Blanik L-13 AD

[Jim[_18_]]

Has anybody have a blanik not pass the wing inspection?

We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
experiencing.

Thanks,
Jim Dingess

[bradley]

On Jul 27, 3:34*pm, Jim > wrote:
> Has anybody have a blanik not pass the wing inspection?
>
> We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
> experiencing.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Dingess

Three L-13s at our field all passed with flying colors.

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
Jim > wrote:

> Has anybody have a blanik not pass the wing inspection?
>
> We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
> experiencing.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Dingess


Heard that an L-13 here in Alabama failed a dye penetrant test...

We got after our L-13 with a fiber optic scope, mirrors, lights, etc.,
looked OK to our AI.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Jul 28, 8:13*am, Berry > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> *Jim > wrote:
> > Has anybody have a blanik not pass the wing inspection?
>
> > We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
> > experiencing.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jim Dingess
>
> Heard that an L-13 here in Alabama failed a dye penetrant test...
>
> We got after our L-13 with a fiber optic scope, mirrors, lights, etc.,
> looked OK to our AI.

Are you talking about the same spar fatigue crack concern with the
recent AD 2010-14-15? AFAIK there is no dye penetrant test mentioned
in the FAA or EU AD or in the manufacturer's inspection notes. There
was a dye penetrant test required in at least one unrelated seperate A/
D (AD 2007-25-01) for L13s a few years ago where the FAA required a
dye penetant test where the manufacturer had only a magnifier visual
inspection. There could also be other required dye penetrant
inspections for the L13 (and L13A) that I'm not aware of, I did not
look.

So did an AI really do a dye penetrant test on the spar assembly(ies)
in response to the issue in AD 2010-14-15 (although not formally
required to)? And he found a problem? That prior visual inspection
alone using a 10x magnified did not find? Or is this just possibly
confusion about finding a crack in the past on the control bridge or
some other dye pentrant test (as required by a past A/D?)? Or
something else?

Darryl

[Ronald Locke]

;736025']In article
,
Jim wrote:

Has anybody have a blanik not pass the wing inspection?

We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
experiencing.

Thanks,
Jim Dingess


Heard that an L-13 here in Alabama failed a dye penetrant test...

We got after our L-13 with a fiber optic scope, mirrors, lights, etc.,
looked OK to our AI.

Hello all

We also passed the spar check with flying colours but along with every other Blanik in Australia have been grounded because of an inability to meet the Average Operating Conditions as detailed in the LET Mandatory Bulletin (the document that initiated the AD)

Would I be correct in assuming that provision to LET of these statistics is not mandatory in the US?

Thanks in advance

Ron

[Jim[_18_]]

On Jul 28, 1:00*pm, Ronald Locke <Ronald.Locke.
> wrote:
> 'Berry[_2_ Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ;736025']In article
> > ,
> > Jim wrote:
> > -
> > Has anybody have a blanik not pass the wing inspection?
>
> > We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
> > experiencing.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Jim Dingess-
>
> > Heard that an L-13 here in Alabama failed a dye penetrant test...
>
> > We got after our L-13 with a fiber optic scope, mirrors, lights, etc.,
> > looked OK to our AI.
>
> Hello all
>
> We also passed the spar check with flying colours but along with every
> other Blanik in Australia have been grounded because of an inability to
> meet the Average Operating Conditions as detailed in the LET Mandatory
> Bulletin (the document that initiated the AD)
>
> Would I be correct in assuming that provision to LET of these statistics
> is not mandatory in the US?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ronald Locke

Good question. The comment period for this ad runs until Aug. 27, I
think, we should all comment that this provision is difficult to
comply with, the gliders are passing their inspections and there
should be an alternate means of complying with the bulletin.

