Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes, 49221-49227 [2013-19530]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable
level of safety may be used for any repair
required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has
been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO
to make those findings. For a repair method
to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2007–11–08,
Amendment 39–15065 (72 FR 28594, May 22,
2007), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.
(q) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356;
phone: 425–917–6509; fax: 425–917–6590;
email: rebel.nichols@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65,
Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–
544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August
2, 2013.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–19527 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0724; Directorate
Identifier 99–CE–013–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Piper
Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
AGENCY:
We propose to revise
airworthiness directive (AD) 99–26–19
that applies to certain The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc. Model J–2 airplanes
equipped with wing lift struts. AD 99–
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
26–19 currently requires repetitively
inspecting the wing lift struts for dents
and corrosion; repetitively inspecting
the wing lift strut forks for cracks;
replacing any dented or corroded wing
lift strut; replacing any cracked wing lift
strut fork; and repetitively replacing the
wing lift strut forks at specified times
for certain airplanes. AD 99–26–19 also
currently requires incorporating a ‘‘NO
STEP’’ placard on the wing lift strut.
Since we issued AD 99–26–19, we have
been informed that paragraph (c) is
being misinterpreted and causing
confusion. This proposed AD would
clarify the intent of the language
currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99–26–
19 and would retain all other
requirements of AD 99–26–19. We are
proposing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 27,
2013.
You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926
Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960;
telephone: (772) 567–4361; Internet:
www.piper.com. Information about the
Jensen Aircraft STCs may be obtained
from F. Atlee Dodge, Aircraft Services,
LLC, 6672 Wes Way, Anchorage, Alaska
99518–0409, Internet:
www.fadodge.com. You may review
copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call (816) 329–4148.
ADDRESSES:
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49221
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory ‘‘Keith’’ Noles, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337;
phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–
5606; email: gregory.noles@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2013–0724; Directorate Identifier
99–CE–013–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
On December 16, 1999, we issued AD
99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64
FR 72524, December 28, 1999), (‘‘AD
99–26–19’’), for certain The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc. (currently Piper Aircraft,
Inc.) J–2 series airplanes equipped with
wing lift struts. We issued AD 99–26–
19 because J–2 series airplanes were
inadvertently omitted from the
applicability of AD 99–01–05,
Amendment 39–10972 (63 FR 72132,
December 31, 1998, (‘‘99–01–05’’).
AD 99–01–05 was issued to supersede
AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58
FR 29965, May 25, 1993), which
previously included J–2 series airplanes
in the Applicability section, in order to
include a terminating action for
repetitively inspecting and replacing the
wing lift struts and the wing lift strut
forks.
We issued both ADs to detect and
correct corrosion and cracking on the
front and rear wing lift struts and forks,
which could cause the wing lift strut to
fail. This failure could result in the wing
separating from the airplane.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
49222
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Actions Since AD 99–26–19 Was Issued
Since we issued AD 99–26–19, we
have been informed that the language in
paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted
and causing confusion. Paragraph (c) of
AD 99–26–19 currently states, ‘‘If holes
are drilled in wing lift strut assemblies
installed in accordance with (a)(4) or
(b)(3) of this AD to attach cuffs, door
clips, or other hardware, inspect the
wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed
24 calendar months using the
procedures specified in either
paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2), including all
subparagraphs, of this AD.’’
Our intention was to specify that if a
sealed wing lift strut assembly is
installed as a replacement part, the
repetitive inspection requirement is
terminated only if the seal is never
improperly broken. We also intended to
specify that if the seal is improperly
broken then that wing lift strut becomes
subject to continued repetitive
inspections.
We did not intend to promote drilling
holes into or otherwise unsealing a
sealed strut. Properly unsealing and
resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still
considered a terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirements of
this proposed AD as long as all
appropriate regulations and issues are
considered, such as static strength,
fatigue, material effects, immediate and
long-term (internal and external)
corrosion protection, resealing methods,
etc. Current FAA regulations in 14 CFR
43.13(b) specify that maintenance
performed will result in the part’s
condition to be at least equal to its
original or properly altered condition.
There are provisions in this proposed
AD for approving such actions as an
alternative method of compliance
(AMOC).
FAA’s Determination
We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all the relevant information
and determined the unsafe condition
described previously is likely to exist or
develop in other products of the same
type design.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would retain all
requirements of AD 99–26–19. This
proposed AD would also clarify our
intent of required actions if the seal on
a sealed wing lift strut is ever
improperly broken.
Paragraph Designation Changes to AD
Since AD 99–26–19 was issued, the
AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a
result, the corresponding paragraph
identifiers have changed in this
proposed AD, as listed in the following
table:
TABLE 1—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS
Requirement in AD 99–26–19
Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD
paragraph (a)
paragraph (a)(1)
paragraph (a)(1)(i)
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
paragraph (a)(2)
paragraph (a)(2)(i)
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
paragraph (a)(3)
paragraph (a)(4)
paragraph (b)
paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i) & (b)(1)(ii)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) & (b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) & (b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) & (b)(2)
paragraph (b)(3), (b)(3)(i) & (b)(3)(ii)
Paragraph (c)
paragraph (d)
paragraph (d)(1)
paragraph (d)(2)
N/A
Costs of Compliance
paragraph (h)
paragraph (i)(1)
paragraph (i)(1)(i)
paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
paragraph (i)(2)
paragraph (i)(2)(i)
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
paragraph (j)(1)
paragraph (j)(2)
paragraph (k)
paragraph (l)
paragraph (l)(1)
paragraph (l)(2)
paragraph (l)(3)
paragraph (m)(1)
paragraph (m)(2)
Removed
paragraph (n)(1)
paragraph (n)(1)(i)
paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
Paragraph (n)(2)
We estimate the following costs to
comply with this proposed AD.
However, the only difference in the
costs presented below and the costs
We estimate that this proposed AD
affects 91 airplanes of U.S. registry.
associated with AD 99–26–19, is the
change in the labor rate from $65 per
hour to $85 per hour:
ESTIMATED COSTS
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Action
Labor cost
Parts cost
Cost per
product
Inspection of the wing lift struts
and wing lift strut forks.
