system
Shrimp fork?
Shrimp fork?
I believe that the SL was prompted by an aircraft that lost a wing in flight. The failure was traced to corrosion on the carry through section of the main spar that caused it to fracture. The inspection was also extended to all years of the 177 Cardinal, both fixed gear and retractable. In the case of the Cardinal, an Eddy Current inspection was recommended under certain conditions.
1 reply
Yep, see https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2019/cessna-210-carry-through-spar-failure/ for the reason for the SL.
The Cardinal design is based on the 210 (indeed, the wings are the same shape, just using fewer ribs and thinner skins due to the lighter gross weight). The carry-through spar, however, is unique to the Cardinal. Another difference is the 210 had padding glued to the underside of the spar to protect occupants from bumping their head on the exposed beam. It’s thought that this padding may have trapped moisture against the spar. The Cardinal’s spar was hidden above a plastic headliner.
I talked to one pilot who flies Cardinals in pipeline patrol, and some of those airframes have well in excess of 40,000 hours on them (“…before the Hobbs broke…”), bouncing around in turbulence at low altitude. So it would seem the Cardinal structure is pretty robust. That being said, there are enough similarities in design and construction to the 210, and the inspection is not particularly onerous, that it made sense to check out the Cardinal spar as well as outlined in the earlier notice.
It seems like this new SL, aimed solely at the 210, is based upon field reports from the earlier inspections.
Read with interest this last sentence of the article: “Inspection reports must be submitted to Textron.”
By what authority does Textron have to compel any action by an aircraft owner? The FAA can of course compel under FAR 39 (Airworthiness Directives). However, I don’t think a manufacturer can.
I’m in favor of any action that improves aviation safety reporting, including condition reports. However, I believe its important to understand the law and to clearly state what rights an individual owner has with relationship to another commercial entity.
This is NOT an AD; it’s a “mandatory” Service Bulletin. You can wrap your fish in it, if you like.