STATE OF THE SOCIETY REPORT.tt - American Bonanza Society

STATE OF THE SOCIETY REPORTPresident Art BrockABS ConventionSeptember 26, 2008I’m sure you’ll agree after Steve’s report that the financial health of the Society isexcellent. And as Nancy has described it, we have an excellent staff working hard for usin Wichita.Now let me tell you that the overall state of the Society is strong, healthy and dynamic.We have a lot going on and more to come.To begin with our relationships with Hawker Beechcraft, the FAA, AOPA, the NTSB, theBeechcraft Heritage Museum, and our Regional societies are all excellent.Nothing, however, is perfect and occasionally something slips through the crack.Recently we had to remind the NTSB to invite us to participate in Bonanza/Baronaccident investigations.Because we are a unique source of maintenance expertise, we have been contributingfor years, at society expense, to NTSB investigations. But in a recent investigationinvolving a ruddervator failure we were overlooked and the issued report cast somedoubt about the integrity of the structure.We are not comfortable with that conclusion. So we wrote to all the NTSB regionaloffices to remind them of our special contribution and we fully expect to be back on theiraccident investigation participant list.There is also the case of the infamous circuit breaker/switch AD. The AirworthinessConcern Sheet process, intended to bring type clubs into the deliberative process earlyon, broke down and we did not received any advanced notice let alone the opportunityfor an input.We have already talked to FAA management about that breakdown and we have ameeting planned with them and AOPA on that subject. We also plan to discuss why ourreasoned and well researched objections to the AD were met not with any rationale butjust a rather curt “The FAA does not agree.”We continue to learn more about the Switch problem. Our earlier belief, apparentlyshared by the FAA, was incorrect. We have since talked to Hawker Beechcraftengineering and Tyco, the switch manufacturer. The problem with the switches and itssolution are associated with the internal spring.The new switches have a bend in the end of the spring that avoids that part shortingout. Significantly, only the switches sold through Hawker Beechcraft have that fix.

Although Tyco markets the same part number through other sources those switches donot have the fix. All this is explained on our website, with pictures.ABS has asked members to submit, in confidence, information on failed switches.Although sparse, the information thus gathered does indicate some failures in singles aswell as in twins.It has been suggested in some forums that removing the old Beech switches andreplacing them with Tyco’s (prior to the effective date of the AD) would be a safealternative to compliance. Based on what we know now, that is not a good idea. TheTyco switches have not addressed the failure mode, and there have been failures in thefield.The supply of the new switches is awaiting a significant order from Beechcraft which inturn is waiting for significant orders from owners. An additional holding factor is thepossible approval of one or more Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOCs), althoughknowing what we now know; these approvals may not be as likely as we once thought.As for parts availability, the sooner we get our orders in to RAPID, the soonerproduction will start.ABS still believes that this AD is an expensive overkill considering a realistic riskassessment and we intend to continue discussion on this with the FAA.As Steve has presented, we are in excellent financial health. The ABS balance sheet issound and we recorded a modest profit exclusive of the unrealized losses oninvestments.The ABS Air Safety Foundation has committed significant funds to the spar web studybut still shows a positive fund balance. Our current goal is to replace the spar web studyfunding promptly in order to be financially ready for whatever may come next.The Endowment Fund, which was established to provide an income source to sustainthe activities of the ABS Air Safety Foundation in an era of declining membership,remains well short of the original goal of $5 million.While we still have time to build that fund, we have to be realistic; more airplanes areleaving the active fleet each year than Hawker Beechcraft is building. The fleet isshrinking. Our need for new funds to sustain the current activities of the ABS Air SafetyFoundation and to grow the Endowment Fund is very much alive.This year we formed a new committee, chaired by Jon Luy, to further one of thefounding principles of our society, “to cultivate and promote friendship and sociabilityamong the members.” It’s a terrific principle, one that I’m sure we all subscribe to, buttrying to develop actual initiatives to further it, proved daunting.