Jim

[Steve]

On Jul 28, 1:55*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 28, 8:13*am, Berry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Jim > wrote:
> > > Has anybody have ablaniknot pass thewinginspection?
>
> > > We're just getting started and are interested in what others are
> > > experiencing.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jim Dingess
>
> > Heard that an L-13 here in Alabama failed a dye penetrant test...
>
> > We got after our L-13 with a fiber optic scope, mirrors, lights, etc.,
> > looked OK to our AI.
>
> Are you talking about the same spar fatigue crack concern with the
> recentAD2010-14-15? AFAIK there is no dye penetrant test mentioned
> in the FAA or EUADor in the manufacturer's inspection notes. There
> was a dye penetrant test required in at least one unrelated seperate A/
> D (AD2007-25-01) for L13s a few years ago where the FAA required a
> dye penetant test where the manufacturer had only a magnifier visual
> inspection. There could also be other required dye penetrant
> inspections for the L13 (and L13A) that I'm not aware of, I did not
> look.
>
> So did an AI really do a dye penetrant test on the spar assembly(ies)
> in response to the issue inAD2010-14-15 (although not formally
> required to)? And he found a problem? That prior visual inspection
> alone using a 10x magnified did not find? Or is this just possibly
> confusion about finding a crack in the past on the control bridge or
> some other dye pentrant test (as required by a past A/D?)? Or
> something else?
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Gentlemen,

Just want to say that I am with the Alabama club owning the L-13
reference above, I believe. Just to clarify, one wing on our Blanik
visually had scratches that could have been cracks which led us on the
advise of our AI to take it to the next level, the dye penetrant test
which is very simple proved negative. Our wing spar is fine, and our
confidence is restored once again in our L-13.

Steve

[Mike[_28_]]

FWIW, there is another EASA Emergency AD (2010-0160-E) that updates
and supersedes the June Emergency AD. I don't know what the
differences are. Whether by accident or not the US AD seems to less
restrictive. To paraphrase(always dangerous)it 1)limits aerobatics
2)mandates inspection for crack with a 10x magnifier 3)grounds the
glider if cracks are found 4)requires certain information be forwarded
to the certificate holder w/i ten days of the inspection. It doesn't
say anything about grounding if certain ratios are exceeded or if
records are incomplete or missing(as does 2010-0160-E). Am I mis-
reading this?

[midnav]

I just read the new AD 2010-18-05. The way I read it, we are grounded
here in the US until an " FAA approved inspection program" is created
to address the problem. I am an A-P IA, and I heve never seen an AD
such as this one. It would appear that the FAA is soliciting the
public for a solution, and we are grounded until such a solution is
found.
MSBL13-109A would be considered FAA approved according to the verbage
in the AD, however the preamble to the AD states that the FAA is
adopting an inspection and or modification program to make the fix,
not an "operational history" based program. So I dont see how one
could inspect the wing in accordance with MSBL13-109A and not also
apply the the life limit operational based guidance in the MSB. In
other words, you cant just pick and choose which part of a MSB
document you are going to use, it's all or nothing.
I have called the FAA engineer in charge of this AD and have yet to
recieve a response.
Any other view points on this? I hope im reading this wrong.
Brian Doyle Midnav aircraft services.
North Adams Ma.

[Bart[_4_]]

On Aug 26, 9:40 am, midnav > wrote:
> MSBL13-109A would be considered FAA approved according to the verbage
> in the AD, however the preamble to the AD states that the FAA is
> adopting an inspection and or modification program to make the fix,
> not an "operational history" based program. So I dont see how one
> could inspect the wing in accordance with MSBL13-109A and not also
> apply the the life limit operational based guidance in the MSB. In
> other words, you cant just pick and choose which part of a MSB
> document you are going to use, it's all or nothing.

One could argue that the FAA told us specifically which parts of the
EASA AA not to use. That being said, I think that the intent of the AD
is different. What I think they are saying is:
1. "We understand that no one logs acro time, dual time etc., and will
not ground aircraft based on lack of records"
2. "We will think of some kind of inspection or modification to ensure
that the L-13s stay safe"
3. "Anyone willing to do the work for us is welcome"
4. "No flying before '2' happens"

This happens to be a perfectly reasonable approach, assuming that they
will not make us wait forever for the "FAA-approved inspection and/or
modification program developed specifically for this AD."

B.

[Frank Whiteley]

http://alto.nethit.fi/blanik/132.jpg

[John Gilbert[_2_]]

On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim > wrote:

>
> Good question. The comment period for this ad runs until Aug. 27, I
> think, we should all comment that this provision is difficult to
> comply with, the gliders are passing their inspections and there
> should be an alternate means of complying with the bulletin.
>
> Jim

Jim and all,

No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.

