| Beech18.net Forums | Guest logged in. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yesterday, August 18, the FAA initiated a data collection process (i.e. comments from owners, operators, etc.) that will result in a new spar inspection (xray) AD to replace the current one (AD 75-27-09 R2). The new AD envisioned by the FAA would require periodic spar xray and visual inspections (requiring strap removal/replacement) similar to the current rule in addition to requiring periodic re-oiling of the lower spar tube. The new AD would require these inspections and re-oiling every 1,000 hours or 48 months, which ever comes first. Initial compliance for aircraft that have not been xrayed in the last 48 months or 1,000 hours would be immediate. The comment period ends on September 30th. After that, as I understand it, the proposed AD would be published as an NPRM. The current process is an early opportunity to influence this AD. Both economic and technical comments are appropriate. To quote the FAA, "Any comments or replies to the FAA need to be as specific as possible. Please provide specific examples to illustrate your comments/concerns." Many of us can provide good, specific economic comments based on our personal situation. For anyone who can also provide competent technical comment ... here's your chance. I am trying to get more info on three things: 1) What kind of incident or report has made the FAA pursue this process, 2) Where is there a link to download the proposed document, and 3) Where should we direct our comments? I'll post again as soon as I find the answers to these questions. |
|||
|
|||
|
Pete, Thanks for the update. I'll look into it also and put links on the site as soon as I can get the info. -kyle |
|||
|
|||
|
I'd like to add my thanks for the heads up. It will be interesting to learn what kind of incident or report led to this action. In other words, who is behind it? I certainly hope it isn't being promulgated by someone with a vested economic interest, as this might lead some to suspect their motives. However, I've become quite jaded in aviation matters so I wouldn't be surprised if it was. |
|||
|
|||
|
It isn't bad enough they have the useless AD requiring the spar-strap to x-rayed in the first place, but now they want to add a more restrictive one? Oh jeez,,, what I wonder what cessna 400 series had a spar crack now? Seems to me anytime other people's airplanes have a problem, we get the brunt of the attacks, for flying such beautiful airplanes. Please keeep us up to date as to where to send our opinions, because this new AD is just absolutely ridiculous! By the way, George do you happen to have an email??? I had a few questions for you. Thanks,, Mike |
|||
|
|||
|
On August 20, 1999, before I bought my 18, I called the FAA Associate Air Certification Officer at the Raytheon plant to check on the spar issue. He said work had slowed due to the T-34 troubles which were consumming a lot of time, but that Raytheon and the FAA would eventually get back to it. At that time, he said they were considering a 5-year inspection period, because the airplanes were not flying as much as before. As a result, average time between inspections was getting longer. The trouble, he said, is that corrosion may arise between widely-spaced inspections and pose a greater risk than the wear and tear of flying. He was not dogmatic about any of this. Rather he dsscussed in a cordial, straight-forward way the issue as it then stood. He did say there had been a couple of incidents where x-ray had detected an unusual condition, not a crack, and the suspect area could be punched through with a screwdriver. He also said that since the straps went on, they had had no losses on strapped airplanes. On the other hand, I've heard of two airplanes that had spars break in flight and were saved by the strap. I don't know the details, but the fact is - of the hundreds of strapped spars at least two still failed - and the strap saved lives. At the rate we fly these "collector" airplanes, 10-20 years could easily pass between inspections. It's been 14 years for my airplane so far, and at the rate I fly, I've got another 3-4 years on the strap. I plan to get it done within a year regardless. We use the airplane for family trips and often have friends and friend's children on board. It's just my personal opinion, but if there's a possiblity that dangerous corrosion can develop between today's long-spaced inspections, I'm happy to inspect the spar as often as necessary to be safe. In our conversation in 99, he did not mention oil. What's that? Oil inside the spar? I've heard of oil in the spar at manufacture, but not as a service item. A new wrinkle? I suspect some would like the airplanes grounded permanently and we need to defend against that. But surely we arrive an effective AD that is not punitive. Clark |
|||
|
|||
|
Gentlemen, this is a good time to band together, and let the FAA know the facts. The Beech 18 fleet is relatively small, but hopefully we can put a dent in this NPRM by answering in as great a number as possible. Almost everyone who owns a Beech 18 knows about this site, and we regularly have some of the most experienced operators in our midst. We need to pool our collective knowledge and experience, and make this A.D. reasonable while ensuring our airplanes are perfectly safe. My two cents worth; Beech 18's seem to have slightly more than their share of partial or full gear collapses. This has nothing to do with the spar A.D., except that ground loops or ground damages can possibly affect the integrity of the main spar. I believe the gear problems can be addressed by better routine maintenance. The original spar A.D. did exactly what it was supposed to do, and more. The x-rays detected cracks or improper welds in the main spar. What they also accidentally discovered was that there was a very small number of spars that had major internal corrosion, (undetectable from the outside). Most or all of these instances can be directly attributed to damage accident, (which leaked the oil out of the spar), or modifications such as the Volpar conversion, which when done improperly, had compromised the spar and allowed for internal corrosion. The spar strap is just another measure of safety. The FAA is proposing to penalize all of us for the possible problems in a few aircraft. We need a better way to identify these aircraft that have the potential problem. Otherwise why would we not X-ray every 4 years (and put spar straps on), every aircraft ever made. We all already have a set of X-rays on our spars, is the FAA saying that any spar is subject to severe internal corrosion in 48 months? I believe this A.D. is being driven by people that have a vested economic interest. Ironically, what might possibly happen could shrink the Beech 18 fleet down to a number that would put many people out of business? Less airplanes, and less voices to be heard, will really hurt us all. Realistically, checking these spars every 10, 15 or even 20 years would catch any corrosion issues in any spar in any normal operation. Unless you have a wing or gear related incident/accident, severe turbulence, leaking spar or prior corrosion issues, why burden everyone. Let's have the FAA address the specific problems, which could affect any aircraft in an aging fleet. I'll agree that at current flight usage, 30 year X-rays may not be the safest, but 4 years is ridiculous. Thanks, John H. |
|||
|
|||
|
Pete: Thanks for the heads up. This is an important event that we all need to get behind and support with effective and helpful set of responses. Criticizing the ACS is not our best course of action at this time. Trying to critique it and provide improvements in its wording is a better course of action I believe. This type of action is occuring to the Bonanzas, to the T-34, to the Cessna 300 and 400 series,..... This is a part of a "new" FAA (with some push from the Hill). Steve |
|||
|
|||
|
Information is now available at: http://www.beech18.net/faa/xrayinfo.htm or go to the homepage and click on the link |
|||
|
|||
|
Kyle, Excellent work as always. I just glanced quickly at the process, and it seems that at this point they'd prefer getting collected info from a primary source, i.e. AOPA or a type club. On the proposed a.d., I do like the excellent drawings and pictures, which make the current a.d. document look downright primitive, but I definitely don't agree with the interval. See previous posts for some good reasons. Mike, I sent you an email. Ask away! George |
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry to have taken all day to get this post up, but I have answers to the three questions I identified in my earlier post. 1) What incidents or reports have given rise to this concern on FAA's part with corrosion in the Twin Beech spar? Answer: None. There is a general concern with spar corrosion with an aging fleet. Besides this being an issue with General Aviation in general, spar corrosion in the model 18 has been a concern for a while and was addressed by the current rule (1500 hour interval with no calendar requiement) as long as most Beech 18s were flying regularly and thus reaching the 1500 hour inspection interval in a relatively short time. Since corrosion is a time-based issue, and since the BE 18 fleet is on average spending longer times between 1500 hour inspections, Raytheon and the FAA felt the need for a calandar-based interval as well as an hour-based one. As well, The man at Raytheon who as a metalurgical engineer was responsible for continuing airworthiness issues in the model 18 retired. So the manufacturer no longer maintains an expertise for our planes. Long answer, but that's where we are. It does give us some insight about how to respond, however. 2) Where can we download the document? ANS. www.beech18.net Kyle Larson is working on making the document available for download on this website. Thanks, Kyle! The document may also be available next week on www.staggerwing.com. 3) Who do we respond to? ANS. Look here for an email address to send comments. Kyle has said he would post the email address for comments here at beech18.net. Anyway, that's what I found. Keep up the good dialogue. I especially liked Clark Thurmond's post. Pass the word. And send thoughtful comment. Comment deadline again is 30 September. Pete |
|||
|
|||
|
for the documents and contacts (available in the documents) go to the beech18.net homepage and follow the links. Here is something i just thought of: Pulling a strap every 4 years (as required to do x-rays) will probably tear more things up and cause other problems. It is a fairly involved process even on the easier straps. |
|||
|
|||
|
I have to agree with Buzzby on this issue. I run freight in my 18. I don't beat my old girl up or even fly over gross for love of my airplane. I have a great respect for the 18, but I feel that every 4 years, or 5, is too short for some. I personally fly quite a few hours a year because its freight, which will more then likely result in more frequent inspections on the strap, but to affect a whole group of people whom, I am assuming love their 18's and take very very good care of them, would do what they can to prevent corrosion from becoming a factor, by doing the routine maintenace as one write stated, and not stinging on it, then why should their be such a restrictive AD? Possibly 10 year inspection or maybe 15, but I think 5 is very restrictive. As Kyle stated, their is alot involved in doing an inspection. I did mine last year, and it was quite the experience to have to take the strap out. It wasn't easy and putting it back was even more of a task because nothing seems to want to go exactly the way it came out. Not to mention, down here in Florida, it costs 1800 if you use one of the more experienced guys, and the other ones that operate here are 2500, and they were ready to condemn a perfectly good spar strap, until I had taken to a guy with more then 30 years experience. So to conclude, I believe the financial aspects will also take out some of our wonderful airplanes, as the prices of inspection rise, as the level of expertise is not that great, at least down here. Hope I didn't make some mad, but I just have to agree with not making it so terrible for the few whom love the 18 but can't afford the aftermath of a restrictive AD. mike |
