Mooney Elevator AD

[Kelpro999]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I've never set these rivets, but what would be so hard about setting them when they are red hot? Heat them with a torch, push them in and set them. You just have to be quick about it. 

It seems that @Kelpro999 set them cold.

It seems that if they were red hot they would melt the lead.

Yes I set them cold. Didn’t even attempt hot because they fit very snug  though the lead and set up takes a little time. I guess a small torch might work but heating near t3 aluminum is not recommended.

[sailon]

19 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I don't believe so; from the AD: "c) Applicability
Mooney International Corporation Model M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, and M20G airplanes, all serial numbers up to 680170 inclusive, certificated in any category."  Sure sounds like airplane SNs

Additionally, I don't think the weights are serialized.

And, yes, I think the FAA may be concerned with swapped elevators.  Thus, why the SN of the aircraft makes little sense and smooth vs. beaded would seem to be a much better applicability criterion.  BWTHDIK?

If the elevator was "swapped," the SN of the airplane the elevator came from should be in the log book.  An IA or owner should know if a major repair such as an elevator swap occurred and render the AD applicable by SN.  Never install a critical part without the source aircraft SN in the logbook.  

 

[tony]

On 1/29/2023 at 7:30 AM, M20Doc said:

Be thankful the FAA didn’t want it X-ray’d.

shhhhh.....

[Guest]

21 hours ago, sailon said:

If the elevator was "swapped," the SN of the airplane the elevator came from should be in the log book.  An IA or owner should know if a major repair such as an elevator swap occurred and render the AD applicable by SN.  Never install a critical part without the source aircraft SN in the logbook.  

 

That’s assuming someone honest wrote it in the log books.

[mike20papa]

"Existing part (affected by AD or SB) , Part SN... removed and replaced with SERVICEABLE part SN..."  reads better than "Swapped out with .."  Write up a 337, note it in the log books.

 

 

[tony]

12 minutes ago, mike20papa said:

"Existing part (affected by AD or SB) , Part SN... removed and replaced with SERVICEABLE part SN..."  reads better than "Swapped out with .."  Write up a 337, note it in the log books.

 

 

a note in the log book is sufficient.  a form 337 is for a major alteration or modification.  

[RobertGary1]

On 2/1/2023 at 5:43 AM, A64Pilot said:

I think which elevator or serial number etc is actually irrelevant as the procedure to confirm or deny is so benign, just put a magnet to it, if it sticks you have a problem, if not then you don’t.

The removal of elevators, weights etc thankfully only applies to those who the magnet sticks, and from the pictures and the testimony from Professional Maintainers if you have a hybrid weight, you really, really want this AD complied with.

I don’t believe that will be many people as I read somewhere only 130 hybrid weights were manufactured and sadly a lot of our older birds are no longer in service.

Even though not required I put a magnet to mine, because you never know for sure what’s happened in the last 40 years and it’s such a simple check. Why not?

Or check the skin. If it’s beaded you’re good 

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

Or check the skin. If it’s beaded you’re good 

That’s what I’m trying to establish with certainty. The AD does NOT read that way.

It sure seems that’s the case, but can that be confirmed? IOW is there any possibility that there are beaded elevators out there that could accept a hybrid weight?

 I don’t think so…. But my opinion isn’t going to cut it with the FAA

[Guest]

It would be just as easy to say short weights don’t have a steel plug and long weights might, use a magnet to determine if the steel plug is installed.

[N201MKTurbo]

16 hours ago, tony said:

a note in the log book is sufficient.  a form 337 is for a major alteration or modification.  

Logbooks get lost. A 337 is forever. It might be nice to make a permanent record that it has been complied with.

[carusoam]

Fantastic job with all the details gents!

Thanks for sharing them all.

 

I have seen a bunch of rivets… but have never installed one.

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

[Guest]

We got an email from Mooney yesterday saying they are now taking orders for new weights.

[carusoam]

Good early morning Doc!

-a-

[Sabremech]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:37 PM, sailon said:

If the elevator was "swapped," the SN of the airplane the elevator came from should be in the log book.  An IA or owner should know if a major repair such as an elevator swap occurred and render the AD applicable by SN.  Never install a critical part without the source aircraft SN in the logbook.  

 

Since when is an elevator swap a major repair? If it’s the same part number, it’s just a parts change. If it’s the same part number and not a life limited part, S/N of aircraft it came off of is nice, but not necessary.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Good early morning Doc!

-a-

Yes, taking a short vacation 

[A64Pilot]

5 hours ago, Sabremech said:

Since when is an elevator swap a major repair? If it’s the same part number, it’s just a parts change. If it’s the same part number and not a life limited part, S/N of aircraft it came off of is nice, but not necessary.