What we have come away with is an enhanced appreciation of our affiliation with ourRegionals. We continue to encourage all new members to join a Regional, and we havelinks to their sites on our website, and we include their fly-in notices and stories in theMagazine.Speaking of the Magazine, it remains the single most important service we offer. Basedon member feedback, which is uniformly excellent, I know you agree.I cannot overstate our gratitude to our regular contributors: Lew Gage, John Collins,Mike Busch, and Charlie Davidson, and Falcon Insurance, and Adrian Eichhorn andRon Timmermans, for “What’s Wrong.” To all the members who have contributedarticles, and to our editorial staff, Tom Turner, and the members of the MediaCommittee, managing editor, Betty Rowley, art director, Jim Simpson, and of course oureditor in chief, Nancy Johnson.Village Press continues to do a first class job in producing and distributing the magazineand providing the support to maintain the display ads to make the whole thing possible.Our website improvement project has finally borne some fruit. Thanks to KurtSchneweis and Steve Blythe and the Wichita staff. The new design and template iscomplete and the new home page was released in July.We have a new Hangar Flying Section, and are working on a modern Store Front. Otherplanned improvements include: self service membership, improved event sign-up, eventregistrants, parts and vendor info, archived magazine articles, a search engine, and lotsmore.The monthly ABS Flyer continues to be enthusiastically received with a very highpercent received and opened. Other plans are in work to better utilize today’s electroniccommunications capabilities include developing interactive courses for pilots andmechanics.We can do a lot more on-line with less effort and expense, but we need yourcooperation. For those of you who haven’t given us your email address I ask you toreconsider.Most of the world is moving on-line and so should the Society. For those worried aboutabuse, just ask anyone already in the system. Certainly we won’t abuse your trust andwe haven’t had any feedback on abuse by anyone else.Another initiative we instituted this year was establishing a separate PlanningCommittee whose mission was to formulate strategic recommendations taking intoaccount foreseeable threats and challenges to assure that we are addressing both thefuture as well as the present.

Unfortunately, we just didn’t appreciate how difficult this task turned out to be. While wemade some progress and identified several important issues, much work remains to bedone. I hope that by building on the start we made this year, the next administration willbe able to accomplish the Planning Committee’s mission. I know you’ve heard it before,but it is still the truth of the matter: “Failing to plan is the equivalent of planning to fail.”Last year we increased our Technical Advisor corps to seven. The questions just keepcoming by phone and email, and the staff is pressed every month to get themanswered. Consequently, Tech Tips continues to be perhaps the most read and valuedsection of the magazine.Our thanks for this service go to: Neil Pobanz, Arky Foulk, Tom Turner, Arthur Miller,Bob Ripley, Bob Andrews, plus Dick Pederson, and Bob Olson. Their contributions areliterally immeasurable. ABS Magazine columnists Lew Gage and John Collins alsoregularly answer member questions in their particular areas of expertise.We have a project underway to archive the Tech Tips from the Magazine. We now haveseveral ABS member volunteers helping in sorting and classifying old Tech Tips and weshould begin loading these items into an expanded Archive in the near future.Next to the Magazine, our two most important services are the recurrent Beechcraft pilottraining courses presented by the BPPP and the mechanical examination of the fleet atour Service Clinics. Both programs operate on an essentially break-even basis andboth had very successful years. We inspected 233 airplanes in eleven Service Clinicsand trained 638 pilots in 11 BPPP clinics.BPPP, under the leadership of Ron Timmermans, now has about 25% of all BPPPinstructors as Master CFI’s or Master Ground Instructors. We have increased the ABSTech Advisor staff interface with the BPPP by acting as guest speakers at clinics andBPPP maintenance techs participate in our Tech Advisor staff meetings. This gives us abetter feel for what the BPPP is seeing in the field, and it results in the BPPP customergetting a more valuable walk-around inspection and classroom instruction.BPPP did lose a modest amount this year and consequently they have undertakenseveral cost saving measures, and will implement a modest price increase next year.We have had similar issues with the Service clinics. Although Bob and Lois Olson do aremarkable job, the costs of travel, hotels and food, have risen dramatically. Therefore,we have been forced to implement a modest price increase to continue to achievebreak-even for those clinics as well.We have been seeing a slow but steady drop in membership from a comfortable 10,400in 2007 to our current 10,100 members, a ten year low. No doubt this is a result of thecurrent economic pressures on all general aviation activities. How serious and howpermanent this decline is remains to be seen.

