NEW AD ISSUED FOR M20B,C,D,E,F,G,J,K,L,M,R,S,TN

[MooneyMitch]

It seems that the FAA wants to have all Mooney models inspected for the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and attachment and the Hulk Bolt fasteners for propert security.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Pages 16135-16137]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 2012-6521]

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0275; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-009-AD; Amendment 39-16981;

AD 2012-05-09]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney) Airplanes

AGENCY:

 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

 

Final rule; request for comments.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

SUMMARY:

 

We are issuing an airworthiness directive (AD) for all Mooney Aviation Company,

Inc. (Mooney) Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M,

M20R, M20S, and M20TN airplanes that supersedes an existing AD that is applicable to certain

Model M20R and M20TN airplanes. The existing AD currently requires inspecting the tail pitch trim

assembly for correct positioning and proper attachment and inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for

proper security with repair as necessary for certain Models M20R and M20TN. That AD also

requires sending the inspection results to the FAA and Mooney. This AD retains all of the actions,

except the reporting requirement from the previous AD and adds airplane models to the applicability.

This AD was prompted by a report of an incident on a Mooney Model M20TN airplane regarding

failure of the tail pitch trim assembly, which could result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to

correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

 

This AD is effective March 20, 2012.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the AD as of March 20, 2012.

We must receive any comments on this AD by May 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

 

You may send comments by any of the following methods:

•

 

 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for

submitting comments.

•

 

 

Fax: 202-493-2251.

•

 

 

Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground

Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

2

•

 

 

Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building

Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Mooney Aviation Company, Inc., 165 Al

Mooney Road North, Kerrville, Texas 78028; telephone: (830) 896-6000; email:

technicalsupport@mooney.com; Internet: www.mooney.com. You may review copies of the

referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,

Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at

the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and

other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 

Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-

150 (c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210)

308-3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370; email: andrew.mcanaul@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On February 16, 2012, we issued AD 2012-03-52, amendment 39-16958 (77 FR 12179,

February 29, 2012), for certain Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney) Models M20R and

M20TN airplanes. That AD requires inspecting the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning

and proper attachment and inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper security with repair as

necessary. That AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA and Mooney. That AD

resulted from a report of an incident on a Mooney Model M20TN airplane regarding failure of the tail

pitch trim assembly, which could result in loss of control. We issued that AD to detect incorrect

positioning and improper attachment of the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim

assembly and to verify security of the attaching Huck Bolt fasteners, which could lead to failure of

the tail pitch trim assembly with consequent loss of pitch control.

Actions Since AD Was Issued

Since we issued AD 2012-03-52 (77 FR 12179, February 29, 2012), we received a report from

an owner/operator of a Model M20J airplane who had the airplane inspected and found the same

unsafe condition. Since the Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K,

M20L, M20M, and M20S airplanes have the same type design as the Models M20R and M20TN

airplanes, we determined that these airplanes should be added to the applicability of the AD to ensure

that the unsafe condition is addressed on all airplanes of the type design.

Also, Mooney published new service information that includes the expanded airplane

applicability and instructions for installing replacement fasteners, if necessary.

Relevant Service Information

We reviewed Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313A, dated February

29, 2012; and Service Bulletin No. M20-314A, dated February 29, 2012. The service information

describes procedures for inspecting the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and proper

3

attachment, inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper security, and installing replacement

fasteners, if necessary.

FAA's Determination

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the

unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type

design.

AD Requirements

This AD requires inspecting the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly

for correct positioning and proper attachment, and inspecting the Huck Bolt fasteners for proper

security on all Mooney Models M20B, M20C, M20D, M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L,

M20M, M20R, M20S, and M20TN airplanes. If incorrect positioning or improper/loose attachment is

found, this AD requires installing replacement parts and fasteners. These are the same actions

currently required by AD 2012-03-52 for certain Mooney Models M20R and M20TN airplanes,

except the reporting requirement is no longer required.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found

that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule

because failure of the tail pitch trim assembly could result in loss of control. Therefore, we find that

notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for

making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide

you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However,

we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to

an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2012-0275 and

directorate identifier 2012-CE-009-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite

comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We

will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those

comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including

any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive

verbal contact we receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 6,630 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

