Despite this being a “mandatory” service letter, part 91 operators are not required to adhere to it until it becomes an AD, which I do not think is the case as of yet. So the impression the article gives that owners are required to follow this service letter is overstated.
From the Service Letter:
For airplanes flown in SEVERE Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00:
• Airplanes that have more than 2,500 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight
hours.
• Airplanes that have less than 2,500 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight
hours upon reaching 2,500 flight hours.
From the Service Manual Section 2A-00-00:
(1) Operating Usage
(a) Severe Usage Environment
1 If the average flight length is less than 30 minutes, then you must use the Severe
inspection time limits.
2 If the airplane has been engaged in operations at low altitudes such as pipeline
patrol, fish or game spotting, aerial applications, police patrol, sightseeing, livestock
management, etc. more than 30% of its life you must use the Severe inspection time
limits.
Back to the SL:
For airplanes flown in TYPICAL Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00:
• Airplanes that have more than 15,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight
hours.
“Some Cessna 177 and 210 owners will need an immediate inspection of the strut that holds their wings on”
Strut? What strut? Most of the 177s & 210s I’ve seen don’t have struts!
Is it just me or do you need a proof-reader?
in friendship
Rowland
On 2019-07-04, at 16:29, Russ Niles, AVweb wrote:
“It’s you. Read the story.”
OK, I read the story again and could see no mention of a strut other than in the opening sentence which I previously quoted. There’s nothing about a strut in the graphic either. What is mentioned is the carry-through spar, but that does not serve the engineering function of a strut. If I have somehow failed to see the specific reference to a strut in the body of the article, I would be grateful for a pointer to it.
in friendship
Rowland
you are right Rowland,…strut was a very misleading word to use as pilots we struts as external fixtures that support flying surfaces in tension or compression…I was wondering as well, and yes Russ, I read the article…nice response though…
also there is no mention of the recent C210 inflight wing separation in Australia due to fatigue fracture…
unless I owned one from new I’d be checking it regardless…after seeing pics of the wing separation in Australia where that carry-through broke clean through resulting in wing separation…
For those of us without access to Maintenance manual Section 2A-10-00, what are the definitions of Typical and Severe usage?
Here is the ATSB report on the crash of the 210 in Australia.
The company bought the airplane and it already had 6,000 hours on the airframe and then they put another 6,000 hours on the airplane at 200 ft at 140 to 150 nautical miles an hour beating the heck out of it.
In addition they highly modified the airplane as you can see in the one picture with that big giant tail boom on it and they put tip tanks on the wings also.
As far as I know this is the only 210 that has ever crashed because of that Center spar breaking.
Despite this being a “mandatory” service letter, part 91 operators are not required to adhere to it until it becomes an AD. I would wait and see if any other 210’s show cracking.
Sid
News: Cessna 210 carry-through spar failure
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2019/cessna-210-carry-through-spar-failure/
wouldn’t flight aware have tracking data for aircraft flying at that location and time?
Maybe a local tool shop pneumatically “unstuck” one their drifts?
Any reports of UFOs in the area around that time? 
Seriously, though, if they think it came off of an airliner, why not show it to some airline mechanics? They would be the most likely group to identify it.
Is that even an aircraft part?
Unless this is a piece of a part that broke away there should be a part number or serial number on it, unless it is not an aircraft part.
Looks like some sort of heavy duty roller to me (and therefore unlikely to be off an aeroplane) - but without any more info (dims, symmetry, material etc, etc) I might as well try and pick the lotto numbers correctly. I suppose it could have been left in or picked up by (thrown up off a runway?) an aircraft and then released on undercarriage doors being opened? Pretty unlikely…
Looks like a spittoon to me.
Dimensions? Any visible wear pattern? No clues? Oh well - in the FOD bin it goes.
Could it have fallen (been thrown) from the roof of the building?
Looks like a roller off a pallet roller system
Looks like part of an HVAC rooftop system. I suggest that the state of Maine facilities engineering department check nearby rooftops for missing HVAC intake or exhaust shrouds…
Doesn’t look like an airplane part, even a weight or spacer. - finish and recess radius for example.
