Folks,
This problem has been a around for a long time --- in Australia. First identified here about 10 years ago.
A major area to be checked for corrosion is the built up spar from the main wing attach point to the strut attach point (non-strutted Cessna singles, 195/177/210, have a completely different structure), hence the estimated cost.
There are at least two sets of jigs in Sydney Australia to re-build the wings, which is what we are talking about. Australia wide, I have no idea. From personal experience I would say $60,000 covers cost of rebuilding the two wings to an as new or better than new if you corrosion paint everything before re-assembly. It is not possible (again, based on experience here in Australia) to determine the extent of the corrosion, without tearing the main spar down, , ahead of the fuel tanks. There is no satisfactory NDT method to determine the extent of the corrosion. There is no "damage tolerance" for corrosion in the area.
It is a real problem, not some marketing ploy by Cessna.
Further, US Congress has passed several pieces of "aging aircraft" legislation, outside the FARs, FAA and manufacturers/type certificate holders have no choice but to respond.
Indeed, if you were to examine the history, you would finds the extent of the problem for strutted Cessna, and the minimum inspection and fix was first raised in Australia ( by LAMEs, not CASA), but it seems the sheer number of aeroplanes put it all in the "too hard" basket.
Given the cost of anything that might substitute for a C152/172/180/182/185/205/206, I would think that rebuilt wings on the 182/206 are probably a commercial proposition, as for the rest, case by case.
Somebody mentioned the 300 series in private use. Anybody who has a 300/400 series used in any category, talk very carefully to your aviation lawyer and make certain your insurance company agrees in writing to cover the aircraft, if the Cessna Maintenance Manual (inc. the SID) has not been complied with.
What constitutes "acceptable data" for Schedule 5 inspections is thoroughly misunderstood. Don't depend on "advice" from CASA, that will be of little help in court.
If you are a LAME, make certain your Hangar Keepers and Professional Indemnity insurance states, in writing, that you and your business and employees are covered, if you sign a MR for an aircraft where the SID has not been done, "because it's only used for private operations".
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 25th Dec 2009 at 06:30.