Thank you to everyone at ICS who worked so hard to make this AD as appropriate as possible.

It took years of work and analysis and communications and getting Piper to have parts available - nearly a decade - from the first I heard about it in the early 2000s to now.

The first rendition I heard was every 100 hours inspection for every Comanche - even though Twins and 400s had not had a cracked horn. Thanks to Hans Neubert and Dave Fitzgerald in particular for their contributions.

The AD at every 500 hours for singles within a serial number range, while not perfect, is a vast improvement over the original FAA thoughts.

I tried to do my part via data input to ICS and comments to the FAA but in reality it was the concerted efforts of ICS and its leadership that shaped this AD.

THANK YOU.

Nicely said Pat. All I can add is my own thanks to all who worked on this.

Jay

Add another THANK YOU to the chorus.. For Hans and Kristin and everyone else who tried to encourage the FAA to take a minimalist approach to this issue, it was a good fight well tried... It is just apparent the FAA is in no mood to use risk analysis when "unsafe conditions" are present or might occur in the foreseeable future.. Thanks also for efforts to make replacement parts available...

John McGowan
Silicon Valley, CA

Now that the AD is official it would be nice if the ICS would put together a very detailed step by step "how to comply" with this AD. Maybe it is simple and straight forward for any A&P but the shop I use is not a comanche specialist. It would be nice to be able to have a guide to follow so that we, as comanche owners, know that the AD is being complied with and no unnecessary steps are being taken. It is something that I would be willing to pay for just to make sure the job gets done right.

Thanks for all the hard work from so many of the ICS members. It was nice to see all the names in the AD's comments sections.

MR

Add my thanks to the hard work done by the ICS volunteers!

A suggestion: the Delphi board has several folks suggesting that the ICS attempt to track the large number of horn inspections that are going to start soon. I think that is a good idea and the info would be useful in helping with an AMOC or terminating action studies and paperwork. I propose that the ICS webmasters create a "voting page" just like they did for this year's ICS elections. Hans would be the authority on what info to gather, my suggestion would be tail#(maybe ser # instead?), tt, horn tis, type of inspection(dye, eddy current), cracked or not, thick wall tube or not, replaced or not (horn and tube). By having tail number(ser#), the ICS would have the ability to compare number of inspections to the total fleet. The voting page format would hopefully be easy to use and that would encourage participation. Maximizing the use of voting buttons and minimizing typing to only the tail#(ser#) would make the programming easier as well. My final suggestion is that we make that page accessible on the non-member ICS homepage as well. That way we could capture data even from some of the non members out there. In return, we could share the statistics with them.

I know this is easier said than done. I am very computer literate, but I have very little web page experience other than Frontpage and other WYSIWYG editors, I definitely can't write the code from scratch. That being said, I volunteer to help any way that I can.

V/r
Jim

As a reader, but only rare contributor, I'm also impressed with the team effort and individual initiative of the ICS members in regards to AD 2012-17-06. Now that it is a reality, perhaps that effort can be directed towards easing the financial burden as much as possible.

There is no Comanche experienced shops in my area; I usually have to fly 130 miles to a Piper certified shop for annuals.
What if regions (say, Southern, and Northern California) could align an experienced shop that might get the majority of Comanches in the area to perform the inspection/replacement. That would hopefully lower the cost with volume, markedly increase the experience of the A&P's, and benefit both shop and owners.

Good idea? Pipe dream? Do-able? Whaddya' think?

Deleted

Sam, and others,

I am working on the Northern California solution in conjunction with the local Piper service center - Mangon Aircraft. Ron Mangon runs a first class shop. I have done a number of the tail inspections myself, and have the beginnings of a parts stock. I envision that shortly we will be able to do these on a turn key basis. In and out in the same day. Even quicker with a new set.

Now that I am practicing law and aviation consulting on my own, instead of working for a big firm, I have more time to devote to my passion, which are planes and aviation.

