AD for tail pitch trim assembly

[DaV8or]

Quote: Mooneymite

.

 

Not a single short-body discrepancy yet?

Makes sense.  

These airplanes have been flying for more than 30 years without this problem cropping up.  While this AD was warranted for the long bodies, the short bodies should have been left out and just covered by the SB unless there was actual evidence that:

1.) There had been any mis-assembled.

2.) That a mis-assembly posed a serious problem in a short body.

I still think this AD was over-kill for the short body fleet.  "Within 10 hours" after flying for more than 30 years?  Give me a break!

Let's see if ANY short body discrepancy ever shows up.

 

 

.

[Hank]

Dave--

Where did you get those numbers? I've only heard of two late-model long bodies [Poland and somewhere else], and one 1990 J, plus the one plane that sat for 12 years after a tail strike and was improperly restored [didn't even use huck bolts!].

Guess that's another benefit to flying Vintage--built when people cared, and took enough time to do it right. Now, so many companies only care about gross sales and marginal profit for this quarter, and worry about next quarter after they wrap up this one. Short-sighted Wall Street traders are killing us all.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Quote: Mooneymite

Not a single short-body discrepancy yet?

[ElkoRandy20J]

Mine checked out OK.  1979 J. 2040 hrs.  O.5 hrs including photos.

[DonMuncy]

Jerry,

Was yours a misplaced filler plate like the ones that caused the AD to be issued, or was it that during the AD compliance inspection, a worn bolt was found.

[Mooneymite]

Quote: jerry-N5911Q

My shop just found one -- the inspection of the huck bolts and hinge assembly on my M20C revealed the hinge bolt was badly worn and needed replacement.   It was an alarming find.   The bolt was $3.50 and the labor about 1 hour.   I am happy the AD directed them to have a close look.   4100 hours TT, probably the same time on the part. 

[Bennett]

There was a report on Mapalist today that Top Gun found the misassembly on a 1983 M20J.  I also have a 1983 M20J that was checked by LASAR, and was OK. Any more reports of misassembly? 

[davbert]

Just an FYI.  ADs are mandatory.  Service Bulletins are not, even if they are listed as mandatory.  There is no mandatory requriement to report anything to Mooney.  That said, there is no good reason not to report your findings as it affects the ability of the OEM to support the fleet if they don't have accurate and complete data.

Dave

[DaV8or]

Quote: Bennett

There was a report on Mapalist today that Top Gun found the misassembly on a 1983 M20J.  I also have a 1983 M20J that was checked by LASAR, and was OK. Any more reports of misassembly? 

[airfoill]

I don't think anybody has even mentioned this.  If you look at the assembly that addresses the AD, there appears to be the same type of filler plate on the opposite bulkhead on the same hinge.  I can see where the opposite filler plate can also be misassembled just like the AD addresses.    I looked at mine and there are filler plates behind both hinges in proper sequence on both bulkheads.

 

 

[Bill_Pyles]

I did the inspection myself.  Do I HAVE to have an A&P do the inspection to comply with the intent of the SB?  I know SBs are not mandatory.  Can I make a log book entry myself?  This is a pretty basic inspection.

[DaV8or]

Quote: Bill_Pyles

I did the inspection myself.  Do I HAVE to have an A&P do the inspection to comply with the intent of the SB?  I know SBs are not mandatory.  Can I make a log book entry myself?  This is a pretty basic inspection.

[jetdriven]

I think even when it was an SB, that an appropriately rated mechanic must log the inspection.  I dont think an owner can do it under FAR 43.  SB's are not mandatory, and I inspect a lot more than whats on the preflight checklist.  Even things such as autopilot servos, static leaks, battery terminals, wiring, etc.  But when it comes to documenting it, it takes an Airframe mechanic to actually log it.   Incorrect?  maybe.

[OR75]

I believe Byron is correct.

SB can be very very simple (like the one we are talking about here) or very complex but are all governed by the same rules i.e. an A&P need to make the log book entry.

Only entries that can be made by a pilot operator are listed clearly in part 43 (filter change, oil top off, tires, brakes servicing, etc ..)

 

 

[N601RX]

Quote: OR75

I believe Byron is correct.

SB can be very very simple (like the one we are talking about here) or very complex but are all governed by the same rules i.e. an A&P need to make the log book entry.

Only entries that can be made by a pilot operator are listed clearly in part 43 (filter change, oil top off, tires, brakes servicing, etc ..)

 

 

[jetdriven]

Ssme thing with the ignition switch grounding AD.  It specifically says "This check may be performed by the pilot" and its an AD !