Gear SAIB

[A64Pilot]

Attached SAIB for I believe all Mooney’s, except fixed gear of course

https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID169699427420230306144536.0001?modalOpened=true

[Vance Harral]

I briefly glanced at this.  Best as I can tell, the SAIB references an SI which just says, "Don't skip the landing gear inspection items on the 100 hour checklist".  I get that the FAA and manufacturers periodically issue these things, to try to get operators and maintainers to, you know, actually follow factory guidance when they feel like it's getting neglected.  But this seems like a nothing burger - people that are serious about maintenance already do these things, and those that aren't don't care about SAIBs and SIs.  What am I missing, if anything?

[PT20J]

The interesting thing is that all the Mooney gear ups have caught the attention of the FAA as well as the insurance companies.

Mooney's recommendations boil down to:

1. Understand your landing gear system and how to properly operate it in normal and emergency modes.

2. Maintain it properly.

3. Don't forget to put the gear down when landing.

Skip

[EricJ]

This is arguably aggravated by availability of rare parts needed to properly maintain aging airplanes.    The recent thread on crank actuator cables for the gear backup system comes to mind.   There's no known replacement source for those.   When owners did get together to get lock blocks made a maintenance shop subsequently called the authorities on the fabricators.

It's hard to maintain aging equipment without replacement parts.   If the FAA was really interested in fixing the problem it'd lower the barriers for production of replacement parts.    When the best option is to fly with worn parts, it's counterproductive to safety.

 

[PT20J]

Remember the FAA's motto: "We're not satisfied until you're not satisfied."

[Hank]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

Remember the FAA's motto: "We're not satisfied until you're not satisfied."

Or the most frightening words you can ever hear:  "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

[PT20J]

It takes a certain kind of evil bureaucratic mind to write a regulation that makes it your responsibility to maintain your aircraft in an airworthy condition, and then write other regulations that systematically close off every reasonable means to do so.

[hammdo]

I guess I’m very lucky to have purchased my Mooney from David ( @Sabremech ). David did so much needed maintenance on the gear system/Johnson bar and other areas. I’m on top of maintenance and won’t let things go because of the mechanical shape she is in. I hope to get many years out of mine.

The whole OPP spat really gets me.. totally unnecessarily. If I want to keep my plane safe, I need that option.

</rant-off>
-Don

[kortopates]

Given the number of Mooney annuals I hear about with no more of a gear inspection than cycling the gear I am not surprised.  Given the number of reported "gear failure" incidents we see I wouldn't fault the FAA but conclude the SAIB is deserved if they've tracked many of the gear failures to insufficient maintenance. Unfortunately it will likely only get read/reviewed by the conscientious Mooney owners that don't need this reminder - it really is redundant for those that follow the Mooney SM and Mooney 100 hr checklist. But those seeking the lowest cost quick annual probably won't care or notice this. I wonder if even an AD making it mandatory at annuals would make a difference in reducing gear failures, but I can see the FAA doing so when numbers don't improve. 

Aging parts is a separate but related issue. Has the FAA done anymore than just investigate the OPP complaint on David's gear bracket?

[Rick Junkin]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

 When owners did get together to get lock blocks made a maintenance shop subsequently called the authorities on the fabricators.

@EricJ What maintenance shop called the authorities?

[Sabremech]

4 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

@EricJ What maintenance shop called the authorities?

I don’t think that is appropriate to post here as this issue has not been resolved. Some day if it can be shared, I will share it but most likely never on social media.

David

[Rick Junkin]

12 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

I don’t think that is appropriate to post here as this issue has not been resolved. Some day if it can be shared, I will share it but most likely never on social media.

David

If you know, there’s no reason for us all not to know.

As far as being appropriate to post on social media, this is where we share this kind of information for the awareness of all. It isn’t a secret that there is an issue, there is no reason for it to be a secret who is involved. 

[Schllc]

Why can’t they separate the gear ups in appropriate categories?