Installation placard .......................
8 work-hours × $85 per hour =
$680 per inspection cycle.
1 work-hour × $85 = $85 .............
Not applicable ............
$680 per inspection
cycle.
$115 ...........................
We estimate the following costs to do
any necessary replacements that would
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
$30 .............................
be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. We have no way of
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cost on U.S.
operators
$61,880 per inspection cycle.
$10,465.
determining the number of aircraft that
might need these replacements:
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
49223
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ON-CONDITION COSTS
Action
Labor cost per wing lift strut
Parts cost per
wing lift strut
Cost per product
per wing lift strut
Replacement of the wing lift strut and/or wing lift
strut forks.
4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 .......................
$440
$780
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This proposed
regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc.
Model J–2 airplanes, serial numbers 500
through 1975, that are:
(1) equipped with wing lift struts; and
(2) certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America
Code 57, Wings.
(e) Unsafe Condition
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
(c) Applicability
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing airworthiness directive (AD)
99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64
FR 72524, December 28, 1999), and
adding the following new AD:
■
Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2013–
0724; Directorate Identifier 99–CE–013–
AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this
AD action by September 27, 2013.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD revises AD 99–26–19,
Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524,
December 28, 1999). AD 99–01–05,
Amendment 39–10972 (63 FR 72132,
December 31, 1998), which superseded AD
93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR
29965, May 25, 1993), also relates to the
subject of this AD.
The subject of this AD was originally
prompted by reports of corrosion damage
found on the wing lift struts. We are revising
AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999), because of
reports that paragraph (c) in the existing AD
is being misinterpreted and is causing
confusion. This AD clarifies the intent of the
language currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99–
26–19, which is being removed by this AD.
Our intention was to specify that if a sealed
wing lift strut assembly is installed as a
replacement part, the repetitive inspection
requirement is terminated only if the seal
never improperly broken. This AD retains all
the actions currently required in AD 99–26–
19. There are no new requirements in this AD
and it does not add any additional burden to
the owners/operators of the affected
airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct corrosion and cracking on the
front and rear wing lift struts and forks,
which could cause the wing lift strut to fail.
This failure could result in the wing
separating from the airplane.
(f) Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 99–
26–19
Since AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999),
was issued, the AD format has been revised,
and certain paragraphs have been rearranged.
As a result, the corresponding paragraph
identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed
in the following table:
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f) OF THIS AD—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Requirement in AD 99–26–19
Corresponding requirement in this AD
paragraph (a)
paragraph (a)(1)
paragraph (a)(1)(i)
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
paragraph (a)(2)
paragraph (a)(2)(i)
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
paragraph (a)(3)
paragraph (a)(4)
paragraph (b)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
paragraph (h)
paragraph (i)(1)
paragraph (i)(1)(i)
paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
paragraph (i)(2)
paragraph (i)(2)(i)
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
paragraph (j)(1)
paragraph (j)(2)
paragraph (k)
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
49224
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (f) OF THIS AD—REVISED PARAGRAPH IDENTIFIERS—Continued
Requirement in AD 99–26–19
Corresponding requirement in this AD
paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(1)(ii)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) and (b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)
paragraph (b)(3) through (b)(3)(ii)
Paragraph (c)
paragraph (d)
paragraph (d)(1)
paragraph (d)(2)
N/A
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
(g) Compliance
Unless already done (compliance with AD
99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999)), do the following
actions within the compliance times
specified in paragraphs (h) through (n) of this
AD, including all subparagraphs.
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: This
AD does not require any actions over that
already required by AD 99–26–19,
Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524,
December 28, 1999). This AD clarifies the
FAA’s intention that if a sealed wing lift strut
assembly is installed as a replacement part,
the repetitive inspection requirement is
terminated only if the seal is never
improperly broken. If the seal is improperly
broken, then that wing lift strut becomes
subject to continued repetitive inspections.
We did not intend to promote drilling holes
into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut.
Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed
wing lift strut is still considered a
terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of this AD as long as
all appropriate regulations and issues are
considered, such as static strength, fatigue,
material effects, immediate and long-term
(internal and external) corrosion protection,
resealing methods, etc.
(h) Remove Wing Lift Struts
At whichever of paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2)
of this AD that occurs later, remove the wing
lift struts following Piper Aircraft
Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin
(Piper MSB) No. 528D, dated October 19,
1990. Before further flight after the removal,
do one of the actions in either paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of this AD,
including all subparagraphs.
(1) Within 1 calendar month after February
14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD
99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999)); or
(2) Within 24 calendar months after the last
inspection done in accordance with AD 93–
10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965,
May 25, 1993).
(i) Inspect Wing Lift Struts
(1) Before further flight after the removal
required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect
each wing lift strut for corrosion and
perceptible dents following Piper MSB No.
528D, dated October 19, 1990.
(i) If no corrosion is visible and no
perceptible dents are found on any wing lift
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
paragraph (l)
paragraph (l)(1)
paragraph (l)(2)
paragraph (l)(3)
paragraph (m)(1)
paragraph (m)(2)
Removed
paragraph (n)(1)
paragraph (n)(1)(i)
paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
Paragraph (n)(2)
strut during the inspection required in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each wing
lift strut following Piper MSB No. 528D,
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively
thereafter inspect each wing lift strut at
intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months
following the procedures in paragraph (i)(1)
or (i)(2) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.
(ii) If corrosion or perceptible dents are
found on any wing lift strut during the
inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of this
AD or during any repetitive inspection
required in paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD,
before further flight, replace the affected
wing lift strut with one of the replacement
options specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD. Do the replacement following the
procedures specified in those paragraphs, as
applicable.
(2) Before further flight after the removal
required in paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect
each wing lift strut for corrosion following
the procedures in the Appendix to this AD.
This inspection must be done by a Level 2
or Level 3 inspector certified using the
guidelines established by the American
Society for Non-destructive Testing or the
‘‘Military Standard for Nondestructive
Testing Personnel Qualification and
Certification’’ (MIL–STD–410E).