There’s little doubt, however, that we would be in even worse shape were it not for theefforts of our Membership Clerk, Paula Tomlinson who looks around every possiblecorner for new members. But we need your help too. Positive word-of-mouth hasalways been our most effective marketing tool. We all need to sell ABS to prospectivemembers, and remember, you get a free month of membership for every new memberyou recruit.The ABS Aviator Program continues to grow. We now have 283 Level 1 Aviators, 102Level 2 Aviators, and 27 Level 3 Aviators for a total of 412. That’s good, but still a smallbase. When we get a statistically significant number we should be able to demonstratethat being an ABS Aviator lowers the risk of an accident. For those of you who aren’t yetAviators; Let’s get with it!And finally, that gets me to the Spar Web Study.A very quick review:We’ve had ADs for Bonanzas and Barons since 1990 requiring repetitive inspections(every 500 hrs) of the webs on the front spar carrythroughs and repairs of cracksexceeding specified limits. The only approved repair is a doubler supplied in a Beechkit.Starting in 2003 the FAA took steps to implement their “no crack policy.” They hadRaytheon revise their Service Bulletins to “require repair of any crack found duringinspection of the spar web regardless of size," and in October 2007, the FAA issued anAirworthiness Concern Sheet that basically said they intended to issue an ADimplementing the new “no crack policy.”A word about the “no crack policy.” There are stated exceptions. Basically you mustshow that the structure can carry ultimate loads with cracks. Either by showing thestructure is fail-safe, or that a single load path can carry the load, or that the crackedmember is not primary structure.Why did we care? Well, to begin with we’ve never had an inflight failure in over twentyyears of the monitoring program during which time we estimate that the fleet has flownwell over 60 million flight hours. Not one.Second, the Beech kit is expensive to install and the installation has some inherentproblems of its own that some informed observers believe could actually weaken thestructure and do more harm than the cracks it is intended to repair.

The cost of repairs in the affected fleet could amount to as much as $84 million.Everyone agrees that an improperly installed kit could be dangerous and possiblydestructive to the airframe.And finally, because of these problems, there are several highly reputed shops thathaving made one installation, now refuse to make anymore.The repair kit, by the way, does nothing to prevent future cracking and the repairedstructure is still subject to a fresh round of inspections.ABS sought out engineering consultants to help us and we ended up with PeterHarradine, retired chief of structures engineering at Boeing and Joe Dwerlkotte a formerBeech structures engineer whose firm, JBDA, does consulting and DER work inWichita. Joe was recommended to us by the Wichita FAA office.Our initial contracts with these gentlemen resulted in some theories on the probablecause of the cracking and recommendations for a full-blown engineering study.Our goal was at the outset and remains today: to prevent unnecessary installation of therepair kit, and to minimize costs to our members consistent with safety. Basically tocontinue with the current inspection program and only repair cracks exceeding thecurrent specs.Our request for proposal attracted 9 firm bids. Joe Dwerlkotte’s firm, JBDA. removeditself from consultant status in order for it to bid on the contract. Except for JBDA, firmbid costs ranged from $215 thousand to $621 thousand.JBDA’s bid came in at a remarkable $90 thousand. We leaned heavily on PeterHarradine’s review of the bids. JBDA showed the best understanding of the issues,presented the best engineering approach, and was the only bidder with real experiencewith the engineering of our airplanes, and finally, was the only bidder on the FAA’s shortlist of recommended bidders.We questioned their low price, but they were convincing in presenting theirunderstanding of the problem and familiarity with Bonanza drawings as the reason theycould bid so low. There were other costs, outside of their contract, that we agreed to:furnishing a test airplane for flight testing, insuring it, inspecting it before and after thetest program, instrumenting and flying it.The total cost of the program was estimated at $120,000.The FAA was informed of our efforts and has indicated a willingness to consider theresults of the study in their final decision on a new AD. They have continued to exercisea forbearance that we truly appreciate.

