Jonathon,
This is dismaying.
It could be that the inspector there can’t work his way though the legalese in the two memos we sent to you.
You could try taking the letters to a local attorney to ask him to simply interpret the letter in easier to understand language.
The other thing I suggest is to ask the mechanic to do a control surface balance check on stabilator assembly.
If the surface balances within limits, then you could safely argue that there is no danger created by the patch repair.
There may be another avenue. It’s not a great one but ask the AI there to sign the annual off as unworthy. That process is outlined in the FARs. He/she would write in the logbook that the annual has been completed and the airplane is found to airworthy except for the presence of a patch on the stabilator.
Your job would then be to find an AI that understands the memorandums, show the control surface balance results, and ask him/her to sign off the stabilator as airworthy.
I know that’s a stretch but it could be much cheaper than reskinning a control surface that is by legal definition (and practical application) airworthy
Let me know what you do.
Steve
1972 Arrow stabilator repair
-
ParticipantParticipant
I wouldn’t say that every repair to a control surface is a major repair. In fact, replacing a skin is by definition a minor repair. However, a patch, if that is what it is, is likely a major repair. Not having seen it, I don’t have an opinion. However, I have found things that needed to be documented in a 337, during an annual inspection, and then inspected it myself and submitted a 337.
In this case, the issue is whether Piper’s prohibition was in effect at the time. If I don’t know whether it was, or was not, prohibited, then I would require a proper repair. I agree that Piper is likely playing CYA. The question to ask them is when that prohibition in the manual became effective and see if they would answer that.
Did you buy from the flight school that did the repair? If so, they need to stand good for it. Even if not, they may have some legal responsibility.
ParticipantThanks for the FAA opinions on continuing to use the old service manual without the prohibition.
Update is that the IA is still unwilling to sign the annual, claiming that because it is a control surface it automatically counts as a “major repair” requiring a 337, while the shop that did the original repair appears to have treated it as a minor repair under AC 43-13 and never filed a 337. I’ve been looking through the FARs on this and it seems to me that it does not meet the standard for being a major repair, but because it’s so open to the IA’s discretion it’s not indisputably a minor repair. They got an opinion from Piper that it is still “not approved” regardless of the service manual thing (I suspect some CYA there) but it could be done by an IA with a 337, and from their point of view that is the final answer.
Unless someone has an explicit legal opinion from the FAA that a control surface patch can be a minor repair done under the authority of AC 43-13 and does not require a 337?
(Unfortunately the flight school that did the original repair is no longer accepting outside customers for repair work so taking it back to them is not an option.)
ParticipantHi Jonathan;
Here is quote from the Piper Arrow III PA 28R-201 and 201T manual: Manual (PART NUMBER 761 639). The manual was revised 2/21/1995.
4-55.STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. Structural repair methods used must be made in accordance with the regulations set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-lA. To assist in making repairs and/or replacements,
Figure 4-7 identifies the type and thickness of various skin material used. never make a skin replacement or patch plate from material other than the type of the original skin, or of a different thickness than the original skin. The repair must be as strong as the original skin. However, flexibility must be retained so the surrounding areas will not receive extra stress.
WARNING
NO access holes are permitted in any control surfaces.
WARNING
The use of patch plates for repairs of all movable tail surfaces is prohibited.
The use of any filler material normally used for repair of minor dents
and/or materials used for filling”
The exact same text is also in the Arrow IV manual. Same part number manual as the Arrow III.
Research shows that the “Warning” against the use of patch plates was NOT included in earlier PA 28 repair manuals ((PART NUMBER 753 586) that covered all PA 28 models from the -140 through the PA 28R-200.
Manual 753 586 was printed in August 16, 1972. According to the manual, updates were incorporated into Microfiche versions of the manual.But, in 2010 the Manager of the Sacramento FSDO published a Memorandum titled, “Legal interpretation of “current” as it applies to Maintenance manuals and other documents referenced in 14 C . F. R . 43.13(a) and 145.109(d)”
I would show this doc (attached) to the shop. If I’m reading it correctly, your patch repairs may be legal. But it will depend on how the show interprets the memo.
Let me know what happens,
Steve
ParticipantThe trick here is to determine what the original service manual for your airplane said about stabilator repairs. AC 43.13 cannot be used to override a manufacturer prohibition. However, any such prohibition is not retroactive to planes previously produced. On December 5, 2008, the FAA issued a legal opinion that stated exactly that. It was a sea change as everyone in the industry assumed that the requirement to have “current” service manuals meant the latest produced. The FAA legal department clarified that “current” meant current at the time the aircraft was produced.
I know for other Pipers, that the prohibition for patching or splicing skins on the stabilator came out somewhere between 1965 and 1972, but I haven’t been able to narrow it down further.
Attachments:ParticipantI’ve got a situation with my 1972 Arrow and would like some clarification. The previous owner stop drilled and patched a crack in the stabilator, citing AC 43.13-1B for the repair. The shop doing the current annual claims that the repair is safe but is illegal as control surfaces can not be repaired without FAA field approval for the specific airplane and repair, and that because the opinion they received from Piper is that the repair is not authorized AC 43.13-1B does not apply. From what I’ve been able to find the legality depends on the exact wording of the service manual: the taper-wing PA28s have an explicit prohibition on patching the control surfaces, the straight-wing PA28s don’t appear to have the same prohibition and the service manual even provides skin thickness values for that area in the section for minimum patch thickness. Can anyone confirm that:
1) This interpretation is correct and there is no explicit prohibition on the repair that I’m missing.
2) An email from Piper saying “not approved” ~2 years after the repair is done does not take precedence over the original service manual.
3) The lack of an explicit prohibition allows AC 43.13-1B to apply and justify the repair without FAA field approval.Citations to the original FARs or official FAA legal opinions greatly appreciated, the shop doesn’t want to put their licenses at risk and I think it’s going to take a high standard of proof to get them to sign off on it. But it’s a ton of money saved if I can get this approved.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
