Note 1 from 78-09-05

[Skymaster337B]

I wouldn’t consider aerial photography low level or contour flying, unless that’s what they were doing while taking the pictures. This AD was caused by fire spotters that flew low level and terrain contour. Prolonged High stresses on the wing from yanking and banking like a combat pilot is what we are talking about. That kind of flying isn’t good for picture taking. Steady and stable platform is what photographers need.

The Eddy current inspection by itself doesn’t comply with the AD; it also requires a dye penetrate inspection of the spare web. So unless all that was done, and the AD signed off as “complied,” then the eddy current test was just someone’s warm and fuzzy. I’d do one as part of a pre-buy, but that doesn’t fulfill the AD. However, if the AD was fully complied the IA would have to sign it off and specifically state its next due date/time. If there’s such a logbook entry then yes, it needs to be done.

That’s what I think.

[YankeeClipper]

Thanks for that.

And good point. I'll have to go back to see if there was anything about the penetrant test. I was aware of that, but don't recall seeing any entries about it. Also don't see any reference to compliance.

I'm also inclined to agree about operations specific to photography. I can't imagine that anyone would last very long staring through a lens while the pilot was working the elevators hard. And while photography might involve the elevated Gs associated with circling, it isn't cyclical, nor extreme. I'm not an engineer by trade, but I recall well from my engineering classes that Aluminum is not pleased by cyclical stress, whereas static load is not so much an issue.

Still curious as to the costs. I'm only 700 hours away from the maintenance program prescribed for all serials thru 1852.