The End of Mil-Hdbk-5 20

[Sparweb]

I was just informed by a local Transport Canada engineer that Mil-Hdbk-5 will soon cease to be the acceptable data accepted by the FAA for material allowables. The FAA is taking over control of the program, and the new document is called AR-MMPDS. They say they will eventually incorporate data from ESDU 00932 to make it universal in Europe and N.A.

The announcement:

http://aar400.tc.faa.gov/Programs/AgingAircraft/Structural/Aging Aircraft 2003 MMPDS PaperV3.pdf

The document itself:
I would strongly suggest downloading this by using your browser's "save-as" and picking a suitable directory for the 75 MB file

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar-mmpds-01.pdf

"Simplicate, and add more lightness" - Bill Stout
Steven Fahey, CET

 

[bubb375]

I found this out while reading page ii of MIL-HDBK-5J. We are already using the MMPDS-01. It is no different than MIL-HDBK-5, which is a relief.

Brian

 

[i278]

Thanks for that, I hadn't heard anything about it yet. Guess I know what I'll be reading through this weekend.

So, for the real question: what are we supposed to call the new handbook? Seven-letter acronyms never roll of the tongue well in conversation. Until I hear something better, my vote is "em-pads".

Regards

 

[Aeromark]

This is huge. Thanks for the info.

 

[Sparweb]

I278,

How about calling it the "mumps"?
I've already flipped through it a bit, and it seems to match up with Mil-Hdbk-5J page for page. For now.

Where it will go in the FAA's hands, I don't know.

Even better: "armpits"!

"Simplicate, and add more lightness" - Bill Stout
Steven Fahey, CET

 

[terning]

SparWeb,

Thanks for the update. It should be interesting to see the many new faces of the MIL-HDBK-5. Sort of like saying good bye to an old friend.

Best regards,

Brett

 

[SAITAETGrad]

My vote is for M-pa-dess

 

[metman]

How about empdness?

Thanks for the heads-up!

Jesus is THE life,
Leonard

 

[glenn11897]

I've tried downloading the file twice and I keep getting an error. It says "I/O error timeout!" and when I check the file its about 73 MB and its corrupt. What could be the problem?

Is anyone having thesame problem too? Is there any other link to download the file from?

Thanks for reading...

 

[Kiwikid]

I use the fully blown version of DAP on a cable connection and it pulled it in 70secs. Much faster than normal - got lucky with traffic I think.

Check your cache settings - probably not the problem but I've seen it reported lately as a work around.

Sometimes if you pull off multiple servers using a downloader it doesn't assemble correctly.

Other possible causes - AV and firewall programs. Try turning them off temporarily if you can or are allowed to.

Another possible cause is that if you pull from multiplie servers sometimes one will become bogged down and time you out. You are then missing a part of the file which will show up as corrupted.

Does your downloader have a resume function on it?

 

[glenn11897]

I asked around my office and someone had a copy of it. But thanks for the advice, it maybe my cache settings.

 

[metman]

Hey Brett,
You said, "Sort of like saying good bye to an old friend."

This here is to say hello to and old friend! Welcome aboard eng-tips. This is good stuff. Not? Congratulations on your nuptials. I miss you.

leonard@myyellowstone.net

Jesus is THE life,
Leonard

 

[skidoobond]

Several military standard documents are being taken by non-military groups. Mil-hdbk-5 is just one of the many documents the military is tired of updating and are releasing control of these to other groups. Typically from what I've seen, the first draft under the new group is a straight copy of the last rev of the mil standard. There are some exceptions, but this is happening quite often lately.

 

[Aeromark]

Makes sense to start the new document draft as being exactly like the old document final revision.

 

[Sparweb]

The handover of many Mil-specs to either AIAA or SAE makes it more expensive to keep current standards on hand. Hope the FAA doesn't start charging for copies of "armpits".


"Simplicate, and add more lightness" - Bill Stout
Steven Fahey, CET

 

[Sparweb]

In case some of you are still having trouble downloading AR-MMPDS-01, try this:

http://aar400.tc.faa.gov/Programs/AgingAircraft/Structural/projects2a.htm

or

http://aar400.tc.faa.gov/Programs/AgingAircraft/Structural/reports.htm

The FAA's website evolves with time and links that work on day may not when you come back months later.



Steven Fahey, CET
"Simplicate, and add more lightness" - Bill Stout

 

[Stache]

I just joined your web site recently and find it worth its weight in gold. I use MIL-HDBK-5 Rev. H, everyday and have two copies one at work and home. Being in the FAA Inspector myself I did not know about the change until I read your message board. AC 43.13-1b references MIL-HDBK-5, in referenced several places for mechanics performing repairs. Thanks for the info.

Denny of Oakland

 

[FranAle]

Sparweb

Thanks for "the light HBK-5 replacement"
I have already checked out your version and of course, the question of my coleagues are : all the paperwork related with FAA documents (AC43.13B,ACs, etc)will be re edited to get a reference in the new AR-MMPDS-01?

Thanks

Francis

 

[qwertyyuiop]

Hi,

does anyone know what's happening with AR-MMPDS-01 first change notice?

It was expected to be released last spring and replace Mil-hdbk-5 since its publication, but, up to date I've not heard anything about this?

thanks

 

[Sparweb]

I doubt that the FAA is going to update all of the documents that reference Mil-Hdbk-5E. Perish the thought that they might spend all their time doing that, instead of, say, pushing through the Sport Pilot licencing like they were supposed to (last year).

As for keeping track of AR-MPDS-01 itself, well, stay sharp: all but one of the links I posted to it are broken now.

Steven Fahey, CET
"Simplicate, and add more lightness" - Bill Stout