[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49221-49227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19530]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; Directorate Identifier 99-CE-013-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to revise airworthiness directive (AD) 99-26-19 
that applies to certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J-2 
airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. AD 99-26-19 currently 
requires repetitively inspecting the wing lift struts for dents and 
corrosion; repetitively inspecting the wing lift strut forks for 
cracks; replacing any dented or corroded wing lift strut; replacing any 
cracked wing lift strut fork; and repetitively replacing the wing lift 
strut forks at specified times for certain airplanes. AD 99-26-19 also 
currently requires incorporating a ``NO STEP'' placard on the wing lift 
strut. Since we issued AD 99-26-19, we have been informed that 
paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted and causing confusion. This 
proposed AD would clarify the intent of the language currently in 
paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19 and would retain all other requirements of 
AD 99-26-19. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition 
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 27, 
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 
Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, 
Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; Internet: www.piper.com. 
Information about the Jensen Aircraft STCs may be obtained from F. 
Atlee Dodge, Aircraft Services, LLC, 6672 Wes Way, Anchorage, Alaska 
99518-0409, Internet: www.fadodge.com. You may review copies of the 
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the 
availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES 
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after 
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory ``Keith'' Noles, Aerospace 
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, 1701 Columbia 
Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 
474-5606; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address 
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; 
Directorate Identifier 99-CE-013-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We 
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend 
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We 
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we 
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 16, 1999, we issued AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 
FR 72524, December 28, 1999), (``AD 99-26-19''), for certain The New 
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (currently Piper Aircraft, Inc.) J-2 series 
airplanes equipped with wing lift struts. We issued AD 99-26-19 because 
J-2 series airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the applicability 
of AD 99-01-05, Amendment 39-10972 (63 FR 72132, December 31, 1998, 
(``99-01-05'').
    AD 99-01-05 was issued to supersede AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 
(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), which previously included J-2 series 
airplanes in the Applicability section, in order to include a 
terminating action for repetitively inspecting and replacing the wing 
lift struts and the wing lift strut forks.
    We issued both ADs to detect and correct corrosion and cracking on 
the front and rear wing lift struts and forks, which could cause the 
wing lift strut to fail. This failure could result in the wing 
separating from the airplane.

[[Page 49222]]

Actions Since AD 99-26-19 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 99-26-19, we have been informed that the 
language in paragraph (c) is being misinterpreted and causing 
confusion. Paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19 currently states, ``If holes 
are drilled in wing lift strut assemblies installed in accordance with 
(a)(4) or (b)(3) of this AD to attach cuffs, door clips, or other 
hardware, inspect the wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24 
calendar months using the procedures specified in either paragraphs 
(a)(1) or (a)(2), including all subparagraphs, of this AD.''
    Our intention was to specify that if a sealed wing lift strut 
assembly is installed as a replacement part, the repetitive inspection 
requirement is terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken. 
We also intended to specify that if the seal is improperly broken then 
that wing lift strut becomes subject to continued repetitive 
inspections.
    We did not intend to promote drilling holes into or otherwise 
unsealing a sealed strut. Properly unsealing and resealing a sealed 
wing lift strut is still considered a terminating action for the 
repetitive inspection requirements of this proposed AD as long as all 
appropriate regulations and issues are considered, such as static 
strength, fatigue, material effects, immediate and long-term (internal 
and external) corrosion protection, resealing methods, etc. Current FAA 
regulations in 14 CFR 43.13(b) specify that maintenance performed will 
result in the part's condition to be at least equal to its original or 
properly altered condition. There are provisions in this proposed AD 
for approving such actions as an alternative method of compliance 
(AMOC).

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant 
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is 
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 99-26-19. This 
proposed AD would also clarify our intent of required actions if the 
seal on a sealed wing lift strut is ever improperly broken.

Paragraph Designation Changes to AD

    Since AD 99-26-19 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and 
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding 
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in 
the following table:

                 Table 1--Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Corresponding requirement in this
     Requirement in AD 99-26-19                  proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  paragraph (a)                        paragraph (h)
               paragraph (a)(1)                     paragraph (i)(1)
            paragraph (a)(1)(i)                  paragraph (i)(1)(i)
           paragraph (a)(1)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(2)                     paragraph (i)(2)
            paragraph (a)(2)(i)                  paragraph (i)(2)(i)
           paragraph (a)(2)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(3)                     paragraph (j)(1)
               paragraph (a)(4)                     paragraph (j)(2)
                  paragraph (b)                        paragraph (k)
  paragraph (b)(1), (b)(1)(i) &                        paragraph (l)
                      (b)(1)(ii)
        paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)                     paragraph (l)(1)
      paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) &                     paragraph (l)(2)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
          paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) &                 paragraph (l)(3)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) & (b)(2)                     paragraph (m)(1)
  paragraph (b)(3), (b)(3)(i) &                     paragraph (m)(2)
                      (b)(3)(ii)
                  Paragraph (c)                              Removed
                  paragraph (d)                     paragraph (n)(1)
               paragraph (d)(1)                  paragraph (n)(1)(i)
               paragraph (d)(2)                 paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
                            N/A                     Paragraph (n)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 91 airplanes of U.S. 
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD. 
However, the only difference in the costs presented below and the costs 
associated with AD 99-26-19, is the change in the labor rate from $65 
per hour to $85 per hour:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per  product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the wing lift       8 work-hours x $85  Not applicable....  $680 per            $61,880 per
 struts and wing lift strut        per hour = $680                         inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
 forks.                            per inspection
                                   cycle.
Installation placard............  1 work-hour x $85   $30...............  $115..............  $10,465.
                                   = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements 
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. 
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need 
these replacements:

[[Page 49223]]



                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Cost per product
                   Action                       Labor cost per wing lift      Parts cost per     per wing lift
                                                         strut               wing lift strut         strut
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the wing lift strut and/or    4 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $440               $780
 wing lift strut forks.                       $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This proposed regulation is 
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe 
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in 
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 
99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), and 
adding the following new AD:

Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0724; Directorate 
Identifier 99-CE-013-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 27, 
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, 
December 28, 1999). AD 99-01-05, Amendment 39-10972 (63 FR 72132, 
December 31, 1998), which superseded AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 
(58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), also relates to the subject of this AD.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model J-2 airplanes, 
serial numbers 500 through 1975, that are:
    (1) equipped with wing lift struts; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association 
(ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    The subject of this AD was originally prompted by reports of 
corrosion damage found on the wing lift struts. We are revising AD 
99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999), 
because of reports that paragraph (c) in the existing AD is being 
misinterpreted and is causing confusion. This AD clarifies the 
intent of the language currently in paragraph (c) of AD 99-26-19, 
which is being removed by this AD. Our intention was to specify that 
if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as a replacement 
part, the repetitive inspection requirement is terminated only if 
the seal never improperly broken. This AD retains all the actions 
currently required in AD 99-26-19. There are no new requirements in 
this AD and it does not add any additional burden to the owners/
operators of the affected airplanes. We are issuing this AD to 
detect and correct corrosion and cracking on the front and rear wing 
lift struts and forks, which could cause the wing lift strut to 
fail. This failure could result in the wing separating from the 
airplane.

(f) Paragraph Designation Changes to AD 99-26-19

    Since AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 
1999), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain 
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding 
paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the 
following table:

   Table 1 to Paragraph (f) of This AD--Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Corresponding requirement in this
     Requirement in AD 99-26-19                       AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  paragraph (a)                        paragraph (h)
               paragraph (a)(1)                     paragraph (i)(1)
            paragraph (a)(1)(i)                  paragraph (i)(1)(i)
           paragraph (a)(1)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(1)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(2)                     paragraph (i)(2)
            paragraph (a)(2)(i)                  paragraph (i)(2)(i)
           paragraph (a)(2)(ii)                 paragraph (i)(2)(ii)
               paragraph (a)(3)                     paragraph (j)(1)
               paragraph (a)(4)                     paragraph (j)(2)
                  paragraph (b)                        paragraph (k)

[[Page 49224]]

 
       paragraph (b)(1) through                        paragraph (l)
                      (b)(1)(ii)
        paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)                     paragraph (l)(1)
    paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) and                     paragraph (l)(2)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
          paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and               paragraph (l)(3)
                      (b)(1)(iv)
 paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)                   paragraph (m)(1)
       paragraph (b)(3) through                     paragraph (m)(2)
                      (b)(3)(ii)
                  Paragraph (c)                              Removed
                  paragraph (d)                     paragraph (n)(1)
               paragraph (d)(1)                  paragraph (n)(1)(i)
               paragraph (d)(2)                 paragraph (n)(1)(ii)
                            N/A                     Paragraph (n)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(g) Compliance

    Unless already done (compliance with AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)), do the following actions 
within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (h) through (n) 
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: This AD does not require any 
actions over that already required by AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-
11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999). This AD clarifies the FAA's 
intention that if a sealed wing lift strut assembly is installed as 
a replacement part, the repetitive inspection requirement is 
terminated only if the seal is never improperly broken. If the seal 
is improperly broken, then that wing lift strut becomes subject to 
continued repetitive inspections. We did not intend to promote 
drilling holes into or otherwise unsealing a sealed strut. Properly 
unsealing and resealing a sealed wing lift strut is still considered 
a terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of 
this AD as long as all appropriate regulations and issues are 
considered, such as static strength, fatigue, material effects, 
immediate and long-term (internal and external) corrosion 
protection, resealing methods, etc.