I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
operators to comment on the latest one.

The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
the latest are due by 10/12/2010.

John

[mike malis]

On Aug 27, 1:54*pm, John Gilbert > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good question. The comment period for this ad runs until Aug. 27, I
> > think, we should all comment that this provision is difficult to
> > comply with, the gliders are passing their inspections and there
> > should be an alternate means of complying with the bulletin.
>
> > Jim
>
> Jim and all,
>
> No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
> Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
> refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.
>
> *I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
> comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
> operators to comment on the latest one.
>
> The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
> to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
> the latest are due by 10/12/2010.
>
> John

Let's not wait for the FAA to do it's job, they clearly are indicating
they are not eager to start. I don't want to wait 40 years like the V
tail bonanza owners did.

Aerodyne

"Aircraft are like sasuages. If you enjoy them, you really don't want
to know how they are made!"

[midnav]

I agree, the FAA is probably not going to do the leg work for us.
My question is: does an approved inspection program have to be
approved by the MFG? I plan to call my FISDO on monday to see if a DER
could come up with an inspection program. Typicaly a DERs work is
considered "approved Data" which might be the path out of this
mess.DERs charge for their time, perhaps a group effort is needed
here.
I think an eddy current inspection of the fastener bores would expose
the type of cracks discovered on the failed spar. The rivets could
possibly be replaced with removable fasteners such as hi-locks for
future inspections. I"ll continue to post my progress.
mike malis wrote:
> On Aug 27, 1:54*pm, John Gilbert > wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Good question. The comment period for this ad runs until Aug. 27, I
> > > think, we should all comment that this provision is difficult to
> > > comply with, the gliders are passing their inspections and there
> > > should be an alternate means of complying with the bulletin.
> >
> > > Jim
> >
> > Jim and all,
> >
> > No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
> > Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
> > refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.
> >
> > *I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
> > comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
> > operators to comment on the latest one.
> >
> > The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
> > to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
> > the latest are due by 10/12/2010.
> >
> > John
>
> Let's not wait for the FAA to do it's job, they clearly are indicating
> they are not eager to start. I don't want to wait 40 years like the V
> tail bonanza owners did.
>
> Aerodyne
>
> "Aircraft are like sasuages. If you enjoy them, you really don't want
> to know how they are made!"

[Morgan[_2_]]

There are several of us operating L-13s in California that would
likely jump in to support the effort to develop a test. NorCal
Soaring, Central California Soaring and a commercial operation out of
Santa Ynez are all using one or more L-13s. I would hope that the
pool of L-13 owners would be willing to pitch in collectively to fund
a DER or whatever was required to develop an inspection to the FAA's
satisfaction.

A secondary fear of course is that the cost of the inspection will be
prohibitive for small clubs like ours. Originally with a visual
inspection it wasn't too bad. Start requiring pulling of skins and
replacing fasteners and you can probably quickly get into some
considerable expense. Whatever we need to stay safe, but I hope we
can keep our gliders airborne without spending half their previous
market value on inspections.

On Aug 28, 4:31*pm, midnav > wrote:
> I agree, the FAA is probably not going to do the leg work for us.
> *My question is: does an approved inspection program have to be
> approved by the MFG? I plan to call my FISDO on monday to see if a DER
> could come up with an inspection program. Typicaly a DERs work is
> considered "approved Data" which might be the path out of this
> mess.DERs charge for their time, perhaps a group effort is needed
> here.
> *I think an eddy current inspection of the fastener bores would expose
> the type of cracks discovered on the failed spar. The rivets could
> possibly be replaced with removable fasteners such as hi-locks for
> future inspections. I"ll continue to post my progress.
>
>
>
> mike malis wrote:
> > On Aug 27, 1:54*pm, John Gilbert > wrote:
> > > On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim > wrote:
>
> > > > Good question. The comment period for this ad runs until Aug. 27, I
> > > > think, we should all comment that this provision is difficult to
> > > > comply with, the gliders are passing their inspections and there
> > > > should be an alternate means of complying with the bulletin.
>
> > > > Jim
>
> > > Jim and all,
>
> > > No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
> > > Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
> > > refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.
>
> > > *I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
> > > comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
> > > operators to comment on the latest one.
>
> > > The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
> > > to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
> > > the latest are due by 10/12/2010.
>
> > > John
>
> > Let's not wait for the FAA to do it's job, they clearly are indicating
> > they are not eager to start. *I don't want to wait 40 years like the V
> > tail bonanza owners did.
>
> > Aerodyne
>
> > "Aircraft are like sasuages. *If you enjoy them, you really don't want
> > to know how they are made!"