(i) If no corrosion is found on any wing lift
strut during the inspection required in
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD and all
requirements in the Appendix to this AD are
met, before further flight, apply corrosion
inhibitor to each wing lift strut following
Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990.
Repetitively thereafter inspect each wing lift
strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar
months following the procedures in
paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including
all subparagraphs.
(ii) If corrosion is found on any wing lift
strut during the inspection required
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or during any
repetitive inspection required in paragraph
(i)(2)(i) of this AD, or if any requirement in
the Appendix of this AD is not met, before
further flight after any inspection in which
corrosion is found or the Appendix
requirements are not met, replace the affected
wing lift strut with one of the replacement
options specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2)
of this AD. Do the replacement following the
procedures specified in those paragraphs, as
applicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(j) Wing Lift Strut Replacement Options
(1) Install original equipment manufacturer
(OEM) part number wing lift struts (or FAAapproved equivalent part numbers) that have
been inspected following the procedures in
either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD,
including all subparagraphs, and are found to
be airworthy. Do the installations following
Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990.
Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly
installed wing lift struts at intervals not to
exceed 24 calendar months following the
procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut
assemblies (or FAA-approved equivalent part
numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut
assemblies also include the wing lift strut
forks) following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. Installing one of these new
sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates
the repetitive inspection requirements in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the
wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and
replacement requirements in paragraphs (k)
and (l) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut
assembly.
(k) Remove Wing Lift Strut Forks
Within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after February 14, 2000 (the effective
date retained from AD 99–26–19,
Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR 72524,
December 28, 1999)) or within 500 hours TIS
after the last inspection done in accordance
with AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–8586 (58
FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs
later, remove the wing lift strut forks (unless
already replaced in accordance with
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD). Do the removal
following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. Before further flight after
the removal, do one of the actions in either
paragraph (l) or (m) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.
(l) Inspect and Replace Wing Lift Strut Forks
Before further flight after the removal
required in paragraph (k) of this AD, inspect
the wing lift strut forks for cracks using
magnetic particle procedures, such as those
contained in FAA Advisory Circular (AC)
43.13–1B, Chapter 5, which can be found in
the Internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/
Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/
99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
$FILE/Chapter%2005.pdf. Repetitively
thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed
500 hours TIS until the replacement time
requirement specified in paragraph (l)(2) or
(l)(3) of this AD is reached provided no
cracks are found.
(1) If cracks are found during any
inspection required in paragraph (l) of this
AD or during any repetitive inspection
required in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this
AD, before further flight, replace the affected
wing lift strut fork with one of the
replacement options specified in paragraph
(m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. Do the
replacement following the procedures
specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
(2) If no cracks are found during the initial
inspection required in paragraph (l) of this
AD and the airplane is currently equipped
with floats or has been equipped with floats
at any time during the previous 2,000 hours
TIS since the wing lift strut forks were
installed, at or before accumulating 1,000
hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks, replace
the wing lift strut forks with one of the
replacement options specified in paragraph
(m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD. Do the
replacement following the procedures
specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly
installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not
to exceed 500 hours TIS following the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD, including all subparagraphs.
(3) If no cracks are found during the initial
inspection required in paragraph (l) of this
AD and the airplane has never been
equipped with floats during the previous
2,000 hours TIS since the wing lift strut forks
were installed, at or before accumulating
2,000 hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks,
replace the wing lift strut forks with one of
the replacement options specified in
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2). Do the
replacement following the procedures
specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly
installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not
to exceed 500 hours TIS following the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD, including all subparagraphs.
(m) Wing Lift Strut Fork Replacement
Options
(1) Install new OEM part number wing lift
strut forks of the same part numbers of the
existing part (or FAA-approved equivalent
part numbers) that were manufactured with
rolled threads. Wing lift strut forks
manufactured with machine (cut) threads are
not to be used. Do the installations following
Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990.
Repetitively thereafter inspect and replace
the newly installed wing lift strut forks at
intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS
following the procedures specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.
(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut
assemblies (or FAA-approved equivalent part
numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut
assemblies also include the wing lift strut
forks) following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. This installation may have
already been done through the option
specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
49225
Installing one of these new sealed wing lift
strut assemblies terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1)
and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut
fork removal, inspection, and replacement
requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this
AD, including all subparagraphs, for that
wing lift strut assembly.
Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329–4148.
(n) Install Placard
(1) Within 1 calendar month after February
14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD
99–26–19, Amendment 39–11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999), or within 24
calendar months after the last inspection
required by AD 93–10–06, Amendment 39–
8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), and before
further flight after any replacement of a wing
lift strut assembly required by this AD, do
one of the following:
(i) Install ‘‘NO STEP’’ decal, Piper (P/N)
80944–02, on each wing lift strut
approximately 6 inches from the bottom of
the wing lift strut in a way that the letters can
be read when entering and exiting the
airplane; or
(ii) Paint the words ‘‘NO STEP’’
approximately 6 inches from the bottom of
the wing lift struts in a way that the letters
can be read when entering and exiting the
airplane. Use a minimum of 1-inch letters
using a color that contrasts with the color of
the airplane.
(2) The ‘‘NO STEP’’ markings required by
paragraph (n)(1)(i) and (n)(1)(ii) of this AD
must remain in place for the life of the
airplane.
Equipment Requirements
1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or
flaw detector with echo-to-echo digital
thickness readout capable of reading to
0.001-inch and an A-trace waveform display
will be needed to do this inspection.
2. An ultrasonic probe with the following
specifications will be needed to do this
inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch
(or smaller) diameter dual element or delay
line transducer designed for thickness
gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic
system shall be capable of accurately
measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel
down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of +/¥
0.002-inch throughout a 0.020-inch to 0.050inch thickness range while calibrating shall
be the criteria for acceptance.
3. Either a precision machined step wedge
made of 4340 steel (or similar steel with
equivalent sound velocity) or at least three
shim samples of same material will be
needed to do this inspection. One thickness
of the step wedge or shim shall be less than
or equal to 0.020-inch, one shall be greater
than or equal to 0.050-inch, and at least one
other step or shim shall be between these two
values.