(h) Remove Wing Lift Struts

    At whichever of paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD that 
occurs later, remove the wing lift struts following Piper Aircraft 
Corporation Mandatory Service Bulletin (Piper MSB) No. 528D, dated 
October 19, 1990. Before further flight after the removal, do one of 
the actions in either paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), or (j)(2) of 
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the 
effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 
72524, December 28, 1999)); or
    (2) Within 24 calendar months after the last inspection done in 
accordance with AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 
1993).

(i) Inspect Wing Lift Struts

    (1) Before further flight after the removal required in 
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion 
and perceptible dents following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 
19, 1990.
    (i) If no corrosion is visible and no perceptible dents are 
found on any wing lift strut during the inspection required in 
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, before further flight, apply corrosion 
inhibitor to each wing lift strut following Piper MSB No. 528D, 
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect each wing 
lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar months following 
the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, including 
all subparagraphs.
    (ii) If corrosion or perceptible dents are found on any wing 
lift strut during the inspection required in paragraph (i)(1) of 
this AD or during any repetitive inspection required in paragraph 
(i)(1)(i) of this AD, before further flight, replace the affected 
wing lift strut with one of the replacement options specified in 
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do the replacement following 
the procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.
    (2) Before further flight after the removal required in 
paragraph (h) of this AD, inspect each wing lift strut for corrosion 
following the procedures in the Appendix to this AD. This inspection 
must be done by a Level 2 or Level 3 inspector certified using the 
guidelines established by the American Society for Non-destructive 
Testing or the ``Military Standard for Nondestructive Testing 
Personnel Qualification and Certification'' (MIL-STD-410E).
    (i) If no corrosion is found on any wing lift strut during the 
inspection required in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD and all 
requirements in the Appendix to this AD are met, before further 
flight, apply corrosion inhibitor to each wing lift strut following 
Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter 
inspect each wing lift strut at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar 
months following the procedures in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of 
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (ii) If corrosion is found on any wing lift strut during the 
inspection required paragraph (i)(2) of this AD or during any 
repetitive inspection required in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD, or 
if any requirement in the Appendix of this AD is not met, before 
further flight after any inspection in which corrosion is found or 
the Appendix requirements are not met, replace the affected wing 
lift strut with one of the replacement options specified in 
paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD. Do the replacement following 
the procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable.

(j) Wing Lift Strut Replacement Options

    (1) Install original equipment manufacturer (OEM) part number 
wing lift struts (or FAA-approved equivalent part numbers) that have 
been inspected following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) 
or (i)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, and are found to 
be airworthy. Do the installations following Piper MSB No. 528D, 
dated October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly 
installed wing lift struts at intervals not to exceed 24 calendar 
months following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) 
of this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-
approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut 
assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper 
MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Installing one of these new 
sealed wing lift strut assemblies terminates the repetitive 
inspection requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, 
and the wing lift strut fork removal, inspection, and replacement 
requirements in paragraphs (k) and (l) of this AD, including all 
subparagraphs, for that wing lift strut assembly.

(k) Remove Wing Lift Strut Forks

    Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after February 
14, 2000 (the effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 
39-11479 (64 FR 72524, December 28, 1999)) or within 500 hours TIS 
after the last inspection done in accordance with AD 93-10-06, 
Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 29965, May 25, 1993), whichever occurs 
later, remove the wing lift strut forks (unless already replaced in 
accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this AD). Do the removal 
following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. Before further 
flight after the removal, do one of the actions in either paragraph 
(l) or (m) of this AD, including all subparagraphs.

