Horn AD

[tomburke1]

Hi Zach. The one thing that appears that you are not addressing is the fact that if you replace the Piper horn with the Aussie horn, the SB is no longer applicable to your aircraft. If the SB is not applicable any longer will any AD that might develope out of it be applicable?
I have talked to Dave Fitzgerald a few times regarding this matter and he seems to be of the opinion that the approval of the Aussie horn by the FAA is imminent. From what I have beeen told , by international agreement , any approval by the Australian authority will be approved by the American FAA.

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Tom,
You are making an assumption that the AD will be based on the SB. At this point that has yet to be determined. ADs may or may not mirror a SB. Just because Piper says to do something in a SB, that may or may not be adopted by an FAA AD in whole or in part. An AD may be more restrictive, less restrictive, or may not be issues at all for a given manufacturers SB. You are correct that the Aussie horn approval is apparently immanent, but that still does not address my concerns that it's use may supply it's own set of future problems, as people will be trying to install it on old torque tubes, and attaching old balance arms. That is simply the issues of installation, long term effects from imperfect installation, or imperfect interchangeability with existing parts may cause other issues. As for the Piper parts, they have a 54 year track record, and a singular known mode of failure. All sides of the possible ramifications of any mod must be examined and weighed. Making any decision without all of the available information is not the smartest move in my opinion. What the FAA is going to mandate is certainly a wildcard, and not one that I am willing to make a decision without knowing.
Zach

[tomburke1]

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Tom,
I think your last statement is a bit premature, but I hope you are correct. I believe a new assembly from Piper will be just as permanent a fix, but that is also speculation, and I like the idea that there is less disassembly/assembly required with the Piper kits as to allow for less field induced errors and variables. Remember, the Aussie horn will be nothing but a horn, you supply all the other parts, serviceable or not...and if the AD reads that the assembly must be changed, then all the parts of the assembly must be changed, not just the horn (which you are correct will not be a Piper part number, but I think you see where it could go). I am not betting for or against anyone, but like I said, I will reserve my decision as to the compliance with an AD until I see the AD. The alternative is assuming something not in evidence, and you know what assumptions do...
Zach

[Chief]

Hey Tom,
I could definitely learn from your experience. 26 years and 3000 hours is quite an accomplishment in any one plane. It sounds like you have figured out how to keep our Comanches flying. If you don't mind, you'll be the first person I email when I need a part.

On a side note, If you read my email, my frustration is with Piper and the FAA, not ICS, or you, or Webco, or Comanche Gear or any other great supporter of our planes. And although you don't know me, let me assure you, I'll never "throw up my hands and cry", about an airplane or its parts, especially when you have such great support from ICS and many others. I would simply love to see the FAA and Piper do more to require support of our fleet. No more, no less. Strong support from Piper insures the future, keeps value high and keeps our planes safe and predictable for sellers and buyers.

I think Zach is right, it is premature and unwise to speculate, but I'll throw in my unsolicited opinion. If all this turns into an AD, I bet the FAA will take care of two SBs (1160/1189) with one AD. The parts are so dependent on each other and they work together in keeping the plane flying. Not addressing both would be kind of like getting new tires without an alignment. You can do it, but is it the best use of time and money.

I appreciate you and all the others. Thanks

By the way, do you know where I can find a new Torque Tube? I need one.

[Ian Thomson]

[Kristin Winter]

My read is that Zach is correct in saying that we will really not know the full effectiveness of the Aussie horn until the FAA comes out with the AD. If I were leading the charge, I would ask the FAA to specifically exempt the Aussie horn and state that installation of it is an acceptable AMOC. Without that, it will be hard to be sure how the applicability will be determined in the field by IA's and FAA inspectors.

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Ian,
No disrespect intended WRT the Aussie Horn Program. My concerns are with what the final AD rule will require. As for your horn being a solution to the absolutely abhorrent requirements of the the Piper SB, it is the best solution, however, when the FAA publishes the final AD rule, that will become the governing document, and at this point it is possible that it will not look anything like the Piper SB. That is why I am expressing a tone of caution. There are many pitfalls possible in the language of an AD, either intended or unintended. Once such would be if the rule read that ASSEMBLY XYZ had to be changed for new. Certainly your horn would not be covered, but the assembly contains all of the other parts that would be, thus causing a possibly extended period of grounding while fighting for an AMOC. There are many other situations that could cause unwanted rework, or expensive down time, but until we know what the final rule says, it is all speculation. I have no doubt as to the quality of your kit, but I do wish to reserve my recommondation of a course of action until all the facts are known, and compliance with the AD is assured by whatever process it stipulates. I hope for all of our sakes that the final rule does not cause any additional financial or material impact for those that have taken action or plan to before the final rule is published, but immagine the consternation if there was a recommondation that ended up making people do something twice...I hope you understand.

Regards,
Zach

[tomburke1]

[David Pyle]

If I am a prospective Comanche buyer should I require the seller to c/w SB 1189 even though it is not compulsory? I believe that the manufacturer issues a SB, sometimes in anticipation of an AD, and/or with FAA encouragement.

Confusion reigns.

[tomburke1]

[David Pyle]

Tom,

I understand the relevance of a SB. However everyone believes that SB 1189 will be an AD.

So in your opinion, and as a Comanche seller, how much would you discount the price of an airplane w/o SB compliance anticipating the AD?

[tomburke1]

Tom,

I understand the relevance of a SB. However everyone believes that SB 1189 will be an AD.

So in your opinion, and as a Comanche seller, how much would you discount the price of an airplane w/o SB compliance anticipating the issuance of an AD?

First let me say, that In a sale anything and everything is negotiable.

From what I am seeing the price to comply with the SB is still kind of undecided. I have chosen to buy the Aussie Horn and go that route. I think that the cost of the installation will be about $2000.00 in round figures.

The other way is to use Piper parts and I am told that they are not available right now. So, it would be difficult to put a price on that means of compliance at this time.

To answer your question, as best I can, I feel that if the seller feels that he has priced his aircraft with the non compliance of the SB taken into consideration already, I would think he would be reluctant to discount it further. If his price is not adjusted for the non compliance I would think the $2000.00 estimate to alleviate the SB by using the Aussie Horn would be a good point to start. The decision as to the acceptance of that method would be one that the buyer would have to make.

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Just one more thing to think about...how much do you discount for tail weights, aileron nose rib mod, ailieron hinge mod, copper cable mod, battery box mod, high shear rivit mod, tail spar mod, torque tube corrosion resistant bolt mod etc etc....all of these are SBs, some have follow on ADs, but the ADs only require something on condition or a repetitive inspection. There is a difference between airworthy, and maintained/modified to current mod status. Guess what, everyone with an engine overhauled more than 3 years ago does not have all current service bulletins complied with, and certainly any engine over 12 years since OH is deemed timed out by Lyc.....let's all go out and demand we get NEW engines on any used airplane we buy. Come on people. Let's be a little realistic here! Put the speculation panic BS back in the box, and wait and se what will be required.

Zach

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Tom,
I will tell you SB 1189 will never become an AD, the FAA has stated that unequivocally. There will probably be an AD related to the horn cracking, but it will certainly not reflect what the Piper SB says in it's present form. I really don't know how to say that any clearer!!! Everybody does NOT think SB 1189 will be an AD, including those folks in the FAA that write the ADs.

Zach