See attached UNPUBLISHED FAA NPRM regarding a wing spar AD for PA28 and PA32 aircraft

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-27577.pdf



Mike

Doesn’t include the Saratoga wing. I’m wondering if Piper addressed it in the later designs.

Even worst case of $8k/wing for spar replacement isn’t the end of the world for these owners. Looks like a reasonable inspection cost otherwise.

It says 32 labor hours to replace a wing spar. That's really really fast...

Ah, you can do it Steven!

It is amazing that they consider non-commercial use of the aircraft (no 100 hour inspections) to be 17 times less stressful than commercial use.

Or the Lance, Seneca, or Seminole? Must be a reason, all are of similar design. If you follow the linage the the Seneca isn't so much a twin engine Lance, rater the Lance is a SE Seneca, perhaps that is the difference for the omission or the 32R line? Maybe is shares the heavier wing attachment of the PA34.

Jeff

If I read this correctly, inspections for this proposed AD would essentially state at 5000 hours. That leaves put a lot of planes that have not been used as trainers. Like mine.

My IA keeps pretty well tuned into the GA world. He thinks spar corrosion is a much more significant issue. I would agree. Ive seen several Cherokee grounder due to spar corrosion. Spar bolt fatigue not much.....

As I read it the AD assumes that an aircraft has been in continuous "training" operations since it left the factory if it was ever a trainer, even if not the case for many years..

The AD cautions to not drive out the bolts as damage may occur in the holes.

Can Del or others comment on their experience removing these bolts? How difficult are they to remove?

Are we to assume the bolts will be removed two at a time for the inspection? If so I wonder what the resulting time is for the complete inspection?

Robert

It only looks at how many 100 hour inspections have been done, and calls the resulting calculation "factored" hours.

So if a plane was used a few years as a trainer then went into personal use, the "factored" hours would not accumulate during the personal use.

The TT/17 portion of the math will create an accrual of service hours during personal use. I guess it is the mathematical approximation of how many times the plane is bounced off the runway or some approved maneuver is botched during its life.

The PA-32 and 34 have additional structure (caps, webs, angles) on the main spar attachment area. The lower outboard bolt holes are also SMALLER; 5/16 instead of 3/8".
The bolts are not difficult to access or remove (not any more than the aft flap rollers on a Bonanza ).

So smaller holes equates to more structure correct?

So smaller holes equates to more structure correct?