Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:16 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 am 
Offline
Lance Corporal

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Germany
Hi Matt,
of course you look for Boeing, since Boeing is the Holder of the Type Certificate now. When you look at ADs “by make”, and you go to “the Boeing Company”, all the different Aircrafts show up, like the Airliners, but also the AT6/T6. At first the AT-6 Models show up with their corresponding SNJ models (yes the AD does say SNJ, as well as the TCDS says), in this order:
AT-6 (SNJ-2)
AT-6A (SNJ-3)
AT-6B
AT-6C (SNJ-4)
AT-6D (SNJ-5)
AT-6F (SNJ-6)

On all this models the AD 50-38-01 shows up as applicable. When you continue on the Boeing list the SNJ-7 (which corresponds to the T-6G) and later the T-6G show up separately. For both of them the AD 50-38-01 does not show up.
We all know that when it comes to maintaining aircrafts it is very important to use the exact wording and numbers as in the manual. In the TCDS the “G” models shows up as T-6G and not AT-6G, so the term AT-6 family does not apply to the “G” model. This is also underlined by the fact that the AD 50-38-01 does not show up when you look up specifically the T-6G (as well as SNJ7).
These are the facts, it doesn´t matter if it makes sense, or not. Of course do I look for corrosion during the annual of our T-6G, as for many other possible defects. But it does not change the fact that this AD is not applicable for the T-6G.
Stefan

_________________
immer den Knueppel ruhig halten!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:51 am 
Offline
Lance Corporal

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Germany
Matt,
to answer to your first Point, that there are no AD´s for North American build T6 , but for Boeing build.
Boeing never die build T6 Aircraft, they just took over the type certificate from Rockwell, as did Rockwell before from North American. This is also stated in the very first part of the TCDS.

Aircraft Specification Holder The Boeing Company
4000 Lakewood Blvd.
Long Beach, California 90846
Aircraft Specification Holder Rockwell International transferred ownership to The Boeing Company on July 23, 2009
Record
North American Aviation transferred ownership to Rockwell International Corp. on
February 20, 1996

That is the reason why you will not find any ADs for North American T6, or Rockwell T6 Aircraft...

Stefan

_________________
immer den Knueppel ruhig halten!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 7:56 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: Phoenix, Az
Stefan,
I was pointing out the fallacy of saying that a AD does not apply by saying it is a T-6G, and not a AT-6G. I know boeing did not build the T-6. I don't know what your experience is with the 6, but I doubt you have been working on them as long as myself and several others on here. Your reasoning makes as much sense as saying a AD for a B-17G, does not apply to a B-17H, or a A-26B does not apply to a A-26C, or a P-51 and a F-51, when the only difference is paperwork.

The T-6G is part of the AT-6 series of aircraft, nothing was changed to make it anything but a AT-6 with a yellow paint job, bigger tanks, and a lever to push out the gear pins.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
https://www.facebook.com/shoot.the.guns.of.history


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:48 am 
Offline
Lance Corporal

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Germany
Matt,
i doesn´t matter how long i have been working on any type of airplane, as long as i can read the books and relevant publications. I don´t Need to know specifically, the differences between the different models of an airplane. This is the FAA´s job when they issue AD´s.
To use your example. Let´s take the DC9, originally designed by Douglas, Boeing now got the Type certificate. There are many different models, DC9, MD80, MD90 and B 717. If I follow your conclusion, they all would be just a DC9, with different Paint and Fuselage length?
Or if we even use the AT-6 as example. The FAA Website shows for the AT-6A Model 10 different ADs but for the AT-6F Model only 6. The 4 ADs that are missing for the AT-6F are:
49-07-02 Fuel System Placard
46-46-02 Elevator Stop
46-17-01 Flap Control Universal Joint Pins
46-11-01 Landing Gear Retracting Strut
According to your logic you have to apply all these AT-6A ADs to all AT-6 and T-6 models as well?
Do you know in every detail what has been changed between AT-6A and F?
The AT-6F model is flying since 1942, so this ADs would have been issues to the AT-6F if they would have been applicable. What I am trying to say is, this Aircraft has been designed and build some 70 years ago, and nobody today really knows ALL of the design changes between each model, maybe except for the Type Certificate Holder (Boeing) and the regulatory Authority (FAA). So as a Pilot / Mechanic we have to Trust that the Information given by the Authorities is correct. And if the FAA says that AD 46-11-01 only applies to AT-6A, then it does not apply to the AT-6F, for whatever reason. Same is with AD 50-38-01. If FAA says it only applies to AT-6 aircraft and not to T-6G, based on the information they have, then that´s it. If you have the opinion, based on your experience, that this or another AD should be extended to T-6G models, you should definitely contact the FAA. But until the FAA changes AD 50-38-01, based on the FAA official Website, this AD definitely does not apply to the T-6G.
And this is it from my side. I realize that we will not come to mutual point on this matter. I think (and our examiner as well) that the FAA website is very clear on which AD´s apply to which T-6 model, and there is really no harm in doing an AD which is not mandatory. The other way around would be…
Best regards