4

Estimated Costs

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per

product

Cost on U.S.

operators

Inspection of the trim fitting, hinge,

and filler plate of the tail pitch trim

assembly, and security of the Huck

Bolt fasteners

1 work-hour

X $85 per

hour = $85

Not applicable $85 $563,550

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement of the parts and Huck Bolt

fasteners that will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining

the number of aircraft that might need this repair:

On-Condition Costs

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product

Installation of replacement parts and

fasteners, including repair of an

incorrectly positioned and/or improperly

attached tail pitch trim assembly

16 work-hours X

$85 per hour =

$1,360

$302 $1,662

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty,

thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for

affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety.

Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation

Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III,

Section 44701, ''General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices,

methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This

regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely

to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not

have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of

government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a ''significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of

small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

5

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39–AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2012-03-52, Amendment 39-

16958 (77 FR 12179, February 29, 2012) and adding the following new AD:

6

FAA

Aviation Safety

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/advanced.html

2012-05-09 Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney):

 

Amendment 39-16981; Docket No. FAA-

2012-0275; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-009-AD.

(a) Effective Date

This AD is effective March 20, 2012.

( Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2012-03-52, Amendment 39-16958 (77 FR 12179, February 29, 2012).

© Applicability

This AD applies to Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. (Mooney) Models M20B, M20C, M20D,

M20E, M20F, M20G, M20J, M20K, M20L, M20M, M20R, M20S, and M20TN airplanes, all serial

numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code

55; Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a report of an incident on a Mooney Model M20TN airplane

regarding failure of the tail pitch trim assembly and the potential for this condition to exist on other

airplane models, which could result in loss of control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe

condition on these products.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

Within the next 10 hours time-in-service March 20, 2012 (after the effective date of this AD),

inspect the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning

and proper attachment; and also inspect that the Huck Bolt fasteners are properly secured following

Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313A, dated February 29, 2012.

(h) Corrective Action

If during the inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD you find incorrect positioning or

improper attachment of the trim fitting, hinge, and filler plate of the tail pitch trim assembly; and/or

you find loose or improperly installed Huck Bolt fasteners, before further flight, repair and correct the

7

discrepancies following Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-314A, dated

February 29, 2012.

(i) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service Information

(1) This paragraph provides credit for inspections required in paragraph (g) of this AD if already

done before March 20, 2012 (the effective date of this AD) following Mooney Aviation Company,

Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-313, dated February 7, 2012.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for repairs required in paragraph (h) of this AD if already

done before March 20, 2012 (the effective date of this AD) following Mooney Aviation Company,

Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-314, dated February 10, 2012.

(j) Special Flight Permit

Special flight permits are prohibited for this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Fort Worth ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if

requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your

request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending

information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the

Related Information section of this AD.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a

principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district

office.

(l) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, ASW-150

(c/o MIDO-43), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; telephone: (210) 308-

3365; facsimile: (210) 308-3370; email: andrew.mcanaul@faa.gov.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) You must use the following service information to do the actions required by this AD, unless

the AD specifies otherwise. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by

reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51: (i) Mooney Aviation Company, Inc.

Service Bulletin No. M20-313A, dated February 29, 2012; and

(ii) Mooney Aviation Company, Inc. Service Bulletin No. M20-314A, dated February 29, 2012.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Mooney Aviation Company, Inc., 165

Al Mooney Road North, Kerrville, Texas 78028; telephone: (830) 896-6000; email:

technicalsupport@mooney.com; Internet: www.mooney.com.

(3) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this

material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

(4) You may also review copies of the service information that is incorporated by reference at the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this

material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr_

locations.html.

8

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 13, 2012.

James E. Jackson,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Mitch

It seems that the FAA wants to have all Mooney models inspected for the tail pitch trim assembly for correct positioning and attachment and the Hulk Bolt fasteners for propert security.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: N4352H

[MooneyMitch]

This intial posting of this thread today was not mine. 