4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water
based ultrasonic couplants are recommended
in the setup and inspection procedures.
Water-based couplants, containing
appropriate corrosion inhibitors, may be
utilized, provided they are removed from
both the reference standards and the test item
after the inspection procedure is completed
and adequate corrosion prevention steps are
then taken to protect these items.
• Note: Couplant is defined as ‘‘a
substance used between the face of the
transducer and test surface to improve
transmission of ultrasonic energy across the
transducer/strut interface.’’
• Note: If surface roughness due to paint
loss or corrosion is present, the surface
should be sanded or polished smooth before
testing to assure a consistent and smooth
surface for making contact with the
transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a
minimal amount of structural material. Paint
repairs may be necessary after the inspection
to prevent further corrosion damage from
occurring. Removal of surface irregularities
will enhance the accuracy of the inspection
technique.
(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector
or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly
to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the
Related Information section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 93–10–06,
Amendment 39–8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25,
1993) and AD 99–26–19, Amendment 39–
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999) are
approved as AMOCs for this AD.
(p) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Gregory K. Noles, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone:
(404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474–5606; email:
gregory.noles@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc.,
Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero
Beach, Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567–
4361; Internet: www.piper.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Appendix to Docket No. FAA–2013–
0724
Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic
Inspection of Piper Wing Lift Struts
Instrument Setup
1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for
thickness measurements as specified in the
instrument’s user’s manual. Because of the
variety of equipment available to perform
ultrasonic thickness measurements, some
modification to this general setup procedure
may be necessary. However, the tolerance
requirement of step 13 and the record
keeping requirement of step 14, must be
satisfied.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
49226
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
2. If battery power will be employed, check
to see that the battery has been properly
charged. The testing will take approximately
two hours. Screen brightness and contrast
should be set to match environmental
conditions.
3. Verify that the instrument is set for the
type of transducer being used, i.e. single or
dual element, and that the frequency setting
is compatible with the transducer.
4. If a removable delay line is used, remove
it and place a drop of couplant between the
transducer face and the delay line to assure
good transmission of ultrasonic energy.
Reassemble the delay line transducer and
continue.
5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/
microsecond into the ultrasonic unit unless
an alternative instrument calibration
procedure is used to set the sound velocity.
6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per
item 3 of the Equipment Requirements. Place
the probe on the thickest sample using
couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back
and forth to ‘‘ring’’ the transducer to the
sample. Adjust the delay and range settings
to arrive at an A-trace signal display with the
first backwall echo from the steel near the left
side of the screen and the second backwall
echo near the right of the screen. Note that
when a single element transducer is used, the
initial pulse and the delay line/steel interface
will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the
gain to place the amplitude of the first
backwall signal at approximately 80% screen
height on the A-trace.
7. ‘‘Ring’’ the transducer on the thinnest
step or shim using couplant. Select positive
half-wave rectified, negative half-wave
rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain
the cleanest signal. Adjust the pulse voltage,
pulse width, and damping to obtain the best
signal resolution. These settings can vary
from one transducer to another and are also
user dependent.
8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the
gate so that it starts at the first backwall echo
and ends at the second backwall echo.
(Measuring between the first and second
backwall echoes will produce a measurement
of the steel thickness that is not affected by
the paint layer on the strut). If instability of
the gate trigger occurs, adjust the gain, gate
level, and/or damping to stabilize the
thickness reading.
9. Check the digital display reading and if
it does not agree with the known thickness
of the thinnest thickness, follow your
instrument’s calibration recommendations to
produce the correct thickness reading. When
a single element transducer is used this will
usually involve adjusting the fine delay
setting.
10. Place the transducer on the thickest
step of shim using couplant. Adjust the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
thickness gate width so that the gate is
triggered by the second backwall reflection of
the thick section. If the digital display does
not agree with the thickest thickness, follow
your instruments calibration
recommendations to produce the correct
thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the
velocity may be necessary to get both the
thinnest and the thickest reading correct.
Document the changed velocity value.
11. Place couplant on an area of the lift
strut which is thought to be free of corrosion
and ‘‘ring’’ the transducer to surface. Minor
adjustments to the signal and gate settings
may be required to account for coupling
improvements resulting from the paint layer.
The thickness gate level should be set just
high enough so as not to be triggered by
irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper
surface of the lift strut above the inspection
area would be a good location to complete
this step and should produce a thickness
reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.
12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both
thick and thin shim measurements are within
tolerance and the lift strut measurement is
reasonable and steady.
13. Verify that the thickness value shown
in the digital display is within +/- 0.002-inch
of the correct value for each of the three or
more steps of the setup wedge or shims.
Make no further adjustments to the
instrument settings.
14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual
thickness of all wedge steps or steel shims
available as a record of setup.
Inspection Procedure
1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing
lift struts using a cleaner that will remove all
dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will adversely
affect the accuracy of the inspection
technique. Light sanding or polishing may
also be required to reduce surface roughness
as noted in the Equipment Requirements
section.
2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a 1/4-inch
grid on the surface of the first 11 inches from
the lower end of the strut as shown in Piper
Service Bulletin No. 528D. This can be done
using a soft (#2) pencil and should be done
on both faces of the strut. As an alternative
to drawing a complete grid, make two rows
of marks spaced every 1/4-inch across the
width of the strut. One row of marks should
be about 11 inches from the lower end of the
strut, and the second row should be several
inches away where the strut starts to narrow.
Lay the flexible ruler between respective tick
marks of the two rows and use tape or a
rubber band to keep the ruler in place. See
Figure 1.
3. Apply a generous amount of couplant
inside each of the square areas or along the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant
may be necessary.
4. Place the transducer inside the first
square area of the drawn grid or at the first
1/4-inch mark on the ruler and ‘‘ring’’ the
transducer to the strut. When using a dual
element transducer, be very careful to record
the thickness value with the axis of the
transducer elements perpendicular to any
curvature in the strut. If this is not done, loss
of signal or inaccurate readings can result.
