FAAST Blast — National GA Award Winners, Wrong Airport Landings Video, GA Activity Survey Opens, Flying Club Success
Notice Number: NOTC1709
FAAST Blast — Week of Feb 22, 2020 – Feb 28, 2021
Biweekly FAA Safety Briefing News Update
2021 National GA Award Winners Announced
For more than 50 years, the General Aviation Awards Program has recognized aviation professionals in the fields of flight instruction, aviation maintenance/avionics, and flight safety for their important contributions to the aviation community. Recipients of the 2021 National General Aviation Awards are: Ronald Jay Timmermans of Orlando, Florida — Certificated Flight Instructor of the Year; Michael Colin Dunkley of Coshocton, Ohio — Aviation Technician of the Year; and Adam Timothy Magee of Swisher, Iowa — FAA Safety Team Representative of the Year.
The FAA will present individual awards to each National Honoree in July during EAA AirVenture 2021 in Oshkosh, Wis., and their names will be added to the large perpetual plaque located in the lobby of the EAA AirVenture Museum. For more information on the winners, as well as how to nominate an outstanding airman in your area, go to http://www.generalaviationawards.com/news.
New Video Helps Pilots Avoid Wrong Airport Landings
Even with today’s highly accurate and readily available technology, pilots are still misidentifying their airport of intended landing, often going so far as making an approach to or actually landing at an airport other than their planned destination. The problem occurs with pilots operating both VFR and IFR. A new video from the FAA’s From the Flight Deck series helps pilots avoid this costly and potentially catastrophic error. Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbzhBn_HnU&feature=youtu.be
FAA’s General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey is Underway
Did you receive an invitation to complete this year’s GA Activity Survey? This survey is the FAA’s primary source of information about the size and activity of the GA and on-demand part 135 fleet. If you received an invitation to take the survey, please take the time to complete it, even if you did not fly your aircraft in 2020. It’s completely confidential, takes just 10-15 minutes, and your responses can help the FAA improve GA infrastructure and safety. If you have any questions, please call 800-826-1797, or send an email to [email protected].
Bringing Avid Aviators Together
For many pilots, flying clubs are a great way to combine a love of flying, socializing, and supporting an aviation safety culture. But to be successful, a flying club relies on several key ingredients. In the current issue of FAA Safety Briefing, author Phil Dixon shares his experience with a well-run flying club and what helped make it successful and fun to be a part of. Check out the article “Bringing Avid Aviators Together — Tips for Joining or Developing a Well-Run Flying Club” here: https://medium.com/faa/bringing-avid-aviators-together-e771964bf88a.field_vote: 0No votes yet
FAA Safety Team | Safer Skies Through Education
Two Piper Spar ADs in Close Succession- but is my airplane affected?
Notice Number: NOTC1681
The release of a Piper wing spar inspection AD in November and another one in January has some owners uncertain if their airplanes are affected. Published in November, AD 2020-24-05 was the result of some airplanes with severely corroded spar caps that, in some earlier models, are not easy to access. There is concern that without wing access panels there is a risk for undetected corrosion. The AD requires an inspection for certain airplanes, and optional methods are provided. Aside from the AD, all aircraft should have this area inspected as part of a regular maintenance program; the listed aircraft just may not have access panels and may require a bit more effort to inspect.
AD 2020-26-16, published in January, was the result of some wing failures that were traced to fatigue cracks in the spar. As a method of keeping the focus on the small percentage of higher-risk airplanes, the AD requires us jump through some hoops designed to exclude the majority of (lower risk) airplanes from the inspection requirement. The AD requires any airplane in the applicability chart to meet at least one of three criteria before the AD is applicable. Then, for some airplanes, the factored service hours must be calculated based on the number of 100-hour inspections recorded in the maintenance logs. If the factored service hours require the eddy current inspection to be done, then the AD points to the inspection method contained in Piper SB 1345. Note that the AD only incorporates the “Inspection Method” section of the SB, and not the entire SB. This is because the AD differs from the SB in terms of applicable airplane models, and the hours at which the inspection is required.
What if I complied with SB 1345 before AD 2020-26-16 was released? Well, that depends. If your aircraft has met the above mentioned requirements listed in the AD, then you may request an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). If the AD is not applicable to your airplane (even though the SB is), then an AMOC is not necessary. What about those of us who did everything that was in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), before the AD was published? If you have accomplished everything in the current AD, but before the publication date, then you may request an AMOC. The FAA has published a flow chart for the AD, and has also provided an AMOC example that should make the AMOC process fairly painless.
Select this link for the AMOC Example or paste this address into you browser https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2021/Feb/AMOC_Example.pdf
Select this link for the FlowChart or paste this address in your browser https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2021/Feb/Flow_Chart.pdf
For questions, contact William D. McCully (Dan) via email at [email protected]
field_vote: 0No votes yet