Forthcoming B-17 wing AD

Archer · **Joined:** Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:13 pm **Posts:** 368

aerovin wrote:

Firebird wrote:

aerovin wrote:

Would you mind stating your source for this information as the UK CAA AD site does not show anything on the B-17 AD. Thanks. Just curious.

UK CAA have no need to do that, as there is only one airworthy B-17 in the UK, and as per the statements from the operators of Sally-B as already linked, they have been in close communication with CAA regarding the FAA AD and thus CAA have instructed inspection to the FAA AD which is what they have done, as per their issued statements.

Okay, thanks for that. I try to glean out the best information and not just hearsay for my aerovintage.com website. The last information on the Sally B website is dated 5/23 and nothing is on their Facebook Page and there does not appear to be anything on the CAA pages so I guess I’m just not looking in the right places for the issued statements that actually mandates compliance with the FAA AD.

I found the information throught the UKAR forums here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=88931 (Facebook link at the end of page 1 appears to be the most informative source).

aerovin · **Posted:** Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:34 pm

Archer wrote:

I found the information throught the UKAR forums here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=88931 (Facebook link at the end of page 1 appears to be the most informative source).

But nothing in what is contained in that posting suggests an actual source that mandates compliance for UK registered airplanes to the FAA AD. Its not a big deal because Sally B was self grounded by its operator. Perhaps the CAA has mandated compliance...I would be surprised if it did not...but all I am looking for is an actual written statement from either B-17 Preservation or the UK CAA that says such a thing. Just a fine point but worth getting it straight for posterity's sake.

lucky52 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:45 pm

Thanks Aerovin.

dhfan · **Posted:** Tue Jun 20, 2023 4:34 am

aerovin wrote:

Archer wrote:

I found the information throught the UKAR forums here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=88931 (Facebook link at the end of page 1 appears to be the most informative source).

But nothing in what is contained in that posting suggests an actual source that mandates compliance for UK registered airplanes to the FAA AD. Its not a big deal because Sally B was self grounded by its operator. Perhaps the CAA has mandated compliance...I would be surprised if it did not...but all I am looking for is an actual written statement from either B-17 Preservation or the UK CAA that says such a thing. Just a fine point but worth getting it straight for posterity's sake.

I very much doubt there is one.
As Firebird said, there's only one. It doesn't need complication, they just discussed it.

Archer · **Joined:** Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:13 pm **Posts:** 368

aerovin wrote:

Archer wrote:

I found the information throught the UKAR forums here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=88931 (Facebook link at the end of page 1 appears to be the most informative source).

But nothing in what is contained in that posting suggests an actual source that mandates compliance for UK registered airplanes to the FAA AD. Its not a big deal because Sally B was self grounded by its operator. Perhaps the CAA has mandated compliance...I would be surprised if it did not...but all I am looking for is an actual written statement from either B-17 Preservation or the UK CAA that says such a thing. Just a fine point but worth getting it straight for posterity's sake.

CAP 747 is the relevant document, it states:

Quote:

8.1 Aircraft on the UK Register are required by law to comply with applicable Airworthiness
Directives (ADs) issued by the UK CAA, EASA, and the National Aviation Authority
(NAA) of the State of Design.

So if the FAA issues an AD, this makes it mandatory for Sally B's operators to comply with that AD. See https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... irectives/
Part 2 of CAP 747 includes the Boeing B-17G as a Non Part-21 type and lists the USA as the state of design. See page 33 of the PDF version.

menards · **Joined:** Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm **Posts:** 523

Archer wrote:

aerovin wrote:

Archer wrote:

I found the information throught the UKAR forums here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=88931 (Facebook link at the end of page 1 appears to be the most informative source).

But nothing in what is contained in that posting suggests an actual source that mandates compliance for UK registered airplanes to the FAA AD. Its not a big deal because Sally B was self grounded by its operator. Perhaps the CAA has mandated compliance...I would be surprised if it did not...but all I am looking for is an actual written statement from either B-17 Preservation or the UK CAA that says such a thing. Just a fine point but worth getting it straight for posterity's sake.

CAP 747 is the relevant document, it states:

Quote:

8.1 Aircraft on the UK Register are required by law to comply with applicable Airworthiness
Directives (ADs) issued by the UK CAA, EASA, and the National Aviation Authority
(NAA) of the State of Design.