(l) Inspect and Replace Wing Lift Strut Forks

    Before further flight after the removal required in paragraph 
(k) of this AD, inspect the wing lift strut forks for cracks using 
magnetic particle procedures, such as those contained in FAA 
Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-1B, Chapter 5, which can be found in 
the Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory--and--Guidance--
Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99c827db9baac81b86256b4500596c4e/

[[Page 49225]]

$FILE/Chapter%2005.pdf. Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals 
not to exceed 500 hours TIS until the replacement time requirement 
specified in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD is reached 
provided no cracks are found.
    (1) If cracks are found during any inspection required in 
paragraph (l) of this AD or during any repetitive inspection 
required in paragraph (l)(2) or (l)(3) of this AD, before further 
flight, replace the affected wing lift strut fork with one of the 
replacement options specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this 
AD. Do the replacement following the procedures specified in those 
paragraphs, as applicable.
    (2) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection 
required in paragraph (l) of this AD and the airplane is currently 
equipped with floats or has been equipped with floats at any time 
during the previous 2,000 hours TIS since the wing lift strut forks 
were installed, at or before accumulating 1,000 hours TIS on the 
wing lift strut forks, replace the wing lift strut forks with one of 
the replacement options specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of 
this AD. Do the replacement following the procedures specified in 
those paragraphs, as applicable. Repetitively thereafter inspect the 
newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500 
hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of 
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (3) If no cracks are found during the initial inspection 
required in paragraph (l) of this AD and the airplane has never been 
equipped with floats during the previous 2,000 hours TIS since the 
wing lift strut forks were installed, at or before accumulating 
2,000 hours TIS on the wing lift strut forks, replace the wing lift 
strut forks with one of the replacement options specified in 
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2). Do the replacement following the 
procedures specified in those paragraphs, as applicable. 
Repetitively thereafter inspect the newly installed wing lift strut 
forks at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS following the 
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD, including all 
subparagraphs.

(m) Wing Lift Strut Fork Replacement Options

    (1) Install new OEM part number wing lift strut forks of the 
same part numbers of the existing part (or FAA-approved equivalent 
part numbers) that were manufactured with rolled threads. Wing lift 
strut forks manufactured with machine (cut) threads are not to be 
used. Do the installations following Piper MSB No. 528D, dated 
October 19, 1990. Repetitively thereafter inspect and replace the 
newly installed wing lift strut forks at intervals not to exceed 500 
hours TIS following the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of 
this AD, including all subparagraphs.
    (2) Install new sealed wing lift strut assemblies (or FAA-
approved equivalent part numbers) (these sealed wing lift strut 
assemblies also include the wing lift strut forks) following Piper 
MSB No. 528D, dated October 19, 1990. This installation may have 
already been done through the option specified in paragraph (j)(2) 
of this AD. Installing one of these new sealed wing lift strut 
assemblies terminates the repetitive inspection requirements in 
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, and the wing lift strut 
fork removal, inspection, and replacement requirements in paragraphs 
(k) and (l) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, for that wing 
lift strut assembly.

(n) Install Placard

    (1) Within 1 calendar month after February 14, 2000 (the 
effective date retained from AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 
72524, December 28, 1999), or within 24 calendar months after the 
last inspection required by AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 
29965, May 25, 1993), and before further flight after any 
replacement of a wing lift strut assembly required by this AD, do 
one of the following:
    (i) Install ``NO STEP'' decal, Piper (P/N) 80944-02, on each 
wing lift strut approximately 6 inches from the bottom of the wing 
lift strut in a way that the letters can be read when entering and 
exiting the airplane; or
    (ii) Paint the words ``NO STEP'' approximately 6 inches from the 
bottom of the wing lift struts in a way that the letters can be read 
when entering and exiting the airplane. Use a minimum of 1-inch 
letters using a color that contrasts with the color of the airplane.
    (2) The ``NO STEP'' markings required by paragraph (n)(1)(i) and 
(n)(1)(ii) of this AD must remain in place for the life of the 
airplane.

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local 
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending 
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in the Related Information 
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding 
district office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 93-10-06, Amendment 39-8586 (58 FR 
29965, May 25, 1993) and AD 99-26-19, Amendment 39-11479 (64 FR 
72524, December 28, 1999) are approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(p) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Gregory K. 
Noles, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 
College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404) 474-5551; fax: (404) 474-
5606; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper 
Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, 
Florida 32960; telephone: (772) 567-4361; Internet: www.piper.com. 
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the 
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the 
FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

