms at play here.   Bottom line in my opinion if the factory is calling for a chemical strip of the corrosion sensitive weights that would be a mistake which is likely to cause new galvanic  corrosion.    Haven’t we normally just scraped select locations with a knife probing for corrosion?  That would be adequate in my mind plus negate the need for removing and balancing the elevator.

End of My Rant