100 Hour Wing Inspection

JGug1 · #1 08-27-10, 10:14 PM

I did some looking but couldn't find this issue discussed. Hard to believe it isn't on the list somewhere. Won't this AD kill the Skymaster? It has to cost tens of thousands of dollars. If what I heard is true, that it kicks in this November, I'm amazed that AOPA and owners haven't fought it tooth and nail. What's the story?
JGug

JGug1 · #2 08-27-10, 10:30 PM

Gentle people. I apologize.....I asked before I looked. It certainly appears as if my source,l a knowledgeable IA, was wrong. And it appears that you have been discussing this issue almost to death. (no wondr). Apparently he was referenceing an SID, not an AD and I see that AOPA has indicated that 337's in general would not have to comply. I WOULD appreciate confirmation of that impressioin, however. Thank you for your patience...My reason for asking......I fly a normally aspirated Twin Comanche and it does NOT work out very well at 10.5 DA. My most usual mission is to PSO where it is commonly 10.5. DA on a 70 degree day and I want turbo charging AND I have always admired and even lusted, to a certain extent, for a 337....I just ain't about to bite if I'm going to have to remove wings every 100 hours:-)

Ernie Martin · #3 08-28-10, 01:16 AM

The information provided to you is wrong in several areas. First, none of the proposed SIDs of the wings have repeat inspections more frequently than 3,000 hours. Second, the SIDs are not expected to apply to aircraft in Part 91 operations (i.e., personal aircraft not used commercially), but will apply to other aircraft, including most operated overseas; so the phrase "AOPA has indicated that 337's in general would not have to comply" is inaccurate.

Ernie

JGug1 · #4 08-28-10, 09:11 AM

Ernie, thank you for the response. There seems to be quite a lot of history behind this/these SID's, going back many years. Can you confirm that statement. I found a communication from AOPA on the list indicating that Part 91 aircraft would NOT be affected. Thus, my assessment that 337's, in general, would not be affected. I am aware that Australian and some other 337's are ALL affected but most of the 337's flying are US registry, right? I also found some disagreeing comments regarding whether an IA would have to use the SID as his/her source for doing an annual inspection.
JGug

Ernie Martin · #5 08-28-10, 02:55 PM

All/most of what you're asking is covered in the SID thread, such as the history of SIDs, and I strongly urge you to read the whole thread. There are a lot of 337s used commercially, for forest fire surveillance and forward air control, for military surveillance (AirScan operates 23 of them, mostly overseas), and for wildlife/fisheries surveillance. So it's better to say Part 91 rather than "in general".

Ernie

Cole5Oh5 · #6 08-29-10, 12:00 AM

There is no consensus that I am aware of about your particular IA wanting to do most of the inspections.

In, fact, that is a good thing. Everything except the wing pull.
You may want your IA to do some of the SID inspections, or none, and he may decide to do none of them, some of them, or all of them. If he decides the wing pull is important, find another IA.