Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS

[c100driver]

Cessna has just released the SID documents for the 100 series and 200 series continued airworthiness program.

The big ticket was that they do not consider an aircraft in excess of 30,000 hours to be airworthy!

(4) The Supplemental Structural Inspection Program is valid for Model 100 series airplanes
with less than 30,000 flight hours. Beyond this, continued airworthiness of the airplane
can no longer be assured. Retirement of this airframe is recommended when 30,000 flight
hours has been accumulated.

How many Cessna over 30,000 hours are still flying?

[Shredder6]

Do they then fall into the 'experimental' category??

[morno]

Probably less C100 series in excess of 30,000hrs than C200 series.

morno

[Jack Ranga]

If it's timex @ 30,000 hours & you bought it @ 29,000 you got a good 7-10 of private flying years left. Get a 182, don't f@ck around :ok:

[PLovett]

Probably less C100 series in excess of 30,000hrs than C200 series.

Morno, the highest time C210s' were (I believe) at Alice Springs and when I was there last (2008) they were in the low to mid 20 K. :eek: Cessna engineers used to come and have a look at them. :uhoh: Mind you, one of them was a bit like George Washington's axe, I think the only original bit may have been the maker's name plate. :}

I never heard of a higher time C200 series aircraft but perhaps there are some C206s' about that are in that ballpark and dunno about any C207s' but if any of them got into that figure then i have the greatest sympathy for the poor bleedin' pilot. :ugh:

[Flying Binghi]

Dr Oakenfold

...I'm noticing an abundance of cheap C172's on the market at the moment, and despite timex engines etc they seem ridiculously low. Is this SIDS having an effect?


Parta the reason is probably why buy an old spam can when for not much more yer can get the latest brand new fully blinged two seat LSA hot rod..:)





.

[edsbar]

Very few 172's in this country would be over 15,000 hours, 182's most are under 10,000 hours. A few 206's I know of are 20,000 hours +.

Most cheap 100 series Cessna's are in need of paint, engines, interior and SIDs.

Do the maths! (engine 35k + fitted, paint 15k, another 10k to fix the corrosion hidden by the paint, interior 7k, windows 3k+, cables, SIDs, replace the c*#p avionics, seat belts) Before you know it that 25k "bargain" owes you 150k.

Plenty of 2000 and on model 172's on TAP starting at 80k so why would you bother??

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?s-type=aircraft&category=&make=Cessna&model_group=172+Series&s-page_size=25&s-page=1&s-seq=4&s-lvl=0

[185skywagon]

Dr,
I put my 185 through it last year.
If you don't have any major corrosion issues, it shouldn't be too bad. Absolutely everything gets looked at if it is done properly. This may turn up some extra work to be done, that you may not have allowed for. 185's get a 30000 life, and 206's get 40000, I think.
Cheers.

[edsbar]

Judge for yourself Dr

Here are the links;

172 69-76
https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37396

182 69-76
https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37400

[Ultralights]

i would love to know how they arrived at that figure? what does the Manufacturer say about a 30,000hr life limit?

[edsbar]

For the 172 ......

The Supplemental Structural Inspection Program is valid for Model 172 airplanes with less than 30,000 flight hours. Beyond this, continued airworthiness of the airplane can no longer be assured. Retirement of this airframe is recommended when 30,000 flight hours has been accumulated.

I guess they looked at the fleet age and had to decide on a point to which they would do the calculations based on the average for model. That would explain why the 206 has a higher life, higher average TTIS compared with other models ....

[Jack Ranga]

I'm putting a 95,000 hr limit on the 10, at least 315 years of maintenance free flying.............yeahhhhhh :D

[Jack Ranga]

Go the Tomahawk bro

[c100driver]

If the machine has had regular maintenance by a reputable engineer then the SIDs are no big deal just a little expensive for the first time.

As 185 said it is mainly about corrosion management or lack there of.

[edsbar]

Here is the 150 SIDs link Dr ..........

https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37395

They are no big deal but note they are repetitive.

Get a good pre-purchase so there are no surprises, have a good look at the underfloor area around the seat tracks, top hat through the roof, wing and strut attach. If the engine has been in it for some time (on condition) make sure your engineer is going to be comfortable signing it out, 0-200's are bloody expensive to overhaul!

[tnuc]

Previously I have been involved in many 300 & 400 series initial Sids, as well as ongoing requirements. I am currently involved in the full SID inspection on a 6000ish hour 152. I didn't expect much initially, however nearly every inspection has revealed deficiencies. Most items found relate to corrosion some quite excessive, which is an issue given the small maximum allowance for material removal before replacement or repair is necessary, lots of cracking around the horizontal and vertical stab mountings, rusty and worn control cables, etc We have probably gone further than prescribed in the document in some cases, but this does not alter the fact that the defects exist. An example may be the rudder pedal torque tube inspection, the SID only calls for a visual insp in place, due to sone other work being carried out we putted them out. Instead of visual we did a Fluro pen inspection, only because we whet doing something else at the time. The pedal torque tubes where showed 4 cracks that could not be seen visually. The repairer inspected by MPI and found 4 more cracks.
We know this inspection will exceed the value of the aircraft.

[185skywagon]

Tnuc,
That will be quite a common experience, I fear. Fortunately it wasn't too bad for me, although it was a bit bracing.
185

[LeadSled]

If the machine has had regular maintenance by a reputable engineer then the SIDs are no big deal just a little expensive for the first time.

We know this inspection will exceed the value of the aircraft.

Folks,
One thing we have found from experience is that even well maintained 100 series can have very difficult to detect corrosion. The area in question id in the main spar sandwich from the main fuselage attach point to the strut attach point.
Even with the tank out, it is very hard to detect, short of dismantling the multiple leaves of the spar t this point.
Having seen what I have seen, I would not buy a strutted Cessna unless the wings had been rebuilt, because this very insidious corrosion will happen to the best maintained aeroplane.
Does the SIDS doc. call up any particular inspection of the area, visual is not nearly good enough?
Tootle pip!!

