Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1703581
Just seen this which will presumably filter to other regulators...

On May 26, 2019, a Cessna Model T210M airplane operating in Australia suffered an in-flight separation of the right wing, resulting in a fatal accident. Preliminary investigation of the accident indicated that the wing fractured due to fatigue cracking inboard of the wing attachment lugs. The fatigue cracking started at a small corrosion pit on the lower surface of the lower carry-thru spar cap.

In response to the accident, Textron Aviation published Mandatory Service Letters on June 24, 2019 to provide instructions for a detailed visual inspection and an eddy current inspection of the wing carry-thru spar on the Cessna Model 177 (SEL-57-07) and Cessna Model 210 cantilever wing airplane (SEL-57-06). The Cessna Model 177 airplanes share a common carry-thru design with the Cessna Model 210 airplanes.



https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/noticeV ... x?nid=9552
#1703592
There is no AD, a "mandatory" service letter issued by Cessna (not by FAA) is not in actuality mandatory under FAA regulations. The following is the FAA position.

"At this time, the FAA has identified no additional instances of cracking on the carry-thru spar inboard of the wing attach lugs in either the Cessna Model 177 of Cessna Model 210 airplanes. The FAA is continuing to assess the available information to determine what future corrective action may be needed"

If the FAA considered this to be more urgent than they've stated they would have issued an emergency AD without the normal review.
PaulB liked this
#1703685
The FAA in red ink state.

"This is a potentially serious issue and ANY corrosion found on this surface should be addressed!

What exactly do they mean by "addressed" it's not an engineering term that I recognise.

It is not an AD.

Just how many hours had the 210 flown and what type of flying , how many landings.
#1703689
Bob, from Aviation Safety Network;

"The Cessna 210, which had been manufactured in 1976 and had accumulated over 12,000 flight hours, had been conducting a geological survey flight while flying at about 200 feet above ground level at the time of the accident."

We've been here before, back when I was working on light stuff in the 70s we had an AD on PA-28's after a Cherokee fatal accident in the USA. The aircraft had been doing power line inspections, IIRC...low down, turbulent air, etc.
Bobcro liked this
#1703953
Bobcro wrote:The FAA in red ink state.

"This is a potentially serious issue and ANY corrosion found on this surface should be addressed!

What exactly do they mean by "addressed" it's not an engineering term that I recognise.


FAA guidance on corrosion control is available in 127 pages of this Advisory Circular.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... _43-4B.pdf
#1704199
I too would not encourage anybody to ignore it but the FAA have not taken into account the age, hours, type of use and cycles if known. It's a catch all ar3 e covering approach by the FAA as it was with the Pipers and I would expect any responsible engineer to inspect the wing root area on a regular basis. I rejected buying a 1500 HR 210 with a new engine as by digging discovered that it had over 5,000 landings collecting checks for banks in California.
Rob L liked this
#1705082
Rob L wrote:
Bobcro wrote:...by digging discovered that it had over 5,000 landings collecting checks for banks in California.


Hi Bob, how would an average punter find that out? Shirley just by the logbooks, eh?

Rob
a

With extreme difficulty as landings were not recorded just daily hours..


In 1983 I had purchased a Cessna 404 from a Charles Sallaway in Tucson for a client in the Sudan, Charles arrived at LGW with all the photos and docs and I had it ferried from USA to the Sudan. There was mutual trust from Day 1 and I purchased many aircraft unseen and he ran my company in AZ. Sadly he has passed on but a very passionate veteran.

The 210 was for a Car Dealer in Jo'burg and again it was unseen by him or me. He agreed to purchase it and sent me then money but only by asking the right questions about the aircraft prior to completion we offered him a later lower time aircraft at a lesser price and he appreciated our honesty and accepted the slight delay. I didn't get a letter of thanks as such. But I did get one from Winston Churchill when I sold his aircraft.
NickC, Flyin'Dutch' liked this