sleepingsquirrel Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 I read that AD 2012-05-09 (effective today March 20,2012), supercedes AD 2012-03-52. The inpsection (g) still references the same service bulletin M20-313A, dated Feb. 29,2012. I suspect that if the Mooney fleet (other than the R and TN models and maybe the Js) had responded with a flood of returned cards to Mooney that this could have been kept from an AD without the need of the strong arm of the FAA for mandatory enforcement. Especially if the return of cards was negative for the need of corrective action (SB M20-314A). The return of the mailer by FAX or snailmail is still in the text of the SB, the mailer does not fix the date of the inspection by a postmark or dated FAX cover of the return mailer , it simply asks for the date of compliance. IF, and I am emphasizing the word ,IF I was leagally able to sign the aircraft back into service when this was a SB, this AD still references the same SB as before. I could still sign it back into service today fly the airplane until I deliver it for annual where the mechanic would run the ADs and sign it off as complete. I know this may look like I'm cheap ,but I'm just following the instructions as they are written. Quote
aviatoreb Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Quote: 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. Quote
jetdriven Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 the AD refers to a service bulletin, which is a onetime check that takes maybe an hour. Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Quote: aviatoreb Can someone convert this AD to English for me? Is that what it is - check this thing in the tail within 10 hours - and probably it checks out fine and we are done? Is it a complicated check? Is it a one time check? I am really illiterate when it comes to reading government leagaleeze so please forgive my obvious questions. Quote
jetdriven Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 You dont need a legal expert. The SB is now mandated by AD. If this 50$ nuisance is an example of "govenrnment regulations stifling the common man", perhaps boating is a more palatable sport. Because insurance, interest, and the ridiculous cost of parts and fuel is what's hammering us. Not a 50$ AD. Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Ok, I don't need a legal expert explain this to me , but I admit this is a lot more stimulating than : LOP/ROP bladders/sealed tanks proper landing /approach speeds and on and on and on.......... and boating is also fun where grounding your vessel is not a safe act ,like flying where grounding your vessel is safe! Quote
jetdriven Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 It is always better to be in a boat with a drink on the rocks, than in the drink with a boat on the rocks. Quote
aviatoreb Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Quote: jetdriven the AD refers to a service bulletin, which is a onetime check that takes maybe an hour. Quote
M204ever Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 ... and what about M20A, converted to (B-E) metal tail ? Quote
docket Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I did the inspection in the same time it took to read this email chain. Quote
DaV8or Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Back in the 1980's I owned and flew 6 aircraft at one time. They consisted of a Mooney F, Mooney K, Cessna T210L, Cessna C421C, Ls4a sailplane and a Lark ISB 28 sailplane. You talk about someone that hated to go to the mailbox! The AD's that came through rarley applied but still had to be researched and signed off. The two Cessnas were BY FAR the worst offenders. It is amazing to me that there have not been more ADs come to light. I can't imagine what this thread would be like if some of the posters had the Bravo with it's crankshaft or some of the Garmin flat panels to convert to WAAS. Larry Quote
N9937c Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 The above post is mine N9937c The comment about regulatory overreach is noted BUT is just a drop in the ocean as far as dealing with the Faa. Larry Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I did find this document describing how the AD should be written to allow a PP to sign off an AD. If an AD is allowed to be signed off by the owner/operator holding at least a PP cert, the AD will state that it is allowed. -- January 23, 2007 FAA-IR-M-8040.1A127. AUTHORIZATION TO PERFORM WORK REQUIRED BY ADs.a. The persons authorized to perform the work required in an AD should not be prescribed by the AD as long as the actions are to be accomplished by persons prescribed in 14 CFR § 43.3. However, when compliance is allowed by persons other than those prescribed in that section, a statement such as the following must be included to ensure a maintenance record entry is made:The actions required by paragraph (**) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate, and mustbe entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR § 43.9 and 14 CFR § 91.417(a)(2)(v).b. ADs should not authorize the pilot to conduct other than routine checks and specify that, if a defect is found, any further action must be taken only by an authorized person. Pilots should not beauthorized to do any task that requires the expertise of a mechanic, such as the use of uncommon tools, test instruments or technical procedures that require training. In addition, if a required check requiresmaintenance knowledge to interpret what is observed, that check becomes maintenance and must be performed by a person certificated to perform such maintenance. If there are any questions concerning this policy, contact General Aviation and Commercial Branch, AFS-340. Quote
