Failure of T-Bar Control Column in Cherokee on Approach

[YYZSaabGuy]

The incident in question occurred February 13th, 2016.

Transport Canada finally issues a Safety Alert on December 9th, 2016 - nearly ten full months after the fact.

Perhaps those who have commented unfavourably in the past, on this forum and others, about TC being unreasonably slow to react are on to something.

[pdw]

They still needed to get all the facts to write about it as a final report. This happened on a clear Saturday in Feb near winterpeg (we still don't know the time of day), and usually a busy day for instructors as many students have time off work. It was one of the coldest days of the winter at 6am (coldest hour of that month) that morning ... of -26C. Metal fatigue let go beside the weld in an antique aircraft ... as a "snap" was heard. Piper was contacted with the information, after the wrecking yard part from another antique was also cracked (if we've read this correctly). Q: If the replacement part was still an available one from the manufacturer, was planning a used one from wreckers an economical decision? .. and is the test equipment for exposing the hairline metal fatigue something that every AME has access to ?

[JasonE]

Good question about access to test equipment. I fly a Cherokee, already did a visual but I expect an AD at some point that could be costly depending on who can test the material.

[countryman]

I am the PIC of the aircraft in question.

The Transport Canada Civil Aviation Safety Alert has now been published regarding the Control Column in Pa-28 aircraft. Here is the link.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 16-14.html

The whole issue of closer examination of the T-Bar assemble has become front and centre. I started flying in 1997 on Cherokees and started instructing on them in 2002. They are a wonderful aircraft and ubiquitous throughout the world as trainers. HOWEVER, the last one came off the assembly line in 1974. Simple put, they are getting tired. Torque on the top of the t-bar resulting in cracks can not be detected visually, and there is no economical method to test for cracks with the t-bar assembly in place. Transport Canada is recommending the t-bar be removed and subjected to magnetic particle imaging. Yes, it is only a recommendation at this time but I will tell you, as an instructor, pilot, dad and grandfather, you will not see me in an aged Cherokee unless the t-bar as by subjected to MPI. As for the, "bone yard" Cherokee, there was a decommissioned school Cherokee next to the school. The obvious and logical choice at the time was to use the t-bar from the decommissioned Cherokee. However, prudence dictated that maybe it be inspected through MPI. Good thing it was because it had crack in two spots that could not be dectect by the naked eye. Owners of the Pa-28 family of aircraft are simply going to have to decide for themselves as to when they should absorb the cost of removing the t-bar and subjecting it to MPI. That is a personal choice every owner must weigh and decide for themselves based on events reported to them through Transport Canada.

[flyguy73]

As a partner in a Cherokee, I've been following this incident. The CASA came out at a good time as my plane is currently having its annual. My partner and I have decided that it would be a good idea to have the column removed and inspected at this time. I'll post an update after the inspection is completed.

[Oldguystrtn2fly]

As a partner in a Cherokee, I've been following this incident. The CASA came out at a good time as my plane is currently having its annual. My partner and I have decided that it would be a good idea to have the column removed and inspected at this time. I'll post an update after the inspection is completed.

What kind of cost are you expecting for removal and install on the item? Testing?

[flyguy73]

I didn't ask and frankly didn't care. I figured the peace of mind that comes with knowing the column is in good shape (or cracked as the case may be) is worth whatever the price will be (well, within reason, of course). I'll post an update with what is found and what the cost was for the procedure. I'm figuring maybe $1000-1500(?), but that's really just a guess.

[pdw]

Peace of mind knowing it's good ... yup that's right. And lots of praise seems always given to these models that stand the test of time (40 years old), so yeah ... why not now spend some effort now on this serious discovery that seems to have fallen through the cracks so far. Something like this ... that we're only talking about because Countryman gave us the heads up by excercising a lot of patience (using up his time) in explaining it to us so well, and thereby getting the TSB involved to help.

Great work COUNTRYMAN !

[PilotDAR]

so yeah ... why not now spend some effort now on this serious discovery that seems to have fallen through the cracks so far.

And here we are with a demonstrated need for increased inspection and maintenance for a prolific example of an aging aircraft. The FAA and Transport Canada are pursuing aging aircraft maintenance programs for large aircraft, but the small aircraft are just too much work. Manufacturers are taking some role, with the Cessna SIDs being a good example. I can say from lots of experience that the 100 series Cessna SIDs are very well thought through. They are centered on the weak areas of each type.

But, I know this, because I was already doing many of these inspections, based upon my experience and advice from other maintainers who knew what they were doing. Owners who instruct their maintainers to be very thorough, and endure these "more than the minimum" maintenance costs, have a better chance of not being caught by surprise. The older aircraft will become more costly to maintain, and this event is a very clear example of the situation. This is a good case for the equivalent of the large airplane "C" or "D" check, a big inspection every number of years or hours, major teardown. But, the cost of this inspection would exceed the value of some planes.