Search the Community

It is too bad we all did not participate (actually, none of us did) in the FAA input aspect of AD 2012-AA64. I recently purchased a 0.44†dia flexible borescope which: - is far superior to a mirror - only requires a 0.44†hole for access - can take photos (or movies) for historical comparison - provides magnification AD 2012-AA64 identifies 59 G109’s to which this pertains, which obviously corresponds with our knowledge of our community. The estimated inspection (preparation/modification) compliance costs given was $934. That hardly includes the time and money required to get the aircraft to and from an appropriate facility capable of performing the work. (any estimates from our fellow members?) Would it be more desirable, or more effective, to approach both Grob and the FAA with questions about alternative inspection methods. For instance, using the borescope would certainly minimize the hole required. Could a hole be provided in the internal vertical member, just to the rear of the Nose Piece? I live about 10 miles from the FAA office to whom we are directed for further information. I would be happy to see if eyeball contact is possible for further exploration. (The first step would be a covert recon/analysis of the “approachability†factor of Mr. Rutherford.) Any interest in mobilizing a group effort?