Proposed AD from existing service bulletin on all 180 and 185 models.

[Farmboy]

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ess-directives-textron-aviation-inc-airplanes

Proposed AD revising existing Textron Aviation Single Engine Mandatory Service Letter SEL-55-01, dated December 7, 2017, and expanding into all models and time.


The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Models 180, 180A, 180B, 180C, 180D, 180E, 180F, 180G, 180H, 180J, 180K, 182, 182A, 182B, 182C, 182D, 185, 185A, 185B, 185C, 185D, 185E, A185E, and A185F airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks found in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure. This proposed AD would require inspecting the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer for corrosion and cracks and repairing or replacing damaged parts as necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
[h=2]Discussion[/h]The FAA received a report of cracks in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure on a Textron (type certificate previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 185 airplane. It was observed during maintenance that the horizontal stabilizer tail section moved up and down and had excessive play. After a detailed inspection, the tailcone reinforcement braces were found cracked on both sides of the airplane. Upon further investigation, the FAA discovered similar conditions on 29 additional Textron 180 and 185 series airplanes. The FAA determined that the combination of the attachment structure design and high loads during landing contribute to the development of cracks in the tailcone and horizontal stabilizer attachment structure. This condition, if unaddressed, could result in failure of the horizontal stabilizer to tailcone attachment and lead to tail separation with consequent loss of control of the airplane.


[h=2]Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information[/h]

[FONT=fr2_icons !important][/FONT]​

The service information applies to airplanes with more than 3,000 total hours time-in-service or 10 years in service, while this proposed AD would apply regardless of the airplane's time-in-service. This proposed AD would require inspecting for and replacing loose or sheared rivets, which is not specified in the service information.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Looks like Bushwheel Bill will be busy.
https://www.cessnarepairs.com/

 

[mit greb]

No reason for an AD anyone that knows anything about them is already looking there!

 

[cub12]

are the cracked parts what is referred to as the hockey stick brackets?

 

[Steve Pierce]

are the cracked parts what is referred to as the hockey stick brackets?

That is part of it but the proposed AD is addressing much more. sounds like people need to comment so this doesn't get blown out of proportion.

 

[180_jeff]

No reason for an AD anyone that knows anything about them is already looking there!

^^^ This.

 

[180_jeff]

sounds like people need to comment so this doesn't get blown out of proportion.

I object to the every 5 years part of it. Should be based solely on flight hours or make it something more reasonable like 10 years.

 

[Steve Pierce]

No reason for an AD anyone that knows anything about them is already looking there!

How many people are pulling the tail off and looking. From what I have seen that is the only way to see a lot of the issues. I am curious the ratio of prudent owners vs not. Also the mechanics who do not educate themselves on the service bulletins and everything is SALY (same as last year). New term I got from my accountant wife.

 

[180_jeff]

How many people are pulling the tail off and looking. From what I have seen that is the only way to see a lot of the issues. I am curious the ratio of prudent owners vs not. Also the mechanics who do not educate themselves on the service bulletins and everything is SALY (same as last year). New term I got from my accountant wife.

You do not need to pull off the tail to perform this inspection. I did it using a boroscope. But let's say you do need to pull the tail. How many people are really going to do that every 5 years? It is just going to get pencil whipped. That said, the tail does need to come off every - I don't know - 20 years for complete service back there. Too many owners have never pulled things apart after 50+ years back there.

 

[behindpropellers]

How many people are pulling the tail off and looking. From what I have seen that is the only way to see a lot of the issues. I am curious the ratio of prudent owners vs not. Also the mechanics who do not educate themselves on the service bulletins and everything is SALY (same as last year). New term I got from my accountant wife.

Hah. I just worked on a 182B. I asked if the tail had been inspected. Oh yes, my mechanic did that last year. Started looking close, and non of the vinyl coated screws had been removed. I asked the owner when it was wrapped in vinyl..." 2 or 3 years ago".

Probably prudent to just remove the tail every 20 years or 3000 hours.

 

[Steve Pierce]

You do not need to pull off the tail to perform this inspection. I did it using a boroscope. But let's say you do need to pull the tail. How many people are really going to do that every 5 years? It is just going to get pencil whipped. That said, the tail does need to come off every - I don't know - 20 years for complete service back there. Too many owners have never pulled things apart after 50+ years back there.

Some of the cracks I have seen would not be visible via a borescope. Only visible with the hardware removed.

 

[Steve Pierce]

Hah. I just worked on a 182B. I asked if the tail had been inspected. Oh yes, my mechanic did that last year. Started looking close, and non of the vinyl coated screws had been removed. I asked the owner when it was wrapped in vinyl..." 2 or 3 years ago".

Probably prudent to just remove the tail every 20 years or 3000 hours.

You know as well as I do the ratio of pencil whippers to real A&P mechanics is getting worse every day. The only good thing about that is some of us will always have a job.

 

[Flyingde]

So they move it to every 20 years and there will be people who say aww you can go 30.....

 

[mam90]

You know as well as I do the ratio of pencil whippers to real A&P mechanics is getting worse every day. The only good thing about that is some of us will always have a job.

My friend and IA has maintained my Cub since 2001. He has rebuilt it completely, from end to end including the engine. We just finished the annual, and he uses a piper inspection checklist and never, ever cuts a corner. I only had about 10 hours on a fairly recent oil and filter change and asked him if we had to drop the oil and change the filter. He said his name was in the book and his friend was in the pilot seat, so yes he was cutting the filter and putting in fresh oil. You’ll never have to explain why you did, but may have to explain why you didn’t. I appreciate his approach....