Mechanical failure and pilot error.  
I would put money that the mechanicals failure is less than 5%. 
 

The Feckless Aviation Administration needs to keep up its well earned reputation. 
no point in drilling down to those pesky relevant details.  
Efficacy is a four letter word down there….

[Guest]

While it’s nice of the FAA to advise operators of the issue and the SI reminder to maintain landing gear, we also have a large group of owner who happily say those pesky SI’s and SB’s don’t apply to me.

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

Why can’t they separate the gear ups in appropriate categories?

Mechanical failure and pilot error.  
I would put money that the mechanicals failure is less than 5%. 
 

The Feckless Aviation Administration needs to keep up its well earned reputation. 
no point in drilling down to those pesky relevant details.  
Efficacy is a four letter word down there….

 It’s likely that many of the reported gear failures are due to pilot error and the data is skewed.  Who’s going to investigate each one and what’s the likelihood of determining actual root cause?  An SAIB is probably the only way to handle it.  There are definitely too many gear ups.  

[Mac80]

10 hours ago, DCarlton said:

 It’s likely that many of the reported gear failures are due to pilot error and the data is skewed.  Who’s going to investigate each one and what’s the likelihood of determining actual root cause?  An SAIB is probably the only way to handle it.  There are definitely too many gear ups.  

 The pilot may know or the could be wrong. 

 It maybe hard to separate gear folding up versus pilot error. Seems like if the gear folded up after landing or taxing or hard landing investigators could tell since if it was front gear problem or mains seems unlikely all gear would fold up or fail to extend to the same degree. Some pilots may call them gear retractions?

Are the FAA or NTSB  is investigating gear ups or gear retractions? It does not seem likely that the root cause is being reported.

Really good service center, that several others missed, caught a rigging problem for me that could have resulted in gear damage that as I recall was from excessive tightness first observed by some spacers that were inserted under gear flaps. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Mac80
Syntax

[kortopates]

12 hours ago, DCarlton said:

 It’s likely that many of the reported gear failures are due to pilot error and the data is skewed.  Who’s going to investigate each one and what’s the likelihood of determining actual root cause?

 

2 hours ago, Mac80 said:

Are the FAA or NTSB  is investigating gear ups or gear retractions? It does not seem likely that the root cause is being reported.

 

Folks I assure you the FAA investigates every incident and they do their best to attribute a root cause to every one. That's not to say they get every one correct and have the resources to delve into each to be absolutely sure but every one gets investigated. In addition to interviewing the pilot they'll review maintenance records, visit the plane when possible and often interview the maintenance provider. The breadth of their review is determined by what they learn about the incident initially. I wish I could give you a copy of the FAA's reporting form to highlight better, but they have to address a broad list of potential factors for every incident/accident to determine if it was caused by the Pilot, Airworthiness issue, weather or even fault with FARs or combination thereof - everything is on the table at the start.  For a great many they determine right away from the pilot it was human error and don't need to go further but being pros they certainly take what the pilot says with a grain of salt and don't necessarily stop there; especially if the pilot believes the gear failed. 

I am not an FAA employee but a volunteer Lead FAASTeam rep that learns many of incidents and accident details within our FSDO from our investigating inspectors. I have to assume the SAIB was written because their data indicates too many gear failures from a lack of maintenance. To me that suggest too many annuals that aren't following the Mooney Service manual to fully inspect and lubricate the gear i.e. pencil whipped annuals. For example, just cycling the gear like you would after changing a tire and calling it good. 
I am a bit unique since as a CFI I am not only involved with safety issues on the Operations side of the house (pilots, airspace, runway safety etc)  but  also as an A&P/IA I am also working closely with the airworthiness side of the house and hearing the maintenance issues so I am more exposed to the broader issues than the typical FAASTeam member. 

[takair]

23 hours ago, kortopates said:

I wonder if even an AD making it mandatory at annuals would make a difference in reducing gear failures, but I can see the FAA doing so when numbers don't improve. 