John Pleisse Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Quote: sleepingsquirrel I read that AD 2012-05-09 (effective today March 20,2012), supercedes AD 2012-03-52. The inpsection (g) still references the same service bulletin M20-313A, dated Feb. 29,2012. I suspect that if the Mooney fleet (other than the R and TN models and maybe the Js) had responded with a flood of returned cards to Mooney that this could have been kept from an AD without the need of the strong arm of the FAA for mandatory enforcement. Especially if the return of cards was negative for the need of corrective action (SB M20-314A). The return of the mailer by FAX or snailmail is still in the text of the SB, the mailer does not fix the date of the inspection by a postmark or dated FAX cover of the return mailer , it simply asks for the date of compliance. IF, and I am emphasizing the word ,IF I was leagally able to sign the aircraft back into service when this was a SB, this AD still references the same SB as before. I could still sign it back into service today fly the airplane until I deliver it for annual where the mechanic would run the ADs and sign it off as complete. I know this may look like I'm cheap ,but I'm just following the instructions as they are written. Quote
sleepingsquirrel Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 What I have learned: A private pilot/owner may not sign off an AD unless the AD specifically states that he can. I could have legally ignored the SB (although it would be stupid to do so) and wait for the AD to be issued. Since I did not ignore the SB and performed it as pilot/owner, the AD is satisfied because it gives credit for work already performed under the SB. Quote
John Pleisse Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Quote: sleepingsquirrel What I have learned: A private pilot/owner may not sign off an AD unless the AD specifically states that he can. I could have legally ignored the SB (although it would be stupid to do so) and wait for the AD to be issued. Since I did not ignore the SB and performed it as pilot/owner, the AD is satisfied because it gives credit for work already performed under the SB. Quote
DaV8or Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 That's what they sould have done with this AD, allow the owner to do it and sign off on it. Seriously, if you can run a screwdriver, a flashlight and a mirror, you are qualified to do this inspection. If you can't work those tools, turn in your pilot's certificate now. It's super easy and anybody could have done it. Maybe drumming up a little work for the ol' MSCs? I also think that for any airframes other than the aircraft linked to the incident plane by assembler, the inspection could have been held off until annual. At annual these panels are off anyways and so no additional cost or time. Quote
Cruiser Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 But the aircraft log must be signed by and A&P IA correct? Otherwise how is a future AD search going to show that the AD had been complied with? Quote
Mooneymite Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 . Okay....anyone with a B, C, D, or E find a discrepancy under this AD yet? The youngest short-body is more than 30 years old, so hurry up and inspect within the next 10 flight hours, or who knows what will happen! . Quote
Cruiser Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Quote: DaV8or snip...... I also think that for any airframes other than the aircraft linked to the incident plane by assembler, the inspection could have been held off until annual. At annual these panels are off anyways and so no additional cost or time. Quote
jetdriven Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 This is not on the annual inspection checklist for Mooney M20 series airplanes. Neither is checking for the correct spacer stacking. Also, the memo just came out Feb 29th. The day before our Annual was signed off. Visually inspect all 10 huckbolts to insure no signs of movement, retaining collar properly swedged and visually verify pin protrusion (use inspection mirror for lower bolts). Make sure all hardware is secure, bolts and collars should not rotate with finger pressure Quote
scottfromiowa Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 When a condition is found to result in potential LOSS OF CONTROL...and the OEM company can NOT clearly state that records show a certain model year is NOT impacted...AND it is an inspection that has minimal cost impact to ENSURE that there IS NO DEFECT impacting potential loss of control I have NO PROBLEM with this AD. This would appear to me to be EXACTLY what the purpose of an AD is in a certified airframe. While I am confident that my plane is O.K. and the plate/huck bolts are properly installed as per service bulletin photos/detail...I will feel better knowing that it HAS been done AND future potential buyers will KNOW with CERTAINTY that my plane is "O.K" regarding this AD based on the inspection and logbook certification. A good reason to fly to MXO and have another "minor" issue addressed. Quote
rainman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I took off the panels and my local A&P walked over and looked at it (he had read the AD and SB and had already done someone elses, and I had the flashlight and mirror handy). He filled out the paperwork, and I put the panels back on. 0.25 hours! I mailed the card back in to Mooney in case they are building a database. My plane (1979 M20K) had the correct assembly order of the hinges/spacer/plates and no loose or deformed huckbolts. Easy. Ray Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.