The contract was fixed price with a well defined statement of work and specificrequirements and deliverables. The basic plan was to define the airframe and theexpected loads, develop a Finite Element Model, and then run the model for basic flightand ground conditions, instrument an airplane and collect actual strain gauge data forthose same conditions and then compare that strain gauge data to the model to verifythe models veracity.The model was developed, a loads report generated, the flight tests were conductedand strain data was collected. We anticipated a comprehensive report that we couldpresent to the FAA.In November 2007 we received the contract report. We had many questions as did ourconsultant, Peter Harradine. By February we had exhausted the report, Peter, JBDA,and ourselves and finally concluded that we had all we were ever going to get from it.In a nutshell, the report didn’t make complete sense. It had inconsistencies that wecouldn’t resolve, and some of its conclusions simply defied reality. We have noconfidence that it represents realistic science and we simply cannot release it.In hindsight we can see what went wrong. Joe Dwerlkotte himself was actually retiredand no longer active in the day to day activities of the firm. There was a senior engineer,a DER himself, who was responsible for supervision of the program. Unfortunately, hewas brought into the program too late to have much of an impact. The work was doneby a junior engineer without adequate supervision and the report was not properlyreviewed. Funding had been exhausted and there was no easy way to salvage theprogram.The basic problem was that the strain gauge data was used to define the computermodel instead of just verifying it. This literally put the cart in front of the horse and themodel was twisted and bent to try and fit the data with predictably bad results.ASF struggled with what to do. We had invested time, FAA goodwill, and a good deal ofmoney and had little to show for it. We considered legal action against JBDA. Weconferred with our attorney and we believe we had an excellent case.However, we could anticipate litigation with its inevitable costs and uncertainties, andthe probability that as a result of the litigation, the report would become public. Certainlyour relationship with JBDA would be over and the program would be finished. Startingover with a new engineering firm did not seem practical and the probability was that theFAA would issue the new AD’s forthwith.

On the other hand, if we defined a follow-on contract carefully we could approachcontinuation in small phases, under the program direction of Peter Harradine. Much ofthe work in defining the airframe, the loads, and the FEM should be salvageable.If at any time the program didn’t seem to be on track we could stop the work, pay for thetime spent, and be done with it. In addition we learned during these negotiations thatJoe recollected that the structure was fail-safe! If we could prove that we would have anapproved exception to the no-crack policy.We also recognized the dangers of chasing a failed plan with more money in order tosalvage the money already spent. Several of the board members had deepreservations, but ultimately we decided to go ahead with the follow-on contract.The new contract got off to a rocky start. JBDA had a window in their schedule but wecouldn’t get our approvals in a timely manner. So we started out behind schedule andthey tried to help us catch up by bringing in a new engineer. More time and budgetslipped.We have since defined the contract down to only the senior engineer and the one juniorengineer who actually manipulates the computer model. The quality of the final productis more important in our view, than a stretch out of the schedule and the additional costsof the higher rate.The new contract is based on hand analytical stress analysis, putting loads thusdeveloped into the FEM, running the model. Analyzing the results and then validatingthe model by strain gauge data. The engineers do not believe that a second full blownflight test series will be necessary.The current theory is that the cracking is caused by longitudinal forces acting on thebelly of the airframe. These loads are believed to come from hard braking, or full powerrun-ups, or maybe even aggressive towing, which puts the belly in tension. Far Lessfrequent cracking on the aft web and in the lower web flanges may be caused by lateralflight loads.Our survey, although of questionable statistical validity, does show some distinct trendsand we evaluate all our theories against those trends. For example: the hard brakinghypothesis is consistent with the higher incidence of cracking in the model 36 with itslonger wheel base.Our goal is to be able to explain to the FAA what is causing the cracking, and how theloads work through the structure. Under what conditions the structure can carry ultimateloads and what inspection sequence and repair requirements are really necessary tomaintain required integrity.The first phase of the new contract was to develop the free body hand analysis, andload that data into the model, run it and see if it matches the expected results. That

phase is just about completed and the engineers are very encouraged by theconsistency of the data. Consequently the Technical Committee has recommended andthe ASF Board has agreed to go ahead with the next phase.Our plan has always been to communicate our progress to the FAA and we have beenwaiting for the results of this first phase and a meeting with the FAA to present ourprogress is scheduled for October 29. Final program completion should occur byJanuary.Our estimate to complete the current contract and to present the results to the FAA is$170,000. Certainly not an insignificant sum, but we are encouraged that we willactually achieve our goals and convince the FAA that it is not necessary to imposeadditional airworthiness requirements.With a real understanding of the dynamics of the structure and the loads causing thecracking we might be able to suggest prophylactic fixes or other Alternate Means ofCompliance.It has been a busy year. The Wichita staff, the technical advisory staff and consultants,our columnists, our committee members, and the members of the Board have workeddiligently on your behalf. We are truly proud of what has been accomplished, and I ampleased to turn the society over to the new administration in its sound, healthy, andvibrant condition.Thank you