|||
|
|||
|
Actually this AD has been in the works for some time, at least as far back as 2000. not only does it call for the oiling to prevent corrosion, but adds, if I remember right 12 more points to Xray. Although I do not beleive that it is necessary for most airplanes, when I see some that have been 10 years without a look see at the spar, and have never been reoiled since beech did it originally., I think to preserve the fleet and avoid the difficulties that the T34 is having, it is great continued operation of the fleet insurance. I dont know that 48 months is necessary, but on the other points I am afraid that on this one, I have to go with Beech and the FEDS John L. Wesley john@bristolcomputer.com |
|||
|
|||
|
First: Many thanks to Pete for the alert and informative follow-up. And thanks to Kyle for getting the documents up so fast. I wonder if we could get the static display used in the photographs moved to the Beech Party this October. It would be great to examine a bare spar truss with AD in hand. As to the 48 months, since that appears to be somewhat arbitrary, might the time between inspections be progressively longer if no corrosion is detected? Like the Ham Standard blade corrosion AD? Short time to first inspection, then longer times for subsequent inspections if no corrosion found each time? Clark |
|||
|
|||
|
Clark The idea of progressively longer intervals like the Ham Standard AD comes up in this conversation often. I'm not sure if it was considered and rejected already by the FAA. So there's another thing to find out. In order to get them to change something in the proposal like the inspection interval, my understanding is the argument for change would have to be backed up by solid engineering data. As I said in my last post, however, I have not found any solid engineering data (actually any data at all) that was used as a basis for the proposed 48 month interval. That doesn't mean the data doesn't exist, but if it does, I haven't asked the right person or asked the right question yet. But without knowing of the basis for the FAA's proposal, it is difficult or impossible to make an effective technical comment that addresses the issue. A similar question in my mind this morning is if the concern is corrosion as stated in the FAA's ACS document, and the solution is to add a calander-based interval to the current flight-hour-based interval, what is the thinking behind also changing the 1500 hour interval to 1000 hours? Obviously, I would like to ask the FAA to make their engineering data available. The answer I have from them so far is that it came from Raytheon. A call to Raytheon turned up an engineer who said the guy who did that work is the one who retired a couple of years ago. So far, phone calls to the retired engineer's home have not found anyone at home. But Clark, your thoughts are on track. Thanks for keeping up a good public discussion. I'm sure this dialogue can bring the best ideas to light. Pete |
|||
|
|||
|
Well, looks like there's not much to say until we get more detail. I'm assuming that the Twin Beech Society will serve as the gathering and contact point, and that a visit to Wichita is in order. I would hope we could find a more economical way to achieve the same level of safety, but if not, so be it. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that someone capable is examining the vulnerability of these old spars and coming up with ways to keep them airworthy. That re-oiling is a new one on me, and seems to make a lot of sense. Wesley's point above - about it being a sort of insurance - dead on. When you think about it, no one has ever had to keep an 18 flying safely well past its sixth decade. In a strange way, it's a new, cutting-edge problem. I'm glad someone smarter than me is working on it. Clark |
|||
|
|||
|
Thank you, Pete, Kyle and all involved for getting this out while we have time to possibly affect the outcome. A few other points to consider; 1)Some of these spars are as much 65+ years old, others are a more improved design and only possibly 36 or 37 years old. Some have been high time trainers or freight dogs, others have been meticulously maintained, low time, hangared, personal or corporate aircraft. Some are restored creampuffs, with a newly reconditioned spar, others have sat in the weeds for 30 years with low time since the last x-ray. How do you differentiate which aircraft would be susceptable to this corrosion problem? 2)Would it not be worth it, as an association of Beech 18 owners/operators, to hire an expert metallurgist, for help with an unbiased technical opinion? The FAA has shown respect for type clubs that handle their own aging aircraft problems. 3)As Kyle and Mike previously mentioned, at some point we will be doing more harm than good by taking apart perfectly good spars arbitrarily every 4 years. What sbout the aircraft that have to remove the wings to get their strap off? 4)The FAA will consider the financial burden on the group involved. Another factor is the shortage of available locations and technicians available to do this. 5)Like Clark and Pete hit upon, I agree, an exploratory x-ray and reseal should maybe determine the time required for your next x-ray. Base it on the health of the spar. 6)What about the possibility of another non-destructive testing method that could be acomplished more feasibly? Something similar to the punch test on Piper wing struts, could be done to the representative problematic areas? We have already x-rayed for the cracks and weld defects, let's figure a way to check for the corrosion. 7)How about an air/vacuum gauge on the spar, (like one of the crack detector STC's), to be able to easily, periodicly check if your spar is sealed properly? When properly treated, the steel will not corrode unless exposed to the atmosphere. Lets keep em flying safely and reasonably. Thanks, John H, |
|||
|
|||
|
If this sounds stupid I apologize; I'm not an expert on the spar structure. But if after the initial x-rays etc. you fill the spar with oil, why would you ever have to test it again if the oil level doesn't drop? Let's say you check the level at the fill point every annual inspection. If the level hasn't dropped then obviously you don't have any cracks, and filled with oil the spar can't possibly corrode internally. Therefore no need for further x-rays. Also, would it be possible to dye the oil so that if it is leaking out somewhere it can be more easily spotted? |
|||
|
|||
|
George, Sorry to have used shorthand without explaining. To "re-oil" refers to a procedure in the ACS document. The model 18 spar is a welded steel tube structure, just like a cub fuselage. It is part of a larger welded steel tube truss to which the engines and main landing gear are mounted. The truss is the structural "heart" of the airplane and it carries all of the main loads inflight and on the ground. When the spar/truss structure was originally manufactured, all of the tubes were sealed airtight. Small holes were drilled (linoil holes) and the structure was flushed with linseed oil and subsequently drained. The linoil holes were sealed with drive screws and theoretically, if the structure has never been compromised by damage/repair or modification, it should still be air tight today...and corrosion-free. Many circumstances could have breached the integrety of these tube structures over the years, like the Volpar mods, which called for drilling holes in the spar tubes and sealing the fittings as they passed through those holes with Pro Seal. Over many years, the sealer dries out and the spar tubes are open to the air. Or the drive screws might not be there after 50 years, who knows? Anyway, the thinking is that to insure continuing airworthiness of the structure, "re-oiling" might make sense. Buzzby's post mentioned the old Hamilton spar crack detection mod, which measured the spar tubes' ability to hold air (dry nitrogen?) under pressure without leaking, kind of like a compression tester. If the tubes could hold pressurized air, they weren't cracked, the theory went. That STC had limited success and I'm not sure why. Probably because spar problems in those days were more about weaknesses that might not necessarily show up as an air leak. But to prove that a spar tube is air tight and therefore corrosion-free internally (after establishing that by initial xray inspection) makes sense. Good idea, Buzzby! Concievably, someone could revive or update that old STC in response to this new AD and make some money doing it. Actually the spar crack detection mods were a set of 5 STCs (applicable to different models of the -18) developed by Hamilton Aviation. All 5 STCs are now the property of the Staggerwing Museum in Tullahoma, TN. Another thought about the re-oiling requiement. If after all these years a spar tube has clean xrays and the tubes are still air tight, drilling NEW holes to re-oil it might be creating a problem where non existed before... Finally, I have another apology. I have so far erroniously referred to this requirement as "re-oiling the LOWER spar tube". I re-read the ACS document more closely today and I'll quote from paragraph H.b.7. on page 8: "Flush ALL SPAR TRUSS TUBES (emphasis added) affected with MIL-C-16173, Grade 2 preservative, or equivalent...". My mistake. There are still a couple of people with a lot of experience xraying these spars and on Monday I would like to talk with them about all of this. We really need the data and some engineering talent to come up with a good technical response. In the mean time, individual comments that detail the cost of this proposal as written will be needed. Pete |
|||
|
|||
|
Pete, Thank you for the education! It was nice of you to take the time to explain everything, and your post was very informative. George |
|||
|
|||
|