[Tim Hanke]

We really need to get the FAA to look at the total hours on the
L-13's. Our Club has (3) L-13's with
less than 1,800 hours TT. There should be different inspections at
different hours on the ship. Also, we
should have a different restrictions for those flying aerobatics,
winch tows, etc.


On Aug 29, 12:09*pm, Morgan > wrote:
> There are several of us operating L-13s in California that would
> likely jump in to support the effort to develop a test. *NorCal
> Soaring, Central California Soaring and a commercial operation out of
> Santa Ynez are all using one or more L-13s. *I would hope that the
> pool of L-13 owners would be willing to pitch in collectively to fund
> a DER or whatever was required to develop an inspection to the FAA's
> satisfaction.
>
> A secondary fear of course is that the cost of the inspection will be
> prohibitive for small clubs like ours. *Originally with a visual
> inspection it wasn't too bad. *Start requiring pulling of skins and
> replacing fasteners and you can probably quickly get into some
> considerable expense. *Whatever we need to stay safe, but I hope we
> can keep our gliders airborne without spending half their previous
> market value on inspections.
>
> On Aug 28, 4:31*pm, midnav > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I agree, the FAA is probably not going to do the leg work for us.
> > *My question is: does an approved inspection program have to be
> > approved by the MFG? I plan to call my FISDO on monday to see if a DER
> > could come up with an inspection program. Typicaly a DERs work is
> > considered "approved Data" which might be the path out of this
> > mess.DERs charge for their time, perhaps a group effort is needed
> > here.
> > *I think an eddy current inspection of the fastener bores would expose
> > the type of cracks discovered on the failed spar. The rivets could
> > possibly be replaced with removable fasteners such as hi-locks for
> > future inspections. I"ll continue to post my progress.
>
> > mike malis wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 1:54*pm, John Gilbert > wrote:
> > > > On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim > wrote:
>
> > > > > Good question. The comment period for this ad runs until Aug. 27, I
> > > > > think, we should all comment that this provision is difficult to
> > > > > comply with, the gliders are passing their inspections and there
> > > > > should be an alternate means of complying with the bulletin.
>
> > > > > Jim
>
> > > > Jim and all,
>
> > > > No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
> > > > Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
> > > > refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.
>
> > > > *I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
> > > > comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
> > > > operators to comment on the latest one.
>
> > > > The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
> > > > to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
> > > > the latest are due by 10/12/2010.
>
> > > > John
>
> > > Let's not wait for the FAA to do it's job, they clearly are indicating
> > > they are not eager to start. *I don't want to wait 40 years like the V
> > > tail bonanza owners did.
>
> > > Aerodyne
>
> > > "Aircraft are like sasuages. *If you enjoy them, you really don't want
> > > to know how they are made!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[froggy]

How are the the lower spar cap wing attach areas different on the
other newer Blanik models? If they are the same or similar, then we
should comment to the FAA and try to include these ships too. I know
it may seem counter productive, but we may get faster results from the
MFG if suddenly the ships that they have yet to sell are included in
this mess. I suspect that LET (MFG) is not to interested in supporting
our older ships.
Another thought: there is a wing strap mod in Austrailia or OZ
called the Llewelyn Mod. ships that have this mod are designated
L-13A1.. Does the Ad include L-13A1 ships? Check it out and comment.
These are just a random ideas I have, I have been brain storming all
weekend. we should all just throw out ideas, good or bad on this
site.
If we dont all get together as a group.. we may end up with some big
shiney lawn ornaments.
Brian Doyle MIDNAV aircraft services North Adams ma 413-896-6386

[Andrew Corrigan]

Brian,

From what I've heard, you are correct about the factory not wanting to
support the older ships.

Two of my friends just returned from the World Gliding Championships in
Hungary. When they were there, I sent them an email requesting they ask
how other people in the world are are dealing with this.

The first report back is that the factory does not want to support this.
From a buisness stand point there is no money in it for them. LET has
soft selled the issue by appearing to help. They can determine the state
of the glider if you provide them data. However, it is impossible to
provide this data so they get off the hook.

The other report I received was a L13 being grounded by the factory
because the owner responded to LET stating they don't have all the info.
No History=No Fly

Your other comment about banding together is correct. If the world
community does not unite the consequences will be bad. I'm not holding
my breath for the factory to do something because there is no incentive
for them.

Moving forward, there was talk about funding an R&D project for
inspection. My gut feel this is not feasible. Given the gliders are worth
$10-$15K, by the time you pay for the R&D, the inspection, AND the repair
cost you will exceed the glider value. This is not a cost effective
approach.

I'm lost to what the path forward should be...............

Andrew Corrigan




At 01:18 30 August 2010, froggy wrote:
> How are the the lower spar cap wing attach areas different on the
>other newer Blanik models? If they are the same or similar, then we
>should comment to the FAA and try to include these ships too. I know
>it may seem counter productive, but we may get faster results from the
>MFG if suddenly the ships that they have yet to sell are included in
>this mess. I suspect that LET (MFG) is not to interested in supporting
>our older ships.
> Another thought: there is a wing strap mod in Austrailia or OZ
> called the Llewelyn Mod. ships that have this mod are designated
>L-13A1.. Does the Ad include L-13A1 ships? Check it out and comment.
> These are just a random ideas I have, I have been brain storming all
>weekend. we should all just throw out ideas, good or bad on this
>site.
>If we dont all get together as a group.. we may end up with some big
>shiney lawn ornaments.
>Brian Doyle MIDNAV aircraft services North Adams ma 413-896-6386
>

[Andrew Corrigan]

Brian,

From what I've heard, you are correct about the factory not wanting to
support the older ships.

Two of my friends just returned from the World Gliding Championships in
Hungary. When they were there, I sent them an email requesting they ask
how other people in the world are are dealing with this.

The first report back is that the factory does not want to support this.
From a buisness stand point there is no money in it for them. LET has
soft selled the issue by appearing to help. They can determine the state
of the glider if you provide them data. However, it is impossible to
provide this data so they get off the hook.

The other report I received was a L13 being grounded by the factory
because the owner responded to LET stating they don't have all the info.
No History=No Fly

Your other comment about banding together is correct. If the world
community does not unite the consequences will be bad. I'm not holding
my breath for the factory to do something because there is no incentive
for them.

Moving forward, there was talk about funding an R&D project for
inspection. My gut feel this is not feasible. Given the gliders are worth
$10-$15K, by the time you pay for the R&D, the inspection, AND the repair
cost you will exceed the glider value. This is not a cost effective
approach.

I'm lost to what the path forward should be...............

Andrew Corrigan




At 01:18 30 August 2010, froggy wrote:
> How are the the lower spar cap wing attach areas different on the
>other newer Blanik models? If they are the same or similar, then we
>should comment to the FAA and try to include these ships too. I know
>it may seem counter productive, but we may get faster results from the
>MFG if suddenly the ships that they have yet to sell are included in
>this mess. I suspect that LET (MFG) is not to interested in supporting
>our older ships.
> Another thought: there is a wing strap mod in Austrailia or OZ
> called the Llewelyn Mod. ships that have this mod are designated
>L-13A1.. Does the Ad include L-13A1 ships? Check it out and comment.
> These are just a random ideas I have, I have been brain storming all
>weekend. we should all just throw out ideas, good or bad on this
>site.
>If we dont all get together as a group.. we may end up with some big
>shiney lawn ornaments.
>Brian Doyle MIDNAV aircraft services North Adams ma 413-896-6386
>

[[email protected]]

I am on the phone with the FAA now...

aerodyne

[[email protected]]

The FAA guy is pretty helpful, perhaps there is some hope...

aerodyne