Perhaps this message should begin with a brief review of the National Aeronca Association’s efforts regarding the AD listed above.
     The FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on November 3, 1997, which would require annual spar inspections of all wood-spar American Champion Aircraft Corporation aircraft, including Aeronca-built 7 and 11 series aircraft (Champs and Chiefs).
     I quickly selected a team of very knowledgeable and well-respected members from the NAA roster and we went to work to develop an NAA reaction plan. After much discussion, we concluded that the Aeronca-built airplanes, and some early Champion models, were of lower horsepower, weight, and speed, than the later aerobatic aircraft built by Champion Aircraft Corporation. For that and other reasons, they should be excluded from the proposed rule. The statistics associated with the Service Diffi-
culty Reports (SDRs), applicable to the Aeronca 7s and 11s, supported our point of view. Therefore, the initial focus of our efforts were directed toward the exclusion of Aeronca-built, and the early Champion-built aircraft, from the proposed AD.
     We then obtained a label listing of all registered owners of the previously identified aircraft. Then, nearly 13,000 pages of informational material was generated to be used in a mailing to more than 4,200 registered owners advising them of the impending AD and encouraging them, if their point of view agreed with ours, to write the FAA with comments supportive of the exclusion of Aeronca airplanes from the forthcoming AD. One of our board members is also a member of the Flying Angels, a flying club in New

Jim Thompson

Carlisle, Ohio, and they volunteered to stuff, label, stamp and mail the “special alert” for us. This worked well, as we received copies of hundreds of well-written letters which you, the owners, had mailed to the FAA.
     Since the more prominent aviation organizations associated with general aviation had previously indicated they also believed that including the lower-horsepower Aeronca airplanes was not justified, we at the NAA felt that the FAA had received comments of such substance and number that the final rule would be different from the NPRM, and our Aeronca airplanes would not be subject to the proposed AD...but it was not to be!
     When the FAA published their response to comments they had received concerning the NPRM, they rejected all of the many hundreds of comments regarding the exclusion of the lower-horsepower 7s and 11s from the final rule. However, all was not lost! Someone had suggested that they withdraw the currently existing wing spar inspection AD on the Scout (8GCBC) and combine it with the AD they were now proposing for the Decathlon (8KCAB) and the other 7s and 11s. The FAA agreed. While this approach was very logical, it further increased the scope of the proposed AD and made it even more absurd to mandate the

same compliance requirements for all aircraft. More importantly perhaps. bringing the Scout AD into the proposal would require that they issue a new NPRM and provide for a second comment period. This would provide us with one more opportunity to mail in comments, which hopefully would convince the FAA to make a distinction between the lower-horsepower 7s and 11s and the later-built aircraft which were heavier and faster.
     When I first viewed the new NPRM, I was shocked to learn that the second comment period was limited to 45 days. I immediately wrote the FAA a letter requesting that this time period be extended and they agreed. (See a copy of FAA letter posted following this President’s Message.) We now had time to make a concentrated effort to bring about change.
     The NAA task force team was hard at work in an effort to develop a plan that would resolve the issue. The NAA and the FAA have the same basic goal. Both groups want safe airplanes. The FAA database of SDRs supports the position that our Aeronca airplanes have a safety record indicating that they are not a safety threat. And, since we judge the future by the past, we should not have a future wood spar safety problem. However, the FAA seemed concerned about the completeness of the past record. Since SDRs are not mandatory, there may have been spar cracks discovered by A&P/IAs that were not reported to the FAA.
     Slowly a plan evolved. We would go for a one-time inspection of all the lighter-weight, lower-horsepower aircraft. The decision was made to make the cut-off point at 90 horsepower. This 90 horsepower cut-off would take care of all our Aeronca 7 and 11 series airplanes as well as some early model Champions. The plan would assure the

FAA and us that our Aeronca spars were crack free and that we would be flying safe airplanes.
     Once again we obtained a label list of owners of all registered 7 and 11 series Aeronca and early Champion-built aircraft originally equipped with 90 horsepower engines or smaller. Next, a new mailing was prepared. This time nearly 17,000 sheets were printed. In them we explained our revised position concerning the proposed AD and suggested that, if the owners’ thinking agreed with ours, they write comments to the FAA supportive of the plan. This mailing went to the registered owners and to the major general aviation organizations. For a second time the Flying Angels flying club did a fantastic job of getting the 4,200 plus "special alert” letters stuffed, labeled, stamped and mailed.
     The next step involved follow-up with the aviation organizations. This was done by phone and was simply an effort to call attention to the informational package they had received from us concerning the NPRM and to solicit their support.  The Antique Airplane Association in Blakesburg, Iowa, wrote a very supportive letter. The Vintage Airplane fellows came through with multiple letters. The Experimental Aircraft Association wrote an excellent letter. The Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association was very positive when first contacted. However, for some unexplained reason, they called the next morning to advise me that they would not be supporting our plan. 
     By chance, we had made contact with the Bellanca Champion club in Coxsackie, New York, and their President wrote a fine letter to the FAA in support of our proposal. (Incidentally one of our NAA team members owns a Citabria and is a member of this club. He speaks very highly of their substantial support program for their Citabria line of aircraft.) No other aviation orga-

