Cessna wingspar AD - why not 421?

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/aircraf...SNA400-040.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