Appendix to Docket No. FAA-2013-0724

Procedures and Requirements for Ultrasonic Inspection of Piper Wing 
Lift Struts

Equipment Requirements

    1. A portable ultrasonic thickness gauge or flaw detector with 
echo-to-echo digital thickness readout capable of reading to 0.001-
inch and an A-trace waveform display will be needed to do this 
inspection.
    2. An ultrasonic probe with the following specifications will be 
needed to do this inspection: 10 MHz (or higher), 0.283-inch (or 
smaller) diameter dual element or delay line transducer designed for 
thickness gauging. The transducer and ultrasonic system shall be 
capable of accurately measuring the thickness of AISI 4340 steel 
down to 0.020-inch. An accuracy of +/- 0.002-inch throughout a 
0.020-inch to 0.050-inch thickness range while calibrating shall be 
the criteria for acceptance.
    3. Either a precision machined step wedge made of 4340 steel (or 
similar steel with equivalent sound velocity) or at least three shim 
samples of same material will be needed to do this inspection. One 
thickness of the step wedge or shim shall be less than or equal to 
0.020-inch, one shall be greater than or equal to 0.050-inch, and at 
least one other step or shim shall be between these two values.
    4. Glycerin, light oil, or similar non-water based ultrasonic 
couplants are recommended in the setup and inspection procedures. 
Water-based couplants, containing appropriate corrosion inhibitors, 
may be utilized, provided they are removed from both the reference 
standards and the test item after the inspection procedure is 
completed and adequate corrosion prevention steps are then taken to 
protect these items.
     Note: Couplant is defined as ``a substance used between 
the face of the transducer and test surface to improve transmission 
of ultrasonic energy across the transducer/strut interface.''
     Note: If surface roughness due to paint loss or 
corrosion is present, the surface should be sanded or polished 
smooth before testing to assure a consistent and smooth surface for 
making contact with the transducer. Care shall be taken to remove a 
minimal amount of structural material. Paint repairs may be 
necessary after the inspection to prevent further corrosion damage 
from occurring. Removal of surface irregularities will enhance the 
accuracy of the inspection technique.

Instrument Setup

    1. Set up the ultrasonic equipment for thickness measurements as 
specified in the instrument's user's manual. Because of the variety 
of equipment available to perform ultrasonic thickness measurements, 
some modification to this general setup procedure may be necessary. 
However, the tolerance requirement of step 13 and the record keeping 
requirement of step 14, must be satisfied.

[[Page 49226]]

    2. If battery power will be employed, check to see that the 
battery has been properly charged. The testing will take 
approximately two hours. Screen brightness and contrast should be 
set to match environmental conditions.
    3. Verify that the instrument is set for the type of transducer 
being used, i.e. single or dual element, and that the frequency 
setting is compatible with the transducer.
    4. If a removable delay line is used, remove it and place a drop 
of couplant between the transducer face and the delay line to assure 
good transmission of ultrasonic energy. Reassemble the delay line 
transducer and continue.
    5. Program a velocity of 0.231-inch/microsecond into the 
ultrasonic unit unless an alternative instrument calibration 
procedure is used to set the sound velocity.
    6. Obtain a step wedge or steel shims per item 3 of the 
Equipment Requirements. Place the probe on the thickest sample using 
couplant. Rotate the transducer slightly back and forth to ``ring'' 
the transducer to the sample. Adjust the delay and range settings to 
arrive at an A-trace signal display with the first backwall echo 
from the steel near the left side of the screen and the second 
backwall echo near the right of the screen. Note that when a single 
element transducer is used, the initial pulse and the delay line/
steel interface will be off of the screen to the left. Adjust the 
gain to place the amplitude of the first backwall signal at 
approximately 80% screen height on the A-trace.
    7. ``Ring'' the transducer on the thinnest step or shim using 
couplant. Select positive half-wave rectified, negative half-wave 
rectified, or filtered signal display to obtain the cleanest signal. 
Adjust the pulse voltage, pulse width, and damping to obtain the 
best signal resolution. These settings can vary from one transducer 
to another and are also user dependent.
    8. Enable the thickness gate, and adjust the gate so that it 
starts at the first backwall echo and ends at the second backwall 
echo. (Measuring between the first and second backwall echoes will 
produce a measurement of the steel thickness that is not affected by 
the paint layer on the strut). If instability of the gate trigger 
occurs, adjust the gain, gate level, and/or damping to stabilize the 
thickness reading.
    9. Check the digital display reading and if it does not agree 
with the known thickness of the thinnest thickness, follow your 
instrument's calibration recommendations to produce the correct 
thickness reading. When a single element transducer is used this 
will usually involve adjusting the fine delay setting.
    10. Place the transducer on the thickest step of shim using 
couplant. Adjust the thickness gate width so that the gate is 
triggered by the second backwall reflection of the thick section. If 
the digital display does not agree with the thickest thickness, 
follow your instruments calibration recommendations to produce the 
correct thickness reading. A slight adjustment in the velocity may 
be necessary to get both the thinnest and the thickest reading 
correct. Document the changed velocity value.
    11. Place couplant on an area of the lift strut which is thought 
to be free of corrosion and ``ring'' the transducer to surface. 
Minor adjustments to the signal and gate settings may be required to 
account for coupling improvements resulting from the paint layer. 
The thickness gate level should be set just high enough so as not to 
be triggered by irrelevant signal noise. An area on the upper 
surface of the lift strut above the inspection area would be a good 
location to complete this step and should produce a thickness 
reading between 0.034-inch and 0.041-inch.
    12. Repeat steps 8, 9, 10, and 11 until both thick and thin shim 
measurements are within tolerance and the lift strut measurement is 
reasonable and steady.
    13. Verify that the thickness value shown in the digital display 
is within +/- 0.002-inch of the correct value for each of the three 
or more steps of the setup wedge or shims. Make no further 
adjustments to the instrument settings.
    14. Record the ultrasonic versus actual thickness of all wedge 
steps or steel shims available as a record of setup.

