G102 spigot AD??? What's the status...

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

I was also surprised at the relative lack of response to the
NPRM when it was first issued last year...

I'm a bit surprised as well. I rather wonder if the wording of the
thing might have something to do with it: "Replace the spar spigots?
How hard can that be. I'll order them, they'll come in a box. I'll
have my A&P unscrew the old ones, screw in the new ones, and be on my
way!"

In actuality, if the 102 is anything like the 103, replacing the
spigots is fairly major surgery requiring special tools and
techniques. It involves cutting away some relatively massive chunks of
fiberglass at the end of the spar stub and digging out the steel pin
and its attachment to the plywood shear web reinforcement. Then you
can replace that portion of shear web, use a special fixture to locate
and install the new steel pin and its mounting flange, and apply about
8 layers of bias fiberglass over the whole spar end.

Thanks, Bob K.

The G109B had this work mandated for 3000 hours, and Bob is correct -
it is a major procedure because the spigots were welded to the buried
metalwork. Before 3000 hours the welds had to be inspected annually.
The new spigots do screw into the new units.

Gilbert

On Aug 19, 2:58*pm, Gary Emerson wrote:

Unless I'm missing something - the link at the top does NOT appear to
provide any details of what exactly is involved with the AD. *I'm
looking for the Service Bulletin which describes (hopefully with some
pictures or sketches) the repair.

You aren't missing anything. The SB does not really describe the
repair. Your mechanic has to get the parts and instructions from Grob
in Germany. Bob K. did describe the process though, which is the same
as for a G 103.

Todd

Forgive me if I am wrong but are you saying that Grob issued as a mandatory
replacement 17 years ago was not embodied in the USA? If that is the case I
am amazed. I am not surprised that the SB is not readily available, one
assumes that Grob, having issued a mandatory SD would expect that it was
completed long ago.

You are correct in saying that the mod was brought about by the failure of
a spigot on a Grob 103 wing, this was on the rig a Slingsbys during testing
for the RAF. Several other wing spigots on aircraft in service were found
to be cracked. The reason for the cracking was the wrong spec steel used
to manuafacture the spigots and this only applied to the 100 Grob 103s
built for the RAF and a few others which had been privately sold. Only
gliders showing cracks were grounded, others were subject to regular
inspection until Grob issued the mandatory mod requiring new replaceable
spigots. You are also right, it is a major job and may only be carried out
by organisations approved by Grob. If the FAA follow that line you will
need this:

Grob Aerospace Inc. has appointed Composite Aircraft Repair of Moriarty,
New Mexico as the new authorized service center for the 300+ Grob
Aerospace light aircraft and gliders in the United States.


At 18:58 19 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
If you go to this page your question will be answered

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/tec...urers/grob.pdf

AD 91-5/2, SB 306-29 issued in 8/91. This should have been completed
17
years ago, I can't believe the FAA is that slow.




At 15:39 19 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
chipsoars wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:47 am, Gary Emerson wrote:
Gary Emerson wrote:
I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the
Grob
102s
(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and
when?
Thanks,
Gary
Does anyone know where a copy of the service bulletin from grob
might
be
found online? I googled this quite a bit, but so far no luck
coming
up
with the actual document. Even the Grob website doesn't list the
SB...
http://www.grob-aerospace.com/servic...ort/g-102.html


Right, there is a master list, but on the left side SB 306-29 is NOT
shown unfortunately.


Unless I'm missing something - the link at the top does NOT appear to
provide any details of what exactly is involved with the AD. I'm
looking for the Service Bulletin which describes (hopefully with some
pictures or sketches) the repair.

You Grob owners may be interested in this link: http://tinyurl.com/68kg9r
The headline says "Grob Aerospace Files For Insolvency".

-John

Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!



At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s

(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?

Thanks,

Gary

Sorry, for 1971 read 1991, 17 years ago

At 08:24 21 August 2008, Don Johnstone wrote:
Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in
fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any
other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!



At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
102s

(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?

Thanks,

Gary

On Aug 21, 4:24*am, Don Johnstone wrote:
Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!


Well, if the European/German equivalent of the FAA issues an AD then
the FAA pretty much automatically issues one as well, but since Grob
only issued a service bulletin, the FAA did not automatically issue an
AD.

Todd Smith

Don Johnstone wrote:
Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers, Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!



At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob 102s

(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?

Thanks,

Gary



This is a question, not a statement...

There is reference to an incorrect material selection in the G103
spigots. Does anyone know if the correct material was used in the G102
spigots?

At 12:39 21 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive
mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure
on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in
fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is
essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better
and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have
been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any
other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers,
Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!



At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
102s

(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?

Thanks,

Gary



This is a question, not a statement...

There is reference to an incorrect material selection in the G103
spigots. Does anyone know if the correct material was used in the G102
spigots?

Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they were
manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole question of
wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design authority
was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence the
redesign.
The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did not
meet the later required spec.
It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake this was
an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as far as I
am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
This is getting more scary by the minute.

At 12:39 21 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:
Is this alarming?
In 1971 the Design Authority issued an Airworthiness Directive
mandating
the replacement of wing spigots on the Grob 102, following a failure
on
the Grob 103. Aircraft manufacturers/Design Authorities do not issue
directives, which by their name are mandatory, for the fun of it, in
fact
doing so indicates that have screwed up. The work mandated is
essential.
Unless I have this completely wrong the FAA decided they knew better
and
did not pass this on.
My concern is, how many other AD issued by Design Authorities have
been
ignored by the FAA and is it really safe to fly in a glider, or any
other
aircraft on the USA register? Can we be assured that essential safety
maintenance has been done?
Looking at the evidence of the Grob 102 the answer has to be no.
Have the FAA ignored other ADs issued by European manufacturers,
Airbus
Industrie perhaps?
Scary!!!!!!!



At 00:23 16 August 2008, Gary Emerson wrote:
I heard an AD was being considered for the wing spigots on the Grob
102s

(US version AD). Any definite info on where this is headed and when?

Thanks,

Gary



This is a question, not a statement...

There is reference to an incorrect material selection in the G103
spigots. Does anyone know if the correct material was used in the G102
spigots?

Difficult, the problem with the G103 spigots was that allegedly they were
manufactured from steel which did not meet the design specification,
however this appears to have prompted a rethink on the whole question of
wing spigot material spec and it would appear that the design authority
was of the view that the existing spec was not good enough, hence the
redesign.
The answer to your specific question is that the G102 spigots were
manufactured to the spec in force at the time they were made but did not
meet the later required spec.
It is true that a service bulletin was issued but make no mistake this was
an Airworthiness Directive taken up by the LBA and the CAA and as far as I
am aware the rest of the world excluding America.
This is getting more scary by the minute.