An OLYDE TYMERS viewpoint ! We need to take a look back in order to arrive at the best way to resolve some issues concerning the Twin Beech Spar. In order to do that we need to ask some questions. Some of the questions are not new but have been studied by myself and others for a very long time. I have formed my own opinions based on known facts and conversations with Twin Beech experts over the past fifty years. Was there a problem in the past? If so what were the results of in depth investigations? In the case of wing spar failures and accidents what were the causative factors? It might surprise you to learn that some of the failures were caused by damage from previous accidents. In one case the fuel truck damaged the wing. There were many other possible causative factors. Maintenance, Gross weights, Flight Hours, Weather and Gust Loads, Hard Landings. Possibly one of the best sources of documented information on spar failures and Beech improvements to the spar can be found in Robert K. Parmerter book; Beech 18 on page 478. I had kept track of some of the failures but Robert took the time to really do an in depth search of the facts. I consider the information on just these few pages as more than worth the price of the book. In any event an AD was issued and then amended and re-issued a number of times to encompass added inspection instructions. Subsequently to the best of my knowledge six different wing spar reinforcement STC’s were issued. Aerospace, Conrad, Hamilton, Dee Howard, Aerocon (Canadian) and Jordan. I had many personal conversations with some of the people involved, notably, Lee Cameron, (Aerospace) Bill Conrad (Airline Training), Gordon Hamilton, (Hamilton) and a Mr. West who made many conversions to the Twin Beech. Back then, and again now, there were many heated conversations as to the validity of adding a spar strap reinforcement. STRAP REINFORCEMENTS are not new and have been used as a repair on many metal aircraft I used to call them band-aids as they were highly visible on the exterior of many airliners. The Twin Beech aircraft design goes back to 1936 and 1937 . The early models including the C-18 & later (AT-11) were improved with added reinforcement to weld clusters and other areas. The spar was steadily improved to add strength. The spar itself is the heart of the Twin Beech it is a welded and sealed unit. It is then filled with Linoil (Linseed Oil), rotated, then drained. The small holes are sealed with small serrated drive rivets. It is the linoil that protects the internal steel side of the spar. Over the years I have seen more than a few Beech 18 spars with the rivets missing. A good first inspection of the spar is to look at the exterior of the spar tubes. Of all the things that need attention on a Twin Beech, I rate the Wing Spar condition as a top priority. The best way to confirm condition is to use a knowledgeable certified x- ray technician services. What we call the Spar X-ray. There are only a few of these who I consider Beech 18 experts. They are good enough to spot spar interior defects from studies of the films. CRACKS: Always a big concern, but the facts are that some if not most of the cracks found in welds were formed when the spar was made at the factory. Our concerns were are they safe? This was one of the reasons that all x-ray films were returned to the factory for evaluation. To the best of my knowledge, no aircraft were turned down. Back when I formed the Twin Beech Association, the Twin Beech was an aircraft that nobody wanted and therefore neglected in many ways. They were pushed to the edge of the airport where vegetation quickly gathered around them and tires went flat. There was no maintenance, no long term storage/preservation methods used. In short the aircraft were left to fend for themselves. These were the derelict aircraft that could be purchased for as little as $4,500.00 What was going on with the spar? Depending on how much grease was left on critical areas, was it a military version where a lot of corrosion prevention went on, how good was the paint, and many other factors the condition of the spar was in question. Later Spar x-rays would reveal the truth. To attest to the strength and longevity of the spar. I have heard of only one instance of a spar being rusted beyond use. There may be others and now may be a good time to find out? How many other factors can attest to the integrity and strength of the spar? Is the present AD addressing the issues if any? What are the issues and where are they documented? How many Malfunction and Defect reports has the FAA gathered that talk about spar problems? Can one supposedly spar with internal evidence of water and or moisture prompt action that may ground a thousand airplanes? When and where was the last spar failure investigated and where are the results? What about the 1,000 hours versus 1,500 hours and most of all the 4 year calendar restriction. The Twin Beech Spar strap installation and inspection is not to be taken lightly. The spar strap installation needs to be done by expert craftsman. It is essentially a hand fitted modification tailored to each individual aircraft. Each time it is removed basically requires the work of a new installation and it’s subsequent cost. I strongly question the need to drill New Holes. I am all for SAFETY and excellent maintenance done by certified people. The NPRM does not consider each individual aircraft condition. In Fact we might even state the case why a New AD at all? AD s are frequently amended to encompass new information and material. The added information and inspection areas along with much improved graphics can be incorporate into the present and amended AD. What about costs? Will this new AD Ground most of our Aircraft? Will there be enough parts and materials available? How about the experts who have the background and knowledge to make valued judgments. The costs will be Very High and the experts are in short supply. Gentlemen it is time to stand together and make our voices heard. Can one man make a difference, yes, but only if he can make a lot of noise. This issue requires some time to resolve and it will require each of us to voice his opinion. A copy of your comments should be copied to your congressman. Are there any BAD AD’s out there, yes and this proposal has the making of one more of them. My suggestion is that we DO NOT HAVE all the facts that support a new AD. As always, some will suffer and some will gain an economic advantage. Believe me those that will suffer far outnumber those that will gain. WHAT SHALL WE DO NEXT? An easy answer, Ask for an extension of the comment period to as much as a year or more to give us time to request film and documents from the Manufacturer and the FAA. And perhaps more than a few others. We DO NOT have the facts nor has anyone given us in depth information as to why do we need this AD? Thank you for reading this far, all of the above is my opinion and judgment based on years of experience, 61 years to be exact. Let’s not hesitate with argument and inaction. Instead lets gather facts that will help our cause, set aside our egos and stand firmly together. Our collective voices can move mountains.The time to do something is NOW! Enrico A&P IA |
|||
|
|||
|
I 100% agree with Enrico on this. We simply don't have the proper information and facts to be issuing needless AD's which down the rest of the fleet without really getting to the "Bottom line on this." I can testify to you all from experience on the strap removal and installation. It is a "NIGHTMARE FROM HELL" We just did ours 8-9 months ago, and to just remove the strap was complicated, but you think that is? putting it back is worst. Nothing wants to go back the way it came out, no matter how precise you are, it just fights the whole way. As for the short supply of people who know beech 18 spars, this is definitely a reality. I am not going to name names, but, we first had our strap x-rayed by one company. They found corrosion supposedly and rejected our spar, saying it was unairworthy. When we asked for a clarification of this, they said, ohhh no its not the corrosion the reason why, its because we found a weld... I said WHAT!??! Got a copy of the structural repair manual, and called another x-ray firm to come and do the x-ray. The guy who did it has more then 30-40 years working on Beech 18 spar x-rays. He came back and said, nothing is wrong. I then explained I just had it done with another group, he looked at their x-rays, and then said, what the hell were those people thinking? That weld is a part of the airplane and has been their longer then they have been in business. So, just goes to show, the quality of x-ray technicians, is dwindling as the crew of experience retires. We almost lost the purchase of our airplane due to incompetance. So I have to agree with Enrico that there are very few out there that really have the facts, and can testify to it 200%!!! as being totally correct. I think we need more time to access a revisit to the Spar AD, and make a more educated response to the issue, rather then loose half the fleet to people whom aren't able to make competant conclusions. I hope our troubles have enlighted some as to what can happen when you find inexperience. I am fairly young, and don't knock those of my generation of youth, but can tell you, I definitely appreciate seeing gray hair in the captain's seat of any airliner I jump into. Experience makes the difference! Mike |
|||
|
|||
|
Gentlemen, Not having checked in on the forum for a few days, I was surprised to see this topic and its already lengthy thread. Obviously, a raw nerve has been touched. My printer is busy printing out the subject documents as I write this. Following are some questions/thoughts/suggestions. Have we already missed the response time period for the "Airworthiness Concern"? I'll probably find the answer as I read the documents, but it seems that the "Concern" would need some response prior to drafting an AD (?). Would we be best served to refer to it as a "concern" (the FAA's own term) until we have our facts together? I am an Aeronautical Engineer with extensive background in structures. ("Did my time" in Wichita with Cessna back in the hay days). Applied loads, stress analysis and testing are familiar territory to me. I am a Beech 18 owner (N649B, D-18S). Haven't been a student of 18s for nearly as long as many of you, but I know a little about them. I am in the manufacturing business (mostly DoD work). Lots of tight tolerance machining and welding of aerospace materials. We have the capability of building the spar truss (or just about any other component of the Twin Beech) IF there were ever enough interest to warrant the time investment. NOTE: I'm NOT suggesting spar replacements! My business has not pursued PMA work, but we are an ISO 9001:2000 facility and could go there if need be. The document control/material pedigree/quality control requirements are essentially the same for the work we currently perform. I am NOT soliciting work. We have plenty. I am, however, in a position to possibly offer help on something that is very dear to my heart - keeping the Beech 18s flying. Seems that the response cutoff date (30 Sept.) just before Tullahoma (a week later) is very unfortunate. Any chance of asking for an extension so we could all kick it around at the fly-in? Absent that, how/who/where can we get together to formulate a plan? Does someone other than Raytheon have engineering drawings? (I tried calling Dave Warren but he's out until tomorrow.) Other than walking my only daughter down the aisle in early September, I should be able to devote some time to this worthy cause. I will tender a response to the FAA even if I was the only responder. Enrico has it right - We'll get the most traction by speaking together. How can I help? Steve |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark, The gizmo is probably some type of eddy current device. The Caterpillar guys are really good at non-destructively evaluating condition of steel components (undercarriage on track vehicles) this way. I'll see what I can dig up. Steve |
|||
|
|||
|
Mark, The gizmo is probably some type of eddy current device. The Caterpillar guys are really good at non-destructively evaluating condition of steel components (undercarriage on track vehicles) this way. I'll see what I can dig up. Steve |
|||
|
|||
|