nizations or type clubs expressed support for the one-time inspection of the lower-horsepower 7s and 11s. Again we received copies of hundreds of letters that the owners had mailed to the FAA. The comment period ended and we had put forth our best effort. Now it was “wait and see."
     The wait ended on December 18, 2000. The Federal Register contained a release from the National Transportation Safety Board of AD No. 2000-25-02. This was the final rule.
     A detailed reading of the AD was a rewarding experience. The FAA had at long last acknowledged that, while all the 7s were made under the same type certificate and the 11s' wing was of “like design”, the lower-horsepower, slower airplanes were less likely to suffer wood spar wing damage. Furthermore, they had divided the fleet into two groups. The AD required that Group1, the 90-horsepower or less group, receive a one-time-only inspection of the wood spar. Group 2, the heavier, higher-powered models, would be required to have recurring spar inspections at the next annual inspection or at 500-hour flight time intervals, whichever occurs first.
     The distinction made in the AD, as reflected in the different AD compliance requirements for the two groups of planes, also places a positive face on another concern that the NAA task force team and I had shared, As long as the 7 series remains an active type certificate and American Champion Aircraft Corporation continues to manufacture the higher-powered aerobatic aircraft, there will be other ADs. The precedent established in this AD of dividing the fleet into two groups will help us avoid a situation where our Aeronca-built airplanes are automatically included in future ADs for 7-series Citabrias and the 8-series Scouts and Decathlons. A second positive note concerning the AD is that by having a one-time-only in-

spection, we have avoided the stigma associated with a recurring AD that has no provision for termination.
     If we examine the AD from the FAA’s point of view, they have done their job well. The major component of the FAA’s mission is aviation safety and ADs provide a vehicle to enhance that effort. Consider how they used this AD to assure the safety of the fleet. In a matter of thirteen months, all active wood spar 7s, 8s, and 11s will have received a spar inspection. Furthermore, with
the mandatory reporting requirement of the AD, the inspecting A&P/IA will issue a written SDR for every cracked spar found. The AD also contains the requirement that if the aircraft is involved in an accident or incident that has the potential to damage the wing spar, it must receive a wing-spar inspection prior to further flight. If one of the FAA’s initial concerns was that they needed more data concerning the current wood spar integrity of American Champion’s 7,8, and 11 aircraft, they will certainly have that data in the next thirteen months.
     Compression cracks in wood spars are not new. They have been around since wings have been made. In our Aeronca airplanes they are, almost without exception, “event related.” As a result of some “event” the wing spar becomes overstressed and the compression crack occurs. But it is a different kind of crack. If we were to examine our spruce wing spar though an optical device capable of very high magnification, we would find that the spar is not solid, but of cellular structure. These tiny cells are stronger in tension than compression. Therefore, if we overstress the wing in an upward direction the cells are deformed along a vertical line from the top of the spar toward the bottom, with the greatest deformation occurring on the very top surface of the spar. The spar does not separate along the crack line but, as a
 

result of the deformation of the cells, the strength of the spar at this point is reduced. Continued use of the aircraft has the potential, as a result of the changing flight loads on the wing, to furiher reduce the strength of the spar at the point of fracture and ultimately result in catastrophic failure.
     Compression cracks are difficult to detect. The greatest cellular deformation occurs on the top or the bottom surface of the spar, dependent upon whether the overstress was in an upward or downward direction. Therefore, these two surfaces are where the greatest surface imperfection will appear and where the compression crack can be most easily detected.
     The compliance document, Service Letter 406, Revision A, offers the A&P/IA a choice of two possible procedures for the inspection. The flexible probe borescope, which is probably the better of the two, and the use of a Bend-A-Light. If using the borescope, the surface imperfections created by the compression crack, are most readily detected if the probe is placed such that the viewing angle very nearly parallels the top surface of the spar. The light for viewing may come from any angle.
     Best results will be obtained from a Bend-A-Light if the probe is positioned such that the high-intensity light source very nearly parallels the top surface of the spar. The spar top surface may then be viewed from any suitable angle. In this situation. it is important that most of the available light is coming from the Bend-A-Light, for it is at the correct angle to make the surface imperfections that are the characteristic of compression cracks more readily visible. This means that if your wing is uncovered and you are inspecting the spar prior to covering, it is perhaps best that the inspection be made in subdued light. 
     Do not rush to judgment. There are spars which, when first made,

