Flourcesent dye test for wing cracks

[JohnB]

The Hangar 180 museum in Lewiston, Idaho just posted another interesting Facebook post about maintaining their fleet.
Here are shots of a fluorescent dye inspection to comply with an AD on their P-64 replica. It began life as a Canadian Harvard MK IV, and was converted to a NA-50 in 1986.
(Do other members of the T-6 family have the same AD?).

https://www.facebook.com/Hangar180KLWS/

[mike furline]

https://www.flynata.org/content.aspx?pa ... _id=241056
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ly-held-by

[JohnB]

The CCF-built Harvard's aren't on that list.
Any T-6 experts know why?

Separate AD?

[Tim Savage]

Transport Canada AD Number: CF-2005-19

[Archer]

The UK CAA has this directive out as well: https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/14627
Although different in name, it is basically an AD for G- registered T-6s and derivatives operating on a Permit to Fly.

[JohnB]

So trainers with 80 years of aerobatics and bumpy landings might have wing cracks...?
Go figure...

As far a my previous question..it is more of an administrative issue...I thought the FAA would issue ADs for N-numbered aircraft, even if they were built elsewhere (like Canada).
So, American operators of CCF Harvards would be complying to a Canadian AD, not FAA?

[Tim Savage]

So trainers with 80 years of aerobatics and bumpy landings might have wing cracks...?
Go figure...

As far a my previous question..it is more of an administrative issue...I thought the FAA would issue ADs for N-numbered aircraft, even if they were built elsewhere (like Canada).
So, American operators of CCF Harvards would be complying to a Canadian AD, not FAA?

I suspect it is more of an issue of it just getting overlooked at the LA ACO when the AD was developed. They are also all Experimental Exhibition so that might have had something to do with it. The issue is the same on the Harvard IVs as it the rest of the fleet...although most of the attach angles that have been replaced under this AD have been for corrosion...

[Tim Savage]

So trainers with 80 years of aerobatics and bumpy landings might have wing cracks...?
Go figure...

As far a my previous question..it is more of an administrative issue...I thought the FAA would issue ADs for N-numbered aircraft, even if they were built elsewhere (like Canada).
So, American operators of CCF Harvards would be complying to a Canadian AD, not FAA?

I suspect it is more of an issue of it just getting overlooked at the LA ACO when the AD was developed. They are also all Experimental Exhibition so that might have had something to do with it. The issue is the same on the Harvard IVs as it the rest of the fleet...although most of the attach angles that have been replaced under this AD have been for corrosion...