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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Berry[_2_]

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

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

On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim wrote:


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

Jim and all,

No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.

I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
operators to comment on the latest one.

The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
the latest are due by 10/12/2010.

John

On Aug 27, 1:54*pm, John Gilbert wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:35*am, Jim wrote:



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

Jim and all,

No, there is a later AD: [Docket No. FAA-2010-0839; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD; Amendment 39-16418; AD 2010-18-05]. It
refers to EASA Emergency AD No. 2010-0160-E.

*I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of
comments. The latest AD has few. It would be good for L-13 and L13A
operators to comment on the latest one.

The old one is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-031-AD, the latest one
to comment on is Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-042-AD. Comments for
the latest are due by 10/12/2010.

John

Let's not wait for the FAA to do it's job, they clearly are indicating
they are not eager to start. I don't want to wait 40 years like the V
tail bonanza owners did.

Aerodyne

"Aircraft are like sasuages. If you enjoy them, you really don't want
to know how they are made!"

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

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

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?