Steve, I have volunteered to coordinate the "official" comment/response from the Twin Beech 18 Society to the Airworthiness Concern Sheet(ACS). One of the documents available for download from this website explains the ACS/AD development process but breifly, we have until 30 September for comments. (I'm not sure what criteria would be acceptable to the FAA for extending the comment period - I'll ask tomorrow.) After the comment period, the Wichita FAA office will draw up reccomendations for a new rule (new AD) and send it to Kansas City where a committee will write the AD and publish it officially as an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making). After a second comment period and associated revision, the new AD becomes law. Anyway, since I will be working on the response, I would like to talk to you. Send me an email and let me know when we can talk. Pete |
|||
|
|||
|
Pete, Since I wrote here yesterday, I had a chance to read the two main documents - so I'm a bit more up to speed. I did notice at least one name of a former Cessna acquaintance who is now with the FAA and will probably have some steering authority in the Beech 18 spar issue. Thanks in advance for volunteering to ramrod the response. I'll be glad to help in whatever way I can. You can e-mail directly at s_wood@capcoinc.com and I should be able to discuss by phone any time over the next few days. I'll watch for e-mail and send you my phone number. Steve |
|||
|
|||
|
If we are looking for facts from the FAA,then here are two of the best tools to use. The FOIA may be the most important one to gather data. The Service Difficulty Reports (SDR's)are aircraft and part specific, possibly one of the best places to look for problems concerning Beech 18 aircraft. I had refered to these by another name, Malfunction and Defect Reports. Available at FAA Web page. - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) AFS620 is responsible for responding for all FOIA requests received by the Regulatory Support Division. As holder record for many seperate databases, AFS620 responds yearly to approximately 38 percent of all FOIA requests received by the FAA. Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) AFS620 is the custodian of record for the Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS). The SDRS contains data retrieved from Service Difficulty Reports and Malfunction or Defect Reports pertaining to mechanical malfunctions, failures, or defects in aircraft, aircraft components, equipment and parts. Tools are available on-line to query/report from the SDRS system and to submit data to the SDRS database. Enrico "The Beech Boys" |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Enrico, Mark, Thanks for the ideas. I have heard the FOIA idea before and it might become useful. Deciding precisely what data we would request is where we are now. I would like to throw that issue out for discission here. Mark, I will email you to talk more about what you have found. Thanks. I have been busy all week talking to people. I now have a head full of information that is not as well organized as I would like. That being said, I would like to organize what info I have gotten, and post it here as an update - hopefully before I go to bed tonight! Request for help: Would someone please copy Appendix K from Bob Parmerter's book (a 4 page overview of the Model 18 spar issue) and create a link to it on the web? That's the best way I can think of to bring more people up to date quickly. Who ever does it should post "I got it" here to prevent multiple efforts and should ask Bob's permission (I have not). Thanks in advance. Pete |
|||
|
|||
|
How to Answered, The Freedom of Information act is a very powerful tool and little known. It can be very effective. How to Make a FOIA Request General information about the FOIA can be found at the U.S. Department of Justice website. This site includes policies for the government-wide FOIA program. In addition, guidance specific to the Department of Transportation can be found at the DOT website. DOT/FAA FOIA regulations are at 49 C.F.R. Part 7, Public Availability of Information. FOIA guidance specific to FAA is found in FAA Order 1270.1 (Adobe Acrobat format) or FAA Order 1270.1 (HTML format). FAA publications, regulations and policies are publicly available and an FOIA request is not necessary. If you have questions about the need for an FOIA request, please contact the headquarters FOIA office. An FOIA request must be written and must be for FAA records. The FAA is not required to answer questions under the FOIA. You may make a request by indicating that you are seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act. Each request should describe the particular record to the fullest extent possible. The request should describe the subject matter of the record, and, if known, indicate the date of the record, the place where it originated, and the name of the originating person or office. The request should state the maximum amount of fees the request is willing to pay and the requester’s fee category. Your request must be submitted in writing. You may use one of the following methods to submit an FOIA request: online, by mail, facsimile, or in person. PLEASE DO NOT SEND DUPLICATE COPIES OF YOUR REQUEST. An FOIA request cannot be made by telephone. If your request is mailed, the envelope in which the request is sent should be marked “FOIA” and mailed to: Federal Aviation Administration National Freedom of Information Act Staff, ARC-40 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Headquarters Office Main Number (202) 267-9165 Acting Manager, Tracy Paquin You may reach us by FAX at: (202) 493-5032 Please E-mail FOIA request to: 7-AWA-ARC-FOIA@faa.gov |
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Mark, good summary but no agreement with "there would be no objection to a 4 year 'corrosion only' inspection." With the equipment, certification and training costs it might be quick, easy and non-destructive but it ain't gonna be cheap. Also, if my spar checks out fine after fifty plus years why should I have to pay to check it again in four? A ten or twelve year cycle, if anything, is more acceptable and reasonable. Sorry, my bird isn't a rich old man's toy. |
|||
|
|||
|
I tend to disagree with a corrosion 4 year inspection as well. It does not seem feasble if I understood the costs of the equipment correctly. It was around $6,000 dollars to buy and 200 for some cables? Lets see cost of spar x-ray? 1800 - 2500 where I am at. It doesn't justify the purchase of the units, and who is going to approve the calibration every year, because surely the FAA is going to require it to be a current and calibrated unit. I agree with Jax45, it is not cost effective enough to be implementing 4 year corrosion scans,,, not everyone is able to afford the costs of a special scan or even the equipment to do such scans. It would hurt the fleet in general. There must be another solution to this AD? mike |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pete, There have been 459 hits on your Beech 18 spar NPRM comments and only 34 replies. This shows me the lack of concern among Twin Beech owners or perhaps the lack of awareness as to how important this web page is. It also can be an excellent way to comunicate with other concerned Twin Beech owners. Make no mistake, this NPRM if enacted as written will come down on us hard and has a good chance of severely impacting the use and value of all Twin Beech aircraft. We can not and will not disregard safety, however in some cases this very proposal will Impact Safety. What are we doing about all this? To speak with authority, the Twin Beech Society must take up the cause in earnest. Caving in and or tempering the FAA demands will not be good enough. In the past the FAA has, for various reasons extended comment periods for NPRM. We need more facts as to origin of so stated concerns. We need more time to digest the facts and where necessary, come up with valid solutions. If we take no action the days will quickly slip by and leave us in an extremely untenable position. I see no PUBLIC mention of this NPRM and wonder at the lack of support from other interested parties. There are many owners who have offered their help, and all of their comments are appreciated. The time for ACTION is NOW! I am also aware that you are probably actively working on some possible answers. The problem with this is that people like me who are concerned do not have access to this information. This whole issue needs to be made more public so that more Twin Beech Owners and others are aware of the danger. How many Twin Beech owners are aware of the NPRM? You can call me at any time 714 964-4864 Thanks for your efforts. Capt H.F. "Enrico" Bottieri A&P IA #1237552 Honorary Life Time Member "Twin Beech Society" |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Pete et al, I'm ready to do what I can, but I'm not sure what that is. I have E18S-9700 n1939K and am restoring from the ground up an RC 45J. The spar and truss are completely exposed at this time and is a good visual trainer for any one that needs to see the whole thing. This aircraft is one that sat in the weeds for 30 years near Atlanta and passed its x-ray. Believe me, it looked real nasty before the cleanup and epoxy paint. I believe that the only candidates for cracks and corrosion are the ones that have been groundlooped, geared up, standing derelict in corrosion corner, etc. But saying that, this RC 45 J (SNB 5P), was derelict and had severe corrosion in the belly due to lack of drainage and contact with corrosive scat tubing. However, the spar and truss have no problems. Maybe this aircraft can be used in the information period. Jim Slocum n2158c@aol.com 901 465-6549. Moscow, TN. A & P. ATP. P.S. The E-18 has 13,000 hours and the RC45j has 11,000 hours on their airframes. I have only 3000 hours in Beech 18s. Jimbob |
|||
|
|||
|
Enrico,. I said my piece, but I think a lot of others, although concerned, really dont feel that they have much to offer, or feel why bother with what amounts to a done deal. I suggested 30 years ago, when they mandated tip-to-tip mods, that they re-oil and pressureize the spars, put gauges on them to cover the suspected corrosion problem and let them be, but nobody at the FAA was then or is now capable of listening to the people that were doing it everyday. John L. Wesley john@bristolcomputer.com |
|||
|
|||
|
With respect to pressurizing the spars, this system is used on some helicopter rotor blade spars and would seem to be a positive step forward in the ongoing maintenance of the Beech 18 spars between spar xrays. If indeed the analysis used to initiate further inspection of the spar stems from landing gear incidents, it will be interesting to see how they equate that to our float equipped Beech 18s here in Canada. I will be checking with Transport Canada this week to see if any bilateral action is happening on this issue and keep you informed. If there is any information or assistance that we may provide, we should be happy to help. Regards, carholme |
|||
|
|||
|