Stefan

_________________
immer den Knueppel ruhig halten!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:04 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:18 pm
Posts: 3008
Location: Phoenix, Az
Please let us know how your trial with the FAA judge comes out, because that is where you are heading. The FAA does not know squat about the T-6, nor does boeing, the most knowledgeable people on the T-6 are those who restore and maintain them. Ask either the FAA or boeing what the differences are between a SNJ and a T-6, they will not have a clue.
You asked about a AD, and myself and others have said that regardless what the AD says, it does apply, so do as you wish.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
https://www.facebook.com/shoot.the.guns.of.history


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:52 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10435
You can obviously do what you want, but if you don't do the inspection on your T-6G because of your strict interpretation of the paperwork, and the plane crashes because of it, the NTSB, FAA, CAA, etc. will get involved and I assure you that the most draconian measures for all of us will be taken as a result.

We are discussing directives over 50 years old in many cases. All paperwork loops were not closed in the intervening years. If push comes to shove, the FAA can close those loops for all of us. Not doing corrosion inspections is a good way to get the FAA to mandate eddy current inspections of every extrusion on the aircraft because someone didn't feel a visual inspection applied to their particular serial number of airframe.

Take your T-6G and look at the serial number stamped on the rollover structure. Then do the AD notes that apply to that base AT6/SNJ aircraft. A different battery voltage, fuel or hydraulic system installed during the T-6G retrofit didn't change the materials or processes of how that aircraft structure was originally built.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:31 pm 
Offline
Lance Corporal

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Germany
Hello BDK, hello Matt,
i know that we are turning in circles here. I will just try to bring this to an end. I said before that it makes of course sense to look after corrosion, as it also is important to look after frayed control wires, after bad fuel lines and many other things you should look after in a thorough annual inspection. But we have to divide here between things that are good Airmanship / workmanship and things that are required by the regulatory authorities, like an AD. And I am sorry to repeat myself, AD 50-38-01 IS NOT MANDATORY ON T-6G AIRCRAFTS. Please let´s just stick with the facts. I´m not neglecting the fact that on the T-6G a thorough inspection for corrosion is a good habit. BUT IT IS JUST NOT REQUIRED PER AD. Just look up all the AD´s for the T-6G model, and it will become clear.
And once again, I really respect you guy’s long experience on this aircraft, and I do apologize if I insulted you in any way. But I just wanted to sort out the official Inspection requirements, not judging on the requirements that you figured out useful during your maintenance experience.
So maybe we can just close this discussion and go back to the original Topic about the Wing Angle AD.

Stefan

_________________
immer den Knueppel ruhig halten!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:04 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10435
So if you don't inspect per the "All Model AT-6 Series Aircraft" on your T-6G, how do you know that a surplus one-piece horizontal stabilizer bracket was not installed (50-09-01 horizontal stabilizer rear spar connection cracked fittings) by a previous owner/operator? You better make sure that if a replacement part was ordered from Lance Aircraft Supply (where you can get either kind) or found in a trash dump and reused, it is either the later part called out in the IPB or it has been modified per the AD note/NAA bulletin. As the IA, you are responsible for airworthiness, not the previous guy who signed off the airplane with the generic statement "all AD notes complied with."

I have seen logbooks with signatures by IAs that an AD note has been complied with, when the compliance has been maintained out through replacement parts. Year after year IAs assumed that something is in compliance because someone signed it off as in compliance years earlier.

You have to look at how the FAA approaches these things. They deal mostly with new aircraft of known configurations.