[JaredDavis]

See this thread for information on the SB/AD.

Factory Response- M20 Empennage Issue

http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?mainaction=posts&forumid=1&threadid=4566

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

[rob]

John,

There is a detailed discussion and explaination from Mooney at the link provided above. I see that you've even commented on that thread. Where is the disconnect?

That aside, it's a 20 minute inspection. I don't see why the big fuss. 

[DaV8or]

Sucks. Oh well, ya snooze ya loose. I just preformed the SB for this yesterday. Since the card hasn't been mailed yet, it now looks like I will have to pay somebody to do what I just did.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: rob

John,

There is a detailed discussion and explaination from Mooney at the link provided above. I see that you've even commented on that thread. Where is the disconnect?

That aside, it's a 20 minute inspection. I don't see why the big fuss. 

[MooneyMitch]

Quote: Mitch

This intial posting of this thread today was not mine. 

[sleepingsquirrel]

Quote: DaV8or

Sucks. Oh well, ya snooze ya loose. I just preformed the SB for this yesterday. Since the card hasn't been mailed yet, it now looks like I will have to pay somebody to do what I just did.

[rainman]

Am I understanding correctly? If your A&P did the SB you'll be good, but if you did the SB inspection yourself you need to have your A&P redo and document?  This is really not a huge issue if you have an A&P on your field. Just take off the panels and have him/her (my first wife is an A&P, my second is a nurse...as my plane and I age I'm not sure which I'll need more...anyway) sign it off. Once the panels are off, if it's correct, the whole thing only takes a couple of minutes.

[N601RX]

Quote: N4352H

Rob,

I read the discussion, followed the last thread and have spoken with my IA. Airworthiness directives insidiously deminish a fleet. They affect aircraft values, reputation and some times safety in the course of compliance. It has been long held that a/c with fewer AD's tend to be more desirable. Compliance costs time and money, however frivolous it may seem. This one is particularly bothersome because it affects controllability.

This is a shotgun AD.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: N601RX

Rob,

I read the discussion, followed the last thread and have spoken with my IA. Airworthiness directives insidiously deminish a fleet. They affect aircraft values, reputation and some times safety in the course of compliance. It has been long held that a/c with fewer AD's tend to be more desirable. Compliance costs time and money, however frivolous it may seem. This one is particularly bothersome because it affects controllability.

This is a shotgun AD.

[N601RX]

I think Mooney basically acknowledged that they did not have controls in place to prevent this from happening durring any time period.  It could have happened just as easily in 62' as 02'.  I personally think they did the right thing by stepping up and admitting it was possible that any model could have been assembled incorrectly. Do a google search for Zenith 601xl flutter. They let 7 or 8 of them shed their wings in flight before the FAA forced them to address the problem. Several were killed and the value of the planes were completely ruined.

[Mooneymite]

.

 

I agree that this was a shotgun approach by both Mooney and consequently the FAA.

An AD is a draconian solution to this situation, though at negligible cost/inconvenience to Mooney....just to the owners of the older models.  The estimated $85 does not begin to cover all the costs that might be incurred in compliance....all at owner expense.

Had there been even one short body occurance prior to the issuance, I would have thought, "maybe", but without any evidence that any short body had ever been discovered with this discrepancy, this AD is onerous and un-called for.  There have been years and years of inspections and not once was this reported, but all of a sudden all the short bodies are suspect too?

The SB would have been satisfactory.  If the SB turned up a few short-bodies with the discrepancy, then and only then would an AD be warranted.  As was previously discussed, even if the discrepancy existed in a short body, it does not have the dire consequences assoicated with the longer Mooneys.

This is about Mooney protecting its shorts at our expense.  I have no problem with the SB; this AD on short bodies is unwarranted at this stage without evidence of a problem in the short-body fleet.

 

.

[jetdriven]

Seriously, no need to get all worked up over a one hour, one-time AD.  I looked ours over real good durign the annual last month but did not perform the service bulletin to the letter.  So big deal, inspect it again. A Mooney is made from 100,000 parts.