Inspection Procedure

    1. Clean the lower 18 inches of the wing lift struts using a 
cleaner that will remove all dirt and grease. Dirt and grease will 
adversely affect the accuracy of the inspection technique. Light 
sanding or polishing may also be required to reduce surface 
roughness as noted in the Equipment Requirements section.
    2. Using a flexible ruler, draw a 1/4-inch grid on the surface 
of the first 11 inches from the lower end of the strut as shown in 
Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D. This can be done using a soft 
(2) pencil and should be done on both faces of the strut. 
As an alternative to drawing a complete grid, make two rows of marks 
spaced every 1/4-inch across the width of the strut. One row of 
marks should be about 11 inches from the lower end of the strut, and 
the second row should be several inches away where the strut starts 
to narrow. Lay the flexible ruler between respective tick marks of 
the two rows and use tape or a rubber band to keep the ruler in 
place. See Figure 1.
    3. Apply a generous amount of couplant inside each of the square 
areas or along the edge of the ruler. Re-application of couplant may 
be necessary.
    4. Place the transducer inside the first square area of the 
drawn grid or at the first 1/4-inch mark on the ruler and ``ring'' 
the transducer to the strut. When using a dual element transducer, 
be very careful to record the thickness value with the axis of the 
transducer elements perpendicular to any curvature in the strut. If 
this is not done, loss of signal or inaccurate readings can result.
    5. Take readings inside each square on the grid or at 1/4-inch 
increments along the ruler and record the results. When taking a 
thickness reading, rotate the transducer slightly back and forth and 
experiment with the angle of contact to produce the lowest thickness 
reading possible. Pay close attention to the A-scan display to 
assure that the thickness gate is triggering off of maximized 
backwall echoes.
     Note: A reading shall not exceed .041 inch. If a 
reading exceeds .041-inch, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument 
Setup section before proceeding further.
    6. If the A-trace is unsteady or the thickness reading is 
clearly wrong, adjust the signal gain and/or gate setting to obtain 
reasonable and steady readings. If any instrument setting is 
adjusted, repeat steps 13 and 14 of the Instrument Setup section 
before proceeding further.
    7. In areas where obstructions are present, take a data point as 
close to the correct area as possible.
     Note: The strut wall contains a fabrication bead at 
approximately 40% of the strut chord. The bead may interfere with 
accurate measurements in that specific location.
    8. A measurement of 0.024-inch or less shall require replacement 
of the strut prior to further flight.
    9. If at any time during testing an area is encountered where a 
valid thickness measurement cannot be obtained due to a loss of 
signal strength or quality, the area shall be considered suspect. 
These areas may have a remaining wall thickness of less than 0.020-
inch, which is below the range of this setup, or they may have small 
areas of localized corrosion or pitting present. The latter case 
will result in a reduction in signal strength due to the sound being 
scattered from the rough surface and may result in a signal that 
includes echoes from the pits as well as the backwall. The suspect 
area(s) shall be tested with a Maule ``Fabric Tester'' as specified 
in Piper Service Bulletin No. 528D.
    10. Record the lift strut inspection in the aircraft log book.

[[Page 49227]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13AU13.010


    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 6, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013-19530 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P