Blanik L-13 AD

http://alto.nethit.fi/blanik/132.jpg

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I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of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*I notice the previous AD, superseded by this one, has a lot of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!"

I agree, the FAA is probably not going to do the leg work for us.
My question is: does an approved inspection program have to be
approved by the MFG? I plan to call my FISDO on monday to see if a DER
could come up with an inspection program. Typicaly a DERs work is
considered "approved Data" which might be the path out of this
mess.DERs charge for their time, perhaps a group effort is needed
here.
I think an eddy current inspection of the fastener bores would expose
the type of cracks discovered on the failed spar. The rivets could
possibly be replaced with removable fasteners such as hi-locks for
future inspections. I"ll continue to post my progress.
mike malis wrote:
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!"

There are several of us operating L-13s in California that would
likely jump in to support the effort to develop a test. NorCal
Soaring, Central California Soaring and a commercial operation out of
Santa Ynez are all using one or more L-13s. I would hope that the
pool of L-13 owners would be willing to pitch in collectively to fund
a DER or whatever was required to develop an inspection to the FAA's
satisfaction.

A secondary fear of course is that the cost of the inspection will be
prohibitive for small clubs like ours. Originally with a visual
inspection it wasn't too bad. Start requiring pulling of skins and
replacing fasteners and you can probably quickly get into some
considerable expense. Whatever we need to stay safe, but I hope we
can keep our gliders airborne without spending half their previous
market value on inspections.

On Aug 28, 4:31*pm, midnav wrote:
I agree, the FAA is probably not going to do the leg work for us.
*My question is: does an approved inspection program have to be
approved by the MFG? I plan to call my FISDO on monday to see if a DER
could come up with an inspection program. Typicaly a DERs work is
considered "approved Data" which might be the path out of this
mess.DERs charge for their time, perhaps a group effort is needed
here.
*I think an eddy current inspection of the fastener bores would expose
the type of cracks discovered on the failed spar. The rivets could
possibly be replaced with removable fasteners such as hi-locks for
future inspections. I"ll continue to post my progress.



mike malis wrote:
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!"

We really need to get the FAA to look at the total hours on the
L-13's. Our Club has (3) L-13's with
less than 1,800 hours TT. There should be different inspections at
different hours on the ship. Also, we
should have a different restrictions for those flying aerobatics,
winch tows, etc.


On Aug 29, 12:09*pm, Morgan wrote:
There are several of us operating L-13s in California that would
likely jump in to support the effort to develop a test. *NorCal
Soaring, Central California Soaring and a commercial operation out of
Santa Ynez are all using one or more L-13s. *I would hope that the
pool of L-13 owners would be willing to pitch in collectively to fund
a DER or whatever was required to develop an inspection to the FAA's
satisfaction.

A secondary fear of course is that the cost of the inspection will be
prohibitive for small clubs like ours. *Originally with a visual
inspection it wasn't too bad. *Start requiring pulling of skins and
replacing fasteners and you can probably quickly get into some
considerable expense. *Whatever we need to stay safe, but I hope we
can keep our gliders airborne without spending half their previous
market value on inspections.

On Aug 28, 4:31*pm, midnav wrote:



I agree, the FAA is probably not going to do the leg work for us.
*My question is: does an approved inspection program have to be
approved by the MFG? I plan to call my FISDO on monday to see if a DER
could come up with an inspection program. Typicaly a DERs work is
considered "approved Data" which might be the path out of this
mess.DERs charge for their time, perhaps a group effort is needed
here.
*I think an eddy current inspection of the fastener bores would expose
the type of cracks discovered on the failed spar. The rivets could
possibly be replaced with removable fasteners such as hi-locks for
future inspections. I"ll continue to post my progress.

mike malis wrote:
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!"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How are the the lower spar cap wing attach areas different on the
other newer Blanik models? If they are the same or similar, then we
should comment to the FAA and try to include these ships too. I know
it may seem counter productive, but we may get faster results from the
MFG if suddenly the ships that they have yet to sell are included in
this mess. I suspect that LET (MFG) is not to interested in supporting
our older ships.
Another thought: there is a wing strap mod in Austrailia or OZ
called the Llewelyn Mod. ships that have this mod are designated
L-13A1.. Does the Ad include L-13A1 ships? Check it out and comment.
These are just a random ideas I have, I have been brain storming all
weekend. we should all just throw out ideas, good or bad on this
site.
If we dont all get together as a group.. we may end up with some big
shiney lawn ornaments.
Brian Doyle MIDNAV aircraft services North Adams ma 413-896-6386

Brian,

From what I've heard, you are correct about the factory not wanting to
support the older ships.