Enrico, great information, thank you! I am asking Mr. Park for a complete dismissal of this proposed change, and at a bare minimum, an extension on the deadline for response. We need facts not fears. The Twin Beech Association and this forum have a good group to draw information from, but we need time to get the word out, and time to research this potential problem. The facts that we know of so far are; one AT-11 spar had been condemned. Is anyone familiar enough to elaborate on the whole story of Lee Cameron's AT-11? Were there other extenuating circumstances, such as previous damage that opened up that spar to the elements? Supposedly some Volpar modified Beeches had the problem, were any ever condemned? Capt. Jimbob, just hit on another good point. There were several Atlanta Area Tech Twin Beeches, that had been sold off for restorations. These were all last overhauled by Beech in the 1950s, and had all accumulated approximately another 10'000 hours since. They had sat outside at AAT since 1969, (and prior to that at Davis-Monthan). None of these aircraft had EVER been x-rayed and so far all have passed with no major problems. Let's find the common thread in any corrosion related problems and present the facts to Mr. Park. I suggest that there is no common problem out there, and if there is any potentially dangerous situations out there, we can address that problem in a much more economical manner. Also does anyone know the number of Twin Beeches currently registered? Approximately how many being restored or possible flyers? I think there are many more Beech owners and operators that we somehow need to get the word out to. This certainly is a unifying cause to get more people involved. If Pete had not put this on the forum in such a timely manner, we would not have known about this until probably way too late. Thanks, John H. |
|||
|
|||
|
Gathering comments and information, that's what this site is all about. We need a common source in order to exchange our viewpoints. Kyle, put forth and continues to expand this Twin Beech Web page. We all know how fast we can exchange information using the web. It has taken a long time but this issue may finally bring all of Kyle's efforts up to speed. I had not heard about the source of the one bad spar, probably rusted beyond repair. If it was related to an AT-11 then "SkyKing" knows about it and may be willing to share some thoughts. Some may wish that this information NOT be shared and I can fully understand that. The T-34 AD issue was narrowed to three aircraft that may have repeatedly exceeded their design limits. It is noteworthy here to note that Judy Clark was given special permission to operate her T-34 for evaluation purposes. The DC-3 Wing AD Their still trying to ground this airplane, but it keeps on flying. The wing AD concerns itself with attach angles and hundreds of bolts. This wing is bolted on, no spar attach points. The T-6 AD is a valid one but has some issues in question. I have heard UN SUPPORTED comments that the cause of their wing failures may have been from using improper Stainless Steel bolts to attach the wings. At this point, this is only a comment and hearsay. In any event the above aircraft issues concerned aluminum failures. On our aircraft, at least, the spar structure is made of steel. Over the past years the inspections of this strap has consisted of visual, magnetic particle, dye penetrant and x -rays. The experts have told me that to a strong degree they can evaluate, and have evaluated these spars for cracks as well as rust deterioration. In fact the new proposal talks about doing exactly that. My obvious question is, where are the spars that may be rusted?, there are or should be 100's or thousands of previous x ray films stored somewhere. Perhaps the best source may be with your own aircraft records? What do these films show pertaining specifically to evidence of rust? I am not a lawyer, but common sense tells me that we need more evidence and hard facts. It appears now, that we are gathering these. Over the years the Twin Beech has suffered many stigmas. I used to call it a jewel in the rough. overlooked and unwanted. By shear force of character, the Twin Beech has proven itself over and over again. This may be the chance for it to prove itself, one more time. There have been some excellent suggestions made. Dye in the Linoil, may or may not be of much use. Updated and modern evaluation equipment that can be used with a minimum of disruption to the spar strap assembly. There are others and there will be more suggestions. From where I am sitting the best news that I can give you is that we are working on the NPRM problem. There are always solutions, perhaps the best question is , Do we have a problem? It may be bad grammar, and you have heard it before, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Enrico |
|||
|
|||
|
I believe in regards to disseminating the information, one big thing and factor is, there are some older generation, and forgive me in saying, but not all really get on the PC or even know about it, I have a few friends whom have fly 18's that dont' get on the net, so I have had to advise them personally. I think its very important that we use this site to inform everyone, but lets not forget the ones that don't access the net, and/or those who probably don't know much about the site, or come aboard. I would stress that we get the word out on here , as well as in voice, because if others don't speak up, we will not have an opportunity to squash this. As Buzzby put, we need more facts on this issue,,,, I don't even know where all this came from? Who's airplane had such problems that they brought about this AD??? There had to be something that came up in either a crash or something that provoked this? I agree with John Wesley as well on this, the FAA doesn't always turn their hearing on, will our comments make a difference? I think as all have expressed we need to stick together, get everyone involved in stopping this non-sense before it gets out of hand. There is no reason for more AD's that we all can't afford, heck, you have all seen the price of fuel go up,,, do we really need another "bill" And as I said in previous post,,,, the expertise in spar x-rays is getting more and more limited as the old timers are leaving the fields. This is a bad thing, because experience is the essence of whether your 18 stays or goes bye bye. As there are fewer and fewer x-ray shops available within reasonable distances for some of us, it is getting harder to keep out beauties in the air. If there is anything I can say, Please pass the word out to as many people verbally as well. And let them know about this site if they don't already know, because there are those that don't know. Mike |
|||
|
|||
|
New spar x-ray posting online History of the spar problems from Bob Parmerter's Book. Go to the beech18.net homepage and click on the spar update link for "Appendix K - Spar Problems" Reprinted with Bob's permission. If you haven't bought the book you should. Available from David Warren or the staggerwing.com website. |
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks, Kyle, great job again. I had never read those end notes explaining some of the data. Important to note the statement by Mr Tom Buschke to Bob Parmerter; "He is especially concerned about corrosion that may be hidden in the spar of a 40-or 50-year-old Model 18 that has never been X-rayed, because it is still within the 1,500 hour limit." I agree totally, 40 or 50 years is way to long to guess at the health of your spar, but every 4 years? The x-ray program has done well at detecting cracks, but it seems there has always been some problems interpreting the x-rays regarding corrosion. How accurate and infallible is something like the eddy current testing? How would it do at detecting any cracks too? Is eddy current testing being used for any other A.D. notes? Are there any drawbacks or potential problems with it? We might need to build a case for something better that will make the x-rays completely obsolete. Thanks, John H. |
|||
|
|||
|
I have probably flew an 18 heavier and in harder wx than most of you cept maybe the other 18 freight dogs and obviously not had the spar fail however Most of the people on this site fly family and friends. I say make them as safe as possible. It is good insurance. a few grand is better than one death or injury. You got to pay if you want to play --SAFELY. Overkill in this area is better than underkill and saving money Ray Dog |
|||
|
|||
|
Ray, absolutely no one here wants to compromise safety at the expense of a couple grand. Personally, I regularly haul my 5 yr old triplets, family, friends, and just about anyone that wants a ride. I fly a Twin Beech because it is probably the safest aircraft I can afford. The problem, as some have pointed out, is that these x-rays are not necessarily the answer, especially regarding corrosion. As fr8tdog Mike attested, the x-rays are highly subject to intepretation and quite possibly misdiagnosis. Even though the current x-ray program seems to have been a success, it was actually the spar straps that have saved a couple of aircraft. In the late 60's- early 70's, the last round of Beech spar A.D's was a fiasco, and so seems the T-34 spar issue. We're now in the 21st century and we have many bright minds contributing to this site. There may be a much better option, possibly a few. To say that the FAA always knows best is like saying there is no need for a great forum like this, or the Twin Beech Association. Our safety is in numbers, passing this proposal, as is, will undoubtedly only park hundreds of perfectly safe Beech 18's. I also only want the safest plane available, x-raying spars every 4 years will not give me any more peace of mind. Having such a major part removed and reinstalled so often scares me. Thanks, John H. |
|||
|
|||
|
I would like to speak about oiling the spar. I have been using linseed oil on compressors for 45 years. I dump in a gallon, roll it around, and then drain it. I have one compressor which has been in service for 35 years. Its always full of water, which I drain when I think about it. I have never gotten even one sign of rust. I looked inside while changing a fitting reciently, and its like new in there. If our spars were treated ,and not disturbed, likely they are in the same condition as the inside of my compressor. I just returned from the doctor, and we looked up inside my sinus cavities, with the tinyest of probes, and looked it all over in living color and amazing detail. Surely we could do the same with our planes, then reoil, and reseal. Yes it might take the addition of a fitting, but certianly I do not want to remove the strap if it can be avoided. |
|||
|
|||
|
Now if you can just talk the federallys into it LOL |
|||
|
|||
|