were spliced on both the horizontal and vertical axis. Bellanca did a lot of this when they owned and manufactured the Citabria line. To the eye of an inexperienced A&P/IA, the horizontal glue line may appear to be a crack. If your wing has been
repaired and has had ribs replaced, it is not unusual for the side surface of the spar to have been scratched in the process. These scratches may at first glance look like a crack. Compression cracks are most likely to appear at the point on the spar where the greatest stress "pile-up" occurs. This, in the case of a ground loop, will be just outboard of the plywood doubler where the lift strut attaches to the wing. Don’t overlook the rear spar.
     Should you find a genuine compression crack, be thankful. Not thankful that the crack was there, but thankful that your A&P/IA detected it in a hangar, rather than have you discover it at pattern altiude.
     One of the NAA team members, under the heading of, “How to Avoid Wing Spar Compression Cracks”, compiled a list of “Don'ts”.  Don’t fly aerobatics... Don’t nose the airplane over onto its back.. Don’t do ground loops... Don’t run the wing tip into the gas pump. 
     I have seen two letters recently, which contained statements that AD 2000-25-02 required inspection holes be added to the leading edge of the top surface of the wing.  Read the compliance document, Service Letter 406, Revision A, carefully. The need for additional inspection holes, top or bottom, is left to the judgment of the inspecting A&P/IA. They are not mandatory. In both cases these letters were part of a promotional brochure distributed by individuals who hoped to profit from the AD by selling a product, service, or both, to the aircraft owner. If you have the normal number of inspection holes in the bottom surface of the wing, an experienced A&P/IA familiar with our type

of airplanes should be able to successfully complete your inspection without additional inspection holes. American Champion’s Service letter 4l7, Revision C, may be used as a guide for the proper location of inspection holes. Notice the use of
the word “guide.” Your A&P/IA, familiar with Champs and Chiefs, will be an excellent judge of this.
     The NAA’s principal theme throughout this effort was that our lower-power, lighter-weight aircraft were less likely to suffer spar damage than the larger, more powerful, aerobatic aircraft. Initially the FAA was not receptive to our position. Several factors were very important in providing them with sufficient information in a positive manner so that they recognized the need to develop an AD that reflected this point of view. It was just not logical that the range of aircraft covered by their proposal be required to meet the same AD compliance requirements. Almost all of the major general aviation organizations had expressed support for our position.  Most importantly, we thank you for the many hundreds of letters you, our NAA members, and other Aeronca owners mailed to the FAA with approving comments.   
     In reviewing the NAA’s involvement in this AD development process, several thoughts come to mind... the NAA has other functions which perhaps did not receive as much attention as they would have otherwise.... Printing, mailing, and other costs made it necessary to establish new priorities for our limited budget.... Selected NAA members willingly contributed their time and knowledge to the effort All of these thoughts ask a question. If a similar situation should arise would
I do it again? ABSOLUTELY!

'Til Next Time,

     The comment period for the FAA’s proposed spar AD, applicable to all wood-spar wing Aeronca, Champion, and Bellanca 7, 8, and 11 series aircraft (Docket 98-CE-121-AD), has ended. We now have to wait for the FAA to prepare their responses to the many comments and announce their final decision.

     In all the National Aeronca Association sent three separate letters to the FAA within the comment time period. A copy of the first letter was sent to all Aeronca and some early Champion owners alerting them to the latest AD proposal. It addressed the many changes that occurred after the Champion Aircraft Corporation of Osceola, Wisconsin, began modifying our faithful low-gross weight, low-horsepower Aeronca 7 series airplane. The FAA approved it for aerobatics, gave it a red line speed of 162 MPH, a 150-hp engine and a gross weight of 1,650 pounds. They did all this without requiring any significant change in the wing design. We also addressed the fact that after a year and a half and hundreds of comments from concerned Aeronca and Champion owners, the National Aeronca Association was very disappointed in the lack of any change in the FAA’s position: keeping our early 7 and 11 series Aeronca and Champion airplanes in with the higher gross weight and higher horsepower 7 and 8 series aerobatic models.