5. Take readings inside each square on the
grid or at 1/4-inch increments along the ruler
and record the results. When taking a
thickness reading, rotate the transducer
slightly back and forth and experiment with
the angle of contact to produce the lowest
thickness reading possible. Pay close
attention to the A-scan display to assure that
the thickness gate is triggering off of
maximized backwall echoes.
• Note: A reading shall not exceed .041
inch. If a reading exceeds .041-inch, repeat
steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup
section before proceeding further.
6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the
thickness reading is clearly wrong, adjust the
signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain
reasonable and steady readings. If any
instrument setting is adjusted, repeat steps 13
and 14 of the Instrument Setup section before
proceeding further.
7. In areas where obstructions are present,
take a data point as close to the correct area
as possible.
• Note: The strut wall contains a
fabrication bead at approximately 40% of the
strut chord. The bead may interfere with
accurate measurements in that specific
location.
8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less
shall require replacement of the strut prior to
further flight.
9. If at any time during testing an area is
encountered where a valid thickness
measurement cannot be obtained due to a
loss of signal strength or quality, the area
shall be considered suspect. These areas may
have a remaining wall thickness of less than
0.020-inch, which is below the range of this
setup, or they may have small areas of
localized corrosion or pitting present. The
latter case will result in a reduction in signal
strength due to the sound being scattered
from the rough surface and may result in a
signal that includes echoes from the pits as
well as the backwall. The suspect area(s)
shall be tested with a Maule ‘‘Fabric Tester’’
as specified in Piper Service Bulletin No.
528D.
10. Record the lift strut inspection in the
aircraft log book.
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
certain HSTAs, which may lead to a
disconnect of the pitch trim surface and
subsequent loss of pitch control,
resulting in loss of control of the
airplane.
[FR Doc. 2013–19530 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am]
DATES:
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by September 27,
2013.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ADDRESSES:
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0687; Directorate
Identifier 2012–NM–118–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier,
Inc. Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440)
airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of burr marks on
the primary wheels, and cracked rings
on the primary wheel shaft, on certain
horizontal stabilizer trim actuators
(HSTAs). This proposed AD would
require replacing certain HSTAs. We are
proposing this AD to prevent burr marks
on the primary wheels, and cracked
rings on the primary wheel shaft, on
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:30 Aug 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Bombardier,
ˆ
Inc., 400 Cote-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
´
Quebec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone
514–855–5000; fax 514–855–7401; email
thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet
https://www.bombardier.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the
FAA, call 425–227–1221.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems
Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
New York 11590; telephone (516) 228–
7318; fax (516) 794–5531.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2013–0687; Directorate Identifier
2012–NM–118–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
E:\FR\FM\13AUP1.SGM
13AUP1
EP13AU13.010</GPH>
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August
6, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
49227
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49221-49227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19530]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; Directorate Identifier 99-CE-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise airworthiness directive (AD) 99-26-19
that applies to certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J-2
airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. AD 99-26-19 currently
requires repetitively inspecting the wing lift struts for dents and
corrosion; repetitively inspecting the wing lift strut forks for
cracks; replacing any dented or corroded wing lift strut; replacing any
cracked wing lift strut fork; and repetitively replacing the wing lift
strut forks at specified times for certain airplanes. AD 99-26-19 also
currently requires incorporating a ``NO STEP'' placard on the wing lift
strut. Since we issued AD 99-26-19, we have been informed that
paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted and causing confusion. This
proposed AD would clarify the intent of the language currently in
paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19 and would retain all other requirements of
AD 99-26-19. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition
on these products.
DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 27,
2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; Internet: www.piper.com.
Information about the Jensen Aircraft STCs may be obtained from F.
Atlee Dodge, Aircraft Services, LLC, 6672 Wes Way, Anchorage, Alaska
99518-0409, Internet: www.fadodge.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory ``Keith'' Noles, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404)
474-5606; email: gregory.noles@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0724;
Directorate Identifier 99-CE-013-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.
Discussion
On December 16, 1999, we issued AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64
FR 72524, December 28, 1999), (``AD 99-26-19''), for certain The New
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (currently Piper Aircraft, Inc.) J-2 series
airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. We issued AD 99-26-19 because
J-2 series airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the applicability
of AD 99-01-05, Amendment 39-10972 (63 FR 72132, December 31, 1998,
(``99-01-05'').
AD 99-01-05 was issued to supersede AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586
(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), which previously included J-2 series
airplanes in the Applicability section, in order to include a
terminating action for repetitively inspecting and replacing the wing
lift struts and the wing lift strut forks.
We issued both ADs to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on
the front and rear wing lift struts and forks, which could cause the
wing lift strut to fail. This failure could result in the wing
separating from the airplane.
[[Page 49222]]
Actions Since AD 99-26-19 Was Issued
Since we issued AD 99-26-19, we have been informed that the
language in paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted and causing
confusion. Paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19 currently states, ``If holes
are drilled in wing lift strut assemblies installed in accordance with
(a)(4) or (b)(3) of this AD to attach cuffs, door clips, or other
hardware, inspect the wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24
calendar months using the procedures specified in either paragraphs
(a)(1) or (a)(2), including all subparagraphs, of this AD.''
Our intention was to specify that if a sealed wing lift strut
assembly is installed as a replacement part, the repetitive inspection
requirement is terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken.
We also intended to specify that if the seal is improperly broken then
that wing lift strut becomes subject to continued repetitive
inspections.
We did not intend to promote drilling holes into or otherwise
unsealing a sealed strut. Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed
wing lift strut is still considered a terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirements of this proposed AD as long as all
appropriate regulations and issues are considered, such as static
strength, fatigue, material effects, immediate and long-term (internal
and external) corrosion protection, resealing methods, etc. Current FAA
regulations in 14 CFR 43.13(b) specify that maintenance performed will
result in the part's condition to be at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition. There are provisions in this proposed AD
for approving such actions as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC).
FAA's Determination
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Proposed AD Requirements
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 99-26-19. This
proposed AD would also clarify our intent of required actions if the
seal on a sealed wing lift strut is ever improperly broken.
