Piper 235 tail skin

Jay Honeck wrote:
New thinking at Piper, as reflected in newer manuals, says to replace
and not patch the skins. I would think they have discovered important
reasons to make that change.


Yeah, they discovered that they could charge $1600 for a $12 piece of
pressed aluminum.

AND likely avoid liability by ensuring a repaired crack does not show up
at a crash site.

"Mike Spera" wrote

AND likely avoid liability by ensuring a repaired crack does not show up
at a crash site.

Sounds good, if it means I am not arriving at the crash site a few
milliseconds before the cracked spar.

Really, guys and gals; do you want to go flying around with a spar that is
stop drilled?

Not me.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

"Mike Spera" wrote


AND likely avoid liability by ensuring a repaired crack does not show up
at a crash site.


Sounds good, if it means I am not arriving at the crash site a few
milliseconds before the cracked spar.

Really, guys and gals; do you want to go flying around with a spar that is
stop drilled?

Not me.

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.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:39:40 -0900, Scott Skylane
wrote:

Morgans wrote:

"Mike Spera" wrote


AND likely avoid liability by ensuring a repaired crack does not show up
at a crash site.


Sounds good, if it means I am not arriving at the crash site a few
milliseconds before the cracked spar.

Really, guys and gals; do you want to go flying around with a spar that is
stop drilled?

Not me.

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?

: That's strange. When my IA showed me his current manual (on CD), it had
: the prohibition. As I recall, it was worded the same as described in Dave's
: post above.

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

: --
: Message posted via AviationKB.com
: http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200803/1

Might want to check that P/N on the manual. Yours is a hershey-bar -180, right? I was starting
to think that only the taper-wings had the prohibition in there.

-Cory

--

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

: 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 *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:

Might want to check that P/N on the manual. Yours is a hershey-bar -180, right? I was starting
to think that only the taper-wings had the prohibition in there.


Good point. My old manual covered all of the PA28 variants. I wasn't
aware that they now had separate manuals for the tapered wing models.

Thanks,

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200803/1