     There was much more to this letter as we spelled out the excellent service record of the low-horsepower 7 and 11 series airplanes with statistics and the FAA’s own data to back it up. We concluded with a new proposal for the FAA’s consideration. The NAA proposed that those 7s and 11s powered by a 90-hp engine or lower be subject to a one-time spar inspection AD as prescribed in the AD proposal. The succeeding spar inspections,

Jim Thompson

recurring annually, would not be mandated by the AD. This would assure that this aircraft group would be free of wing damage, and with the implementing of the FAA proposed mandatory spar inspection, following any accident or incident (such as a wing tip strike) which has the potential for spar damage, the group should remain spar-damage free.

     The remainder of the letter addressed another inadequacy of the proposal that has been an often-discussed topic among Aeronca owners. The wings of some of our 7 and 11 series airplanes have been completely rebuilt, including spar replacement, with FAA approved PMA spars. Here is an aircraft owner taking the necessary measures to insure that he has an airplane which incorporates a wing spar of unquestionable structural integrity and the spar AD proposal offers no recognition of this fact. We share the owners’ concern and have offered the following proposal: Those 7 and 11 series airplanes powered by engines of 90 hp or less which have been fitted with spar-replaced rebuilt wings in the last five years, and have in the same time frame no history of wing damage, will be exempt from the mandatory spar inspection portion of the AD. These airplanes would be subject to the usual non-mandated spar inspections during the regular annual inspection and the proposed AD-required spar inspection should the aircraft be involved in an accident or incident having the potential to damage the wood spar.

     The last letter to the FAA had to do with the experience and training of the A&P-IA. Also one more reminder of the excellent service record of the early 7 and 11 series airplane and a list of models that would fall into the NAA’s proposal to the FAA.

     The FAA has once again changes their position relative to the availability in printed form of their publication "Alerts." Originally available to anyone free for the asking, the FAA recently announced that it would be available only from the FAA’s Internet website. This apparently produced considerable response from the aviation maintenance community, as a recent FAA announcement advised of the "Alerts" publication being available in printed form on a subscription basis of $25 per year from the: Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.

                   'Til Next Time.

Jim Thompson

The Aeronca 11 series aircraft has not one spar-related accident or service difficulty report (SDR).  The Aeronca-built 7-series aircraft show 8 spar-related SDRs (some are of questionable history and heritage) and no spar-related accidents.  And this is with thousands of Aeronca airplanes having flown thousands of hours over a fifty-year period.
     Why are Aeronca built aircraft being included in the AD proposal? Your guess is as good as mine.  You hear statements like, "The wings are the same".  Very true.  However, the airplanes are sure different. The 7AC Champ has a gross weight of 1220 lbs and  is being grouped with the aerobatic 7KCAB Citabria which

                   'Til Next Time.

Jim Thompson

     Additional inspection holes are not mandatory; however, some may be necessary should the initial Bend-A-Light inspection result in questionalble findings.
     Service Letter No. 406 and Service Letter No. 417, which are applicable to the propsed AD, have once again been revised by American Champion Aircraft Corporation.  Both revisions have resulted in an improvement in substance and language.  Service Letter 406 Revision A, which will logically be the compliance requirement for the proposed AD and is printed in its entirety elsewhere in this issue, now
    

American Champion Aircraft Corp.
P.O. Box 37
32032 Washington Ave., Hwy. D
Rochester, WI  53167

     The National Aeronca Association will provide you with additional information as soon as it is available.

                     'Til Next Time.

Jim Thompson

If you've got something left over from your project or even a complete project, large, small, new or used parts, you're welome to bring them to the convention.  Please remember this is for NATIONAL AERONCA ASSOCATION MEMBERS only and only AERONCA PARTS.  We're still working out some of the details so if

American Champion Aircraft Corp.
P.O. Box 37
32032 Washington Ave., Hwy. D
Rochester, WI  53167

                   'Til Next Time.

Jim Thompson

nails as well as longitudinal and compression cracks. There would be repeated spar inspections at each annual inspection.
     After discussing the matter with selected members of the National Aeronca Association, our conclusion was that that service record fo the Aeronca-built (and some early Champion) 7 and 11 series aircraft justified excluding them from the proposal.  I therefore prepared a letter which was mailed to the FAA explaining and giving reasons for the position of the NAA relative to the proposed AD.
     4252 mailing labels were then obtained for all registered Aeronca 7 and 11 series owners as well as the owners of some early Champion models included in the

                     'Til Next Time.