Beech Debonaire And Bonanza Aiworthiness Directives (33/48 And 35/74)

[mnewbery]

Friday 13th January 9pm local time - Nine MSN website reports "CASA issues directive on light planes"

 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8402778/casa-issues-directive-on-light-planes

 

The aviation watchdog has effectively grounded hundreds of light planes over concerns about their safety.

 

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) issued an airworthiness directive late on Friday requiring the mandatory inspection of flight control cables on the Beechcraft Debonair and Bonanza aircraft.

 

I suspend my cynicism of the mainstream media (for now)

 

Also this:

 

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/01/13/your-weekend-beechcraft-bonanza-or-debonair-joy-flight-is-on-hold-pending-a-compulsory-inspection/

 

"Your weekend Beechcraft Bonanza or Debonair joy flight is on hold pending a compulsory inspection" by Ben Sandilands (a friend of plane crazy down under podcast)

 

A quick search noted that squillions of news outlets have run variations of the same story.

 

This Nine MSN article does not name the airworthiness directive. The CASA airworthiness bulletin (NOT the AD) is later referenced in CASA's in house pilot magazine flight noting that an E33 had a cable failure during a 'full,free and correct' pre-takeoff check. This failure occurred during a childrens joyflight programme. After the failure and during the same programme, the pilot of an A36 reached up into the instrument panel and found a similarly frayed or failing cable. The Service difficulty report (below) was registered by CASA 27 November.

 

No news outlet article I found names the AD by number. Would have been nice, peoples...

 

The CASA article noted "These aircraft were designed before it was a requirement to have a backup system of elevator control - typically trim." Service difficulty report SDR510013965 refers to part number 33-524000-63 and is the basis for the CASA magazine article. The failed cable was 4,610 hours since new (e.g. really freaking old for an exposed bit of wire)

 

These documents were issued by CASA on Friday:

 

AD/BEECH 33/48 http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/under/beech33/beech33-048.pdf

 

AD/BEECH 35/74

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/under/beech35/beech35-074.pdf

 

They (CASA) are serious. What nobody mentioned in the news articles is that if the "scheduled" inspection or replacement of said cables as per Beechraft Maintenance Data or FAA AC 43-13-1B, chapter 7, Section 8, paragraph 7-149(d) has already occured, no problem. The AD's note that cables more than 15 years old shall be replaced. NZ aviation websites have noted their required inspection and replacement intervals closely mirror the FAA requirement, therefore the cables should already have been replaced within 15 years. (no reference provided at this time).

 

In late October 2011, CASA issued AD 27-001 (all aircraft) issue 2 which states "replace all cables more than 15 years old due to failing stainless terminators". You'd think or hope that the cables would get some look-and-love at the same time.

 

Maybe not.

 

The Airworthiness Bulletin 27-001 issue 2 pre-dates the CASA magazine article by two months or more. The CASA magazine article references the Airworthiness Bulletin but is in turn the source of the "Australia only" AD's which came out more than a month later. It was only after the AD's that the "story" appeared in the general media. Because there were children involved.

 

 

[Guest Darren Masters]

Good post :) Same story now here in NZ. There are quite a few flying around.