SR20 MEL info

Hi
I posted recently about a lower door hinge failure on an SR20 (thanks for all the help). Have since spoken to some airline pilots who suggested getting info from the aircrafts minimum equipment list type document to see whether or not the lower door hinge is a groundable (go/no go) item. Has anyone got a copy of any such document or have read it & would know if the hinge is a groundbale item?

Thanks again for your help

Cheers

Tim.

In reply to:


Hi
Have since spoken to some airline pilots who suggested getting info from the aircrafts minimum equipment list type document to see whether or not the lower door hinge is a groundable (go/no go) item. Has anyone got a copy of any such document or have read it & would know if the hinge is a groundbale item?


There is no published MEL for the Cirrus. In fact most small single engine planes do not have MEL’s. There is a Kinds of Equipment list in the POH that might help. You should also refer to the FARs I think it is section 91.213d or around there somewhere.

Good luck

Mason

Even if the SR20 had an approved MEL (which it doesn’t), it would be extremely unlikely that the MEL would address something like a door hinge. Every MEL I’ve ever seen confined itself to “appliances” like instruments, radios, accessories (like alternators, hydraulic and pneumatic pumps, and the like. I’ve never seen a GA MEL that allowed for operation with an inoperative airframe, engine or propeller component.

Here’s the disposition of a Columbia after a door to popped open in flight. Now it is for sale on Ebay.

There is certainly alot of damage there, thanks for posting that, interesting to see what can happen. I have contacted the aircraft hirer some 3-4 weeks ago explaining what I will & wont pay for re the aircraft recovery & have heard nothing. I am thinking more & more that they may have just tried it to see if i’d pay.

Thanks for your help guys

cheers

Columbia 350 on EBAY.

The scary thing about that aircraft is the outright refusal of Columbia to allow it to be fixed for a reasonable amount of money. Columbia has sent out a proposal to fix the aircraft for $300,000 and has made statements that they will not sign off on a field repair of the aircraft. A Columbia 350 with no damage history is realistically worth 300,000 if this aircraft is repaired it will have to sell at a discount due to the damage history 260,000 probably would be the maximum any one could realistically expect to get for the aircraft. Dozens of people have viewed the aircraft and have reached the same concussion that unless Columbia allows a field repair patch for a total cost of far less than the 300k they proposed there is no economic justification to throw any more money at that aircraft. The aircraft is only worth the value of its components which would be far less that the $160,000 it is currently selling on Ebay for the third or forth time.

In reply to:


There is certainly alot of damage there, thanks for posting that, interesting to see what can happen.


I recall someone who proudly posted that he set some kind of record by allowing a friend to parachute from his Cirrus.

Sobering reality!

In reply to:


I recall someone who proudly posted that he set some kind of record by allowing a friend to parachute from his Cirrus.
Sobering reality!


Robert:

That was my thought exactly. The parachute idea is supported by this language found on the EBay site:

“Aircraft’s door was opened in flight and then departed
hitting the right wing and tail.”

Was somebody jumping out of this aircraft?

In reply to:


Robert:
That was my thought exactly. The parachute idea is supported by this language found on the EBay site:
“Aircraft’s door was opened in flight and then departed
hitting the right wing and tail.”
Was somebody jumping out of this aircraft?


I read this on the Columbia site. The door did not close properly, after takeoff the person in the right seat attempted to open and reclose the door. Only got the open part when it departed the plane and went over the top and hit the tail on the way by. I bet at that point the pilot was thinking “I WISH I HAD THE PLANE WITH A CHUTE”

In reply to:


I read this on the Columbia site. The door did not close properly, after takeoff the person in the right seat attempted to open and reclose the door. Only got the open part when it departed the plane and went over the top and hit the tail on the way by. I bet at that point the pilot was thinking “I WISH I HAD THE PLANE WITH A CHUTE”


Jim:

That’s really the pits! Attempt to close the door in flight and wind up putting the plane on EBay!

There is a message there: if the door is not closed, land and close it.

I have a 2002 SR22 with the original door design. I actually flew from Willows, CA to Hillsboro, OR with the passenger door with the top pin in and the bottom pin on the side of the cone. The only ill effect was the cabin would not warm up. The Bose headsets masked the noise so well that neither of us noticed the door until I was in the pattern at Hillsboro. My friend looked down and saw daylight through the bottom of the door.

