Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1660611
I don't believe that we should be looking at 'worst case scenario's' at this early stage . I know that there was a similar loss in this country of a PA-28 Arrow some years ago now , but from what I can make out , there is little to suggest that a similar problem exists with fixed u/c PA-28s.

I reckon that the FAA-AD is to cover themselves in the event of similar promulgations within the now ageing fleet of PA-28 aircraft and they are attempting to build up a picture to see if this could possibly affect non-retractables as well .

The initial inspection looks to be a couple of hours labour , which may well indicate that the fixed u/c fleet does not have a similar problem.

I also don't believe that the prospect of eddy-current testing needs to be seen as the possible death-knell for the PA-28 fleet either [in the event that a UK reg'd a/c would need it] , whilst it is probably true that many maint. organisations do not have this capability , including the airlines , but there are several specialist , independent test houses with the Approvals to carry out this type of work should the need arise .

We're British aren't we ? So let's 'Keep Calm & Carry On'. :D
#1660684
Maybe it is time to consider whether to change the 'default' training aircrafts for ab-initio training to something else.

For example have a route that starts on smaller light aircraft, then those wanting IR, more luggage/pax or to work towards CPL convert to 4 seaters after gaining their PPL.

I realise there are some issues with conversion/hours but those can surely be ironed out if there is enough legal pressure.
#1660704
Gentoo wrote:Maybe it is time to consider whether to change the 'default' training aircrafts for ab-initio training to something else.


Historically when this gets asked, someone at a flying school will say part of the problem is finding something rugged enough for students. The maintenance for the old fleet is well understood which makes it easier for the flying school to budget the flying rates. It is always a leap of faith paying out big money to get something different.

Not many light aircraft are being manufactured (article) which makes the cost per aircraft high to keep the manufacturer in business.

I notice Jersey have switched from Piper to Tecnam P2008 and P2010. (flyer article)

Gentoo wrote:For example have a route that starts on smaller light aircraft, then those wanting IR, more luggage/pax or to work towards CPL convert to 4 seaters after gaining their PPL.


I thought many did their PPL on a 2 seater as it was cheaper than a 4 seater.
#1660844
flybymike wrote:Some two seaters are precluded by lard *rse students and instructors, (although that didn’t seem to be perceived as a problem in my student days)


It was a problem for some even back in the 1990s. It is more of a problem in recent years.
Obesity in the UK is an increasing national problem.
So if going to buy an expensive training aircraft may as well think seriously about the useful load - Not much point losing lots of customers due to W&B and the much smaller amount of fuel that can be carried to remain within MAUW.

It is not only a problem for the lardy. Appearances can be deceiving. Even the slim can be heavy. I know one tall lady that does lots of gym classes every week and is very slim but deceptively heavy (3 stone heavier than I guessed!)

Other factors eat into the useful load. IMC upgrades, repaint,... all the ipad/android tablets and gadgets people carry these days.
#1672881
AOPA URGES FAA TO DELAY PIPER WING-SPAR AD

The FAA should pull back its proposed airworthiness directive calling for logbook reviews and possible wing-spar inspections of up to 20,000 Piper PA–28 and PA–32 series airplanes and instead gather safety data through alternative, readily available, and less onerous means, AOPA said in a regulatory filing.