Traash
Well Known Member
Recently the FAA published SAIB HQ-14-16 relating to non-conforming standard fasteners, notably MS 21042 nuts. A portion of this notice is pictured here:
You can access the full SAIB via the FAA's website.
The nut mentioned is pictured here as a copy of the Aircraft Spruce page with an actual nut next to the drawing. The lower MS21042 is the problem child. The upper AN363 is another style of all metal lock-nut.
I have personally had two of these nuts fail in my engine compartment. One on the linkage to my mixture control, the other on my exhaust hangers. I have replaced all (numerous) of my MS21042's with AN363's for peace of mind. At the least I think it prudent to avoid use of the problem nuts in critical areas where a single failure could result in an unairworthy condition (i.e. flight or enigine control linkages).
![t8tdhs.jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi57.tinypic.com%2Ft8tdhs.jpg&hash=1c45f85bde1fd0b7def7035fc2c3b48e)
You can access the full SAIB via the FAA's website.
The nut mentioned is pictured here as a copy of the Aircraft Spruce page with an actual nut next to the drawing. The lower MS21042 is the problem child. The upper AN363 is another style of all metal lock-nut.
![sfc7yq.jpg](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2Fsfc7yq.jpg&hash=3376c5f46b2ffd8b46e04ca004c50418)
I have personally had two of these nuts fail in my engine compartment. One on the linkage to my mixture control, the other on my exhaust hangers. I have replaced all (numerous) of my MS21042's with AN363's for peace of mind. At the least I think it prudent to avoid use of the problem nuts in critical areas where a single failure could result in an unairworthy condition (i.e. flight or enigine control linkages).