• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

180/185/182 Tailcone Repair explained by Bushwheel Bill

Since this is now an AD and no longer just an SB does the QMI kit still take the inspection from 5 years or 500 hours to 10 years or 1500 hours?

That's a very good question.
Seems like an official statement re an alternate means of compliance (AMOC) is needed to clarify this.
Without an AMOC statement, I'd think the requirements of the AD would take precedence.
 
This is the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for Bushwheel Bill's kit.
https://c25a9cfa-f52a-4096-89b3-d5a...d/441327_e060104785304986a0e91f2d406acca2.pdf
It states: "After installation of this STC kit, inspection will not be required until cumulating 1500 flight hours or 10 years whichever comes first. After the initial inspection, inspections will be required every 500 flight hours or 5 years whichever comes first."

Note the date on the ICA,
it is after the Cessna service letter was issued,
but before the FAA issued the AD.
I think I would want clarification on this --
like a written statement from either FAA or QMI stating that the initial recurring inspection is due in 1500 hours /10 years,
NOT the 500 hours / 5 years as per the AD.
 
Note the date on the ICA,
it is after the Cessna service letter was issued,
but before the FAA issued the AD.
I think I would want clarification on this --
like a written statement from either FAA or QMI stating that the initial recurring inspection is due in 1500 hours /10 years,
NOT the 500 hours / 5 years as per the AD.
I disagree.
The airplane was modified with Bill's kit. Therefor the AD is not applicable, since the original Cessna parts to which the AD applies are no longer installed. The ICA describes the applicable inspection intervals for the modified airplane.
 
The AD trumps the STC. You gotta do all the other parts of the AD so obtaining the AMOC from the FAA is not worth it for only part of it. I talked to Bill at length last night. I started Bill down the AMOC path when they first started talking about making it an AD. He has decided it is not worth dealing with the FAA over.
 
You install the QMI kit to fix the problem with the hockey stick whether you have it or you think you might later. I look at it as a better mouse trap, not a reason not to inspect and only a small part of the whole inspection anyway.
 
I think if I pulled the tail & did a good, close-up inspection the first time around,
whether or not I needed to repair the hockey stick(s) with the QMI kit,
I would feel easier about doing at least the first follow-on inspection without removing the tail
(as spelled out in the service letter).
 
Back
Top