: Well, we're talking about cracked *skins* here, not spars. See the
: thread title. I believe Piper's ability to charge $1600 for a $12 part,
: coupled with potential liability, is exactly what drove this policy change.

: If you can find a DER who disagrees with Piper's engineering that
: calls for replacement instead of repair could you repair it and do a
: 337 under the DERs signoff?

Piper *themselves* disagree with Piper. I challenge you to find NTSB reports of *properly*
executed skin patches being a factor in a crash. So long as the dynamic balance of the control surface
is within range, the repair is done according to AC43 (or in Piper's case, THEIR OWN SERVICE MANUAL!),
it's perfectly safe. I agree that the only reasons for the changes are
- Limiting liability wherever possible.
- Charging insane prices for replacement skins.

Think about it... why in the hell would they encourage a $100 repair on a plane they sold 40
years ago if they could play the legally-cautious and $1600 financially-beneficial route of mandating
skin replacements?

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************