So if the FAA issues an AD, this makes it mandatory for Sally B's operators to comply with that AD. See https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... irectives/
Part 2 of CAP 747 includes the Boeing B-17G as a Non Part-21 type and lists the USA as the state of design. See page 33 of the PDF version.

Its my understanding that Sally B's operators elected to preemptively ground Sally B and perform the neccessary inspection on their own under the assumption that the UK CAA would issue a similar AD that the FAA did.

menards · **Joined:** Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm **Posts:** 523

Archer wrote:

aerovin wrote:

Archer wrote:

I found the information throught the UKAR forums here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=88931 (Facebook link at the end of page 1 appears to be the most informative source).

But nothing in what is contained in that posting suggests an actual source that mandates compliance for UK registered airplanes to the FAA AD. Its not a big deal because Sally B was self grounded by its operator. Perhaps the CAA has mandated compliance...I would be surprised if it did not...but all I am looking for is an actual written statement from either B-17 Preservation or the UK CAA that says such a thing. Just a fine point but worth getting it straight for posterity's sake.

CAP 747 is the relevant document, it states:

Quote:

8.1 Aircraft on the UK Register are required by law to comply with applicable Airworthiness
Directives (ADs) issued by the UK CAA, EASA, and the National Aviation Authority
(NAA) of the State of Design.

So if the FAA issues an AD, this makes it mandatory for Sally B's operators to comply with that AD. See https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... irectives/
Part 2 of CAP 747 includes the Boeing B-17G as a Non Part-21 type and lists the USA as the state of design. See page 33 of the PDF version.

Its my understanding that Sally B's operators elected to preemptively ground Sally B and perform the neccessary inspection on their own under the assumption that the UK CAA would issue a similar AD that the FAA did.

k5083 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:59 am

It appears that the reg cited by Archer answers aerovin's question, though. Operators of US-designed aircraft in the UK are required to monitor and comply with FAA ADs without the need for formal action by the CAA.

Other countries have similar rules. Canada, for example, requires that "ADs issued by the FAA against aircraft for which it is the responsible authority, are mandatory in Canada unless superseded by a Transport Canada AD." CAR, Part VI, s. 605.84.

The US, on the other hand, only regards ADs issued by the FAA as mandatory. So the FAA takes on the burden of monitoring foreign ADs and writing its own ADs if it wants to make them mandatory.

August

Archer · **Joined:** Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:13 pm **Posts:** 368

Actually, if the FAA issues an AD for a Boeing airliner, you will find that exact same AD in the EASA AD database, and (mostly) vice versa. They don't go off and write their own, they just copy the other party's work. There are instances where one authority decides not to adopt an AD, but they're rare. The FAA do indeed rewrite EASA ADs but most of the content follows the text from the EASA document.

When Sally B's operators decided to ground the B-17, I'm sure they were a bit beyond assuming... they knew that any FAA AD for the type would mean that they needed to take action.

aerovin · **Posted:** Tue Jun 20, 2023 11:52 am

Quote:

8.1 Aircraft on the UK Register are required by law to comply with applicable Airworthiness
Directives (ADs) issued by the UK CAA, EASA, and the National Aviation Authority
(NAA) of the State of Design.

So if the FAA issues an AD, this makes it mandatory for Sally B's operators to comply with that AD. See https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-indust ... irectives/
Part 2 of CAP 747 includes the Boeing B-17G as a Non Part-21 type and lists the USA as the state of design. See page 33 of the PDF version.

There you go, then. That's what I was looking for and appreciate you digging it out. It clears my whole question up. Thank you.

Stephan Nelle · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:33 pm **Posts:** 10

Late to the party here, but I had trouble getting registered on the site for a while.

Anyway, here are some pictures I took of Ye Old Pub in June 2019 when I was living in Madras, OR. The day I took the pictures they were reaming the tapered holes in the wing attach fittings.

Stephan Nelle · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:33 pm **Posts:** 10

Stephan Nelle · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:33 pm **Posts:** 10

Stephan Nelle · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:33 pm **Posts:** 10

Stephan Nelle · **Joined:** Wed Aug 16, 2023 12:33 pm **Posts:** 10

last one

Warbird Information Exchange

Forthcoming B-17 wing AD

Who is online