What AD was this?

 

Oh man, I did that too once or twice. Great memories

 

Sorry, was not an AD but a mandatory service bulletin for cracking of the aileron balance weight clip.

From Hawker Beechcraft

Type Service Bulletin
M-R-O Mandatory
Pub Number SB 27-3928
Title Flight Controls - Aileron Balance Weight Clip Inspection
Effectivity (a) Civil - Model 1900C Airliner, Serials UC-1 through UC-174; Model 1900D Airliner, Serials UE-1 through UE-439. (b) Military - Model 1900C (C-12J), Airliner, Serials UD-1 through UD-6.
Date June 2009

 

Never flew one, but looks like fun! : )

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...0_goes_low.wmv

 

I am realistic about AD's. I never suggested that an aircraft shouldn't be certified because they have an AD issued. Nobody is perfect (including me), but I was hoping for a little better quality from a manufacturer like Beechcraft.

ADs are an invaluable safety tool that has prevented more accidents from occurring. I misspoke earlier and said it was an AD. It was a mandatory service bulletin. I just found it interesting that Beechcraft would come out with a mandatory fix without making sure there was enough hardware available for the operators to complete the repair. As a result operators had aircraft sitting in hangars torn apart while the engineers decided what other more readily available parts could be substituted.

On another interesting note....
The Baron and King Air had issues with the elevator trim freezing up at high altitudes. They put out a Safety Communique on May of 1981 that was titled "ELEVATOR TRIM TAB FREEZING- EXPOSURE OF AIRCRAFT TO HIGH PRESSURE SOAP-AND-WATER WASHING AND INTENSE RAIN" found at:

http://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/serv...afetycomms.pdf on page 6 of 20

SC 057 - Elevator Trim Tab Freezing - Exposure of
Aircraft to High-Pressure Soap-And-Water
Washing and Intense Rain
30 May 1981 All Beechcraft Airplanes

Once they built the 1900C which flew in 1982, they applied that safety communique to it. Then the 1900D was introduced in 1991 and they did the same thing. If you search the 1900D Safety communique database, SC 057 comes up even though it was dated 10 years prior to the 1900D ever flying. Instead of addressing/fixing the issue, the just used an old safety communique...

 

For other relevant info on the 1900D see previous thread in the technical section.

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/te...tml#post536115

 

Nope..Colgan. Back in the day when they were super serious about having everything outstation based and we had just picked up SHD. They used to repo a plane from HEF/MNZ which ever you want to call it to SHD. The show time in HEF was an awesome 0345. Would do a crew swap in IAD around 1600 and get to drive a minivan from IAD to HEF where you finally got to pick up your car. Nightshift drove to IAD then picked up the plane did a few legs and repo'd it from SHD to HEF at the end of the day. Good times had by all.

 

Did you get in when that had that small hiring window in which "cowboys" were allowed in? Most times they were not looking for "cowboys", and they were asked to go somewhere else.

 

Pilot in A&P school, ouch dont tell me your that guy.......... Go work on 135 cargo 1900's UB's with bladders that will put some hair on your nuts.

and 1900C UC serials has the wet wing too.

 

The 1900 is definately not a piece of junk, though I do agree that Raytheon should have stayed clear of the airline world. King Airs are great airplanes, but they're not designed to fly 12-14 legs a day.

There are some definate weak points, the pressurization topping the list. The urban legend I heard was that Raytheon took two Be-200 environmental systems, screwed them together, and put them in the 1900. Probably not true, but it seems about right. For the original poster, just know that the pressurization is very very touchy.

Also, the circuit boards do seem to be prone to failure. Although, I tend to believe on a well maintained corporate aircraft this wouldn't be an issue.

The fuselage area adjacent to the propellers are reinforced, but yes a propeller will penetrate through it. I've personally seen it on an aircraft we had that slid off the runway and through some approach lights a few years ago. The piece of the prop was probably two feet by 4-5 inches and it punctured through the reinforced skin.

Lastly, the aileron counterweight issue. On our fleet, I believe the number is somewhere around 30% of the ailerons had issues where the clips that hold the counterweight had broken. Even if the all the clips were to fail, the counterweight cannot physically move very far within the aileron itself. So it may through off the feel though the yoke a little, but it wouldn't necessarily be a dangerous situation.