New law for older airplanes?

(JDupre5762) wrote in message ...

Cessna is currently using their ability to write Service Bulletins and to
request a companion Airworthiness Directive to essentially ground all the 400
series Cessna twin engine aircraft due to supposed flaws in the wing spars.
This is similar to the Bulletin and AD route that Beechcraft used to attempt to
put the T-34 Mentor out of the sky. They don't have to lobby anyone.


If this was truly Cessna and Beech's intention, wouldn't it have
been easier to just quit making parts? The amount of work to PMA
every part on the aircraft makes it unlikely anyone else would step up
to support them.

In the case of the T-34, I think the spar AD was warranted. They
were actually snapping in aerobatic flight.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Bart D. Hull" wrote in message .. .
I don't know the specifics but here in Arizona they just grounded all
firefighting planes. What a joke! Just before prime fire season.

News said something about recent accidents but I don't know of any.

Could be the beginning of some real interesting precedents.

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

I don't get the "joke", other than Ariz Gov. Napolitano trying to make
political hay out of this.

The cancellation of the firefighting contracts by the Forest Service
was due to recommendations by the NTSB, released April 23, 2004:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/040423.htm

These recommendations come after finding of air tanker crashes in
2002.

In summary, there are genuine safety risks in air tanker operation
under the current inspection guidelines. Until an M&I program can be
established to address the rigors of air-drops, I think it is a good
idea to ground the aircraft. As seen in horrific videos from the
2002 crashes, lives are at risk.

Mike

"John Galban" wrote in message
m...
(JDupre5762) wrote in message
...

Cessna is currently using their ability to write Service Bulletins and
to
request a companion Airworthiness Directive to essentially ground all
the 400
series Cessna twin engine aircraft due to supposed flaws in the wing
spars.
This is similar to the Bulletin and AD route that Beechcraft used to
attempt to
put the T-34 Mentor out of the sky. They don't have to lobby anyone.


If this was truly Cessna and Beech's intention, wouldn't it have
been easier to just quit making parts? The amount of work to PMA
every part on the aircraft makes it unlikely anyone else would step up
to support them.

Cessna hasn't made parts for my airplane in decades yet there are 4,000 of
them still flying. If the demand is there someone will make the parts.


In the case of the T-34, I think the spar AD was warranted. They
were actually snapping in aerobatic flight.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

John Galban wrote:

If this was truly Cessna and Beech's intention, wouldn't it have
been easier to just quit making parts?

Obviously you've never pulled out your wallet to buy parts from Raytheon
(Beech). On one of the Bonanza lists recently was someones tale of buying
a rear engine baffle. Had to pay something like $6000 for it, and then
wait 3 months for them to make it. In my mind this is pretty close to
stop making parts.

How doe Raytheon price their parts? They put a dollar sign in front of
the part number.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Obviously you've never pulled out your wallet to buy parts from Raytheon
(Beech). On one of the Bonanza lists recently was someones tale of buying
a rear engine baffle. Had to pay something like $6000 for it, and then
wait 3 months for them to make it. In my mind this is pretty close to
stop making parts.

How doe Raytheon price their parts? They put a dollar sign in front of
the part number.
--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR


Well *that* explains the new part numbers being longer than the superceded
part numbers.

At least they do free shipping...

fuji
'63 Musketeer owner

(John Galban) wrote
In the case of the T-34, I think the spar AD was warranted. They
were actually snapping in aerobatic flight.

The first spar AD may have been warranted - or not. The only planes
that ever snapped a wing in flight were being used by those 'fighter
pilot for a day' operations. No privately owned T-34 ever had a
problem. There is every reason to believe that the planes that lost
wings were being operated well outside the design envelope - rolling
gee has been implicated in every one of the failures.

Also, the second AD is clearly bull****. No T-34 that had the first
AD done has ever had a problem, even in the weekend warrior
operations. The T-34 that crashed in Houston and precipitated the
imposition of the second AD didn't have the first AD done.

Michael