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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Blanik L-13 AD
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. |
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 |