Hello, I have started a web page detailing our company's experiences with the Beech 18 spar. It is new and quite crude but I felt the need to get this information up and running as soon as possible. Any comments are most welcome. On this web page you will find photos of the ugliness that can be found inside a Beech spar. You can access the page by going to: http://www.twinbeech.com/ and clicking on the button on the left that says: BEECH 18 SPAR CONCERNS (9-5-05) NEW I will be posting more information and documentation on this subject in the future. I also want to thank Pete for his hard work and for spearheading the response efforts. Thanks, Taigh Ramey Vintage Aircraft, Stockton, California |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have found problems with all 3 of the aircraft I have seen that had that particular Air Force modification. This alarms me and I hope that owners of aircraft that may be flying with this particular mod will get their aircraft checked immediately. Not all of the problems that I have seen are limited modified aircraft, quite to the contrary. I have seen more cracking on C model aircraft, including my own SNB-1 in which the lower spar cap was broken more than 3/4 of the way around the circumference of the tube. I believe that part of the problem may have been fixed by Beech going to a thicker walled tubing on the D's and later aircraft. The internal rust problem would not be limited to modified aircraft. There are drive screws at each end of almost all of the tubes in the truss assembly. These drive screws plug up holes that were used to vent gases generated by welding during the manufacturing process. These holes were also used to introduce linseed oil to preserve the inside of the tube. I have seen, on many occasions, where these drive screws are missing. Some appear to have dropped out while others look like they were sheared off. If the drive screw is missing then the inside of that tube, and possible adjoining tubes, are now exposed to the atmosphere. Climbs and descents will draw air into and out of the inside of the tube. I recently saw Canadian 3T that had a transverse tube between station 44 and 60.8 that had rusted through from standing water inside of the tube. You could see where the water had been sitting at two different levels as indicated by the pitting. This aircraft had been hangared for the last 20+ years so it was a real mystery as to how this could have happened. Incidentally this tube is not an area of concern in the AD past or present. I have questions about the cost savings of an AMOC involving eddy current. The acquisition cost of the equipment and the special heads required. I don't see how you will be able to gain complete access to the truss without removing strap components. the spar kit that we own the STC to (the old Aerospace Products kit) is very close fitting. The straps are clamped .166 of an inch (assuming no shims) from the spar cap. The straps are as wide as the spar in some places and are a lot wider at the splices. Do they make a head for the eddy current machine that can effectively look at the truss within these dimensions? I also wonder how much time would be saved by using an eddy current machine over the whole truss. I am not that familiar with its capabilities, outside what I have read, but I believe that it looks at a very small section at a time. How long would it take for a technician to eddy current all of the required areas? The x-ray covers a wider area and is done quite quickly. I would think that this method would be more cost effective. There are many questions that need to be addressed and an AMOC that proves to be the most cost effective and at least meets, but preferably exceeds, the effectiveness of the present x-ray sounds great to me. I am all for saving money and down time, I just hope that we aren't making this more complicated than it needs to be. We have spent more time talking about this issue on this message board than it would take for me to remove a strap, x-ray the spar and to put the strap back on. This brings up another point. Inspecting the strap itself is a good idea. I have done countless pre-purchase inspections and 100 hour/annual inspections on Beech's that have had the worst possible quality of work done during the installation of the strap. I will gladly post digital photos of many examples if you would like. Every inspection that I perform is documented with hundreds of digital images both for the owner and for my information. This is the best way to show the owner what problems exist in his airframe and also provides a photographic history from year to year. I can get my camera into places inside that airframe that I would never be able to see with a mirror and a flashlight. You would be shocked to see what folks are flying with. The Beech 18 is a great aircraft that can take a lot of abuse and neglect, up to a point. It is my opinion that a majority of the mechanics working on our Beech 18's are missing way too many important problems simply because they don't have Twin Beech experience. I am learning every day myself and I certainly have a long way to go. The Beech is always teaching me something about her mechanical idiosyncrasies as well as her flying peculiarities. This is what is so interesting to me about the Beech 18. I certainly will write to Mr. Park. I am still wrestling with the best method of inspection that will not compromise safety and yet will not be a financial drain. I own several Beech 18's, I fly rides in one all throughout air show season, I flight instruct in the Beech 18 all year long and my shop specializes in the Beech 18 maintenance and restoration. Having said this, I would like to see the AD written to be cost effective for me as well as to give me peace of mind as to the condition of my spar. I take comfort in that the fact that the spar strap is there to protect me should I have another spar fail but I still check that spar closely because that strap is held in place by that same spar. If the spar fails, as mine did in 1992, the strap will keep the wings on but not for ever. I want that peace of mind not only for myself but for my passengers as well. How long has it been since your x-ray was done? Mine was done in 1998 on my RC-45J and I have no problem having it done again soon. I do not think that it will need to be done again every 4 years if it passed without problems but I know that many aircraft out there will need a shorter interval. Cracks are still a problem as well as corrosion. I think the calendar requirement is a great idea. Formulating exactly what the interval for the specific aircraft will be the key to revising this AD. The discussion continues... Taigh Ramey 209 982 0273 Vintage Aircraft www.twinbeech.com |
|||
|
|||
|
Taigh, You bring up some compelling arguments and have some great photos to back it up, but I have a couple questions/thoughts that I would like cleared up. 1: Were these planes ever strapped or x-rayed? If so, when? Are they planes that have sat for 35+ years after the gov't "dumped" them (corrosion reasons, not cracking)? 2: (AT-11)I realize you cant see internal corrosion, but the external is overwhelming, I would be suspect of internal corrosion with this much external (visual). When was the last time they were inspected (annualed)? In your opinion, would a punch test suffice in certain areas(much like the piper struts)? 3: On the theory of eddy current or ultra sound, couldn't you just drop the spar w/o complete removal and gain 3+ inches over most of the length (Aerospace spar anyway)? 4: <<Mine was done in 1998 on my RC-45J and I have no problem having it done again soon. I do not think that it will need to be done again every 4 years if it passed without problems but I know that many aircraft out there will need a shorter interval. Cracks are still a problem as well as corrosion. >> 48 months on a new AD for everyone (acceptable to me), but you get a clean x-ray, what would you recommend after that? 5: It seems there is little discussion about the 18's that weren't modified by beech after military use, would you go for a longer period on the "tall cabins"? 6: Cracks are a concern, would a dye pentrant be acceptable and if so, what interval would you recommend (assuming the current x-ray AD didn't change)? 7: <<Formulating exactly what the interval for the specific aircraft will be the key to revising this AD>> I agree, and I think we need some uniformity of everyone to approach the FAA on. What would you recommend?? 8: What are your thoughts on the reoiling (annually) of the spar? I don't think there is much opposition to an x-ray inspection in the next 4-5 years for all 18's. Your input is good because you have the 18 maintenance background whereas much of the input on the site has been more of an economical one. Thanks for the great pics and i am glad someone has the STC to continue the strap production. Just curious, what can you do for the spar on that AT-11? Is it salvagable? Or does it need complete spar replacement (ouch)? great input! Kyle |
|||
|
|||
|
Hello Kyle, Thanks, by the way, for providing the Beech18.net web site and especially for this forum. It is just what we need. Well done! In response to your questions: 1Q: Were these planes ever strapped or x-rayed? If so, when? Are they planes that have sat for 35+ years after the gov't "dumped" them (corrosion reasons, not cracking)? 1A: The three AT-11's that you are asking about with the Air Force Mod to the truss, were not strapped or recently x-rayed. They are from the batch of aircraft that were left to rot after the spar AD came out in 1975. Many Twin Beech's died that year as their owners decided that they weren't worth the cost of putting a spar strap on them. My business started by taking derelict Twin Beech's from the scrap heap and breathing life back into them. This is what I still do as well as maintaining flying aircraft. The three aircraft mentioned above were not dumped by the military because of spar problems. The AT-11 in our shop, which is pictured on my web page that has the massive internal rust, was modified by the military in 1952 just before it was sold as surplus. I don't think that the military would have put that effort into an aircraft that had problems. I believe that this mod accelerated the internal rust problems in this aircraft. The aircraft went on to fly with many different companies and individuals as most of our aircraft have. These were flying aircraft that were not worth all that much in 1975 and as a result of the spar AD were parked and their engines and props were sold off. 2Q: (AT-11)I realize you cant see internal corrosion, but the external is overwhelming, I would be suspect of internal corrosion with this much external (visual). 2A: The external corrosion may be overwhelming when compared to the condition of your spar but it is not that overwhelming when compared to the majority of Beech's that I have seen which are flying today. It is a very difficult process to repaint the spar in a flyable Beech. There are so many things in the way such as controls, wiring, plumbing, spar strap, etc. that it is rare for a spar to have been thoroughly re painted. The factory finish on the spar was a primer coating of zinc chromate topped by a coating of aluminized lacquer or sometimes enamel. Then the spar was stenciled at the factory with "HEAT TREATED ASS'Y" in black paint in several locations (I have posted shots of this at the bottom of the same web page for you to look at http://www.twinbeech.com and click on the spar concerns button). I evaluate the external condition of a spar by looking at what is left of the factory paint and stenciling. If I see that a majority of the factory paint is still on the truss even though there may be rust in places it has been my experience that it may not be all that bad inside. This has worked for me and my customers for many years but I always use the caveat that you cannot be certain until you have an x-ray. One of the above mentioned AT-11's had severe rust on the outside the likes of which I had never seen before. Sure enough, it was bad on the inside and the spar has since been entirely replaced. The AT-11 in our shop had surface rust and places that were fairly bad but there was still a fair amount of factory paint left on the truss. My evaluation was that the inside may be questionable but I have seen worse externally that have passed x-ray. We took a chance and the inside was bad as a result of the Air Force Modification. I now know that this mod has caused the rapid acceleration of the internal corrosion. Once again, if your Beech has this modification to the slide tube cluster, and she hasn't been x-rayed lately please do so immediately! You may think that some rust on the outside is unacceptable but a large percentage of the Beech 18's that