 

[SuperCub MD]

The wording in the proposed AD requires a"visual inspection". They also give a 2 hour time to complete the inspection. Obviously the AD would not require a complete tear down of the tail like in the SL, and there is no mention of completely complying with the SL in the AD wording.

 

[Steve Pierce]

The wording in the proposed AD requires a"visual inspection". They also give a 2 hour time to complete the inspection. Obviously the AD would not require a complete tear down of the tail like in the SL, and there is no mention of completely complying with the SL in the AD wording.

Yea, not sure how you can see and inspect everything they want especially in the time they say it takes. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[texmex]

Some of the cracks I have seen would not be visible via a borescope. Only visible with the hardware removed.

That was certainly the case with my aircraft.

I wasn't intending to pull the tail off, but there was a significant amount of corrosion growing on the underside where the 'Tanalain' leading edge was installed. The nuffties had bare a aluminium join, and then painted the stab.

When off, we discovered the 'hockey sticks' were both worn probably a third through. The steel bushing had been flogging about. The decision was made to go with the Bushwheel Bill mod.

Definitely not detectable without removing the stabiliser.

 

[CenterHillAg]

We pulled the tail off my ‘56 182 a few years at my first annual with it and replaced all kinds of brackets and hardware, I doubt it had been done in the previous 30 years. It had more slop than a Cub tail, nice and solid now.

We pull the tails off ag planes every year no matter what, others say that’s overkill but I’ve seen enough corrosion and wear while hanging around the mechanics shop to make me a believer in the practice.

 

[180_jeff]

Some of the cracks I have seen would not be visible via a borescope. Only visible with the hardware removed.

What we did was remove the stab hinge bolts and lifted the stab all the way up. The boroscope just made easy work of what would ordinarily be mirror and flashlight technique.

 

[Eddie Foy]

I did the SL procedure on my 180 while I was "overhauling" it. Removed the whole empennage and inspected not only the hockey stick but the Elevator hinge brackets. No cracks found on my 12,000 hour plane. Replaced the jackscrews while I had it apart. Also installed the Airframes tail spring. The old saddle had to be cut out. The sleeve had become one with the saddle.

I am assuming that since the SL is documented that I will be good.

 

[180_jeff]

I am assuming that since the SL is documented that I will be good.

Yeah, except it is a recurring AD.

 

[don d]

I bet the problem is caused by ground handling using the horizontal stab. Not inflight loads.

 

[mike mcs repair]

I bet the problem is caused by ground handling using the horizontal stab. Not inflight loads.

Not at all. Ever watch the tail on a rocky beach landing. The thing is flapping around.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app

 

[BC12D-4-85]

They tend to shake bad passing worms while on floats too

Gary

 

[aktango58]

Interesting read. As a former 180 owner that did the full part replacement years ago, and found the cracks once the tail came off, I have my own perspective.

Most of you are correct. The tails shake like mad with full flaps and slow, if on floats or rough they get worked hard. Attach brackets are not exactly tough, and for years Cessna was selling replacements that had improper hardening, causing them to wear out quickly. Some of the commercial guys were talking replacing them every 2,000 hours or so.

That said- there is a square inspection/access panel that can be added to the side. Reach through that to get to the inside nut, remove the bolt from the outside. Lift and inspect once the four bolts are out. Yes, Borescope would be the way to do it.

The interesting thing, of all the planes I know of having this issue, I don't know of any that has had an in-flight problem. Even one that three of the four attach points were GONE! A quick grab of the tail and feel if it is working in the attach fittings tells the pilot if it is broken, or a mechanic. There are planes that have been flying with cracked attach points for years I bet. We just don't know because it does not get repaired until the mechanic feels the tail slop.

MY opinion, worth half what you paid:lol:

 

[Eddie Foy]

Actually is a proposed AD. Have you seen any info as to recurring inspections?

Yeah, except it is a recurring AD.

 

[180_jeff]

Actually is a proposed AD. Have you seen any info as to recurring inspections?

True, it is just proposed at this point, but it will go through.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ess-directives-textron-aviation-inc-airplanes

"... and thereafter every 500 hours TIS or 5 years, whichever occurs first ..."

 

[hotrod180]

Has anyone installed the QMI "mini hockey stick" as a fix?
What does the STC paperwork say about recurring inspections?
Bushwheel Bill's video indicates their ICA calls for 10 years / 1,500 hours recurring inspections,
as opposed to the SEL-55-01's 5 years & 500 hours.
Dunno if the STC's ICA would supercede the AD requirements or not.

https://www.supercub.org/forum/show...2-Tailcone-Repair-explained-by-Bushwheel-Bill

 

[Steve Pierce]

The FAA actually fast tracked Bill's STC. They will have to issue an AMOC (alternate means of compliance) for his STC. He and I discussed this last Sunday and I agreed to help him with it.

 

[aktango58]

The FAA actually fast tracked Bill's STC. They will have to issue an AMOC (alternate means of compliance) for his STC. He and I discussed this last Sunday and I agreed to help him with it.

It would seem that an STC'd part would eliminate the AD, as it is no longer the factory part the AD addresses. I can see the FAA having a mandatory inspection on the STC, doing what the STC is thought.

An example: If you have a stock muffler, you have an AD. If you run Atlee's you don't.

We really need to be thankful guys like Bill, Joe and so many others are out there finding fixes and making parts for our old planes.