Paragraph Designation Changes to AD
Since AD 99-26-19 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:
Table 1--Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding requirement in this
Requirement in AD 99-26-19 proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a) paragraph (h)
paragraph (a)(1) paragraph (i)(1)
paragraph (a)(1)(i) paragraph (i)(1)(i)
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
paragraph (a)(2) paragraph (i)(2)
paragraph (a)(2)(i) paragraph (i)(2)(i)
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
paragraph (a)(3) paragraph (j)(1)
paragraph (a)(4) paragraph (j)(2)
paragraph (b) paragraph (k)
paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i) & paragraph (l)
(b)(1)(ii)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) paragraph (l)(1)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) & paragraph (l)(2)
(b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) & paragraph (l)(3)
(b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) & (b)(2) paragraph (m)(1)
paragraph (b)(3), (b)(3)(i) & paragraph (m)(2)
(b)(3)(ii)
Paragraph (c) Removed
paragraph (d) paragraph (n)(1)
paragraph (d)(1) paragraph (n)(1)(i)
paragraph (d)(2) paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
N/A Paragraph (n)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
However, the only difference in the costs presented below and the costs
associated with AD 99-26-19, is the change in the labor rate from $65
per hour to $85 per hour:
Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost on U.S.
Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the wing lift 8 work-hours x $85 Not applicable.... $680 per $61,880 per
struts and wing lift strut per hour = $680 inspection cycle. inspection cycle.
forks. per inspection
cycle.
Installation placard............ 1 work-hour x $85 $30............... $115.............. $10,465.
= $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:
[[Page 49223]]
On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per product
Action Labor cost per wing lift Parts cost per per wing lift
strut wing lift strut strut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the wing lift strut and/or 4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $440 $780
wing lift strut forks. $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
0
2. The FAA amends Sec. 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), and
adding the following new AD:
Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; Directorate
Identifier 99-CE-013-AD.
(a) Comments Due Date
The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 27,
2013.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD revises AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524,
December 28, 1999). AD 99-01-05, Amendment 39-10972 (63 FR 72132,
December 31, 1998), which superseded AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586
(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), also relates to the subject of this AD.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J-2 airplanes,
serial numbers 500 through 1975, that are:
(1) equipped with wing lift struts; and
(2) certificated in any category.
(d) Subject
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
(e) Unsafe Condition
The subject of this AD was originally prompted by reports of
corrosion damage found on the wing lift struts. We are revising AD
99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999),
because of reports that paragraph (c) in the existing AD is being
misinterpreted and is causing confusion. This AD clarifies the
intent of the language currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19,
which is being removed by this AD. Our intention was to specify that
if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as a replacement
part, the repetitive inspection requirement is terminated only if
the seal never improperly broken. This AD retains all the actions
currently required in AD 99-26-19. There are no new requirements in
this AD and it does not add any additional burden to the owners/
operators of the affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the front and rear wing
lift struts and forks, which could cause the wing lift strut to
fail. This failure could result in the wing separating from the
airplane.
(f) Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 99-26-19
Since AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28,
1999), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the
following table:
Table 1 to Paragraph (f) of This AD--Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding requirement in this
Requirement in AD 99-26-19 AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (a) paragraph (h)
paragraph (a)(1) paragraph (i)(1)
paragraph (a)(1)(i) paragraph (i)(1)(i)
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
paragraph (a)(2) paragraph (i)(2)
paragraph (a)(2)(i) paragraph (i)(2)(i)
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
paragraph (a)(3) paragraph (j)(1)
paragraph (a)(4) paragraph (j)(2)
paragraph (b) paragraph (k)
[[Page 49224]]
paragraph (b)(1) through paragraph (l)
(b)(1)(ii)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) paragraph (l)(1)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) and paragraph (l)(2)
(b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and paragraph (l)(3)
(b)(1)(iv)
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2) paragraph (m)(1)
paragraph (b)(3) through paragraph (m)(2)
(b)(3)(ii)
Paragraph (c) Removed
paragraph (d) paragraph (n)(1)
paragraph (d)(1) paragraph (n)(1)(i)
paragraph (d)(2) paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
N/A Paragraph (n)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) Compliance
Unless already done (compliance with AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)), do the following actions
within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) through (n)
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: This AD does not require any
actions over that already required by AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999). This AD clarifies the FAA's
intention that if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as
a replacement part, the repetitive inspection requirement is
terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken. If the seal
is improperly broken, then that wing lift strut becomes subject to
continued repetitive inspections. We did not intend to promote
drilling holes into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut. Properly
unsealing and resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still considered
a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of
this AD as long as all appropriate regulations and issues are
considered, such as static strength, fatigue, material effects,
immediate and long-term (internal and external) corrosion
protection, resealing methods, etc.
(h) Remove Wing Lift Struts
At whichever of paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD that
occurs later, remove the wing lift struts following Piper Aircraft
Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin (Piper MSB) No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. Before further flight after the removal, do one of
the actions in either paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the
effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999)); or
(2) Within 24 calendar months after the last inspection done in
accordance with AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25,
1993).
(i) Inspect Wing Lift Struts
(1) Before further flight after the removal required in
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion
and perceptible dents following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October
19, 1990.
(i) If no corrosion is visible and no perceptible dents are
found on any wing lift strut during the inspection required in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, apply corrosion
inhibitor to each wing lift strut following Piper MSB No. 528D,
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect each wing
lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months following
the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including
all subparagraphs.
(ii) If corrosion or perceptible dents are found on any wing
lift strut during the inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD or during any repetitive inspection required in paragraph
(i)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected
wing lift strut with one of the replacement options specified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do the replacement following
the procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
(2) Before further flight after the removal required in
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion
following the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. This inspection
must be done by a Level 2 or Level 3 inspector certified using the
guidelines established by the American Society for Non-destructive
Testing or the ``Military Standard for Nondestructive Testing
Personnel Qualification and Certification'' (MIL-STD-410E).