More like a Grecian urn, but such would have smashed on impact.
Perhaps fell out of cargo hold or someone dropped it onto police.
I hope police are investigating the probability it was dropped from the roof targeting the employee. Police are being attacked, often randomly, but so are civilians not connected to police, (Angry spouse or hired hit person for example, gangstas of Surrey BC would like to - and some of their hired hit persons are amateurs.)
3 replies
Or just sloppy roof maintainers holding their tar paper down (few are quality workers).
Note it is not especially heavy for what appears to be metal.
But claim is a few people saw an object fall - but does not detail where they were: across street from building, where was it in the air when they saw it (passing front of building, or high above it).
Investigators should be quizzing the ‘witnesses’, some people imagine things after a newsworthy or tragic event.
It is definitely not an airplane part. Ok, this thing, whatever it is, fell from the sky. OH yea! it must have fallen from an aircraft! Yes! an airline aircraft! Slow down buddy. Lot’s of stuff can fall from the sky coming from different places other than aircraft.
Start investigating the surroundings. It could even be a son of a gun, literally, playing shoot stuff into the air and hit whatever, whoever! Who knows! The world right now if filled with crazy people. So let the smart ones investigate the case and live the lunatics to tell stories on the side. LOL
How do they know its from an international flight?
I’ve done a lot of preflight walkarounds of transport aircraft, props and jets, never saw anything like that. My take is it’s not an aircraft part that would be able to fall off in flight.
I’d check with any airlines flying soviet made aircraft.
That’s priceless… Well played
Have there been any reports of a mysterious figure calling himself Frank lurking around in a creepy-looking rabbit suit?
My misspent youth leads me to believe we are looking at the results of a pneumatic or black powder mortar, aka, a large potato gun. Trying to shake the cobwebs out of my physics brain, 6-7 pounds and making some assumptions about aspect ratio and wall thickness puts that chuck of steel in the range of 4-6" diameter with similar length. Running some basic projectile motion calculations, 250 ft/s muzzle velocity gives us range of ~1300ft, lots of houses and business within that radius. Interestingly, terminal velocity of that hunk of steel would be around 200-250 ft/s, so kinda hard to distinguish the difference based on the effects.
About 713 Euros a month.
Depends on what his hourly rate is…
It seems to me that this thing should be bent or broken if it’s made out of metal and fell from an aircraft.
I remember years ago at Island Helicopters in NY, a Twin star returned from a maintenance Testflight minus engine cowling. It was never found and fortunately as far as I remember it didn’t damage the aircraft as it exited said aircraft. As for those who noticed a spray of jet fuel exiting a Sikorsky SK58t between 34th St heliport and Garden City around the same time. Yes, I’m sorry, that was me, the fueler forgot to put the fuel cap back on…
Good answers below, but officially a big clay pot (pottery).
I shook my head years ago, investigating apparent excess fuel consumption by a 707 flying tourists from western Canada to Greece. I discovered baggage on return leg was heavy because suckers were buying pottery in Greece.
But your AS355 has small and/or light pieces.
Think of the size of pieces of a 747 landing gear.
(I doubt it is an airplane part.)
If it came from an airplane, it would have had a sizeable forward velocity as well as its downward speed. If that were the case, it would have bounced along the ground for some distance before coming to rest. A close examination of the photo does not indicate the type of damage (dents, scrapes, etc.) that one would expect from that type of impact, considering its 4-6 pound weight. Therefore, I would suspect it fell straight down (or nearly so) from a low level - perhaps the roof of a nearby building.
2 replies
Thankyou for basic physics that is being overlooked.
(I don’t see helicopters having such pieces, perhaps to weight a long line to keep it out of tail rotors but I expect something else would be used like a heavy cargo net or fuel drum.)
Not if it was very high at all. Wind resistance would put it in a parabolic curve, at the end of which it would be virtually, if not entirely, vertical.