[edsbar]

Agree Leadsled, especially in bag wings. Without removing the top skin and tank liners you will never see what's lurking in there, and in a lot it would not be pretty!

[tnuc]

I think most people are just burying their head in the sand and don't want to know about this requirement

[edsbar]

The same happened with the 300 / 400 series SIDs .......

Were on Schedule 5, we don't need to do that! :ugh:

[PLovett]

The same happened with the 300 / 400 series SIDs .......

Were on Schedule 5, we don't need to do that!

Having seen some of the horror shows that came out of the SIDS program on the 300 and 400 series as well as a C206, people would be well advised to carry it out if they want to continue operating those aircraft.

These aircraft were never designed to do the hours that some are now wracking up and Cessna at least have had the balls to admit the fact and do something about it. I would be very surprised if the other manufacturers products didn't also show similar unforeseen problems if they were subjected to a similar program. After all, wasn't there a spar failure in a Beech Mentor that was being used in a warbird scenario? The same spar that is used on the Bonanza, Baron and Duke I think.

It was a spar crack in a C402C that led to Cessna instituting the SIDS program. The aircraft had done over 22,000 hours and a pilot complained that he had run out of aileron trim to keep the wings level. The aircraft was being used as a low-capacity RPT transport.

Schedule 5 should be scrapped for aircraft where there is a manufacturers recommended maintenance schedule.

[Flying Binghi]

I've heard there been cracked wing attach fittings found on a 100 series that weren't visible before wing removal..:ooh:

[Jack Ranga]

Going on the above you wouldn't touch it unless you got it for knicks and even then it will cost you more than it's worth?

And how many of those hours are aerobatic??

[edsbar]

Riems or Cessna Dr? All Riems models were factory corrosion proofed where it was an option on the US built models. The factory corrosion proofed airframes fair a lot better.

Where has it lived? Coastal or inland?

[Jack Ranga]

PM for ya :ok:

[aroa]

Mid 70s Aerobat, 11,000 hrs....
Might I suggest a Slimpack?

[Clearedtoreenter]

Mid 70's, 11,000 hour Aerobat eh? Only just over a third of its life in SIDs terms then:) I'd love one of those. I learned on one when it was quite young. Really nice with the 130HP. I'd hate to think it had been doing what my instructor did to it every day for the last 40 years and gone through 40 cold, damp British winters though.

Looks like the old girl might still be going well... still in the same school 35 years later and must have something in the teens of hours by now!

Photo Search Results | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=G-BAEZ)

Still, if its not gone through SIDs and the wings have fallen off it would be a pity.

I'd bet its all fine though and they haven't and if it does die it won't be SIDs that kills it. I'd doubt theres any evidence whatsoever in risk management terms to suggest that this lawyer driven program has made any contribution to increased safety. What's even more silly is that the Cessna 182 maintenance manual revision of July 2012 seems to say it all has to start at 500 hours or 5 years... so in theory, even restart Cessnas are due for for a $20,000 pull apart from next year. Great work for LAMEs!

[Jack Ranga]

Well..........won't be buying a Cessna then :cool:

[PLovett]

I'd doubt theres any evidence whatsoever in risk management terms to suggest that this lawyer driven program has made any contribution to increased safety.

I beg to differ. If it had been the company lawyers they would have recommended washing their hands of the whole thing.

This was driven by the engineers. By getting involved with SIDS Cessna have basically exposed themselves to liability issues all over again having been absolved from that mess by US legislation. If you recall Cessna stopped making piston aircraft for a time. This was due to product liability suits and the insurance premiums made the whole business a waste of time. However, Congress passed legislation that effectively put a sunset clause on product liability for aircraft. Can't remember the time period but think it was either 20 or 30 years. SIDS has opened up Cessna to liability issues for those aircraft again.

[Jack Ranga]

Build your own & build it bullet proof :ok:

[Clearedtoreenter]

I beg to differ. If it had been the company lawyers they would have recommended washing their hands of the whole thing.



True enough. Its lawyers aided and abetted by engineers. When my wings fall off (which I reckon they probably won't but someones somewhere might) the lawyers can say 'well we told you if you didnt do our SIDS program, this MIGHT happen'. (but actually you're much more likely to crash due to some minor oversight in your flying rather than any engineering issue, but we won't compare that in risk terms.)


Well..........won't be buying a Cessna then http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif

Yeah, buy a Bonanza:ok:

[Arnold E]

Yeah, buy a Bonanzahttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

So Bonanza's dont corrode then???:confused:

[Clearedtoreenter]

So Bonanza's dont corrode then???

Possibly a facetious comment there?

You'd have to be better off with a Cessna!:ugh:

[G-BUZN Man]

Does the June 2014 inspection become mandatory for a 1968
C172 Built in France

[185skywagon]

G-BUZN,
If the SIDS is incorporated into the Reims 172 service manual as it is with the US built 172's, I'd say yes.

[jamsquat]

How are all the Cessna 100/200 series operators going out there with SID's compliance? Just over 6 months to go on 200 series and a year on the 100s! Gonna be a few cheap Cessnas coming up I fear. :(

[rnuts]

I have just completed the SIDS on my 210. It seems as though operators are ignoring the requirement for the SIDS to be completed.
I reckon some operators may be thinking that because they are maintaining their machines on Sched 5, this means they dont have to comply with the manufacturers maint manual which is incorrect.
The SIDS are quite comprehensive so the maint org won't be able to complete them overnight.
Add to this the fact that a lot of these aircraft have been operating in harsh environments, you can expect to find and have to repair corroded or worn parts.
Expect then long lead times on parts from Cessna..
CASA will mandate the SIDS in my opinion just as they did with the 300/400 series.

[A and C]

At the moment the UK maintenance industry is doing its level best to ignore the SID's checks, the problem being that as one Chief Engineer said to me "if I do this check I will loose a five aircraft contract to xxxxx who won't do he SID's unless forced to do so by the CAA".

As far as most operators in the UK are concerned they will spend as little money on they aircraft as they can and won't do anything that is not mandatory.

As far as I am concerned the SID's are mandatory in the UK and must be done, having just done one of my aircraft and half way into the second I warn you that some of the parts prices from Cessna are eye watering, however the corrosion issues are not as bad as predicted, there is about 90 hours labour in the inspection alone with rectification extra to that.

It is high time the UK CAA got its head out of the sand and started making sure that these checks are done, so far they are proving to be a toothless tiger who are putting those operators who set high standards at a big financial disadvantage to those who are skimping on maintenance by not insisting these checks are done.

[185skywagon]

Rnuts,
Could you pm an idea of cost for the 210, and where you got it done?
Cheers,
185

[Horatio Leafblower]

Wouldn't Horsham be the place to get Cessna work done? Tony & Crew seem pretty switched on.

...or maybe somewhere a bit more relaxed, so there are fewer problems found? :uhoh:

[jamsquat]

This may be the crux of the problem here too A & C. A maintenance organization that is treading a thin line financially already may suddenly find itself without customers if it mandates that SIDs be carried out and the opposition on the other side of the field doesn't. Same goes for an operator. Spend possibly tens of thousands of dollars and ground your fleet to make them compliant while The opposition ignores it and steals all your work. There needs to be a black and white 'yay or nay' from the regulator on this.

[A and C]

One of the reasons that I decided to bite the SID's bullet was reliability, the aircraft are about half life according to Cessna and the aircraft is the only game in town when it comes to the training mission. In Eurore there are a few STC's to put Rotax engines in the C150 and it is only a matter of time before the C152 gets an STC for the 115 HP Rotax.

I want to be in the position that I have an airframe that is worth putting the Rotax into as I would love to be rid of the Lycoming due to the declining quality of the parts avalable from Lycoming.

[rnuts]

Tony at Horsham does great work.
You will end up with a new aeroplane and it WILL cost you.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for quality, but it also needs to be affordable for the owner.

[DrNo]

This has been needed for some time now. I personally was flying a C150 15 years ago when I broke a horizontal stabilizer spar doing a spin demonstration for a student. Was able to go to neutral Gs and get it back level and slowed down to 65 where the vibration and flapping of the stabilizer stopped at which point I flew back to the airport and landed without changing the speed.

Dis-assembly showed corrosion and an old crack about 2/3 through the spar all of which was not visible through the inspection port.

I don't know if anyone else has had this kind of experience and lived to tell about it, but it isn't a pleasant afternoon.:\

[gassed budgie]

How are all the Cessna 100/200 series operators going out there with SID's compliance? Just over 6 months to go on 200 series and a year on the 100s! Gonna be a few cheap Cessnas coming up I fear

From what I understand the SIDS are not part of (at this point in time) Cessna's airworthiness limitation sections in the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness and no AD has been issued. However, this could change further down the track from directions issued by Cessna themselves or perhaps CASA.

So if I've got it right there's no reason to have the SIDS on the 210 completed by the 31st of December at the end of this year as they don't qualify as being mandatory. This suits me fine as the aircraft will probably be reprinted within the next two to three years and it would be more convenient and cost effective to have any inspection regime carried out in conjunction with the paint job.

[rnuts]

Gassed Budgie.
If something happens to your aircraft prior to doing the SIDs after the due date. All I can say to you is good luck in court !!
The SIDs are now part of the manufacturers maint manual.
At the moment it depends on what system of maint your on, and what your log book statement says.
Note that it says at the top of D2004-5-13 TR 11 page 1 2A-10-00 SIDs, under scope. 'This provides the MANDATORY times and inspection intervals for components and airplane structures'
With regards to CASA, I have no doubt they will mandate the SIDs just as they did with the 300/400 series cessna's. To add to that I have heard rumors from a solid source that the CASA sched 5 may well be removed as an option, and for us that means back to the manufacturers or other individually approved maintenance manuals.
I would assume CASA will give owners/operators a reasonable time frame for the changeover.
Whilst my aeroplane had been shipped from the states with wings and tail removed i decided to take the opportunity to do the SIDs. That way it was done and I knew I could have peace of mind with the airframe.
Also I remember the delays we had getting spares when all of a sudden everyone was doing the SIDs on the 300/400 series and finding similar problems.
If you are an operator of course that means time and loss of revenue.

[rioncentu]

I'm with Budgie. I haven't seen anything mentioning mandatory. What is this 31st December date being referred to?

[ericferret]

As was mentioned the Reims built aircraft are a far better bet. Every year I end up dealing with external corrosion , I have yet to find anything internally. We are doing the SID at the moment and apart from the NDT it is really not a lot more than a first class annual inspection. I suspect that what people pay will be down to the honesty of the maintenance provider and I reckon some will pay a little and some will be royally screwed.

[jamsquat]

A recently issued CASA AWB recommending control cable retirement at 15 yrs may be where your friend got that from. I believe the SID only calls up removal and thorough inspection of control cables.
Also I think most LAMES wouldn't have an issue with signing out re-start Cessnas as the factory corrosion protection in the form of pre-priming everything before assembly will mean that the kind of corrosion issues seen in the older models will probably never eventuate.

[tnuc]

Go and have a look in your maintenance manual, SIDs are not introduced on "restart" aircraft as far as I am aware

[Clearedtoreenter]

Try the C182T manual, July 2012 amendment. Kicks in at 5 years. Absolutely ridiculous... But does not have to be a big deal if done sensibly and just means new aircraft will have been under a more rigorous maintenance regime than the 30-40 year olds flying around. Although clearly there are some pretty good 'business opportunities' for the more zealous LAMES who see a need to pull out engines, pull off wings, rip out interiors etc so that these inspections can be done properly on 500 hour, 5 year old fully corrosion protected airplanes.:ugh:

Just one extreme to the other...

[heated ice detector]

I think you will find that ultimately the C of R holder is responsible for what work is carried out, he should be knowledgeable of the SIDs program and have some input in what is carried out, if you just leave your aircraft with your possibly unscrupulous Maint provider then well you possibly should not be complaining.:ok:

[Lineboy4life]

Bugger...

On a recent visit to me home town 3 200 series operators have been dramatically affected by/with SID's compliance...their airframes ranged from tidy/well maintained through to the other end of the spectrum...

As an example one of them was quoted/assured around the 40 man/hr mark for the inspection which escalated to over 500 hrs, another considering selling his tidy aircraft now effectively has to give it away prior to SID's being carried out...and the third put the inspection on hold mid-way after the third un-expected 5K bill to source other aircraft types...

I appreciate the importance of safety however feel this is not the only motivation from cessna and is being incorporated in a bullish manner by the regulators...

[Aussie Bob]

I am thinking about half the Cessna 100 and 200 fleet will be permanently grounded. I am also thinking there are not enough LAME's in the country to get the ones that are to be completed done in a timely manner.

[dubbleyew eight]

I am told that the Cessna SIDS in australia only applies to commercially operated aircraft. (category A aircraft)
privately owned and privately operated aircraft are still schedule 5 maint and unaffected.

[jamsquat]

Regardless of whether the aircraft is commercially operated or not (class b - charter, air work, private) most log book statements say that the aircraft is to be maintained iaw "all special inspections and lifed components listed in the aircraft maintenance manuals table of limitations". By very definition the Cessna SIDS program is applicable as it is now part of the maintenance manual latest revision

[Oracle1]

Just finished the SIDS on a 206 and now into the second 206 and anyone who owns or operates a Cessna would be wise to get it done regardless. Found quite a few things that are well targeted in the inspections that wouldn't normally get done. Non compliant aircraft will quickly lose resale value. Whose arse is in your plane?

[Syd Chrome]

Hi Guys,
We have completed a few SIDs and I have to say , they are well worth the effort and cost.
Cessna consider compliance mandatory for all aircraft regardless of type of operation, and it seems the soon to be released CASA policy on SIDs will state the same.
It is now part of the Service Manual for the aircraft - not a separate (optional) document. It forms part of the manufacturers Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Hard to believe that in some red neck regions MROs are telling people that it's optional. 200's by 30 Dec 13 and 100's by end of June 14. :ugh:
CASA MAY give an exemption in time to allow people to catch up. It is true that a Cessna without SIDs is worth a heap less.
Remember when we used to have Major Inspections.....? SIDs for your Cessna is a bit of catch up since it was last looked at 'properly' ie when Major Inspections were cancelled.
For those Mooney/Beech/Piper people out there, CASA may (it seems) also introduce an ageing aircraft inspection program soon to cover these aircraft. Seems we are operating these aircraft way beyond their intended life span.

SC

[Me_3]

200's by 30 Dec 13 and 100's by end of June 14.


Where are people getting these dates from? I've heard lots of different storys, There is no CASA AD specifying this, nor is it mentioned anywhere I can find?


SID's is a supplemental Inspection program, to supplement the Cessna maintenance system, not sched 5. I'm hearing lots of 'it has to be done' by dates/storys, but nobody I've talked to can actually show me where its stated. I've checked the AD's & Maintenance Manuals...

[gassed budgie]

For those Mooney/Beech/Piper people out there, CASA may (it seems) also introduce an ageing aircraft inspection program soon to cover these aircraft.

God help us! What an absolute monumental clusterfcuk that would turn out to be.

[bankrunner]

Plenty of 2000 and on model 172's on TAP starting at 80k so why would you bother??

Or for that 80k you could build a very nice RV and have a brand new airframe.

[jamsquat]

And can you carry out flight training or charter in your RV? Or carry more than two people and a fart?
If you download the applicable SID document for your aircraft from cessnasupport the deadlines are hidden in the 200+ pages of revisions

[Syd Chrome]

Me_3. The Dates for completion are in the documents.....I have gone back and forth with CASA on this over the past many months. Unfortunately the way the Regs are written in Aust makes it all grey but in the eyes of CASA....Extract as follows:

However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.

In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Registered Operator, and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained.

Registered Operator’s would need to have a pretty convincing argument as to why they did not consider the incorporation of SIDs to be necessary on their aircraft i.e. particularly in relation to a Coronial Inquiry.

I personally can think of no such argument.


You won't find the mandate for SIDs in an AD (yet) but it is in the Service Manual as SIDs is part of that manual. Even new Caravans, New 182s etc have SIDs as part of the maintenance schedule from brand new. Some people are going to a younger than 20 years old airframe to avoid SIDs. You may avoid some cost in doing the inspection but the inspection applies to all aircraft - even from new. Cessna have a very good tech rep in Australia and for clarification and to hear Cessna's point of view....give Mark a call. If anyone wants his contact details pm me.
Cheers
SC

[chimbu warrior]

Am aware of a few S/E Cessna's that have been through the process, most of which were very well maintained in the first place. In each case, some issues have been found and resolved, with costs varying between 10 and 30k.

This should come as no surprise; many of the aircraft in question are 40-50 years old. The issues discovered would not normally have been picked up on a "standard" sort of periodic. 40 or 50 years of operating in the bush can really take its toll on any sort of machine; how many Landcruisers or Landrovers are still in regular everyday use at that age?

I have found that some of the most outspoken opponents of this program are people who brag that their aircraft is "perfect" and the past 10 periodics have never cost them more than $600 apiece................it is these very aircraft that I would be most concerned about.

If we are serious about flying safely, then unfortunately it is necessary to bite the bullet and follow the manufacturer's program.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I have seen a couple of 182s go through and I can only echo the sentiments above: well worth it. Well maintained aircraft breezed through at minimal additional cost.

I am also much more comfortable operating Cessna twins over Chieftains because I am reasonably confident that a diligently maintained C404 will be better to operate, with less down time, than a Chieftain with a nasty surprise lurking under the floor or in the tail or whatever :=

Seen that too. :uhoh:

[PLovett]

Horatio, absolutely agree. :ok:

[Kenlased]

We just completed the SIDs on our 1956 Cessna 182 with 6380 TTAF. All four wing attach spar blocks were replaced due to corrosion Three were severely corroded. This could not be detected without removing the wings. Aside from a couple of cracked wing ribs and pockets of level one corrosion (time consuming to clean up), the rest of the airplane was in good shape.

[Kenlased]

Follow this link: https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/dynamic/dynamic.jsp?dynVal=240


Click on the appropriate document for your aircraft type.
For the 100 series, the compliance date is on 2A-13-00, Page 5.
For the 200 series, the compliance date is on 2A-14-00, Page 1.

[yr right]

Schedule 5 can no longer be used if there is a maintenance program for the aircraft. There is a CASA listing for what aircraft can use Schedule 5 if your aircraft is not on it you cant use it. Therefore you need to have your log book statement changed and sent to CASA, this means Manufactures program or spend the money and have your own approved but you must be able to prove what you are submitting, which means now that SIDS MUST be done on ALL aircraft in all cats.
Now go to CASA and get a definition for the word RECOMENED. They will not give it to you. In a court it means you MUST. Meaning 30000 hours game over thanks for coming. Same as the engine 12 years inspection, sorry it must be done. We have now nearly all that was covered under Aust AD;s gone and now manufacture's rule, As to the other post here is why costs of servicing is increasing to cover cost of research to do the maintenance as it cost the same to employ a person to do the work as to do the research to be able to do it.
Welcome to not our fault CASA system.
I might add that this goes for all components on an aircraft, ie tyres to wheels to windscreen to the fire extinguisher, everything has to be looked at.

[jamsquat]

Yr right, have you a link to back up the statement in your post regarding schedule 5?

[c100driver]

My Cessna turns 60 this year.

I started on the SID's journey when they first came out and was doing them one step at a time.

When I got to the wings my LAME and I decided that we remove them and have a good look in the area as to do the Spar carry through, the wing attach blocks it cannot be done thoroughly with the wings in place.

Spar carry through, corrosion between the doublers. Replacement parts $1400 USD.

Wing attach blocks OK.

Wings looked OK but thought I would change the bag and do a fuel vent mod while the wings were off. Easiest way to do that is unzip the end rib with the wing off. Not good, signs of corrosion at the spar skin join.

I elected to dig a little further and the more I dig the worse it got. End result both wings require total rebuild. The spars had significant cx in the laminate that could not be seen until the strip down. The bill so far for the wings alone is 30K and they have yet to be put back together.:\:ouch:

I am guessing that I will have her back in the air in two years time and about 100K poorer. However I will know exactly what I have.

My experience is that only a fool would not do the SID program, my old girl looked OK but I was quite shocked with what we found under the hood. The life of my family is worth more that what I am paying to fix the old girl.

You cannot do the inspection properly with removing the wings and getting into the tank bays and the spar carry through. My engineers have all remarked that factory corrosion proofed Cessnas' are mostly getting through OK but the failure rate on high time and non cx proof machines is about 50/50.

High time Cessna restart machines are starting to enter the SID program and are starting to show problems in the landing gear, vertical fin and hori stab. The landing gear fix for one R model is going to be in excess of 28K.

[Perspective]

From what I understand, (sorry if posted already) if you complete all of the requirements of the SIDS inspection documents, there includes feedback forms
To fill out. This is a major part of the SIDS programme, as it lets Cessna know
What sort of defects are found, how common to a particular component or area
Of the aircraft and they can adjust the inspection criteria accordingly, for example, every Cessna A152 I am checking the Horizontal Stabilizer rear spar
On, under the elevator bell crank box structure, I am finding 3-4 inch cracks, the SID directs you to HFEC the doubler, but these defects are on the Spar under the Skin, behind the doubler. This information will be sent to cessna, they my add additional inspections around the area and alter the inspection accordingly.
They also know that this is now a common area for close inspection etc. and high incidence of cracking area.
so far we have found a Cracked C182 wing strut end fitting, that did not show up
On a Flouro dye check-post crack located. (I just wanted to see if the crack showed up, and it did not, but trust me, through an HFEC it was definately there). The C A152 Stabs, and other defects that honestly should have been picked up at the 100hrly/annual, such as rudder pedal brake pivot pins almost
Worn completely through the pedal, which we picked up during the Annual phase of the check. (Edit: this is the first time we have seen this aircraft) I also think that a lot of the SIDS are items that would normally be checked at a 100hrly inspection, so completing the SIDS during an annual is the most cost effective. Ultimately, Cessna want the feedback on what people are finding out there.
On compliance, I have read quite a lot of text on the matter, I have an AWB that talks about compliance which breaks down charter, private etc to be incorporated at slightly different intervals (circa2007 from memory)
Also within the SIDS document there is a compliance/incorporation date of dec13 for 200 series, jun 14 for 100 series. It doesn't mention that I remember anything about what category the aircraft are in (eg pvt, charter)

The log book statements don't just say, CASA schedule 5, and that's it,
Read below that as to what is also required per MM.
SIDS is part of the MM, so if you carry out maintenance using the correct revision Aircraft Maintenance Manual, SIDS is part of that manual so should be included.
Show me where it states, "SIDS not mandatory"
Also, what I tell people is, the things, defects, you find as a result of carrying out
A SID inspection, should be fixed anyway regardless how they are found, and in my experience we are finding defects which May, have not been picked up.

In reality, when we perform maintenance on aircraft, quite often, we inform the owner that we want to investigate a little further, dig a little deeper, open up some structure to get access to.. And if on the outside, the thing you are going to dismantle looks reasonable, it can be quite hard to get the owner onside, that what you are doing is necessary, after all, it hasn't been A problem before, and
Every owner of an aircraft knows about "intrusion", the possibility to damage surrounding structure, or disturb a local component or wiring by getting to the thing you want to look at. Particularly more frustrating to said owner when it turns out the thing you thought was suspect is ok.

But SIDS assists both maintainer and manufacturer alike, setting out tasks to look at certain areas of interest, you are able to show the owner areas cessna are concerned about on ageing aircraft, so you dismantle that quite good looking rear spar on the horizontal Stabilizer and find the 3inch crack hidden between the layers, you feel vindicated, happy you found a defect before it lead to something worse, then quickly brought back to earth when all the owner does is get upset that you found it and it will cost how much! Most are happy you found it.
There is a lot of Talk of over maintaining aircraft, I like to say there is a right amount of Maintenance. People also make a lot of comparisons to other machines, but I find it hard to compare aircraft to other vehicles.

I am always surprised when I speak with our customers, and they make reference to a car engine for example. My Car engine red lines at 7000 rpm,
But spends 90% of the time at18-1900 rpm.
One Cherokee I fly redilnesaround 2600, cruises at around 2350. That baby is working a lot closer to its mechanical limit than my car. Add to that for instance, a reference I heard, not sure of accuracy, that Subaru make more engines in one year, than TCM Continental have made...ever!
Think of the investment in one line of engine for a car, water cooled, low average rpm, uninhibited fuel delivery technology and computer controlled,
Fantastic clearances, usually derated for life increase, now think of continental or lycoming, extensive regulatory oversite, expense of getting new technology certified, LOW Volume unit movement, and they have to make it as light as possible, air cooled, large capacity, relatively high power, think 300hp @2700,
And when not running at full power for takeoff etc, sustained high power output,
Say 75% of max torque. (Note: I know cars have strict oversite but spread that cost between a few million units as apposed to a few thousand) and treated with respect, will get 2000hours or more before requiring a rebuild. I think they o a pretty good job considering.

But back on SIDS, we (I) am applying a consistent view they are part of the MM,
There is text directing them to be carried out, along with compliance dates, AWB, And as such mandatory.
Tell me again where it states NOT to do it...
Think of Cessna"s philosophy behind the incorporation of SIDS and the data, info they are collecting, and defects that are being found like wing strut cracking,
Find a good shop with people you can talk to, that will deliver the right amount of maintenance for you aircraft, start to carry out SIDS during the periodic to reduce double handling, if your aircraft has been maintained well it should go through smoothly.
Also a thorough check of the log book for things like engine mount removed at last engine overhaul, stripped and inspected, which Is what we normally do, and if it is documented and is within the SID inspection guideline then you don't need to double handle that either, the clock started when it was done previously.

SIDS are also in late model T206h aircraft also, so it's not just an older aircraft
Inspection.
The way I understand it Schedule 5 days are numbered, regardless the justification for placing the aircraft on it was due inadequate MM, (J3 Cub)
Which a lot of GA aircraft, I don't believe suffer from, I would like to see Schedule 5 gone, except for noted models with inadequate MM, everyone can have a consistent approach in regards to component o/haul periods (dukes fuel pump for example) and remove as much "open to interpretation" as possible.
And consistency with the maintenance allowing owners to budget effectively.


Find a good shop with people you can talk to, able to deliver the right amount of maintenance for your aircraft, fix up the cosmetics over time, start incorporating the SID inspections during a periodic if possible to reduce double handling.

If your aircraft is in overall good condition the SIDS will be incorporated without to much rework. And the things you find due to SID inspections should be fixed anyway!

Wow that was rambling!

Smooth seas and fair winds..

[Old Akro]

On a Flouro dye check-post crack located.

We use quite a lot of dye penetrant looking for cracks in prototype cars. We use it to make the crack look nice for a photo. I don't think it has ever found a crack before we found it visually first.

[Oracle1]

For all those drivers of older Cessna's with spring style gear get ready for a fright. Not sure about the other series as I have not checked yet but the u-bolts in my 172 are now called for replacement rather than just MPI inspection. The price (wait for it) over $500 each! Then ongoing replacement is 1000 hours or three years whichever comes first. A calendar life on such an item especially 3 years is unrealistic. Don't know if you will still have to MPI them every 500 hours. Looks like that RV8 empennage cant come soon enough. I agree with the inspections and that they are worthwhile but that price for two bolts at $1000 a pop every three years is a bridge too far. If Cessna thinks that they will create demand for parts or new airframes from this they are wrong. They will simply destroy the value of their product.

[Jabawocky]

Quick sell it before everyone knows :E

Sadly, that is really silly, your plane is a gem...yet could be worthless almost as a result.

[triadic]

Part of this has already been quoted in this thread, but I understand the letter is in the public domain, so needs repeating:

UNCLASSIFIED
The current CASA policy on the Cessna SIDs is thus;

The SIDs represent important approved manufacture's data.

The requirement for the incorporation, or otherwise, of the Cessna SIDs in Class B aircraft, is determined by the maintenance schedule elected by the Registered Operator / owner.

CAR 42A Manufacturer’s Maintenance Schedule option – would require compulsory incorporation of Cessna SIDs where available, and it would be difficult to argue for SIDs not to be incorporated on CAR 42C Approved System of Maintenance where available.

Many Registered Operators choose to use CAR 42B CASA Maintenance Schedule (Schedule 5).

I can confirm that there is nothing in CAR 42B that specifically mandates compliance with, or incorporation of, a Cessna SID. Note that CAR 42B dates back to 1988, prior to Cessna developing SIDs programs for their fleets – which were also 25 years younger at that time.

However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.

In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Registered Operator / owner, and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained.

Registered Operator’s would need to have a convincing argument as to why they did not consider the incorporation of SIDs to be necessary on their aircraft.

Hope this is of assistance to you.

Regards,

John Retzki | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Certificate Management Team Leader - CMT 3

[Horatio Leafblower]

And yet Pipers don't need any such maintenance program simply because...

...because...

...because the manufacturer doesn't support their product adequately? :confused:

[Avgas172]

! Then ongoing replacement is 1000 hours or three years whichever comes first. A calendar life on such an item especially 3 years is unrealistic.
If Cessna is so convinced that a U bolt manufactured by / for them is likely to fail after only 3 years service regardless of the number of landings completed, it is time they got out of the business, as they product they are selling is defective.
The average trailer leaf spring U bolt will last for decades under extremely harsh conditions, including being immersed in Sea water and pounded across corrugated outback roads without failing. Shame Cessna Shame :mad:

[LeadSled]

Folks,
The legal situation of Piper is somewhat different, the Piper that built most of the aircraft no longer exists, it went bust.
The new Piper has, as far as I can determine, declined to take legal responsibility for continuing airworthiness of the previous company's products, presumably they do not want to voluntarily assume unknown liabilities for which they are not currently liable.
Tootle pip!!

[Avgas172]

1985: Cessna became a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamic Corporation.
1992: General Dynamics announced the sale of Cessna to Textron Inc.

One wonders what legal liability or right Textron Inc. has to issue orders on aircraft built before this date :confused:

[LeadSled]

One wonders what legal liability or right Textron Inc. has to issue orders on aircraft built before this date :confused:The answer to that is straightforward, CESSNA still holds the Type Certificates of all Cessna models, so whoever owns CESSNA at any given time has to support the company. Or they could choose to not support the company, and put it into bankruptcy, in the event of a major hit.
Unlike "old" Piper and "New Piper", there is no new and old Cessna.

Tootle pip!!

[Avgas172]

Agreed, but does that give them the right to retrospectively change the life of components of an aircraft they never built?

[LeadSled]

Agreed, but does that give them the right to retrospectively change the life of components of an aircraft they never built? Avgas 172,
Cessna built Cessnas, period. The corporation has been a continuous entity since it was founded. Who the shareholders of Cessna were at any particular time is not relevant.

The whole SIDs program didn't just "happen", there are several Acts of Congress, that started with aging airline aircraft, driving the process.

Given what I have seen in stripped down airframes, I would not buy any strutted Cessna older than about 15 years, unless the wings had been rebuilt, including the multilayer spars from the root to the strut attach point.

Tootle pip!!

[Avgas172]

If the strut breaks on your strut braced Cessna, well, it's not going to end well. That said, it is widely accepted that there has never been the failure of a strut braced Cessna in flight. I am aware of a 185 which was so badly overstressed recovering from a spin through cloud, that the wings were bent outboard of the strut. It still landed safely, and the wings were rebuilt.

This is from a lengthy discussion in a previous Pprune US thread, I can find no documented evidence of a wing failure in a 172/152 other than from coming into contact with another aircraft mid air, however to get back to my original point of U bolts on the spring undercarriage of a C172, Cessna deciding something should be changed 'just because we said so' will inevitably end up in court, meanwhile I personally would not buy another Cessna product full stop .... Under 15 years old or not.

Incidentally I am currently in the process of organising the SIDS program for my machine, and will keep in touch with any problems found in the process.

[Avgas172]

Addendum to my previous post, I have found two wing failures in a C172S, details of one as follows:
A witness stated she observed the airplane in straight and level flight at 1,500 feet. The airplane appeared to be traveling very fast. The nose of the airplane was observed to descend down to a 45-degree attitude and the airspeed increased. The airplane was observed to start a spin to the right and turned 180-degrees when a wing separated from the airplane. Another witness stated she observed the airplane in a 45-degree nose down attitude. The airplane was making a loud noise similar to an increase in airspeed. The nose of the airplane pitched down 90-degrees and she thought the pilot was performing a stunt maneuver. She then observed parts separate from the airplane and paper falling to the ground. Review of radar data showed the airplane's climb from the departure airport to a cruise altitude of 5, 700 feet. The radar data did not capture the breakup event. Review of failed components submitted to the NTSB Materials Laboratory revealed all failure fractures were consistent with overstress fracture, and there was no evidence of significant wear or corrosion. CAUSE: The pilot exceeded the design limits of the airplane which resulted in the right wing separating and subsequent loss of control.
The other is similar cause and investigation results on a P model, but is a tad long to repost here
Cheers
A172

[185skywagon]

Dr Oakenfold,
I would brace yourself for a figure well north of $6500, unfortunately.
The tolerances for wear and corrosion are very tight.
PM me if you wish to discuss. I have been through the process with the 185.

185.

[LeadSled]

I can find no documented evidence of a wing failure in a 172/152 other than from coming into contact with another aircraft mid air

Avgas 172,
My views are not based on accident data, they are based on really nasty corrosion I have seen in stripped down wings, in the leaves of the main spar, between the root fitting and the strut attach point.