(i) If no corrosion is found on any wing lift strut during the
inspection required in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD and all
requirements in the Appendix to this AD are met, before further
flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each wing lift strut following
Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter
inspect each wing lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar
months following the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(ii) If corrosion is found on any wing lift strut during the
inspection required paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or during any
repetitive inspection required in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD, or
if any requirement in the Appendix of this AD is not met, before
further flight after any inspection in which corrosion is found or
the Appendix requirements are not met, replace the affected wing
lift strut with one of the replacement options specified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do the replacement following
the procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
(j) Wing Lift Strut Replacement Options
(1) Install original equipment manufacturer (OEM) part number
wing lift struts (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) that have
been inspected following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1)
or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, and are found to
be airworthy. Do the installations following Piper MSB No. 528D,
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly
installed wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar
months following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-
approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut
assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper
MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Installing one of these new
sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD,
and the wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and replacement
requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut assembly.
(k) Remove Wing Lift Strut Forks
Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February
14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment
39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)) or within 500 hours TIS
after the last inspection done in accordance with AD 93-10-06,
Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs
later, remove the wing lift strut forks (unless already replaced in
accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this AD). Do the removal
following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Before further
flight after the removal, do one of the actions in either paragraph
(l) or (m) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(l) Inspect and Replace Wing Lift Strut Forks
Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph
(k) of this AD, inspect the wing lift strut forks for cracks using
magnetic particle procedures, such as those contained in FAA
Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-1B, Chapter 5, which can be found in
the Internet at https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--
Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/
[[Page 49225]]
$FILE/Chapter%2005.pdf. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals
not to exceed 500 hours TIS until the replacement time requirement
specified in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD is reached
provided no cracks are found.
(1) If cracks are found during any inspection required in
paragraph (l) of this AD or during any repetitive inspection
required in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD, before further
flight, replace the affected wing lift strut fork with one of the
replacement options specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this
AD. Do the replacement following the procedures specified in those
paragraphs, as applicable.
(2) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection
required in paragraph (l) of this AD and the airplane is currently
equipped with floats or has been equipped with floats at any time
during the previous 2,000 hours TIS since the wing lift strut forks
were installed, at or before accumulating 1,000 hours TIS on the
wing lift strut forks, replace the wing lift strut forks with one of
the replacement options specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of
this AD. Do the replacement following the procedures specified in
those paragraphs, as applicable. Repetitively thereafter inspect the
newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500
hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(3) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection
required in paragraph (l) of this AD and the airplane has never been
equipped with floats during the previous 2,000 hours TIS since the
wing lift strut forks were installed, at or before accumulating
2,000 hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks, replace the wing lift
strut forks with one of the replacement options specified in
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2). Do the replacement following the
procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly installed wing lift strut
forks at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS following the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs.
(m) Wing Lift Strut Fork Replacement Options
(1) Install new OEM part number wing lift strut forks of the
same part numbers of the existing part (or FAA-approved equivalent
part numbers) that were manufactured with rolled threads. Wing lift
strut forks manufactured with machine (cut) threads are not to be
used. Do the installations following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated
October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect and replace the
newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500
hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
(2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-
approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut
assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper
MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. This installation may have
already been done through the option specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this AD. Installing one of these new sealed wing lift strut
assemblies terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut
fork removal, inspection, and replacement requirements in paragraphs
(k) and (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, for that wing
lift strut assembly.
(n) Install Placard
(1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the
effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999), or within 24 calendar months after the
last inspection required by AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR
29965, May 25, 1993), and before further flight after any
replacement of a wing lift strut assembly required by this AD, do
one of the following:
(i) Install ``NO STEP'' decal, Piper (P/N) 80944-02, on each
wing lift strut approximately 6 inches from the bottom of the wing
lift strut in a way that the letters can be read when entering and
exiting the airplane; or
(ii) Paint the words ``NO STEP'' approximately 6 inches from the
bottom of the wing lift struts in a way that the letters can be read
when entering and exiting the airplane. Use a minimum of 1-inch
letters using a color that contrasts with the color of the airplane.
(2) The ``NO STEP'' markings required by paragraph (n)(1)(i) and
(n)(1)(ii) of this AD must remain in place for the life of the
airplane.
(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
(3) AMOCs approved for AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR
29965, May 25, 1993) and AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR
72524, December 28, 1999) are approved as AMOCs for this AD.
(p) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Gregory K.
Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email: gregory.noles@faa.gov.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; Internet: www.piper.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (816) 329-4148.
Appendix to Docket No. FAA-2013-0724
Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic Inspection of Piper Wing
Lift Struts
Equipment Requirements
1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or flaw detector with
echo-to-echo digital thickness readout capable of reading to 0.001-
inch and an A-trace waveform display will be needed to do this
inspection.
2. An ultrasonic probe with the following specifications will be
needed to do this inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch (or
smaller) diameter dual element or delay line transducer designed for
thickness gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic system shall be
capable of accurately measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel
down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of +/- 0.002-inch throughout a
0.020-inch to 0.050-inch thickness range while calibrating shall be
the criteria for acceptance.
3. Either a precision machined step wedge made of 4340 steel (or
similar steel with equivalent sound velocity) or at least three shim
samples of same material will be needed to do this inspection. One
thickness of the step wedge or shim shall be less than or equal to
0.020-inch, one shall be greater than or equal to 0.050-inch, and at
least one other step or shim shall be between these two values.
4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water based ultrasonic
couplants are recommended in the setup and inspection procedures.
Water-based couplants, containing appropriate corrosion inhibitors,
may be utilized, provided they are removed from both the reference
standards and the test item after the inspection procedure is
completed and adequate corrosion prevention steps are then taken to
protect these items.
Note: Couplant is defined as ``a substance used between
the face of the transducer and test surface to improve transmission
of ultrasonic energy across the transducer/strut interface.''
Note: If surface roughness due to paint loss or
corrosion is present, the surface should be sanded or polished
smooth before testing to assure a consistent and smooth surface for
making contact with the transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a
minimal amount of structural material. Paint repairs may be
necessary after the inspection to prevent further corrosion damage
from occurring. Removal of surface irregularities will enhance the
accuracy of the inspection technique.