I have looked at have rust that needs to be addressed. I have posted some pictures of aircraft that I have performed pre-purchase inspections on as a sample of what I am talking about. It has been all too common for me to walk up to a Beech that is beautiful on the outside. She may have; a gorgeous paint job and interior and fresh engines and lots of cool radios. These are all the things that the prospective buyer is really interested in and he falls in love with the aircraft. To me you can tell almost everything about a Beech 18 by poking your head up in the gear well. The quality of maintenance, past and present, and general condition is usually self evident inside the nacelle. This is also where you can get a good look at the spar in its most exposed spot. On my spar concerns web page are examples of nice Beech's that have had regular maintenance. You would think that the spars are as good as the outside but this is not necessarily the case in the majority of the aircraft that I have looked at. It has been my experience that most owners are blissfully unaware of the condition of their aircraft. I can't tell you how many owners are shocked to see what problems I have come up with inside their airframes. I would be met with disbelief if it weren't for the digital camera that I use. This camera lets me take the owner inside their aircraft so they can see what I am seeing. My experiences have led me to believe that a lot of owners are not in tune with their aircraft. I also believe that a lot of the mechanics and IA's that are working on and returning these Beech's to service are nowhere up to speed on the needs of a Beech 18. I am thankful that the Beech was so well designed that it can put up with lots of neglect but the other side of this double edge sword, is that it will not put up with the neglect forever. The Beech and those wonderful Pratt and Whitney’s usually gives you plenty of indications that it is time to fix something. The trick is to know how to listen to and interpret those indications before it is too late. Because of my long winded reply I have exceeded the maximum word count for a posting so I will break this up into several postings |
|||
|
|||
|
I had one first time customer in for an engine change on his D-18S. I poked my head up in his gear well and noticed that the gear chains were so loose that they rested on the slide tubes. I also noticed that the slide tube had been worn down by the trolley so much that there were three grooves in it from the wheels on the trolley. I brought this to the owner’s attention and he said he would check into it. He told me later that his mechanic said that was normal for Beech 18's and that they all were like that. Well, I don't profess to be an expert, but in my limited experience, I have never seen a gear system so worn out and I told him so. He just seemed annoyed. I think he figured I was just trying to drum up some work. I have seen the same attitudes displayed in the postings above. Some folks seem annoyed because this revision may cost them more money or reduce the value of their aircraft. Some speculate that this whole AD revision is being promoted by individuals that have a vested interest and are hoping to make a buck on the whole thing. Please think again. Consider that maybe there are a few of us who have seen some patterns emerge in the Beech 18 that raise flags. Consider too that maybe there are some folks who are genuinely concerned about safety and, based on our experiences, a revision to this AD is a good idea. I don’t think that my wing is going to fall off anytime soon but I almost did have one come off. If it wasn’t for that AD that so many people have said is a load of crap, I and possibly four of my passengers would be dead now. I guess that makes me biased…too bad! I sincerely hope that your spar is in perfect condition just like I hope the spars in my Beech’s are good too. I know that many aircraft will be severely affected by this change and I also think that it will save lives in the long run. We will all have to endure these repetitive inspections so we can ensure the safety of our passengers and our aircraft. I know that some of you will be shocked at what the x-ray will show and others will say see I told you my spar was okay but at least we will know exactly where we stand. I will get off my soap box now, back to the questions. 2Q: When was the last time they were inspected (annualed)? In your opinion, would a punch test suffice in certain areas(much like the piper struts)? 2A: all of the examples that I have just posted on my web page were pre purchase inspections and most of them had "fresh annuals" Now there is a term that has a wide and varied meaning! I am not familiar with the punch test procedures that you are referring to. 3Q: On the theory of eddy current or ultra sound, couldn't you just drop the spar w/o complete removal and gain 3+ inches over most of the length (Aerospace spar anyway)? 3A: For most of the strap kits that I am familiar with, you will first have to remove the tension or preload on the strap. Then to get three inches of clearance you would most likely have to unbolt the straps from their clamps and each other to drop them. This is going to require almost the same amount of effort as is needed to do the x-ray. I am not sure that you are saving that much time or effort. How long will it take for someone to eddy current the required areas? What record will we have for comparison? How do you show what stations were checked? The x-ray has metal bands or clamps to identify specific wing stations and lead letters to identify the side and location. The films make a permanent record. Can the eddy current provide the same record? I need to learn more about this process. 4Q: 48 months on a new AD for everyone (acceptable to me), but you get a clean x-ray, what would you recommend after that? 4A: This is just what I am trying to work out. Gail Flagor, an awesome Beech 18 x-ray guy in the LA area has been doing my x-rays for years. He has been doing them since the 1975 I believe. I asked him about this and he thinks that if the spar doesn't have corrosion now it is not likely to have it any time soon. I agree with this as long as the spar is still sealed and is properly preserved. If a spar is good then I think 48 months is too short an interval. I believe that the length of the repetition should be commensurate with the present condition of the spar. I think something like the Hamilton Standard Prop AD would be more appropriate. Just exactly what that schedule should be is what my little brain is wrestling with. I am still taking in information and formulating my response. I think that we can come up with a schedule that will provide the best balance of safety and economy. |
|||
|
|||
|
5Q: It seems there is little discussion about the 18's that weren't modified by beech after military use, would you go for a longer period on the "tall cabins"? 5A: I don’t see how you can differentiate between the various models of the Beech 18 with respect to this matter. I believe that the C models are more prone to cracking and have older spars but that is about it. How can you say that aircraft made during a specific time at the factory will be okay and others are not? I think that just like the original AD all of our Beech’s are from the same family. The last Beech 18 made and delivered to Japan Airlines could just as easily have the same corrosion problems as the AT-11 sitting near my office. As for the tall cabin aircraft are concerned, I was just flight training an initial multi student today in his C-45H which happens to be a tall cabin aircraft. His spar was made in 1953 along with all of the D-18S aircraft of the time. This is the same exact spar that was used in the later aircraft so I don’t see how we can separate out any of the different models. 6Q: Cracks are a concern, would a dye pentrant be acceptable and if so, what interval would you recommend (assuming the current x-ray AD didn't change)? 6A: Dye penetrant is good for surface cracks and it is what we use on the control column and elevator arm inspection. I don’t think it will be that efficient over the whole spar. Cracks are actually allowed on the spar in certain areas. Some of the cracks come from the manufacturing process and were in the spar before the aircraft was built around it. Beech has some guidelines that specify what is allowed and where. Some of the specs are kind of eye opening to me but it is acceptable data. One of the nice things about the x-rays is that you can keep a close eye on existing crack growth by comparing the films from one inspection to the next. 7Q: <<Formulating exactly what the interval for the specific aircraft will be the key to revising this AD>> I agree, and I think we need some uniformity of everyone to approach the FAA on. What would you recommend?? 7A: See 4A above 8Q: What are your thoughts on the reoiling (annually) of the spar? 8A: I think that a renewed preservation of the inside of the truss is a great idea. This will slow down any corrosion that is present and will hopefully prevent any future growth from forming. The Linseed oil has done a good job considering how long these spars have lasted. I hate to mess with a good thing but I would like to explore alternative preservatives. I am curious as to what the MIL-C-16173, grade 2 preservative is as specified in the Volpar SB. Is this the best possible material to use for longevity? What ever is used should be compatible with the linseed oil presently inside the spar. My interpretation of the revision is that the corrosion protection program is due every 4 years. I would think that this interval would depend on the properties of the preservative. If we could find a proven long lasting preservative then we should be able to base the re oiling on that data. If it is possible I would like to see a dye introduced into the preservative so it might bleed and become visible during inspections. Opening up the spar when it has been sealed does concern me although I do think that we can develop a method that will insure that the inside of the truss can be effectively resealed. Q: Just curious, what can you do for the spar on that AT-11? Is it salvageable? Or does it need complete spar replacement (ouch)? A: After seeing what came out of the spar in the way of scale, the owner decided that he wanted the whole truss replaced. I can’t blame him and I applaud his attitude. This AT-11 is a Warbird that trained hundreds of student bombardiers at Victorville Army Air Field in California. It played an important part in our countries history and the owner fully appreciates this. It would be easy to just send this airframe off to a museum as a static display but he wants to make her fly again. What a great attitude! I am looking or a replacement spar for this AT-11. I would like to put a D or later model spar into this aircraft. If you know of one in a torn up airframe that may be available please let us know as this is a very worthy project. I don’t want to destroy an airframe that could possibly fly again so I hope to find a wreck with a straight spar. I wonder how long it will be before we have to tool up and make spars from scratch. I bet we could make it out of stainless steel and engineer it so that it wouldn’t need a strap. Thanks again Kyle for your efforts! Taigh Ramey taigh@twinbeech.com 209 982 0273 www.twinbeech.com |
|||
|
|||
|