A little birdie from an aircraft manufacturer told me:

Quote:
The specific language would have to be looked at in each AD to determine if it is a regulatory requirement to accomplish the AD. You did that and found that T-6G is not in the required effectivity. In theory, if the airplanes were all a progression of FAA approved designs, they would have unsafe conditions from the previous model designed out of the next model. Otherwise they could not qualify for approval of the new model. With this surplus military to civilian FAA approval process, and the possibility of a less prescriptive environment of these old surplus airplanes, I think your concern is valid that there’s exposure for issues to either not be addressed on the T-6G by the FAA or for an issue to be re-introduced by operators.

If I owned a T-6G, I would assess each AD and all the T.O.s I could get my hands on, and build a maintenance and inspection program base on all of the available information. This latest issue of the wing attach angle was covered in earlier models by not only that old AD, but also by the Air Force in a T.O.. So, learning what’s in the T.O.s and ADs for these other models might keep you out of trouble. If there is a replaceable component that had a fix or prohibition which might be re-introduced, I’d put it on the Annual Inspection checklist. If the design of the T-6G is the same or enough of a similar design, I’d also put the requirement in my maint/Insp program. Our airline operators also encounter similar issues and the FAA has encouraged a similar philosophy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:06 pm 
Offline
Lance Corporal

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:10 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Germany
Quote:”So if you don't inspect per the "All Model AT-6 Series Aircraft" on your T-6G, how do you know that a surplus one-piece horizontal stabilizer bracket was not installed (50-09-01 horizontal stabilizer rear spar connection cracked fittings) by a previous owner/operator?”
I guess I have covered this by doing the correct ADs for my aircraft model as they show up on the FAA Homepage when i look up T-6G. (have you even done that yet for the T-6G, I mean we are talking about this for days, and it seems you have not…)
The Ad 50-09-01 you are referring to is for the AT-6 Model A-to C:
50-09-01 NORTH AMERICAN: Applies to all Army Model BC-1A, AT-6, -6A, -6B, - 6C; Navy SNJ-2, -3 and -4 Aircraft.
It does not show up for the T-6G of course, but the AD that does show up is 81-14-10, which is for later models D to G, and is basically identical to that you are referring to, except that it does account for the changed two piece connector fitting.
81-14-10 NORTH AMERICAN: Amendment 39-4159. Applies to all AT-6D 81-14-10 (SNJ-5), AT-6F (SNJ-6), SNJ-7, and T-6G aircraft equipped with single piece design horizontal stabilizer rear spar connector fittings (P/N 77-21021, 4 fittings per spar). This AD does not apply to those aircraft equipped with two piece design connector fittings (P/Ns 77-21021-3 and 77-21021-4, 8 fittings per spar).
I totally agree on the Rest you said and your quote. You need to take all possible sources into account maintaining this birds, like USAF, Canadian and South African Airforce manuals and T.O.s and of course you inspect much more than is required per manuals and ADs, based on your personal and the experience of others. I never questioned this.
I only questioned, and this is how it all started, the statement, that AD 50-38-01 is an adequate replacement for the Wing Angle AD 2005-12-51. In my opinion it is not, because,
-it deals with detecting ONLY corrosion and not corrosion AND fatigue cracks like the Wing AD
-it is NOT mandatory on T-6G Aircraft, while AD 2005-12-51 is
We have talked this over and over now, but again. In the end you need to acknowledge that AD 50-38-01 is not valid for T-6G Aircraft as it is published and indexed on the official FAA Webpage. If you are now suggesting to cancel AD 2005-12-51, because as you say “While there has been attach angles found with corrosion, that is already covered by AD 50-38-01” you have good chances that some guy ignores this AD because it is not valid for his T-6G, and he likes to save the bucks looking at the angles just because of good practice. If this guy loses a Wing after years of torturing his aircraft with aerobatics, quote: ”please let us know how your trial with the FAA judge comes out”

_________________
immer den Knueppel ruhig halten!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: AD 2005-12-51
PostPosted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:20 pm 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10435
You are correct, I never looked up the T-6G specifically because that is not what I have. I've done it now, thank you for the suggestion.

Quote:
I only questioned, and this is how it all started, the statement, that AD 50-38-01 is an adequate replacement for the Wing Angle AD 2005-12-51. In my opinion it is not, because,
-it deals with detecting ONLY corrosion and not corrosion AND fatigue cracks like the Wing AD
-it is NOT mandatory on T-6G Aircraft, while AD 2005-12-51 is


I agree with you, 2005-12-51 stands alone and applies to all variants. As you have stated, this directive is for the attach angles alone and covers only fatigue cracks.

I did not suggest that 50-38-01 met the intent of 2005-12-51.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group