[OR75]

Really not a big deal. The FAA gives you 10 hours to be able to check in with your A&P and get a log entry.

What can bring down the value of an aircraft would be a recurring ADs with no way of getting rid of it.  

[John Pleisse]

I'd love to know more about the 1990 J model SWTA found...this is the culprit setting the AD off for the entire fleet. 3 TN's and a 1990 J so far. Seems odd.

I am not worked up over it. We have a safe, low AD fleet. Why not keep it that way? The AD is a no brainer........if neccessary. I wish I had a crystal ball and could know how many will turn up. Any AD...is a cloud. Compliance is not the issue. Mooneymite is right...draconian. I know everybody is working for safety, but if you look back at the aileron link AD (last big control oriented affecting the entire fleet), it invovled a fatality. We should not wait until someone dies, but this one is a a bit over the top a little early.

[Gone]

Mine was done two weeks ago.  I'm good.

[Clarence]

Let me get this right, we have people complaining about an AD and S/B which take a half hour to ensure the safety of your airplane.

I would suggest that those who don't want to comply with the AD ask the FAA for an alternate means of compliance, and here it is:

" remove the three passenger seats from the aircraft and return them to Mooney." 

In this way the only person at risk is the pilot.  Once you fill out the compliance card Mooney can return the seats.

In reality it costs many many thousands of dollars to own and operate our aircraft, will $50.00 really break any of us?  Move on and be thankful no one was injured.

Clarence Beintema

Tri-City Aero MSC

 

 

 

 

[Mooneymite]

Folks, the issue I'm adressing is not the AD per se.  The actual work/effort involved in this particlar AD is minimal.  My Mooney is already in compliance.  However, if this is the way Mooney deals with a "suspected" defect, we can expect further abuse which may not be so benign in the future.  Maybe a few errant rivets in the wing spar of one Mooney will ground the whole fleet next time.  No cost to Mooney and no due process for the owners.  Same process as this AD, but a lot more AMU's.

Mooney, not the FAA, is driving this thing, but we're forced to pay the fare.  Does anyone really believe that Mooney would have added the B,C,D,E's if it was paying the cost?  We weren't even given a chance to comment, present evidence, or participate in any way.  

This is a very bad abuse of an important safety process....

[tony]

So let’s see….I have a service bulletin issued to my 45 year old airframe, that the OEM is recommending to the FAA that be made an AD because: the FAA approved factory, with the FAA approved quality system, had an escape that the OEM can’t bound and can’t quantify in over 50 years of production; and the risk is so great that the mitigation activity is to inspect the entire fleet.  Then you wonder why people are annoyed? How about the corrective action be to pull the production certificate…..and perform the inspection at the OEM’s expense.  Of course no one wants that.  I’m sorry but as an owner operator I think I have a right to be annoyed.   Doesn’t the factory keep as built records that the problem could be bounded a little better???

[Becca]

Quote: sleepingsquirrel

 If you did it yesterday, document that and postmark or FAX the mailer today ,ASAP. I read that paragraph (i) ; (1) , gives credit for INSPECTIONS done before March 20,2012 IAW SB M20-313.

 I FAXED the mailer to Mooney days ago. Which is all that the SB M20-313 required in the way of communicating back to anyone. It NOTED  to complete the compliance card and return it. It was not intended as part of the inspection just part of the documentation.

This is how I read it. I will stand corrected if necessary. A few days ago the inspection was not madatory, now it is carrying the force of the FAA. Thankfully the AD acknowledged credit for INSPECTIONS done before it was madatory.

 

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Clarence

Let me get this right, we have people complaining about an AD and S/B which take a half hour to ensure the safety of your airplane.

I would suggest that those who don't want to comply with the AD ask the FAA for an alternate means of compliance, and here it is:

" remove the three passenger seats from the aircraft and return them to Mooney." 

In this way the only person at risk is the pilot.  Once you fill out the compliance card Mooney can return the seats.

In reality it costs many many thousands of dollars to own and operate our aircraft, will $50.00 really break any of us?  Move on and be thankful no one was injured.

Clarence Beintema

Tri-City Aero MSC