Good information and facts always helps clear the air. Others have done an excellent job of trying to resolve their particular aircraft issues. I learned a lot from reading this excellent article. I think you will too. Kind of a long web address but perhaps a cut and paste will take you there? I have submitted my comments on our Beech 18 issue to the FAA. I hope you do the same ? I will be off line from Sept 12 to Oct 5. Thus, unable to participate further during this time period. Lets Keep em Flying enrico http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/news/2005%20-%2009_08%20-%20EAA%20Warbirds%20of%20America,%20NATA%20Report%20on%20T-6_SNJ%20Issue.html |
|||
|
|||
|
This is an excellent train with plenty of good thought and comments. The following is strictly my personal opinion. I am working closely with Pete formulating the Twin Beech Societies response. I do not believe this ACS was motivated by anything other than the aging aircraft issues that are on the top of the FAA's mind right now. I do not believe there is any profit motive driving this. I do believe as many others have stated that looking at spars that have not been looked at for many years makes sense. Gathering that data and the data we have from past xrays could allow us operators, the FAA and certificate holder (Raytheon) to make a reasonable inspection program to ensure continued safety. I do not believe there is any data to support the proposed AD and I hope that we can influence the final AD to some thing that is reasonable and based on fact. There are lots of opnions based on experiences of individuals, but not a lot of hard data. We really need the later. Talking to many different people I am seeing many different opinions of the problems or lack there of. The most important thing right now is to show the FAA that we care about these aircraft and comment on this ACS. PLEASE GET YOUR OPINIONS TO MR. PARKS NOW and encourage others to do the same. Thanks, Rand |
|||
|
|||
|
Have most of us gotten in our responses to the AD yet? Time is almost up. Has anyone come up with anymore hard data and information to respond with? I am interested to know what may have poped up? Thanks, Mike |
|||
|
|||
|
No data has been turned up. Your comment should be just your thoughts. The FAA is proposing this because they have a "new concern" about corrosion. The FAA is generally more concerned these days about the increasing age of the general aviation fleet. But there have been no accidents, incidents or data specifically pointing to the need for this proposal - just the "new concern". So please send your comments if you have not yet done so. Now is the time. |
|||
|
|||
|
I just received this from Gary Park regarding the ACS: We have received very good responses to the Airworthiness Concern Sheet (ACS) regarding Beech 18 Wing Spar inspections. We wish to express our appreciation to you for taking the time to provide your comments. The purpose of this e-mail is to let you know that we are in the process of evaluating these comments. No action will be taken at this time. Whatever action is eventually taken will be done with your full knowledge. There will be no surprises. The information that has been provided to us reflect a good understanding of the issues, and provides good ideas of possible alternative inspection techniques, materials and inspection intervals to accomplish the intent of the ACS. In general, the corrosion issue is understood. The Wichita ACO shares your concerns that the inspections can be achieved that will insure the continued flight safety of the Beech 18 without causing an undue financial burden to the owners and operators. Part of communicating our intentions with you might be developing a revised ACS to get your feedback. We welcome other ideas you may have in reaching this goal. Thank you for participating in this ACS process to insure the continued safety of the Beech 18. Gary |
|||
|
|||
|
Looks like our comments have been reviewed and a least considered by more than a few people. AOPA has helped all of us many times in the past and they have again stepped up to the plate on this one. My personal thank you to all who sent in comments........ Enrico *************** NO DATA TO SUPPORT PROPOSED BEECH 18 AD, AOPA SAYS There's not enough data, nothing to show that there's a problem, so there's no reason to issue an airworthiness directive (AD). That's what AOPA told the FAA about its proposal to issue a new AD concerning spar corrosion on Twin Beech 18s. "Given that the current AD appears to have effectively removed the unsafe condition, the FAA should provide the supporting data to show an unsafe condition that would now justify lowering that inspection interval to 1,000 hours or 48 months," said Luis Gutierrez, AOPA director of regulatory and certification policy. The FAA recently circulated an "Airworthiness Concern Sheet" proposing to supersede an existing AD. But AOPA said the current AD has proven effective in solving the problem, because no Twin Beech has had a wing failure since the AD went into effect. AOPA also said the FAA overstated the risk by ignoring the redundant load path provided by the wing straps that must be installed to comply with the current AD. See AOPA Online ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051003beech.html ). |
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Enrico, I definitely appreciate that update. I did not even know AOPA was looking out for us 18 owners/operators. Mike |
|||
|
|||
|
I am considering the Beech 18 that Courtesy has for sale. What is the status of the proposed AD? If it does become an AD I would think that after that no airplanes (except cheap projects) would be able to be sold without a recent inspection. Do you agree? Lasse - www.opmas.dk |
|||
|
|||
|
This is just an update on the spar inspection issue since October. Back on October 4th, Kyle (admin) posted an email response he recieved from Gary Park at the FAA. Many of you who commented on the ACS got the same email acknowledgement. I spoke with Gary a few days ago and he said the FAA is looking into what data there might be to give them a better basis for any future proposal. He reiterated that as long as our fleet has no accidents or incidents implicating the spar, the FAA would proceed with consultations with the Twin Beech 18 Society as the type club for the airplane as well other interested parties (AOPA and EAA have been involved so far, for instance, along with individual owners and operators). We might expect another ACS on this topic at some point in the future. The FAA has limited resources (manpower) available for these issues and accidents such as the Chalks crash obviously get priority. But our spar issue is still on their mind and we should keep up our efforts to address it. One initiative the Twin Beech 18 Society took was to propose a small conference of experts on the Beech 18 spar to include both Raytheon and the FAA. We set a time and place for the conference last November, but after reviewing the comments on the ACS, the FAA asked if we would postpone the conference until after they could do some more "homework". We thought that was a positive development and so we have put the conference idea on hold for now. A couple of pet ideas I have been pursuing as cheaper alternatives to the proposal in the original ACS include the use of "microfiberscope" technology to inspect the inside of steel tubing. These are essentially very small boroscope devices that were originally developed for medical use. Industrial scopes are now available. They have excellent optics, an integral light source and create both photo and video records of an inspection. I have asked a manufacturer of these devices to create a demo inspection record using a 60" sample piece of steel tubing with a 5/32" hole drilled close to one end. (In the ACS, the spar treatment procedure calls for a 5/32" treatment port to be drilled.) I expect the demo record to be available soon and we will be ready to pitch the idea to the FAA when the time comes. These devices aren't cheap, but compared with x-ray equipment, they are certainly reasonable. As for a cheap alternative to the ACS proposal to periodically "flush" the spar tubing with a preservative, I have been working with Corrosion-X to modify a piece of applicator equipment they already sell. The ACS specifies "MIL-C-16173, Grade 2 preservative, or equivalent". The Corrosion-X people have plenty of documentation on their aviation product and claim it should meet or exceed the ACS spec. It is inexpensive, widely available and can be applied by "fogging", rather than "flushing". The trick is to modify the spray applicator they sell to be used through a 5/32" treatment port (the same one as for inspection, in my theory). Anyway, the Corrosion-X folks have prototyped a device that we will demo this afternoon. These are both my personal "pet projects". My goal is "cheaper - better". I don't have any indication at this point whether the FAA will be receptive, but I am optimistic. We'll see... At the Beech Party in Tullahoma last October we had two seminars on the spar inspection issue, one of which was lead by Nick Quint of Blackhawk. David Warren sent us a sample piece of spar tubing as a discussion aid. One thing that came out of those meetings was the importance of us being able to assure the FAA of our ability to communicate easily with most, if not all active Beech 18 owners and operators. Right now, we don't have that ability. If we can create that ability, the FAA can have confidence in us to "self-police" the airworthiness of our fleet to some extent. We need a good email/phone database. The closest thing available right now would be David Warren's customer database which could be used along with our membership roster to create what we need. Also, this is why I always push active membership in the Twin Beech 18 Society. Another thing that came out of the Tullahoma seminars is that Nick Quint took the spar section sample home with him to explore alternative non-destructive testing methods already discussed in this thread, such as ultrasound and eddy-current testing. So thats where we are. Everybody is studying up on the issue and the ball is in the FAA's court. The Twin Beech 18 Society is looking at developing a good owner/operator database - suggestions would be appreciated. Also, one of the members of the Twin Beech 18 Society has generously offered to donate a complete C-45 spar to the museum in Tullahoma that we will eventually clean up and display in the Beech 18 hangar there. Another plug for the Twin Beech 18 Society: we have an ongoing project to acquire Beech 18 STCs. There are over 400 STCs on the Beech 18 and the museum now owns about 75 of them. Our purpose is to keep this data from being "orphaned" as can happen with older types. Generally, any STCs that are no longer of commercial value can be donated to the museum and the value of them can be tax-deductable to the donor. Our curator is working on cataloging our STCs, drawings and related materials so that eventually this database would be available to our membership through our website. As well, David Warren actively collects these things and has an extensive collection of STCs and drawings that he makes available at a good price. Anyway, if anyone comes across a donatable STC, please keep the Staggerwing Museum in mind. This subject should probably be on its own thread, but that's a project for another day. Pete |
|||
| There are currently 592 members registered on Beech18.net Forums. |
| Techno skin created with help from jamesfarr.com |
| Powered by Toast 1.5 Registered Edition Copyright © 2000 Josh Painter All Rights Reserved |