It’s not and it’s not uncommon at all for flight control swaps due to damage to not make it in the logbook.

That’s is the obvious intention of one well known mechanic advising owners to get anything like that put on a sticker and not in the logbook, After some time the sticker is lost, Voila no damage history. 

[Sabremech]

13 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

It’s not and it’s not uncommon at all for flight control swaps due to damage to not make it in the logbook.

That’s is the obvious intention of one well known mechanic advising owners to get anything like that put on a sticker and not in the logbook, After some time the sticker is lost, Voila no damage history. 

If a flight control is changed with a new or replacement part, is there really damage history? The answer is no. It’s a parts change regardless of the reason. Now if it requires a repair using Mooney engineering or AC43.13 and documented on a 337, that can be considered damage history.

[A64Pilot]

49 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

If a flight control is changed with a new or replacement part, is there really damage history? The answer is no. It’s a parts change regardless of the reason. Now if it requires a repair using Mooney engineering or AC43.13 and documented on a 337, that can be considered damage history.

So parts destroyed during impact with something or a gear up aren’t damage history?

Often a part can be replaced instead of repaired, so no 337 as there was no major repair. You gear up, I can replace flaps, belly skins maybe some stringers, antennas whatever, replace the prop, remove the engine for tear down, all with no 337.

Before stickies Logbooks could be more trusted more than now in my opinion although it’s a recent opinion, when people first started the sticky thing it was because people like me have terrible handwriting and sometimes it was difficult to read, but a typewriter or now computer is perfectly legible so I thought great, the typed stickers looked more professional I thought than chicken scratch too. I always put the sticker in the book and I thought everyone did and it was required, probably from my Military time, things are mostly the same, but with some significant nuances.

It was on this site that I learned that some had been told to not let that mechanic put that sticker in the book, require that it be handed to you separate, and that was legal as well.

Well if people are doing that it of course means that at least some logbooks don’t contain the full and complete history of the aircraft.

I’ve always told people that in a purchase inspection that what’s not in the book was more important than what is, to look for repairs etc that aren’t in the book, like a row of oversized rivets etc.

But now as it’s so easy to lose that loose sticker that was prepared to record the repairs made from whatever damage they are even less reliable it seems.

All this is just meant to show that’s it’s possible to have had a flight control replaced that the entry never made it into the logbook.

It’s always been that way though, my little C-140 has light hail damage on one elevator, without any entry in the book about it ever having been replaced. It does have an entry where one wing was replaced. Almost certainly from a ground loop. 

So she was ground looped and tore up one wing and likely an elevator, but no 337, so no damage history?

 

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

So parts destroyed during impact with something or a gear up aren’t damage history?

Often a part can be replaced instead of repaired, so no 337 as there was no major repair. You gear up, I can replace flaps, belly skins maybe some stringers, antennas whatever, replace the prop, remove the engine for tear down, all with no 337.

Before stickies Logbooks could be more trusted more than now in my opinion although it’s a recent opinion, when people first started the sticky thing it was because people like me have terrible handwriting and sometimes it was difficult to read, but a typewriter or now computer is perfectly legible so I thought great, the typed stickers looked more professional I thought than chicken scratch too. I always put the sticker in the book and I thought everyone did and it was required, probably from my Military time, things are mostly the same, but with some significant nuances.

It was on this site that I learned that some had been told to not let that mechanic put that sticker in the book, require that it be handed to you separate, and that was legal as well.

Well if people are doing that it of course means that at least some logbooks don’t contain the full and complete history of the aircraft.

I’ve always told people that in a purchase inspection that what’s not in the book was more important than what is, to look for repairs etc that aren’t in the book, like a row of oversized rivets etc.

But now as it’s so easy to lose that loose sticker that was prepared to record the repairs made from whatever damage they are even less reliable it seems.

All this is just meant to show that’s it’s possible to have had a flight control replaced that the entry never made it into the logbook.

It’s always been that way though, my little C-140 has light hail damage on one elevator, without any entry in the book about it ever having been replaced. It does have an entry where one wing was replaced. Almost certainly from a ground loop. 

So she was ground looped and tore up one wing and likely an elevator, but no 337, so no damage history?

 

If it’s damage that required a “repair” via a 337, then that’s damage history as it should be. If it’s a part that’s replaced because it was worn out or damaged and did not require a 337, that’s just routine maintenance and does not constitute damage history. If you can repair a gear up with all new parts and not require a repair with a 337, then  that’s routine maintenance and not damage history. 
I’ve seen people on MS argue that running their airplane into a hangar and requiring an aileron, flap or elevator to be changed is damage history because the airplane was damaged and I hole heartedly disagree. Again, that is routine maintenance and no different than changing any other part that you document in your logbook.

