Cessna wingspar AD - why not 421?

[Nathan Young]

Received this article in my email today from AOPA. An update on the
Cessna wingspar AD. I am curious why the 421 isn't included in this
list of aircraft. I thought all the 4 series shared a common wing?

Glad to see the 3 series are not included (yet)!

-Nathan



FAA GRANTS MEETINGS FOR TWIN CESSNA OWNERS
Owners of twin-engine Cessna airplanes will be allowed to voice their
concerns in public meetings over proposed airworthiness directives
(ADs),
the FAA announced. Believing that the ADs are based entirely on theory
and
have no real-world data to back them up, AOPA lobbied hard for the
meetings.
The FAA has refused to reveal any data that may support safety issues.
The
ADs would require owners of Cessna models 401, 401A, 401B, 402, 402A,
402B,
402C, 411, 411A, and 414A to install an expensive spar strap
modification,
and perform repetitive spar inspections. AOPA estimates the cost of
compliance to be $70,000 per aircraft, more than many of these models
are
worth. The meetings will take place on March 3 and 4 at a hotel near
Washington Dulles International Airport, just outside Washington, D.C.
AOPA urges owners to either attend the meetings or file formal
comments
before the extended comment period ends on April 5. Click here to
download
more information ( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2004/2002ce57ad.pdf
)

[Scott Skylane]

Nathan Young wrote:
> Received this article in my email today from AOPA. An update on the
> Cessna wingspar AD. I am curious why the 421 isn't included in this
> list of aircraft. I thought all the 4 series shared a common wing?
>

Nathan,

I believe the 421 had a higher gross weight than any of the other 400's.
So, while the wing is externally similar to the others, it probably
was beefed-up internally, and thus not susceptable to the cracking of
the lighter wings. Just a guess...

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[Mike Ciholas]

Nathan Young > wrote in message >...
> Received this article in my email today from AOPA. An update on the
> Cessna wingspar AD. I am curious why the 421 isn't included in this
> list of aircraft. I thought all the 4 series shared a common wing?

The rumor is that Cessna is finished cooking up the numbers on
the 421 spar so expect some AD movement in that direction soon.

I've seen no evidence that convinces me these ADs are nothing more
than an attempt to junk some airplanes and generate revenue from the
others for Cessna. I do not believe a serious safety of flight issue
exists (unlike the exhaust AD).

The key fact is that Cessna refuses to release the data on which the
AD is based, and the danger is theoretical and has not been shown to
occur in actual flight. An oft cited example of the 402 that crash
in OK had a factory defect, 20,000+ hours, chronic wing skin cracking,
and had a main gear leg ripped out in an accident. That simply can't
be representative of the entire 400 series fleet, or even of 402s in
specific.

I was in the market for a 421C but I'm sitting tight to see what
happens. If Cessna succeeds at getting ADs approved this way,
that will set a precedent to push through other ADs of dubious value.

--
Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101
CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax
255 S. Garvin St, Suite B
Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com

[R.Hubbell]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:23 GMT Nathan Young > wrote:

> Received this article in my email today from AOPA. An update on the
> Cessna wingspar AD. I am curious why the 421 isn't included in this
> list of aircraft. I thought all the 4 series shared a common wing?
>



This looks like the same AD from CASA (from 1995):

http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/adfiles/under/cessna400/CESSNA400-040.pdf


This is why I am referencing all foreign ADs of any aircraft that we're thinking
about buying.



> Glad to see the 3 series are not included (yet)!


Not a judgement call I'm only curious. Are you glad because you feel that
the planes are safe and don't need an AD? Or because you don't want to have
to pay the dough?


R. Hubbell

>
> -Nathan
>
>
>
> FAA GRANTS MEETINGS FOR TWIN CESSNA OWNERS
> Owners of twin-engine Cessna airplanes will be allowed to voice their
> concerns in public meetings over proposed airworthiness directives
> (ADs),
> the FAA announced. Believing that the ADs are based entirely on theory
> and
> have no real-world data to back them up, AOPA lobbied hard for the
> meetings.
> The FAA has refused to reveal any data that may support safety issues.
> The
> ADs would require owners of Cessna models 401, 401A, 401B, 402, 402A,
> 402B,
> 402C, 411, 411A, and 414A to install an expensive spar strap
> modification,
> and perform repetitive spar inspections. AOPA estimates the cost of
> compliance to be $70,000 per aircraft, more than many of these models
> are
> worth. The meetings will take place on March 3 and 4 at a hotel near
> Washington Dulles International Airport, just outside Washington, D.C.
> AOPA urges owners to either attend the meetings or file formal
> comments
> before the extended comment period ends on April 5. Click here to
> download
> more information ( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2004/2002ce57ad.pdf
> )

[Vaughn]

"R.Hubbell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:23 GMT Nathan Young >
wrote:
>
>... Are you glad because you feel that
> the planes are safe and don't need an AD? Or because you don't want to
have
> to pay the dough?

Why not both?

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:16:05 -0800, "R.Hubbell"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:23 GMT Nathan Young > wrote:
>
>> Received this article in my email today from AOPA. An update on the
>> Cessna wingspar AD. I am curious why the 421 isn't included in this
>> list of aircraft. I thought all the 4 series shared a common wing?
>>
>
>
>
>This looks like the same AD from CASA (from 1995):
>
>http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/adfiles/under/cessna400/CESSNA400-040.pdf
>
>
>This is why I am referencing all foreign ADs of any aircraft that we're thinking
>about buying.
>
>
>
>> Glad to see the 3 series are not included (yet)!
>
>
>Not a judgement call I'm only curious. Are you glad because you feel that
>the planes are safe and don't need an AD? Or because you don't want to have
>to pay the dough?

I suspect 99.99% of the planes are safe, and if I owned a twin Cessna,
I sure wouldn't want to pay the bucks. The 4-series spar updates /
ongoing inspections are to cost $50-70k.

From what I gather, the AD is largely based on a single failure of a
402 spar on a high time (20k hrs) aircraft with major damage history.
The AD seems like the typical overreaction by the FAA and aircraft
manufacturer. (The Piper Cherokee wingspar AD comes to mind - almost
the same details there - a single failure of a high-time pipeline
patrol aircraft, followed by an expensive AD, followed by a rescinding
of the AD.)

Metal fatigue is a concern in high time airframes, but is something
that I feel needs to be addressed on a case by case basis via
inspections, SBs, perhaps an AD to perform periodic inspections, but
not an AD of this magnitude.

-Nathan