Anyone else see this? So what needs to be done? Is this the initial steps to a possible AD?

CESSNA DOORPOST CRACKS PROMPT FAA CONCERN

February 22, 2017 By AOPA ePublishing staff

Doorpost cracking found on several airplanes during a fleet inspection of Cessna 207s has resulted in the FAA issuing an airworthiness concern sheet that also lists other Cessna models with shared design elements.

The FAA released an airworthiness concern sheet for Cessna 172, 175, 182, 205, 206, 207, and 210 models with strut-braced wings, noting that wing deformation could result from the cracks in the vicinity of the wing strut attach fitting.

The FAA released an airworthiness concern sheet for Cessna 172, 175, 182, 205, 206, 207, and 210 models with strut-braced wings, noting that wing deformation could result from the cracks in the vicinity of the wing strut attach fitting.

The airworthiness concern sheet, which pertains to Cessna 172, 175, 182, 205, 206, 207, and 210 models with strut-braced wings, noted concern that wing deformation could result from the cracks in the vicinity of the wing strut attach fitting.

The wing deformation could change flight characteristics such as stalls, the airworthiness concern sheet noted, adding, “Although not as likely, excessive cracking may cause the wing strut to lose its support at the doorpost that could result in the wing separation.”

The airworthiness concern sheet, issued Feb. 8, provides a means by which the FAA can notify operators of its concerns and solicit information to be submitted. A final determination of a course of action may depend in part on information received.

A table included in the airworthiness concern sheet lists affected airplane models, inspection documents, and related service bulletins.

The FAA is specifically interested in receiving current flight hours on Cessna 172, 175, 182, 205, 206, 207, and 210 wing-strutted airplanes, and the results of inspections outlined in the Cessna supplemental inspection documents. Members with information relating to this airworthiness concern sheet are encouraged to contact AOPA.

They probably didn't note that the C207 probably had 50,000hrs in the Alaskan Bush for the past 40 years being flown in extreme winds and cold.

That's right....I doubt there's a Cessna type that comes anywhere near the average number of flight hours as the 207, not to mention the amount of abuse those poor planes have endured.

I can't imagine comparing even a high time 172 or 182 to an Alaska 207, the workhorse of Alaska for the last, what....60 years or so....

MTV

This article was in the same AOPA e-newsletter today:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... 0223epilot

"The FAA is alerting owners and operators of Cessna 180, 185, and A185 aircraft to the potential for cracks and corrosion of stabilizer hinge brackets and tailcone reinforcement brackets on airplanes equipped with floats or skis.
An airworthiness concern sheet issued Feb. 8 notes that “the horizontal tail section was observed to move up and down excessively” in an inspection of a float-equipped Cessna 185. A detailed inspection revealed that the tailcone reinforcements were broken on one side and cracked in the same location on the other side. The stabilizer hinge brackets also had cracks.
A review of service difficulty reports turned up instances of similar failures, according to the airworthiness concern sheet.
The FAA noted that tailwheel-equipped airplanes could be susceptible to the cracking if two bushings at the aft end of the tailcone have deteriorated.
In May 2016 the FAA issued a special airworthiness information bulletin to alert and make recommendations to mechanics and inspectors to the tailcone reinforcement failures. The FAA has not yet determined what corrective action, if any, is necessary to address the problem, and will consider responses submitted to the address shown in the ACS when making the decision. Members who have information relating to this airworthiness concern sheet are encouraged to contact AOPA."

I don't recall ever getting a copy of last May's "special airworhiness information bulletin", but maybe it only went out to A&P's & IA's and not to owners.

The tail area of Cessna floatplanes has been a focal point for maintenance inspections for many decades. So, the FAA has finally discovered that there can be some wear there.... . Oh, well, let's hope they don't decide to issue an AD to replace the tail or something....

MTV

mtv wrote:That's right....I doubt there's a Cessna type that comes anywhere near the average number of flight hours as the 207, not to mention the amount of abuse those poor planes have endured.

I can't imagine comparing even a high time 172 or 182 to an Alaska 207, the workhorse of Alaska for the last, what....60 years or so....

MTV

"For sale-Cessna 207, low hours, always hungered located in Alaska"

Tim

mtv wrote:That's right....I doubt there's a Cessna type that comes anywhere near the average number of flight hours as the 207, not to mention the amount of abuse those poor planes have endured.

I can't imagine comparing even a high time 172 or 182 to an Alaska 207, the workhorse of Alaska for the last, what....60 years or so....

MTV

And they all see the yellow arc multiple times a day.

.

I can't imagine comparing even a high time 172 or 182 to an Alaska 207, the workhorse of Alaska for the last, what....60 years or so....

MTV

I left AK 11 years ago, and my work C207s were all in the 30K hour range at that time. The same Sleds were all flying the past few days, I saw pics of them on Facebook blasting off from down in Bethel. I'm betting a couple of them are in the 40,000+ hour club now.

Gump

glacier wrote:Curious: does anyone know of 20k+ hour 100 series Cessnas? Seems kind of normal for Alaska 207s.

I heard the 185s used on Mt. Cook in NZ were well in excess of 10k, and 100% of that on wheelskis, but that was 20 years ago. Probably gone to all Porters now...

What are the highest times 100 or 200 series out there? Mine only has 7k, doorposts seem fine.

I'm no longer in 207s, so I don't see their logbooks much any longer, but my recollection is that my employer's 207s were all well above 20,000 hours. The high time plane is one of Gump's old planes, and it had around 34,000 hours in 2015 when I dropped it off at Darrel's for a rebuild. When it came out of rebuild it was about 10 kts faster than all the other 207s.

