Proceedures for inspection of the Pitch Control Horn

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

The horn AD does not apply to the twins or 400s
Zach

[David Pfeffer]

Phew, had me going back through my AD report scratching my head making me think I missed something

[LeWayne Garrison]

Second airframe inspected. No cracks. Learning curve helped a lot.

[Jim Worley]

I inspected my horn a couple years ago using SB 1189 and the procedures provided here on the forum. However, I had eddy current inspection used instead of dye pen. AC 43.13-1b says that dye pen is not as sensitive as other methods of NDI (and eddy current was the one my friend offed to do for free).

So, even though eddy current is more sensitive, am I not in compliance with the SB (and thus the AD) because I did not use dye pen? I was going off of the theory that if I was using a more sensitive method, that I was fulfilling the intent of the inspection and was in compliance with SB1189.

So after reading Zach's article on the AD in this month flyer, rereading SB 1189 and the AD, and researching my aircraft forms, I am wondering if now I am not in compliance and need to start planning to take the tail off in the next hundred hours.

Thoughts?

Jim

[Zach Grant L1011jock]

Jim,
You are correct that you are not in compliance as written, however, if you wish to petition the FAA for an AMOC based on the inspection you did use, you may be able to get it approved in lieu of the dye pen inspection. I guess it all comes down to how much effort you want to put into it. One word of caution, don't over fly the 100 hrs waiting on an AMOC. The feds have a nasty habit of playing catch 22, and you might end up with a seriously losing position.
Zach

[Michael Rath]