If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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!" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blanik L-23 Super Blanik Manual -F.C.F.S. | Joel Flamenbaum | Soaring | 2 | April 14th 10 03:29 PM |
Blanik L23 AD | tomcatvf51 | Soaring | 0 | February 12th 09 12:52 PM |
Blanik L-23 | BDS[_2_] | Soaring | 7 | June 27th 07 03:35 PM |
Blanik L-23 | Duane Eisenbeiss | Soaring | 8 | April 27th 04 05:53 AM |
WTB Blanik L13 | mike fadden | Soaring | 2 | August 8th 03 04:30 AM |