- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 1,537
- Reaction score
- 869
So, I recently sold my 160 and acquired a 235. During a (very light, at my request) pre-purchase, the mechanic made a comment about the condition of the main landing gear torque links, and wondered if theyd been inspected in this century. I didnt have him do a log book review, as I chose to take care of that myself.
When I went digging for the most recent inspection for AD 72-08-06 ( this plane was on Adlog previously, so I had to familiarize myself with their system for AD tracking), I found the sign-off page in the section for permanently complied ADs.
A mechanic in 1998 signed this AD off as not applicable by part number. Being familiar with the design of the AD / non-AD torque links, I knew this couldnt be right (I have the oval cross-section links). Conducting some research around the net, I learned that a number of mechanics have fallen into this trap, going by the numbers stamped into the side of the links (which is a casting number). Piper addressed this in an updated version of SB1199, and stated the only reliable way to determine which links you have is by their shape and design (oval cross-section vs. rectangular, corrugated cross-section).
As I looked around for availability of new links (in case my mine are not serviceable), I was disturbed to find that a number of eBay auctions, as well as some salvage yards, have the oval-section links advertised as the new style part number (78033). I wonder how many people have purchased these and figured they were now good to terminate that AD.
Even a bit more disturbing (in my case),is that none of the IAs who performed annuals on this bird have caught that it had old-style links, and questioned the AD compliance. Thats quite a few inspections (and hours) since 1998.
If youre not already familiar with the inspection status of your oval-section torque links, it might be good to visit your logs and make sure some mechanic hasnt done the same (signed it off when it shouldnt have been). While this inspection is a bit onerous (strip, inspect, prime, and paint), its only every 500 hours. Of course, if you wish to terminate it, thats possible too (with the new style, albeit fairly expensive links).
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pipercrm/Solution/16067/SB 1199.pdf
When I went digging for the most recent inspection for AD 72-08-06 ( this plane was on Adlog previously, so I had to familiarize myself with their system for AD tracking), I found the sign-off page in the section for permanently complied ADs.
A mechanic in 1998 signed this AD off as not applicable by part number. Being familiar with the design of the AD / non-AD torque links, I knew this couldnt be right (I have the oval cross-section links). Conducting some research around the net, I learned that a number of mechanics have fallen into this trap, going by the numbers stamped into the side of the links (which is a casting number). Piper addressed this in an updated version of SB1199, and stated the only reliable way to determine which links you have is by their shape and design (oval cross-section vs. rectangular, corrugated cross-section).
As I looked around for availability of new links (in case my mine are not serviceable), I was disturbed to find that a number of eBay auctions, as well as some salvage yards, have the oval-section links advertised as the new style part number (78033). I wonder how many people have purchased these and figured they were now good to terminate that AD.
Even a bit more disturbing (in my case),is that none of the IAs who performed annuals on this bird have caught that it had old-style links, and questioned the AD compliance. Thats quite a few inspections (and hours) since 1998.
If youre not already familiar with the inspection status of your oval-section torque links, it might be good to visit your logs and make sure some mechanic hasnt done the same (signed it off when it shouldnt have been). While this inspection is a bit onerous (strip, inspect, prime, and paint), its only every 500 hours. Of course, if you wish to terminate it, thats possible too (with the new style, albeit fairly expensive links).
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pipercrm/Solution/16067/SB 1199.pdf