Where in FAR 43.9 does it state that I am required to put “why” the maintenance was performed? 

Edited February 4, 2023 by Sabremech

[A64Pilot]

I see “damage history” being significant damage that has occurred to an aircraft, like a wing being destroyed is damage history in my opinion.

An aileron destroyed in a parking accident is damage, not major damage, but it’s damage.

But replacing a wing doesn’t require a 337, nor does an aileron replacement.

By saying that damage is only when there is a 337, means major repair history to me or of course major alteration, but doesn’t necessarily mean damage. Many times a structural repair from normal wear and rear requires a 337.

We differ in opinion is all, I think as a wing had to be replaced on my 140, it has damage history.

[Sabremech]

23 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I see “damage history” being significant damage that has occurred to an aircraft, like a wing being destroyed is damage history in my opinion.

An aileron destroyed in a parking accident is damage, not major damage, but it’s damage.

But replacing a wing doesn’t require a 337, nor does an aileron replacement.

By saying that damage is only when there is a 337, means major repair history to me or of course major alteration, but doesn’t necessarily mean damage. Many times a structural repair from normal wear and rear requires a 337.

We differ in opinion is all, I think as a wing had to be replaced on my 140, it has damage history.

Was the wing on your 140 a serviceable part with no 337 repairs? If so, it was a part replacement and who cares why it was done? Sure, it’s nice to know but is not damage in that it would effect the value of the aircraft. It’s nothing more than history. Could you imagine how thick a logbook would be if we were required to put “why” we did the maintenance we did? It would be nothing more than great bathroom reading like the FAR’s.

 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Sabremech said:

Was the wing on your 140 a serviceable part with no 337 repairs? If so, it was a part replacement and who cares why it was done? Sure, it’s nice to know but is not damage in that it would effect the value of the aircraft. It’s nothing more than history. Could you imagine how thick a logbook would be if we were required to put “why” we did the maintenance we did? It would be nothing more than great bathroom reading like the FAR’s.

 

You care why it was done because often a ground loop especially with wing contact hard enough to damage the wing can result in door post cracks, door post cracks are not readily apparent but are a whole lot of work to fix, much harder than changing wings. The cracks seem to occur right where the wing strut attaches to the door post.

Also ground loops can cause cracks in the landing gear boxes, which are difficult to inspect and are a real bear to remove to repair by welding. 

Either is probably a 100 hour labor repair.

You care if a Mooney has geared up because among other things you want to ensure the Lycoming prop strike SB was complied with, I believe the AD only requires the gear and bolt to be replaced and that can be done without engine removal.

I want the SB complied with.

‘Don’t quote me on that though because it’s been years since I dealt with a prop strike. (knock wood)

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

You care why it was done because often a ground loop especially with wing contact hard enough to damage the wing can result in door post cracks, door post cracks are not readily apparent but are a whole lot of work to fix, much harder than changing wings. The cracks seem to occur right where the wing strut attaches to the door post.

Also ground loops can cause cracks in the landing gear boxes, which are difficult to inspect and are a real bear to remove to repair by welding. 

Either is probably a 100 hour labor repair.

You care if a Mooney has geared up because among other things you want to ensure the Lycoming prop strike SB was complied with, I believe the AD only requires the gear and bolt to be replaced and that can be done without engine removal.

I want the SB complied with.

‘Don’t quote me on that though because it’s been years since I dealt with a prop strike. (knock wood)

You’re talking something that could define damage history if it wasn’t repaired correctly. If it was repaired with new or serviceable parts just like original and doesn’t require a 337, then it’s maintenance. 

[A64Pilot]

2 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

You’re talking something that could define damage history if it wasn’t repaired correctly. If it was repaired with new or serviceable parts just like original and doesn’t require a 337, then it’s maintenance. 

That’s a circular argument that has nothing to do with the existence of a 337 or not.

To insist no matter how bad it’s torn up that’s it’s not damaged if there isn’t a 337 is silly.

I’ve written a 337 for repairing a cracked compression rib, so I guess that aircraft was damaged from normal wear and tear, where the wing being torn up beyond repair on my 140 wasn’t ?

[Sabremech]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

That’s a circular argument that has nothing to do with the existence of a 337 or not.

To insist no matter how bad it’s torn up that’s it’s not damaged if there isn’t a 337 is silly.

I’ve written a 337 for repairing a cracked compression rib, so I guess that aircraft was damaged from normal wear and tear, where the wing being torn up beyond repair on my 140 wasn’t ?

It appears you just want to continue this so you can be right. Sorry, but you’re not. You replaced the wing on your 140. Once again, the why doesn’t matter. You also did a repair for normal wear and tear, not damage. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Sabremech