We did have door post cracks, but these were always the result of negligently leaving the pilot's side door unlatched. When another plane taxied past and the prop blast caught the door, it was violently slammed open and the post was cracked. Fixing the crack is slow and expensive.

I'd be really interested in knowing the names of the operators of the planes that were found with cracks. If they were Yute, Grant, Hageland, Ryan, Renfro's, or the handful of operators using them in SE, I'd suspect the cracks were due to the door being slammed open rather than general wear and tear. I'd want any AD to be predicated on a known violent door opening event rather than an arbitrary hour figure.

glacier wrote:Curious: does anyone know of 20k+ hour 100 series Cessnas? Seems kind of normal for Alaska 207s.

I heard the 185s used on Mt. Cook in NZ were well in excess of 10k, and 100% of that on wheelskis, but that was 20 years ago. Probably gone to all Porters now...

What are the highest times 100 or 200 series out there? Mine only has 7k, doorposts seem fine.

There's a 185 in JNU that had 20K on it 10 years ago. I think they still fly it. Spent it's life on floats mostly saltwater.

Sold my 207 almost 10 years ago with about 12,000 hrs on it . These cessnas will go a very long time if taken care of properly . Even when not taken care of some of them just keep on flying . A crack is just a crack and can be fixed . Like someone said before , ,, I hope the Feds don't make some mandatory action .

Why 172 and 182, but not 170 and 180? Is this because there is some added strength from the gear legs and wing strut attaching so close together and that is more built up then with the gear legs further behind the wing strut attach point on the Tricycles?

corefile wrote:Why 172 and 182, but not 170 and 180? Is this because there is some added strength from the gear legs and wing strut attaching so close together and that is more built up then with the gear legs further behind the wing strut attach point on the Tricycles?

I was wondering the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I left Fairbanks ten years ago, the air taxi folks were having trouble finding Piper Navajos with less than 20 or 30 thousand on them, and those have a specified life limit for Part 135, if I understand that correctly.

MTV

PA-31 are regulated out of -135 in the lower 48. Uncle Ted got AK a reprieve as they are/were a staple in Alaska. So the market for Navajos dried up in America kind of. Parts are getting harder to find and Cessna has pushed them out of favor. I think there are 50 some 208s in Alaska now.
Hageland 20-22
Bering 9-10
Wrights 11
Grant 6?
AK Troopers 2
Ak Air Transit 2
Ryan 1
Private 2?
Lake and Penn 1
Empire(FedEx)had 3 maybe 2?
Southeast AK 3?
Everts 2

I remember flying basketball teams with a 207, five kids and a coach some backpacks a couple balls and medicine kit. Then a Navajo, 1 coach, 1 escort, 6-7 players, a few more bags, Then a 208 1 coach, 1 escort, 7 players, pod full of bags, bags in cabin, aft baggage, and stuffed here and there. The PA-31 is going away in Alaska. Fewer mechs are capable of keeping them alive and thriving anyways. That plane will eat and crush a mech. fast. Pilots too.

Anyways....door cracks.

I think the bigger news is the fact that the guys who know how to scab them back together are getting older every day and the recruitment of the younger generation is difficult. I predict there will be maybe 6-8 operators left in Alaska within the next 10 years and they will be running diesel burners.

I had a 207 for several years, minor difference, it had a Soloy conversion to Allison 250 C20s. Tough bird, had right at 10,000 hours on it when I sold it. It had been back & forth to Africa a couple of times and worked there for several years on our projects. It was essentially half a Caravan with excellent short field capability, 650', sea level to 10,000' in 4.5 minutes cruise at redline. We worked it hard, never saw a good field the entire time it was in Africa. It did a lot of "land there" type operations, roads, lake beds, marshy glades and so on.

Did a real through inspection right at 9,500 hours. Had to one of my pilots, "Tom Cruze" (really, that was his name, he was Spanish), do a bad landing in southern Somalia. He porpoised and knocked the nose wheel off. The extraction of the aircraft was a fun story, but more to the point. That aircraft had a lot more stress than a standard one and we didn't find anything while repairing it back in the US.

Poor bird, sold it to some skydivers, who crashed it on the ferry back to California due to ice. Ugly, but ugly cool.

From Avweb this morning:

Cracks near the wing strut attachment were found in several Cessna 207s belonging to a single operator, leading the FAA to request information from owners and operators to determine how many aircraft have similar damage. The cracks could cause wing deformation leading to unflattering changes in flight characteristics, and, although unlikely, could cause wing failure in aircraft with extremely advanced cracks, according to the FAA. Cessnas with wing struts produced up to 1986 are potentially affected. The FAA has been aware of the issue since at least 1995, when Cessna released a service bulletin (SEB95-19) requiring inspection of the lower forward doorpost every 1,000 hours and installation of a reinforcement kit if cracks are found. The request for additional information through this Airworthiness Concern Sheet suggests the FAA is considering more frequent inspections.

When operators perform the required inspection, the FAA is asking owners/operators to send the results, along with total airframe hours, to the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office. The agency is also seeking information on the time required to perform the inspection to assess the cost of more frequent inspections. The 1995 service bulletin estimates 1.5 man-hours to perform the inspection, which requires removal of the upholstery, heater ducts and floorboard inspection covers near the lower forward cabin doorpost. Cessna budgets an additional 24 man-hours to install the reinforcement kit, if needed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I also thought it was interesting that my airplane (P172D) isn't on the SAIB, while just about every other 172 is. Mine only has about 3500 hours on it, mostly relatively gentle hours since I've had it and none were ever as a trainer, and really it's not all that different from a 172 in construction, so it's curious that it's not listed.

Cary