She said “What are we going to do about the door?”. My answer: “Nothing, it hasn’t caused a problem so far and we are almost there.”

In reply to:


I read this on the Columbia site. The door did not close properly, after takeoff the person in the right seat attempted to open and reclose the door.


If you look at the pictures on Ebay, the right door is still attached.

The eBay post says the repair quote is $30K, not $300K. Where did the $300K figure come from? (I must have missed it.)

The 30K quoted on the auction is by a CA composite repair shop that was specifically told by the Columbia factory that they would not sign off on the repair and was advised by Colombia not to attempt to repair the aircraft, so if you went the 30K route you would no longer have a certified aircraft. The seller appears to have given up on the CA composite repair shop and is touting a AZ composite repair shop that had called the 30K repair ridiculously low and also called the 300K Columbia factory estimate ridiculously high and has made their own an estimate of 93K, but they first need to build a building to work in in AZ before they can start the repair in about six months.

If you overlook the uncertainty of attempting a repair from a composite shop that has yet to build its building in AZ and whose only previous experience is repairing a few gliders in GA. The CA shop that was rejected by the factory appears to have far more composite experience than the AZ shop, so the probability of the factory accepting the repair is doubtful. The seller is still asking way to much at 165K plus 93K you will be out at least $258,000 for an aircraft, that the factory has stated can only be repaired by them thus it may no longer be certified due to the factory refusing to sign off on the repair. The factory has also mentioned that they may require a flight test program after the repair, which I doubt will be cheap to hire a professional test pilot and pay him to instrument the aircraft and fly it thought a comprehensive test program.

In reply to:


The 30K quoted on the auction is by a CA composite repair shop that was specifically told by the Columbia factory that they would not sign off on the repair and was advised by Colombia not to attempt to repair the aircraft, so if you went the 30K route you would no longer have a certified aircraft.


What in the Regs requires Columbia to sign off on a repair?
I thought that all you nee is a 337 (major alteration) signed by an IA.

In reply to:


What in the Regs requires Columbia to sign off on a repair?
I thought that all you need is a 337 (major alteration) signed by an IA.


You are correct if this was a aluminum aircraft with an extensive repair history like a bonanza. However since this is a new composite aircraft. The 300K repair is to replace the entire fuselage since that is part of a two piece unit both of which have been damaged. If this was an experimental you would just cut out the damaged area and scarf in a patch repair which if done properly would be just as strong or stronger than the original aircraft with no more than a pound or two of additional weight. Since this repair has never been done before on a Columbia you need the Factory to sign off on the repair and they have stated that they will not approve of a patch but want the damaged parts replaced, i.e. a entire new fuselage.

This is why hull insurance for a composite aircraft is so much more expensive than for a similar metal aircraft with the same value.

In reply to:


You are correct if this was a aluminum aircraft with an extensive repair history like a bonanza.


I understand what you are saying, but WHY is it true? What requires the factory sign off? Have the regulations been changed for composite aircraft?

In reply to:


Since this repair has never been done before on a Columbia you need the Factory to sign off on the repair.


Absolutely untrue. All that is needed is a 337 field approval for a major mod… The manufacturer has no say in the matter at all. However, the FAA may require extensive engineering analysis after the repair before signing off on the 337, and without the technical support of the manufacturer, that analysis would likely be a long and expensive process.

As for hull insurance on composite airplanes being more expensive than spam cans because of the construction materials, that ain’t so either! Check out the back issues of “Aviation Insurance and Risk Management”. In one issue (I can’t remember which), there was a very good article demonstrating, with NUMBERS, that the higher hull premiums are due to (1) the VERY expensive integrated electronics and avionics that are put at risk and (2) the lack of actuarial data for risk modeling the new airframes, NOT the airframe structure itself. In fact, repair COST for composite airframes is about 25% of what it would cost for repairing equivalent damage in aluminum aircraft, but repair TIME is about 4 to 6 times longer due to specialized prep, patch fabrication, set-up, curing, and finishing, then the FAA-required post-repair structural testing that isn’t required of the refined bauxite planes.