This started as AD 73-21-01, which is still active for older models. So, it is already regulatory via AD for a large portion of the fleet.  I have to comply every annual….or 100 hours.  I think later models are supposed to be covered in the MM, same interval.  

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

 

 

Folks I assure you the FAA investigates every incident and they do their best to attribute a root cause to every one. That's not to say they get every one correct and have the resources to delve into each to be absolutely sure but every one gets investigated. In addition to interviewing the pilot they'll review maintenance records, visit the plane when possible and often interview the maintenance provider. The breadth of their review is determined by what they learn about the incident initially. I wish I could give you a copy of the FAA's reporting form to highlight better, but they have to address a broad list of potential factors for every incident/accident to determine if it was caused by the Pilot, Airworthiness issue, weather or even fault with FARs or combination thereof - everything is on the table at the start.  For a great many they determine right away from the pilot it was human error and don't need to go further but being pros they certainly take what the pilot says with a grain of salt and don't necessarily stop there; especially if the pilot believes the gear failed. 

I am not an FAA employee but a volunteer Lead FAASTeam rep that learns many of incidents and accident details within our FSDO from our investigating inspectors. I have to assume the SAIB was written because their data indicates too many gear failures from a lack of maintenance. To me that suggest too many annuals that aren't following the Mooney Service manual to fully inspect and lubricate the gear i.e. pencil whipped annuals. For example, just cycling the gear like you would after changing a tire and calling it good. 
I am a bit unique since as a CFI I am not only involved with safety issues on the Operations side of the house (pilots, airspace, runway safety etc)  but  also as an A&P/IA I am also working closely with the airworthiness side of the house and hearing the maintenance issues so I am more exposed to the broader issues than the typical FAASTeam member. 

I reached out to the ACO Engineer listed on the SAIB because I feel they missed the most important part for the manual gear airplanes which is a worn downlock block. They didn’t seem to know anything about the downlock as the focus was on rigging and lubrication. I’m not convinced it’s really a rigging issue as much as it’s a worn block with no instructions for inspection or limits. I sent the engineer a number of pictures of worn down lock blocks for them to review. Let’s see if there’s an update to this SAIB.

David

[Mac80]

 

Can an experienced mechanic tell if tensions in electric M20 J main and front landing gear are correct from  jacking aircraft and doing gear swings?

Is down and locked mean you have enough preload or is mechanic suppose to measure tensions and preload  thru belly pan and near the wheels at each 100 hour or annual?

 

[Sabremech]

37 minutes ago, Mac80 said:

 

Can an experienced mechanic tell if tensions in electric M20 J main and front landing gear are correct from  jacking aircraft and doing gear swings?

Is down and locked mean you have enough preload or is mechanic suppose to measure tensions and preload  thru belly pan and near the wheels at each 100 hour or annual?

 

For the J model, the mains require the gear rigging tool and the torque is checked. For the nose, a measurement on the rod springs is made.

I’ve yet to have to adjust any on the Mooney’s I’ve worked on. Now rigging on the horizontal stabilizer is another story! Plenty of those I’ve made corrections on. 
David

[Shadrach]

21 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

If you know, there’s no reason for us all not to know.

As far as being appropriate to post on social media, this is where we share this kind of information for the awareness of all. It isn’t a secret that there is an issue, there is no reason for it to be a secret who is involved.

