FAA Issues Airworthiness Concern Sheet on Some Twin Commanders

Alert is a follow-up to a 1995 Airworthiness Directive on structural issues.

Credit: Wikipedia SDASM Archives
Gemini Sparkle

Key Takeaways:

  • The FAA issued an Airworthiness Concern Sheet (ACS) regarding cracking in the empennage of numerous Twin Commander aircraft models.
  • This follows a 1995 Airworthiness Directive (AD 95-13-02) that mandated inspections to prevent airframe failure.
  • While Service Letter 345 provided some inspection access, further access to critical areas requires more extensive work.
  • The ACS aims to inform stakeholders of the risk and gather feedback on potential additional safety concerns.
See a mistake? Contact us.

The FAA has issued an Airworthiness Concern Sheet (ACS) following up on a 1995 Airworthiness Directive involving fuselage cracks in “numerous models” of Twin Commander aircraft. AD 95-13-02 required inspections of the empennage at the Fuselage Section (FS) 409 frame and adjacent stabilizer exterior skin to “prevent failure” of the airframe.

The FAA had issued a Service Letter 345 to install inspection panels that provide limited visual access to the critical areas (including FS 386 and FS 429). But “other areas require more extensive work to gain access,” according to the FAA statement.

The new ACS is intended to not only inform owners, operators and maintenance organizations of the risk, but also to elicit feedback on potential further safety concerns.

Mark Phelps

Mark Phelps is a senior editor at AVweb. He is an instrument rated private pilot and former owner of a Grumman American AA1B and a V-tail Bonanza.

Continue discussion - Visit the forum

Replies: 9

  1. The GA community will have to come to grips with the fact that the mostly 40-year-plus airframes of “large twins” cannot be maintained in flying condition forever, especially when pressurised.

  2. I love that airplane. One of the best designs ever. It can be fixed, reinforced as required.

  3. So all the older Boeing and other jets still flying aren’t airworthy…including the aging Air Force One? How about the B-52? Is it also un-airwothy? Think about that

  4. What beverly1joan said. There is no comparison in the design standards, manufacturing, and ownership economics of predominantly privately owned “large” civilian GA twins which were manufactured and sold at a fraction of the cost with Boeing airliners and B52s.

  5. Ok, Beech 18’s, B-24’s, 402’s, 414’s, 421’s…Barons, the list goes on. If the aircraft is maintained properly, and flown in a professional manner, they can, and do, remain airworthy until meeting the designed hour limit on the airframe…if there is one.

  6. The operative word in your response being the word “if”. “If” goes directly to the issue of affordability on a private basis.

    The B-24 was a venerated WW2 and 1960 Cold War era military aircraft which someone bravely converted into an admiral attempt at a corporate transport. But in kindness to you we’ll pretend here that you did not include the B-24 in this “list which goes on and on”.

  7. If is used in commercial aviation as well, and it must have the same degree of accountability. Enter the 737 Max. Boeing KNEW there were problems, yet in the spirit of profit over quality and safety, they swept it under the rug…oh yeah, door plugs, maintenance issue at major airlines, and last but not least, the military operating aircraft in a busy corridor in ‘stealth’ mode without ADS-B. Accountability? You’re correct! With it you have decades old aircraft capable of flying safely, without it, you have newer aircraft coming apart and possibly killing people.

Sign-up for newsletters & special offers!

Get the latest stories & special offers delivered directly to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE