View Full Version : New Cessna Special Inspections Documents (SIDs)


achimha
22nd May 2012, 09:51
Cessna finally released the Special Inspection Documents (SIDs) for its 100 series aircraft. These call out for numerous additional inspections depending on hours and service and age. The 400/300 series twins were the first to get SIDs and their market value collapsed since then. The 100 series inspections appear to be less intrusive but they are numerous and time consuming. I wonder what effect this will have.

Model 100 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1953 thru 1962) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37388)
Model 100 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 9 (1963 thru 1968) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37390)
Model 177 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 8 (1968 thru 1978) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37393)
FR172 Reims Rocket Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1968 thru 1976) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37394)
Model 150 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 6 (1969 thru 1976) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37395)
Model 172 and Skyhawk Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1969 thru 1976) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37396)
Cardinal RG Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1971 thru 1975) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37397)
Model 180/185 Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1969 thru 1980) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37399)
182 and Skylane Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1969 thru 1976) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37400)
Model 177RG Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 10 (1976 thru 1978) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37401)
Model 150 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1977) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37402)
Model 172R Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1977 thru 1981) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37403)
Model 188 and T188 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1966 thru 1984) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37405)
Model 152 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1978 thru 1985) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37406)
Model 172 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1977 thru 1986) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37407)
Model 172RG Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 6 (1980 thru 1985) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37408)
Model 180/185 Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1981 thru 1985) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37409)
Model 182/T182 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1977 thru 1986) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37410)
Model R182/TR182 Service Manual Temporary Revision 8 (1978 thru 1986) (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37412)



Bob Upanddown
22nd May 2012, 21:16
I am surprised no-one has commented on this as it will surely increase maintenance costs. EASA will want all these inspections added to maintenance programmes and, of course, compliance will be recorded by the engineer each time he carries out each inspection. Good engineers know these airplanes are old so inspect them accordingly. Now he will spend more time pushing pen rather than being an engineer!
How many Cessna landing and taxi light switches were changed for no reason?
You only have to look at how EASA is certifying engineers to see where this is all going for light aviation. People with degrees sign off the aircraft The hands-on people don't. So the pen-pushers need it all written down so they can use their degrees to sign off the aircraft.

achimha
23rd May 2012, 07:25
Are these really mandatory under EASA rules? In the US, they are not for Part 91 operators.

If this really becomes mandatory, it will be catastrophic. Some of the inspections call for very costly procedures, e.g. the engine mount inspection requires you to remove the engine and most accessories and even recommends doing an engine overhaul while at it (you have until 2015). Others require the application of certain older service bulletins which have always been optional.

The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. Same here?

172driver
23rd May 2012, 07:58
The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. Same here?


It would appear so: article in Flying Mag (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/cessna-mandating-inspections-skyhawks-skylanes-many-more?cmpid=enews052212&spPodID=030&spMailingID=5347642&spUserID=MTgyODczMTkzMTAS1&spJobID=199719728&spReportId=MTk5NzE5NzI4S0)

:(

achimha
23rd May 2012, 08:27
I talked to the CAA here (LBA) this morning. They confirmed that in principle, the SIDs are mandatory as they are part of the inspection guidelines and both CAMO and individual maintenance programs are based on the manufacturer's maintenance guidelines.

EASA and the CAAs will look into the SIDs and decide what to do. These inspections are much worse than they appear at first look. If this becomes mandatory, it might be worth going to FAA-reg.

Bob Upanddown
23rd May 2012, 09:40
EASA and the CAAs will look into the SIDs and decide what to do. These inspections are much worse than they appear at first look. If this becomes mandatory, it might be worth going to FAA-reg.

This is what happened with Cessna Twins. EASA considered they were part of the maintenance programme so had to be completed. Many Cessna Twins are on the FAA as a result.

A and C
23rd May 2012, 17:35
I have had a brief scan of this document and it is going to ground a large number of aircraft in the UK, if your aircraft has been getting cheap annual checks for the last ten years then you can expect your next annual to cost you about 15K in aditional work.

Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30 % above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull.

I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintaned old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft.

To put it in UK industry terms anything that CABAIR once owned is likely to be a target for instant grounding!..........if the new owner has not already put a lot of work into the aircraft.

englishal
23rd May 2012, 17:40
Removing the engine is not really such a big deal or that expensive.....But I agree, all these bits do add up, plus VAT, so can easily bring an annual to over 5 grand (plus VAT). But at least you know your engine won't fall off !

achimha
23rd May 2012, 17:48
Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30 % above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull.

How could your reputable maintenance company execute inspections in the past that were not defined yet? Do you think the reputable company will just put a checkmark next to them? I highly doubt...

jxk
23rd May 2012, 18:38
I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintained old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft.No, I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs.

I bet all maintenance organisations believe they are doing a good job after all they are supervised by their surveyors and their paperwork is controlled by their quality managers. ;)

A and C
23rd May 2012, 18:40
It is quite simple, most of the SID,s is just defining what is good practice. If your maintenance providor has been inspecting the aircraft properly and addressing the defects that were found the SID,s inspection is likely to result in few nasty surprises. On the other hand if the maintenance providor has just been ticking the boxes and not looking deeply enough to try to achieve a cheap job for the customer then it is likely that the true state of the airframe is unknown and problems that have been lurking for years will be found.

To give you an example, my C152's have been treated with one of the approved corrosion inhibitors for the last eight years, the rudder inspection was mandated by the UK CAA long before EASA came to be and we have continued to make these inspections despite the fact that they were not mandated by EASA, at engine changes we crack checked the engine frame, repaired all defects and re-painted the frame. We have always inspected the airframe in the areas that the SID,s inspection mandates at the annual check.

The result of this maintenance is that we know the aircraft very well by now and are unlikely to find any nasty surprises, there are only so many ways to inspect a component so the fact that Cessna have found it necessary to define an inspection dose not necessarily make the last inspection of that component invalid. I see no reason to strip a component that has recently been fully inspected in accordance with the Cessna maintenance manual & AC43 just because Cessna produce a new bit of paper, I will respect the maintenance limits for such a component and will ensure that the aircraft maintenance program reflects this.

Big Pistons Forever
23rd May 2012, 18:59
I agree with A & C. The thrust of the SID is detecting corrosion. Good regular maintenance will look out for and catch developing corrosion and stop it from getting a hold. Cheap maintenance will basically eschew any indepth structural inspections allowing corrosion to fester.

The SID will be a killer for these aircraft because when the dark corners are opened repairs are going to be required. Since all of the SID inspections are for major structural members, repairs are going to be uneconomic for a lot of marginally maintained aircraft.

The other issue is there is both calendar and hour limits. At 20 years of airframe age, which is every legacy Cessna single, all the big inspections kick in regardless of airframe hours. This is going to be a big all once hit even for good aircraft.

Finally this is not a one time deal. There are continuing inspections required and for aircraft over 12,000 hours the inspection interval is dramatically shortened.

So far in Canada the SIDs are not mandatory for private aircraft and most flying schools have written their Maintenence Control Manuals (whuch are approved by Transport Canada) so they are not obligated to perform the SID,s. However there are indications that TC may mandate them anyway.

If these are inspections are made mandatory for private aircraft my SWAG is that half the fleet of the privately owned single engine Cessna,s will never fly again....

achimha
23rd May 2012, 19:57
A and C: the issue is not potential problems that get discovered during the inspections and require costly repairs. Who wants to continue flying with a corroded airframe? The issue is that performing the SIDs will cost a lot of money.

With Part M, these SIDs are generally considered to be mandatory service instructions in EASA land. The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory here, although they were stripped down a bit through alternate methods of compliance.

This can really bite us...

A and C
23rd May 2012, 20:15
I agree about this bite in this but it is not the inspection that is likely to bite the hardest, it is the defects that are found. The rectification of these defects could well cost more the aircraft is worth.

This inspection will show up the aircraft that have been neglected for years, not the aircraft that have been properly maintained.

achimha
23rd May 2012, 20:25
A and C: I've gone through the SIDs for my TR182 and a first estimate is between 6,000-8,000 .

What I don't know is how much it costs to remove the engine and accessories to inspect the engine mount. The SID states:

This is a complex and involved inspection. It is recommended that the inspection be coordinated with an engine overhaul, even if the time does not exactly agree with inspection hours. Recurring inspections will be satisfied by inspections at engine overhaul. The initial inspection must be completed by June 30, 2015.

How much effort is that? A day? More than that?

Pilot DAR
23rd May 2012, 20:27
How could your reputable maintenance company execute inspections in the past that were not defined yet?

Just doing a through job of it.

As I read through the requirements for my 150, I realized that Cessna has documented many of those extra things I have been inspecting for years. They are written into my maintenance schedule with only my name as a reference, as the maintenance manual never described them ('till now!). Every aircraft type has its peculiarities, which come to be well known by maintainers experienced with that type. As Cessna has written, these requirements were drafted in consultation with owners and operators. That is evident in the content.

I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs.

Maybe a bit, but not wholly. I attended a seminar at Cessna years ago when this was emerging for the twins. Cessna presented and described it well. Cessna, in partnership with the University of Kansas had initiated inspections of long use Cessna 400 series twins. They bought two back from operators, and took them all apart, documenting every defect they found. It would be this experience which is the basis for their SID's. Interestingly, they said that the structures were better than they expected, but in both cases, the wiring was in terrible condition.

The aging aircraft initiative instigated by the FAA has some relevance to this, though it is aimed at larger aircraft, and generally did not target aircraft less than 12,500 pounds. At an FAA seminar I attended, the FAA presenter did say that what was appropriate for larger aircraft, was also necessary for the smaller ones, just appropriately more simple. These SID's, to me, are evidence of that.

As has been said, if you have been maintaining your aircraft well, you have little to fear - you're use to paying for proper maintenance, and it has been done in a preventive sense, so the plane will be okay. I sure would be weary of poorly maintained aircraft though. This will open a whole new vista of critical importance to a very through pre purchase inspection! People are going to be dumping out dogs now, and you sure don't want to be stuck with one now (if ever)!

Curlytips
23rd May 2012, 20:46
The only one shown is the FR172. Does that mean the original Rheims built machines (that had better corrosion proofing anyway) are not covered? So if your marque starts with an F, are you outside USA Cessna's admin? :confused:

achimha
24th May 2012, 07:24
Reims built Cessnas are just Cessnas with the exception of the Reims Rocket that is a separate model. The document for the 172 (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37407) contains the French built models as well. Corrosion protection was a factory option for the US built models.

jxk
24th May 2012, 07:44
Being Devil's Advocate:

Are there any known cases of Cessna 100 series aircraft 'crashing' as a result of corrosion/ex-foliation (not engine failure) or poor maintenance?

Also, I would be interested to know if the SIDs are statistically related or intuitive.

And another: has a seat belt failure occurred causing an injury or worse.

englishal
24th May 2012, 08:10
In the maintenance of our aeroplanes (not Cessnas) we always went above and beyond what was *required*. We even removed the engine and mount to inspect for corrosion and repaint. The reason was that the rest of the aeroplane was in superb condition and this brought the front end up to a known similar condition and made it look nice. I don't remember the cost now, it was a few years ago, but it was by no means horrific for that portion of the work.

Actually you can remove the engine yourself....on our current aeroplane, when rebuilding the thing, me and the co-owner assisted with removing the engine, and then took the mount off ourselves, shot blasted it ourselves, had it inspected and then re-painted. We put the bolts back in but got the maintenance organisation to torque the bolts and and re-fit the engine and inspect.

I'd rather have a known quantity in the aeroplane that an unknown quantity, and doing this type of thing rests the mind.

140KIAS
26th May 2012, 13:53
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. How does information like this get disseminated out?

Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory?

My 182 is offline now due to engine getting shockload test so one saving grace is we should be able to address the engine mount inspection.

Mickey Kaye
26th May 2012, 19:27
JXK

Good points and I very much expect the answer to be no

achimha
26th May 2012, 19:39
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. How does information like this get disseminated out?

You can register with Cessna here (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/csupport/newlogin.jsp). You will then receive email when new service bulletins become available, about one email a week. You can also search the database of past service bulletins.

In my experience, most shops don't care much about service bulletins, they focus on the mandatory stuff only, i.e. ADs.

A and C
27th May 2012, 06:59
We have a Cessna maintenance manual paper updat subscription and the SID,s data arrived in the post Last Friday so I would expect most CAMO,s in the UK to be taking a long hard look at all of this in the coming week.

JXK

I think that you make a good point, I too think that we have not yet seen an accident with a small Cessna due to corrosion and other old airframe issues however if left uncorrected I don't think that such an accident is far away.
This was made clear to me a year or so back when a proud new owner of a C172 turned up for an annual check, it was quite clear from the start that this aircraft had seen very little maintenance in a long time and had issues with a lot of the items that the SID,s checks address, I have no doubt that had the aircraft continued to be maintained by the previous maintenance company there was a very strong chance of a fatal accident, of course the owner was of the opinion that we were overdoing things when the maintenance bill was more than he had paid for the aircraft.

This check will hit the C150 fleet very hard, the value of the a lot of the aircraft will be far below the cost of the check, let alone rectifying the defects that the check finds.

pudoc
29th May 2012, 19:10
I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable flying a C152 due to their age. Most of my clubs C152 fly daily and fly from 8am to 9pm on days with brilliant weather. And even on rubbish days, they get flown, blown and hammered.

I think our maintenance engineers are great and whilst there are much older planes in use (spitfires for example) I still think they should be retired.

We have a lot of C152s at our club and most have some form of dents in the wings. No idea how they got there. Pungent fuel smells in a couple of them make me worry too. Engineers says its safe and I know the 152 is a robust ol' girl, but still.

A and C
29th May 2012, 19:50
You have nothing to fear from a well maintained C152, however if you reported a "pungent fuel smell" on one of my aircraft it would be investigated and corrected before the aircraft was flown.

pudoc
29th May 2012, 20:14
That's reassuring to hear. The smell was investigated and was nothing serious, it still reoccurs every now and then but goes away once airborne.

gyrotyro
30th May 2012, 07:12
Having read through the SID for a Cessna 177RG I was scared sh....less!

I realize that the work involved is only intended to address problems that one can only expect to find on an aging aircraft and that a normal annual inspection should deal with a large majority of them anyway, but when you see the list in its entirety it is most scary. Scary mainly from a "Bloody hell how much is this going to cost" point of view.

The corrosion map of the UK denote that it is either severe or moderately rated so encurring a higher level of inspection.

I am Sooo glad I am out of the certificated regime and in the warm busom of the LAA. (Never thought I would say that!) The thought of being the owner of a 150/2 or an older 172 would fill me with dread as the cost of an annual inspection could easily cost more than the value of the aircraft.

Piper and other manufacturers will probably read the Cessna SID's and come up with their own lists as well so for me being a single owner operator of limited income it is a case of certificated aircraft RIP. I have enjoyed the experience over the years but now it is LAA all the way.

NutLoose
30th May 2012, 08:25
Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory?



It says 2014 in some I have read with I think 2015 for the engine out, oddly enough I do most of the inspections already, I have pulled most engine mounts over the last couple of years and inspected them when I have done engine changes etc as I was concerned that some of the mounting bolts could have been in since the year dot, so I renewed them for my piece of mind, there are a few more I will need to address, but it is with EASA at them moment to see how much or how little they will adopt, so I am awaiting their decision before going fwd. A lot of them are simply the contents of the continious Airworthiness programme transfered over to the maint manual

Bob Upanddown
30th May 2012, 08:51
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this.

I suggest you move to another CAMO. If your CAA are doing their EASA best in extreme auditing (do you need this on a Cessna 150? No, but you do on a 747 so we will make that a finding), he won't be a CAMO for much longer if he is not keeping up to date with this information.

Seriously, the CAMO should be keeping up to date and advising you, not the other way around. What are you paying him for otherwise?

achimha
30th May 2012, 08:56
It's just a few days since Cessna put the SIDs online and I suppose most CAMOs are subscribed to the paper or microfiche version. Give them some time to catch up...

Pilot DAR
30th May 2012, 16:23
I read about the pilots who are indignant that they might be offered a worn out old plane to fly, and how it should be maintained to a very high standard. And, I read about how scary the prospect of subjecting these old aircraft to additional inspections. And then finally, the panacea of the non certified aircraft as the economical escape route to fly without the regulatory or inspection burden.

Let's remind ourselves that it costs money to be airborne, some ways more than others. Cessna are expert in knowing how to provide a safe means of being airborne, if you do it their way (or equivalently well). Aircraft of other manufacture, and particularly non certified, can be very much more variable and less certain.

Some people think that older planes should be retired. Those people are very welcome to pay the cost to fly in very new aircraft only, those planes are available too. They just have higher cost of use due to their higher value. If that's your choice, no problem, pay the cost, fly in an aircraft whose "bugs" may yet to be found, and don't complain!

Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours (for what I have briefly read). Sounds very fair and appropriate to me. I have 24,000 hours to go on my 150, and that'll keep me fine! A Cessna 207 I used to fly had 19,700 hours, and seemed very airworthy, I oversaw a comprehensive inspection, and nothing was really wrong with the structure or systems (Paint and furnishings were ratty). It had been well maintained. The 1977 C152 I did my fist solo in, had 33 hours when I did that (in 1977). It was retired from the flying club decades later with more than 14,500 hours, and still flies privately today. Presuming up to date maintenance, I would not be the least "uncomfortable" to fly that plane.

Yes, some poorly maintained Cessnas are going to be "found out" by these inspections - that's the whole point! Such aircraft are probably headed toward a very justified retirement. If the owner has maintained the aircraft well throughout, there is little to be worried about here.

And, when renters are presented with "old" Cessnas, which are right up to date with all of these new inspections, will they relax, have confidence in the quality of the aircraft, and become less "uncomfortable"?

Some of this reminds me of the people who complain about the poor condition of the road, then complain about the cost and traffic delays to repair it!

Then, we have the non certified proponents, whose subtle message is that it costs less to correctly maintain a non certified aircraft. Well, perhaps this could appear to be, simply because of the much lower utilization compared to the Cessnas, and lack of the cost of OEM support. If these non certified aircraft were operating in a commercial role, getting flown, blown and hammered, I dare say that it would rapidly become more expensive to maintain to the non "old" standard of quality expected by the renter. And, when that non certified aircraft needs replacement parts 50 years after it was manufactured, will the manufacturer still make parts available for it? Cessna does!

We either want to fly well maintained aircraft, and are prepared to pay the cost, or, we will fly unknown quality aircraft, and not complain....

achimha
30th May 2012, 16:28
DAR, the only issue with new aircraft is that there aren't any for flight training! What can really replace a Cessna 152? DA20 is a lot more fragile. Aquila have tried to enter that market and produced a ruggedized version called SXT (http://www.aquila-aero.com/fileadmin/pdf/de/a210/sxt_6s.pdf) (with a funny double nose tire) but nothing beats a Cessna 152 when it comes to flight training.

mad_jock
30th May 2012, 16:49
Apart from a tommy :p

peterh337
30th May 2012, 17:11
Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours

I wonder if that figure is actually relevant in the UK. How many C15x aircraft reach 30k hrs, in Europe? Do schools really fly 1000hrs/year? No school I have ever seen even remotely approaches that. In Arizona, possibly :)

On the one hand it does amaze me that Cessna have not replaced these old workhorses.

They blame certification costs, which I am sure is bogus.

But Cessna are not stupid. They are the most clever company in the GA business, and have huge resources. They must have a reason.

I wonder what it is?

Could it be that the payload of a "new" C15x is not enough to make the average training flight legal? The 162 is a totally stripped down carcass, to improve the payload.

Could it be that those planes look so agricultural that most people with more than 2$ to rub together walk away shortly after walking into a flying school and see what they will be flying in?

peterh337
30th May 2012, 18:27
What is wrong with the 162?

It is priced ~ $140k so presumably the price was not thought to be a problem - for enough schools to be interested.

peterh337
31st May 2012, 10:13
OK; I forgot the 162 doesn't have an ICAO CofA.

In fact Cessna stopped taking orders for it from Europe (according to a recent news release) allegedly because EASA is dragging its heels on approving it.

So.... why doesn't Cessna make a new 152?

mad_jock
31st May 2012, 10:29
I am not suprised its dragging

Its got some funny spin characteristics which apparently have not solved properly because of the certifying standards they are using. Its up to the parachute to save you.

Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough.

Looking at it though that nose wheel won't do the job for training.

peterh337
31st May 2012, 11:45
Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough.

I buy PCBs from China in my business and apart from wads of documentation which are massive enough to warm the heart of the most anally retarded UK ISO9000 quality manager, the boards are 100% perfect. Not a single defective circuit out of some (never counted them) few hundred k circuits.

When I used to make these in the UK, we used to get 1-2% duff ones - largely because they used to skip the electronic test when the end of the month was coming up ;)

The Chinese will deliver whatever you ask them for, and pay them for.

mad_jock
31st May 2012, 12:10
I don't doud't that is the case with massed produced electronics. With german hardware production lines. Same with the car production.

And it doesn't matter where they make it, that nose gear won't cut the mustard.

peterh337
31st May 2012, 14:11
Are you a structural engineer now, MJ?

mad_jock
31st May 2012, 14:38
What do you think Peter?

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/485895-flying-after-bumping-wing-during-taxi.html

Big Pistons Forever
31st May 2012, 15:37
In the US at least, this Cessna inspection SB won't make any difference to that landscape. They'll fly on.
.

Unless the SIDs become and AD. I think Cessna will use the data coming from the inspections to make a case that the SID's should be mandatory. It is win win for Cessna.

peterh337
31st May 2012, 16:10
An AD is always a win/win once all affected airframes are out of warranty :)

In fact a "mandatory SB" is a win/win once all affected airframes are out of warranty :)

It is only within warranty that mandatory SBs (and ADs) have to be applied at the manufacturer's expense.

A and C
31st May 2012, 23:09
As I have said above some of us have been doing most of the SID's work as a matter of good engineering practice for years, it is those who have not that have things to fear when they look inside places that have not seen the light of day since AVGAS was 50p a ltr !

JUST-local
9th Jun 2012, 10:21
Is there a better way of compiling a service bulletin listing for a particular model of Cessna.

I have Avantext and the Cessna SB's are all over the place and take a lot of time to work out.

Piper do a per model listing, even a free one on the Piper web site! which is better than the one I pay for.

Thanks for any information.

NutLoose
9th Jun 2012, 10:35
ATP's programme does a compliance report per aircraft for FAA AD's SB's and EASA AD's, you simply add the aircraft, engine, components such as carling switches, radios etc and it compiles a report. We also have the manuals on it for Cessna, but the Piper maint manuals we have are on Avantext as they do not do them on ATP although the ATP compliances part does do the Pipers.

Also on the ATP when you open an AD off the list if there is a relevant SB it will link you to that too...

I think they have a trial programme.

Profile & Compliance App (http://www.atp.com/products/aviation-hub/compliance-overview.php)

https://www.navigator.aero/Login?ReturnUrl=%2f

Though the EASA and FAA parts and the Manuals are all separate subscriptions , the lot updates every night off the web, or when you wish.

JUST-local
9th Jun 2012, 11:06
Thanks NL I will take a look.

NutLoose
9th Jun 2012, 11:25
Also register on cesscom and they email you any new ones. If you use Adams Aviation ask to speak to Richard, he deals with ATP so you might get a trail if not one online

Aviater
12th Jun 2012, 11:07
I can't believe there are people here that think these SID's aren't mandatory. They aren't an SB they are a directive and form part of the maintenance manaul. They are a manual revision. Therefore, if you maintain your aircraft as per the maintenance manual, the SID's are mandatory.

I don't see how you can get around that? I'd love to hear how these aren't mandatory?

As for the 'a good engineer will have been doing this stuff and it won't be a problem'.

I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's.

Any engineer worth his salt will have to think long and hard before he/she shrugs off this new manual revision during your next annual/100 hourly.

A and C
12th Jun 2012, 18:21
I don't think that anyone who has seen this modification to the maintenance program will take it lightly but it is a question of the likelihood of nasty suprizes.

Those who have been using best practice and spending a time and effort on the care of the aircraft over the years are unlikely to find problems, those who have been happy with the two day annual check are likely to have big problems.

NutLoose
15th Jun 2012, 23:38
I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's.


Have done all the wing struts we had that were due several months ago after a supplier let me know a local company had one fail, we had one fail too out of 4 or 5 aircraft and that was replaced with a Servicable item, I also replaced all the nuts and bolts at the same time, something the SID's do not mention, ours failed because of deep pitting corrosion around the tie down hole when doing the rivet eddy current inspection.. One major problem is Cessna was giving at the time about 4 months plus turnaround on replacement struts.... One just hopes they address their lack of spares.

They were in the continuous airworthiness programme, though the wing spar attachment bolts and holes procedure was incomplete in the said programme

AdamFrisch
18th Jun 2012, 06:09
Aviater - Depends on where you are in the world. Yes, in "nervous" EASA-land and Australia, where the CAA's can be convinced to allow killing small children if it could somehow improve safety by 1%, they will be mandatory (of course). SID = AD's in those countries. But in FAA-land for part 91 operations, they don't. You don't even have to follow SB's if you don't want to.

achimha
18th Jun 2012, 07:34
Adam, SIDs are not ADs. For the Cessna twins, ADs were issued, making certain elements of the SIDs mandatory. The Cessna 100 series SIDs are an amendment to Section 2 of the service manual, i.e. the maintenance section. Under EASA maintenance rules (CAMO or owner maintenance), maintenance has to be carried out according to the service manual's Section 2.

Aviater
18th Jun 2012, 13:19
achimha - Thankyou.

The 100 SID's are not SB's or AD's or SIL's or AC's. They are PART OF THE MAINTENANCE MANUAL. They are mandatory in the any country that uses the manufacturer as the source for maintenance data for the issue of an airworthiness certificate. Unless you maintain your aircraft under a completely different schedule of maintenance ignoring the maintenance manual then they are mandatory.

Most people think that in the US under the FAA and here in Aus under CASA that there's no obligation to do SB's. However, if you read the Manuals for most aircraft, you will find that the manuals state that the aircraft must be maintained in accordance with 'this manual' and any supporting documentation relating to this aircraft. Or something to that effect.

The point is, if you ignore an applicable SB, as an engineer, your asking for trouble.

There are many cases where litigation has found the A&P liable for not carrying out SB's on an aircraft where the owner proved the A&P should have known better and the owner was ignorant or unaware of implications.

Caution any engineer/A&P who says 'Don't worry about SB's. They're not mandatory in this country.

If any of my clients specifically ask me not to carry out an SB after they or I have found it, I get them to sign a letter stating that they are fully aware of the information and have elected not to have the work done. I also sign it, give a copy to the owner, put a copy in the logbook and keep a copy on file.

AdamFrisch
18th Jun 2012, 16:21
The SIDs came early to the 337 Skymasters. At the time they did, I was heavily involved in the Skymaster forum as I was about to buy one and there was a lot of talk about the SID. For part 91 you do not have to perform the teardown to comply, just as you don't have to tear your engine down at 2000hrs or every 12 years to comply with what Lycoming says.

Basically, the airworthiness of an aircraft is an FAA responsibility. No private entity, no matter how many SIDs they produce, can ground an aircraft or force you to do anything. So unless the SID is an AD - for part 91 where you don't service according to manufacturers - then it is only advisory.

Now, that might not be the case anywhere else - notice how in Europe they interpret it as you have to tear down your engine at TBO or 12 years. So depending on how you word it or have the type certificate set up, any compliance would have to be to manufacturers specifications.

This has much greater implementations legally than people think. Because if this SID will be grounds for grounding anywhere else, then it will mean that any private entity, now, or in the future, can come up with their own legislation that you need to comply with but without having to inform you about it when you buy the product. Imagine this taken to it's logical conclusion - you buy a dish washer, but 5 years down the road the manufacturer invents a "problem" with the design, forcing you to repair it for more than a new one or replace it at great cost. Would you accept that? What if it was your car? Your house?

Here's a legal clarification from the Conquest owners:

http://www.conquestowners.org/images/SUPPLEMENTAL_INSPECTION_DOCUMENTS.pdf

A and C
18th Jun 2012, 17:24
Structual failure of my dishwasher is unlikely to kill me, on the other hand the Structual failure of one of my Cessna's is very likely to result in the death of the crew. Hence the tighter maintenance oversight.

AdamFrisch
18th Jun 2012, 17:57
That might be so, and it certainly would be prudent to comply, but it still doesn't make it mandatory.

Airworthiness is the responsibility of the FAA (in the US), and that's why we, and the manufacturers, pay millions and millions to go through the certification process. Once that's completed, FAA is responsible for the continued airworthiness of that particular type certificate, not the manufacturer. One can't have it both ways - either the manufacturer is responsible for the airworthiness (and in that case, why certify it?), or the FAA is.

Therefore, the only things that can make an airframe non airworthy is if the FAA published AD's or the STC's are not complied with or a licensed FAA representative (A&P/IA or FAA inspector) says so.

That might not be the case in EASA land, but I'm pretty sure it's similar.

edsbar
18th Jun 2012, 23:23
Aviater, agree 100%. Too many engineers bend over for the owners and have no idea of the implications in the event of an accident.
Take a look at Para 1.18.5 of the Willowbank 206 accident as a classic example.

Investigation: 200600001 - Collision with terrain; Willowbank, Qld; 2 January 2006; VH-UYB, Cessna Aircraft Company U206 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2006/aair/aair200600001.aspx)

Even under Schedule 5 you need to follow the MM or have good reason why you did not (Your honour I know more than the manufacturer ... :ugh:)

gasax
19th Jun 2012, 08:25
In EASAland the regulator efffectively accepts no responsibility. They insist the manufacturer / owner / operator do a large number of things and will prosecute it they do not happen. But and it is a huge but, the responsiblity for airworthiness is all on the owner/operator. Pretty much like having your cake and eating it.

jxk
19th Jun 2012, 18:31
Any opinions with regard to this mod? Anyone had their seat slide back since fitting it?
Does it get in the way? Mine is fitted just like to know how people think about it.

wigglyamp
19th Jun 2012, 19:20
I assume that aircraft owners who don't want many of the items on the manufacturer's schedule carried out also say to their garage 'don't bother with the xyz ... ' when their car service indicator tells them something is due. I somehow think the car DOES get actually serviced to the manufacturer's schedule even something going wrong later has much less chance of a nasty outcome!

ericferret
5th Jul 2012, 22:40
I expect that 99% of all UK single engined Cessnas are maintained to the light aircraft maintenance program. CAP766

Section 2

The undersigned (owner/operator) undertakes to ensure that the aircraft will continue to be maintained in accordance with the program section 3 responsibilities and standards.

Non compliance will invalidate the c of a.

Signed for/on behalf of the owner operator


Section 3

Overhaul, Additional inspections and test periods
shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder (Cessna ) or STC holder.
(Note use of the word recommended not the word mandated)

Instructions for continued airworthiness
consist of inservice data published by the type cert holder in maintenance manuals, bulletins, letters e.t.c.

Looks fairly clear to me as this is part of the maintenance manual failure to comply invalidates your C of A.

If you own or operate you signed to say you accept this program and content.

AdamFrisch
5th Jul 2012, 23:40
Owning an aircraft in EASA land exposes the owner to the risk of unmonitored manufacturer directed costs in order to maintain the Airworthiness Certificate. This reduces government costs, but creates a situation in which the manufacturer can write law directing owners money its own way. And when that manufacturer goes out of business, the C of A effectively expires unless another private company picks it up.

But this can't be legal. I bet if you took this to the European court you'd have a pretty good chance of winning. A car manufacturer who tried the same trick, would be sued beyond oblivion if they tried the same ploy. Voiding your legal right of driving, making it uninsurable the day after your warranty expired unless you paid exorbitant sums to "comply" or bought a new one?

ericferret
5th Jul 2012, 23:57
This situation has happened in the UK and aircraft that have no manufacturers support are transferred to permit to fly. No problem really unless you wish to operate commercially.

As for legality in europe EASA is a legal entity and its rulings are European law.

I understand that the current UK light aircraft maintenance program is being replaced so the wording of the new document will be interesting.

The CAA began a consultative process on 6 feb 2012 lasting six weeks

A taste would be

"industry feedback revealed that the use of manufacturers instructions was something to be promoted"

So I think you can read between the lines a little there.

You can see the new format on the CAA website and basically the threat re c of a invalidation as described in my post above remains.

www.caa.co.uk/docs/2263/20120203TemplateGMPforLight%20Aircraft.pdf


The main change to LAMPS is this new program mandates the use of the manufacturers
maintenance program with additions.

So back to our Cessna issue you will need to comply with the structural inspections.
I suspect that realistically as Part M are required to evaluate all new documentation and time is allowed for them to do this the inspections will hit home in the early part of next year. I suggest that this will align with the next annual.

AdamFrisch
6th Jul 2012, 00:20
Milton Friedman and Hayek were right all along - The Road to Serfdom comes in the form of government.

achimha
18th Aug 2012, 06:47
Good news from the EASA! The following statement was sent by EASA to AOPA Germany on Aug 16 (published in their current newsletter):

Our below response addresses the case of non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport.

We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated "mandatory" in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation. The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf. in particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) "Content of the Maintenance Programme", item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision.

dirkdj
18th Aug 2012, 08:19
Achima,

you have PM.

A and C
18th Aug 2012, 12:55
So put simply if you don't do the checks and the aircraft has an accident some Lawyer will blame you in court and it will be up to you to prove you are not guilty rather than for him to prove you are guilty if you don't do the SID's

Perhaps some one would like to publish a copy of the EASA letter to AOPA Germany on the internet, the UK CAA reaction will be most interesting.

achimha
19th Aug 2012, 16:04
Silvaire,

there is a similar bulletin, the Cessna secondary seat stop (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=36764) modification. For pretty much every piston plane ever built (starting 1948), Cessna will pay for time and material to install a secondary inertia reel to prevent the pilot seat from sliding back should the seat stop system fail. They have been offering this for several years but most planes still don't have it. There is no AD.

If I rent out my plane and the primary seat stop fails during takeoff, the seat slides back with the pilot holding the yoke, plane stalls and everybody dies -- what is going to happen? Wouldn't some contingency lawyer go after me because I haven't installed the secondary seat stop modification?

The same danger probably also exists with the SID. As long as you don't let others fly your aircraft, there probably isn't much danger but as soon as you do (even for no charge), you might be at risk.

Big Pistons Forever
19th Aug 2012, 18:05
Any opinions with regard to this mod? Anyone had their seat slide back since fitting it?
Does it get in the way? Mine is fitted just like to know how people think about it.

re the initial seat stop mod. I would personally not fly a Cessna that did not have this mod. There have been numerous fatal accidents over many years after the seat let go, usually right at rotation, resulting in a loss of control and a crash.

The fact that Cessna is doing the mod for free speaks to how important they think it is. Frankly anybody who does not fit this kit is IMHO, foolish.

JUST-local
19th Nov 2012, 22:02
New SL.........

https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=38624

India Four Two
20th Nov 2012, 03:43
BPF,

The Cessnas that I used to fly in Alberta in the 70s and 80s always had a split-pin through one of the seat-track holes to prevent the seat going too far back. Inconvenient when getting in and out but much safer.

Big Pistons Forever
20th Nov 2012, 05:21
BPF,

The Cessna's that I used to fly in Alberta in the 70s and 80s always had a split-pin through one of the seat-track holes to prevent the seat going too far back. Inconvenient when getting in and out but much safer.

The mechanical stop still has to allow the seat to go far enough back so you can actually physically get into the seat which works OK if you are 6 feet or taller. If you are a 5 foot 2 women then the stop will allow the seat to go far enough back you can't reach any of the flight controls.

The latest mod uses a fabric strap and an inertial reel. This allows full for and aft travel of the seat under normal operation but will instantly lock under sudden movement ensuring that no appreciable uncommanded seat movement can occur.

It is IMO the only acceptable mod to address the long standing issue of unwanted seat movement and since Cessna will give you the parts for free and pay for the labour to install it any owner that does not fit it is IMO stupid.

jxk
20th Nov 2012, 07:48
BPF

I agree with about the inertial reel seat mod - but don't you think it looks a bit Heath Robinson?

Has anyone known it to work in practice?

Big Pistons Forever
20th Nov 2012, 20:52
I was doing some instruction as a bit of a favor for a small FTU. The aircraft were rough but seemed OK, except no reel seat stop was fitted. The owner was not aware of the mod but had it fitted as soon as I told him.

One week after it was fitted the seat latch let go on my 5 foot nothing female student. The seat slide back maybe an inch untill the reel latched....