Two of my friends just returned from the World Gliding Championships in
Hungary. When they were there, I sent them an email requesting they ask
how other people in the world are are dealing with this.

The first report back is that the factory does not want to support this.
From a buisness stand point there is no money in it for them. LET has
soft selled the issue by appearing to help. They can determine the state
of the glider if you provide them data. However, it is impossible to
provide this data so they get off the hook.

The other report I received was a L13 being grounded by the factory
because the owner responded to LET stating they don't have all the info.
No History=No Fly

Your other comment about banding together is correct. If the world
community does not unite the consequences will be bad. I'm not holding
my breath for the factory to do something because there is no incentive
for them.

Moving forward, there was talk about funding an R&D project for
inspection. My gut feel this is not feasible. Given the gliders are worth
$10-$15K, by the time you pay for the R&D, the inspection, AND the repair
cost you will exceed the glider value. This is not a cost effective
approach.

I'm lost to what the path forward should be...............

Andrew Corrigan




At 01:18 30 August 2010, froggy wrote:
How are the the lower spar cap wing attach areas different on the
other newer Blanik models? If they are the same or similar, then we
should comment to the FAA and try to include these ships too. I know
it may seem counter productive, but we may get faster results from the
MFG if suddenly the ships that they have yet to sell are included in
this mess. I suspect that LET (MFG) is not to interested in supporting
our older ships.
Another thought: there is a wing strap mod in Austrailia or OZ
called the Llewelyn Mod. ships that have this mod are designated
L-13A1.. Does the Ad include L-13A1 ships? Check it out and comment.
These are just a random ideas I have, I have been brain storming all
weekend. we should all just throw out ideas, good or bad on this
site.
If we dont all get together as a group.. we may end up with some big
shiney lawn ornaments.
Brian Doyle MIDNAV aircraft services North Adams ma 413-896-6386

Brian,

From what I've heard, you are correct about the factory not wanting to
support the older ships.

Two of my friends just returned from the World Gliding Championships in
Hungary. When they were there, I sent them an email requesting they ask
how other people in the world are are dealing with this.

The first report back is that the factory does not want to support this.
From a buisness stand point there is no money in it for them. LET has
soft selled the issue by appearing to help. They can determine the state
of the glider if you provide them data. However, it is impossible to
provide this data so they get off the hook.

The other report I received was a L13 being grounded by the factory
because the owner responded to LET stating they don't have all the info.
No History=No Fly

Your other comment about banding together is correct. If the world
community does not unite the consequences will be bad. I'm not holding
my breath for the factory to do something because there is no incentive
for them.

Moving forward, there was talk about funding an R&D project for
inspection. My gut feel this is not feasible. Given the gliders are worth
$10-$15K, by the time you pay for the R&D, the inspection, AND the repair
cost you will exceed the glider value. This is not a cost effective
approach.

I'm lost to what the path forward should be...............

Andrew Corrigan




At 01:18 30 August 2010, froggy wrote:
How are the the lower spar cap wing attach areas different on the
other newer Blanik models? If they are the same or similar, then we
should comment to the FAA and try to include these ships too. I know
it may seem counter productive, but we may get faster results from the
MFG if suddenly the ships that they have yet to sell are included in
this mess. I suspect that LET (MFG) is not to interested in supporting
our older ships.
Another thought: there is a wing strap mod in Austrailia or OZ
called the Llewelyn Mod. ships that have this mod are designated
L-13A1.. Does the Ad include L-13A1 ships? Check it out and comment.
These are just a random ideas I have, I have been brain storming all
weekend. we should all just throw out ideas, good or bad on this
site.
If we dont all get together as a group.. we may end up with some big
shiney lawn ornaments.
Brian Doyle MIDNAV aircraft services North Adams ma 413-896-6386

I am on the phone with the FAA now...

aerodyne