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.

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

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 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?

I just read the new AD 2010-18-05. The way I read it, we are grounded
here in the US until an " FAA approved inspection program" is created
to address the problem. I am an A-P IA, and I heve never seen an AD
such as this one. It would appear that the FAA is soliciting the
public for a solution, and we are grounded until such a solution is
found.
MSBL13-109A would be considered FAA approved according to the verbage
in the AD, however the preamble to the AD states that the FAA is
adopting an inspection and or modification program to make the fix,
not an "operational history" based program. So I dont see how one
could inspect the wing in accordance with MSBL13-109A and not also
apply the the life limit operational based guidance in the MSB. In
other words, you cant just pick and choose which part of a MSB
document you are going to use, it's all or nothing.
I have called the FAA engineer in charge of this AD and have yet to
recieve a response.
Any other view points on this? I hope im reading this wrong.
Brian Doyle Midnav aircraft services.
North Adams Ma.

On Aug 26, 9:40 am, midnav wrote:
MSBL13-109A would be considered FAA approved according to the verbage
in the AD, however the preamble to the AD states that the FAA is
adopting an inspection and or modification program to make the fix,
not an "operational history" based program. So I dont see how one
could inspect the wing in accordance with MSBL13-109A and not also
apply the the life limit operational based guidance in the MSB. In
other words, you cant just pick and choose which part of a MSB
document you are going to use, it's all or nothing.

One could argue that the FAA told us specifically which parts of the
EASA AA not to use. That being said, I think that the intent of the AD
is different. What I think they are saying is:
1. "We understand that no one logs acro time, dual time etc., and will
not ground aircraft based on lack of records"
2. "We will think of some kind of inspection or modification to ensure
that the L-13s stay safe"
3. "Anyone willing to do the work for us is welcome"
4. "No flying before '2' happens"

This happens to be a perfectly reasonable approach, assuming that they
will not make us wait forever for the "FAA-approved inspection and/or
modification program developed specifically for this AD."

B.