Instrument Setup
1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for thickness measurements as
specified in the instrument's user's manual. Because of the variety
of equipment available to perform ultrasonic thickness measurements,
some modification to this general setup procedure may be necessary.
However, the tolerance requirement of step 13 and the record keeping
requirement of step 14, must be satisfied.
[[Page 49226]]
2. If battery power will be employed, check to see that the
battery has been properly charged. The testing will take
approximately two hours. Screen brightness and contrast should be
set to match environmental conditions.
3. Verify that the instrument is set for the type of transducer
being used, i.e. single or dual element, and that the frequency
setting is compatible with the transducer.
4. If a removable delay line is used, remove it and place a drop
of couplant between the transducer face and the delay line to assure
good transmission of ultrasonic energy. Reassemble the delay line
transducer and continue.
5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/microsecond into the
ultrasonic unit unless an alternative instrument calibration
procedure is used to set the sound velocity.
6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per item 3 of the
Equipment Requirements. Place the probe on the thickest sample using
couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back and forth to ``ring''
the transducer to the sample. Adjust the delay and range settings to
arrive at an A-trace signal display with the first backwall echo
from the steel near the left side of the screen and the second
backwall echo near the right of the screen. Note that when a single
element transducer is used, the initial pulse and the delay line/
steel interface will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the
gain to place the amplitude of the first backwall signal at
approximately 80% screen height on the A-trace.
7. ``Ring'' the transducer on the thinnest step or shim using
couplant. Select positive half-wave rectified, negative half-wave
rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain the cleanest signal.
Adjust the pulse voltage, pulse width, and damping to obtain the
best signal resolution. These settings can vary from one transducer
to another and are also user dependent.
8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the gate so that it
starts at the first backwall echo and ends at the second backwall
echo. (Measuring between the first and second backwall echoes will
produce a measurement of the steel thickness that is not affected by
the paint layer on the strut). If instability of the gate trigger
occurs, adjust the gain, gate level, and/or damping to stabilize the
thickness reading.
9. Check the digital display reading and if it does not agree
with the known thickness of the thinnest thickness, follow your
instrument's calibration recommendations to produce the correct
thickness reading. When a single element transducer is used this
will usually involve adjusting the fine delay setting.
10. Place the transducer on the thickest step of shim using
couplant. Adjust the thickness gate width so that the gate is
triggered by the second backwall reflection of the thick section. If
the digital display does not agree with the thickest thickness,
follow your instruments calibration recommendations to produce the
correct thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the velocity may
be necessary to get both the thinnest and the thickest reading
correct. Document the changed velocity value.
11. Place couplant on an area of the lift strut which is thought
to be free of corrosion and ``ring'' the transducer to surface.
Minor adjustments to the signal and gate settings may be required to
account for coupling improvements resulting from the paint layer.
The thickness gate level should be set just high enough so as not to
be triggered by irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper
surface of the lift strut above the inspection area would be a good
location to complete this step and should produce a thickness
reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.
12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both thick and thin shim
measurements are within tolerance and the lift strut measurement is
reasonable and steady.
13. Verify that the thickness value shown in the digital display
is within +/- 0.002-inch of the correct value for each of the three
or more steps of the setup wedge or shims. Make no further
adjustments to the instrument settings.
14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual thickness of all wedge
steps or steel shims available as a record of setup.
Inspection Procedure
1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing lift struts using a
cleaner that will remove all dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will
adversely affect the accuracy of the inspection technique. Light
sanding or polishing may also be required to reduce surface
roughness as noted in the Equipment Requirements section.
2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a 1/4-inch grid on the surface
of the first 11 inches from the lower end of the strut as shown in
Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D. This can be done using a soft
(2) pencil and should be done on both faces of the strut.
As an alternative to drawing a complete grid, make two rows of marks
spaced every 1/4-inch across the width of the strut. One row of
marks should be about 11 inches from the lower end of the strut, and
the second row should be several inches away where the strut starts
to narrow. Lay the flexible ruler between respective tick marks of
the two rows and use tape or a rubber band to keep the ruler in
place. See Figure 1.
3. Apply a generous amount of couplant inside each of the square
areas or along the edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant may
be necessary.
4. Place the transducer inside the first square area of the
drawn grid or at the first 1/4-inch mark on the ruler and ``ring''
the transducer to the strut. When using a dual element transducer,
be very careful to record the thickness value with the axis of the
transducer elements perpendicular to any curvature in the strut. If
this is not done, loss of signal or inaccurate readings can result.
5. Take readings inside each square on the grid or at 1/4-inch
increments along the ruler and record the results. When taking a
thickness reading, rotate the transducer slightly back and forth and
experiment with the angle of contact to produce the lowest thickness
reading possible. Pay close attention to the A-scan display to
assure that the thickness gate is triggering off of maximized
backwall echoes.
Note: A reading shall not exceed .041 inch. If a
reading exceeds .041-inch, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument
Setup section before proceeding further.
6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the thickness reading is
clearly wrong, adjust the signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain
reasonable and steady readings. If any instrument setting is
adjusted, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup section
before proceeding further.
7. In areas where obstructions are present, take a data point as
close to the correct area as possible.
Note: The strut wall contains a fabrication bead at
approximately 40% of the strut chord. The bead may interfere with
accurate measurements in that specific location.
8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less shall require replacement
of the strut prior to further flight.
9. If at any time during testing an area is encountered where a
valid thickness measurement cannot be obtained due to a loss of
signal strength or quality, the area shall be considered suspect.
These areas may have a remaining wall thickness of less than 0.020-
inch, which is below the range of this setup, or they may have small
areas of localized corrosion or pitting present. The latter case
will result in a reduction in signal strength due to the sound being
scattered from the rough surface and may result in a signal that
includes echoes from the pits as well as the backwall. The suspect
area(s) shall be tested with a Maule ``Fabric Tester'' as specified
in Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D.
10. Record the lift strut inspection in the aircraft log book.
[[Page 49227]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU13.010
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 6, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-19530 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