He reasons for not commenting on an issue in which he has a direct connection trump your curiosity.  The FAA issued this because someone complained. It certainly had nothing to do with the quality of the drawings, materials o processes used to make the parts.  In my view, it’s akin to a company saying, “We can’t/won’t meet the needs of the market but we’ll use the regulatory system to ensure that owners don’t collaborate to do what we can’t/won’t do”. This is an open forum and any of the PMA manufacturers could have offered a forum wide group buy and discount.
Why sell 10s of units for a reasonable mark up while benefitting from economies of scale when you can sell one a year at a ridiculous mark up and barely cover your overhead and inventory costs.  He business suffers and he customer feels gouged. I think they teach it in Aviation business school.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, kortopates said:

 

 

Folks I assure you the FAA investigates every incident and they do their best to attribute a root cause to every one. That's not to say they get every one correct and have the resources to delve into each to be absolutely sure but every one gets investigated. In addition to interviewing the pilot they'll review maintenance records, visit the plane when possible and often interview the maintenance provider. The breadth of their review is determined by what they learn about the incident initially. I wish I could give you a copy of the FAA's reporting form to highlight better, but they have to address a broad list of potential factors for every incident/accident to determine if it was caused by the Pilot, Airworthiness issue, weather or even fault with FARs or combination thereof - everything is on the table at the start.  For a great many they determine right away from the pilot it was human error and don't need to go further but being pros they certainly take what the pilot says with a grain of salt and don't necessarily stop there; especially if the pilot believes the gear failed. 

I am not an FAA employee but a volunteer Lead FAASTeam rep that learns many of incidents and accident details within our FSDO from our investigating inspectors. I have to assume the SAIB was written because their data indicates too many gear failures from a lack of maintenance. To me that suggest too many annuals that aren't following the Mooney Service manual to fully inspect and lubricate the gear i.e. pencil whipped annuals. For example, just cycling the gear like you would after changing a tire and calling it good. 
I am a bit unique since as a CFI I am not only involved with safety issues on the Operations side of the house (pilots, airspace, runway safety etc)  but  also as an A&P/IA I am also working closely with the airworthiness side of the house and hearing the maintenance issues so I am more exposed to the broader issues than the typical FAASTeam member. 

In 56 years the preloads on my Mooney have always been in spec. The nose increased almost imperceptibly when we changed the down block. I do not think misadjusted preloads are taking planes out. Yes there are other wear items but II’d bet that many of theses are pilot era being reported failure.  Several years ago a non pilot IA was swinging my gear while I adjusted the nose gear door. We got it set so he locked the gear down and got out. Before bleeding the jacks down I said “ you locked the gear down correct?” He said yes and I gave the main an inward tug to verify before releasing the jack.  A few minutes later I was in the cockpit for something else but I gave the J bar a forward push just to verify…the CLICK it made as it fully seated in the down lock was loud enough startle the mechanic. His face was shaken. “it wasn’t fully secure?” he asked.  I just said “nope”…I’m sure he’ll never do it again. I am glad I didn’t without checking. Would have been another “mystery” failure. 

[Rick Junkin]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

He reasons for not commenting on an issue in which he has a direct connection trump your curiosity.  The FAA issued this because someone complained. It certainly had nothing to do with the quality of the drawings, materials o processes used to make the parts.  In my view, it’s akin to a company saying, “We can’t/won’t meet the needs of the market but we’ll use the regulatory system to ensure that owners don’t collaborate to do what we can’t/won’t do”. This is an open forum and any of the PMA manufacturers could have offered a forum wide group buy and discount.
Why sell 10s of units for a reasonable mark up while benefitting from economies of scale when you can sell one a year at a ridiculous mark up and barely cover your overhead and inventory costs.  He business suffers and he customer feels gouged. I think they teach it in Aviation business school.

My question isn’t about who was making the parts, my question is who (what Mooney shop) dropped a dime to the FAA to report the person fabricating the parts. I don’t want to support a shop that would do that, which is why I and others would like to know who did it.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Rick

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

My question isn’t about who was making the parts, my question is who (what Mooney shop) dropped a dime to the FAA to report the person fabricating the parts. I don’t want to support a shop that would do that, which is why I and others would like to know who did it.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Rick

I understood at the outset. He wishes not to discuss. I understand why. It’s likely that no one knows for sure who called the FAA but can speculate with a high level of confidence…that’s not the same thing as knowing and it’s not smart to speculate on social media about a matter that is ongoing.