Citabria AD 72-18-03 Battery Area Corrosion

Thanks. I have deleted the AI posts.
I think a lot of post 1973 production did not have battery boxes.
Glad I did not delete my letter.

After looking at your service letters, I am still of the opinion that the AD itself is poorly written. First, according to the AD, you cannot operate any of these aircraft unless prior to March 2 you installed the box. You cannot install the box after March 1, 1973. It actually says that. Well, it says the box must be installed by March 1, 1973, which is pretty much saying the same thing.

The service letter indicates that the repetitive inspection can be discontinued if you install the approved box/battery. But the AD is written so that you must take terminating action before March 2, 1973. That means if the aircraft is airworthy, you do not have to do the 25 hour inspection.
So even ACA is confused.

And why did they continue to produce aircraft without the approved box? Or why are people pulling those boxes out of perfectly good airplanes, if indeed the boxes were factory installed?

I think AI may have a point when it indicates that we can use 43-13 - although there is that caveat that says something about not being contrary to manufacturer specifications.
 
Last edited:
ACA addressed their approval of sealed batteries and allowed retrofit of same if conformed to their drawing specs. Thus their application for an Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC).

The original AD was against Bellanca Aircraft. ACA inherited it.

The AD is another example of a poorly written document.
 
Back
Top