I totally agree with the comments that ICS should step up and set up a webpage off of its site for the submittal of inspection data. My comment to the FAA on the AD was that they should only issue a one time AD with the requirement to report the results. I didn't, and don't, think that the FAA had enough data to make a decision about scope of repetitive inspections. Of course, they ignored that suggestion and chose to shoot from the hip. Nothing new here. We have to fill in the void.

I also think that ICS should reach out to Comanche owners outside ICS with a direct mailer and maybe an AD in AOPA and Flying. It wouldn't hurt their membership efforts to be seen by the general aviation community as being proactive and they have the money in the bank to do it.

Jim, Kristin and all affected owners...

At issue is communication. The recent "easy election" attracted 155 member voters even though there was lots of publicity about how to vote. Part of the problem is member disinterest, and why ICS fails to gain their attention.

My recommendation is to send an email blast to all AD affected members asking them to participate in the survey (and making it easy to do so), and directing them to the ICS site, or one set up just for the AD, that provides useful information. (I've already been contacted and I'm too AD dumb to be helpful.)

I agree that ICS management including board and committee chairs have an obligation to work this out. And that should be coordinated with Dave Lawrence who runs Delphi/COF. And it should be done in the next 30 days. And...

ICS did it. Not in 30 days but in two days. Great work. Still needs a separate forum for AD Q&A.

Good work on AD. As all have said thanks a lot for all the efforts on this issue.

Now, one more issue, if I need a new horn where can I get one and approximately how much will it cost. My aircraft goes into annual at the end of the month and I need an idea on the damages (cost).

It was completely disassembled in 2009 while overhauled engine work was accomplished. The only bad thing was that I did not do the complete Piper SB inspection exactly as written. Just a visual inspection with a magnifying glass. But our horn was free of cracks and had no corrosion. I preserved it with paint and new bearings and anti-corrosion fluid on the torque tube when it was reassembled.

I intend to be there every step of the way to assist our mechanic this pass. While he is not a Comanche Expert, he is very good and with my assistance and the service manuals, AD and SB sheets I have printed it will be done appropriately. I hope it is still in great shape. As I read the info provided by the AD and ICS it will then fall into the 5 year/500 hour inspection cycle.

Folks,

Thanks to all who worked so diligently to reduce the impact to the fleet with respect to the horn issue.. While the AD is onerous, it would have been significantly worse without the previously mentioned efforts.. I agree with the suggestion to compile data, for the betterment of all.

Does anyone know, precisely, the current status of the STC application for the Australian replacement horn??

Regards,

Edward P. Horan

One item that does concern me is the FAA's response to a comment that Piper should make a tube and horn kit available:

Comment: Request To Have Manufacturer Provide Parts Kit (Torque Tube & Horn)

FAA Response: We disagree because the additional parts beyond the horn assembly are not required by this AD because they are not necessary to address the unsafe condition.

According to Denny Haskins, a new or replacement horn will always require a new torque tube. If a different (new or replacement) horn is placed onto a used torque tube, the holes will not line up per the close tolerance required. Piper sells new tubes with the holes drilled undersized. The tubes are to be match-drilled and reamed in the field to provide a close tolerance alignment with the holes in the horn.

There are a few reports of people who have replaced horns without new tubes and the Piper SB 1189 does not indicate that a new tube must be installed when a different horn is installed. Can anyone provide definitive direction on this issue?

The way I see it, if the holes do not match precisely, there are two options, drill/ream the holes larger or force the bolts through. Making the holes larger is not conducive to a shear connection and forcing the bolts is akin to over-torquing the bolts. It creates stress in the horn potentially leading to cracking.

When the cracked horns start to be found, and mechanics are replacing them, enlarging holes or forcing bolts could potentially create a bigger problem than the cracked horns the AD was intended to fix.

It might be a good idea to publish a procedure on changing horns similar to the inspection procedure developed in 2009.

Chris