Every one I have seen has had corrosion of varying degrees in this area, and this includes several aeroplanes that spent most of their life in "dry" conditions. In several cases, complete leaves were just dust, once the spar was opened up. It was not visible with the fuel tanks removed, and "tap" tests didn't reveal the extent of the damage.

It really says something for the actual strength of these aircraft, that there has NOT been a history of in-flight structural failure.

[Hasherucf]

Rumour is that an AD will be issued to make SIDS compulsory and that Schedule 5 is on the way out.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Sorry to sound like I am grinding an axe but surely... have any of you guys never seen a corroding Piper?

Seems unfair to enforce mandatory inspections on well-supported Cessnas when effectively unsupported Piper products have no such program or requirement.

Youse pay yer munny yer take yer chance!

[Perspective]

Hi hasherucf,
When carrying out maintenance on an aircraft, you must use the latest revision Maintenance manual. For Cessna's, SIDS is part of the maintenance manual.
CASA Schedule 5 is simply a list of things you must look at, it doesn't tell you how to maintain the aircraft, the maintenance manual does, and as you have to maintain the aircraft i.a.w. the maintenance manual, I think you would have a hard time explaining why you chose to ignore the well documented inspections in the manual.
Remember, CASA Schedule 5 is designed for aircraft deemed to have an inadequate maintenance manual inspection programme, such as a J3 Cub, refer
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/orders/cao100_5.pdf
And it is the Owners responsibility that maintenance has been carried out with the latest revision data etc,
I believe CASA will come out and state definitively cessna owners will have 2 more years to become sids compliant. I don't think schedule 5 will completely disappear but the intent of application of aircraft type will probably be enforced more strictly.
At the end of the day, there is an AWB, and plenty of data stating SIDS to be done, and when by, the AWB I read stated around 2007, the cessna PowerPoint
Presentation stated compliance by dec2013 for 200 series, June 2014 for 100 series from memory. Unless you can show me where it states you are somehow exempt. Also read,
in CAAP 42B1-1' the use of CASA schedule 5 requirements..

6.1
The replacement or overhaul of time lifed components required in an airworthiness Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any ""special techniques"" required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional.
I'm pretty sure you would find SIDS coming under special techniques..

Now some manuals don't have much in the airworthiness limitations section, but again I would not want to be the one to try explain why, for example, if I chose not to overhaul the dukes fuel pump, when I well know the manufacturer directs it to be overhauled at 10 years, if something was to happen to said pump which caused an incident.
As I said, a lot of the inspections can be achieved during a periodic without double handling, and the things found as a result of SIDS should be rectified regardless how they we found.

[ChickenHouse]

There is one simple reason Cessnas are subject to the SIDs - Textron was the first to release such a program for aging aircraft. All other manufacturers are obliged to do the same, so stay tuned - the others will follow.

[Avgas172]

Every one I have seen has had corrosion of varying degrees in this area, and this includes several aeroplanes that spent most of their life in "dry" conditions. In several cases, complete leaves were just dust, once the spar was opened up. It was not visible with the fuel tanks removed, and "tap" tests didn't reveal the extent of the damage.
Thanks for your input Leadie, I have no doubt you have found this problem, however one must then ask why Cessna then hasn't put out an AD on this specific problem rather than saying we want you to pull your entire aircraft apart because we found a problem with corrosion within the wing spar?
This also does not address the other issue that bought me into this debate in the first place, ie the U bolts on spring undercarriage having a mandatory time life of three years, that my old mate is 1st class B/S and only does Cessna a disservice in the ongoing sale of their product. Thanks for allowing me my 2c worth and I shall refrain from further comment.
Cheers
A172

[Oracle1]

Avgas,

I have made an error that I have discovered upon closer examination of the document. If the aircraft has the cessna approved corrosion control and prevention program in place then the life of the bolts returns to flight hours only and the 3 years no longer applies. The corrosion and control program is thorough and involved though. I thought that cessna simply placing a three year calendar life on a bolt was unbelievable. However at over $1000 simply for the parts this is still gouging.

[edsbar]

I won't get into the are they Mandatory or not argument, IMHO they are warranted and under Schedule 5 required as per the previous posts of Tridac and Perspective.

The FAA did direct all of the TC Holders to develop Supplemental Inspection programs and few did this, what will happen to those types long term that do not have SI programs is anyones guess.

SIDs will not be cheap and $6,500 for the Dr's 1966 Cessna 172 does seem a little light for the work involved unless the labour rate is ten bucks an hour. For example the first task on Operation One of the SID for 100 SERIES (1963 - 1968) states

Inspect aircraft records to verify that all applicable Cessna Service Information Letters, Cessna Service Bulletins and Supplier Service Bulletins are complied with

Researching SB's etc back to 1966 and cross referencing against AD's, old Rex drawings as well as preparation and final certification of the work package alone will take days of work before a panel is even removed. So already the best part of $3,000 has been spent before we even start looking at the aircraft ....

Some suggest the compliance date has changed, for the 100 SERIES (1963 - 1968) the compliance time is ...

If an airplane has exceeded the inspection limits given, the inspection must be done before June 30, 2014. Inspections in subsequent revisions to the SID shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the revised inspection.

All SIDS would be therefore due on this date except the Engine Mount MPI as the SID document 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.

ref https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=37390

Avgas, Cessna do not put out AD's these are the responsibility of the governing NAA, in the case of Cessna Aircraft the FAA. The SID's I am sure will be amended in time to reflect the findings and address additional areas of concern, some may be added, removed or the compliance times changed.

Yes Oracle the U bolts on the older spring leg aircraft are not the best design and do often fail NDT but remember in 1955 they were probably high tech! Would you rather a SB mandating the fitment of a better designed UC leg as per the later models? Such a mod I would hazard to guess would be tens of thousands of dollars. Remember Cessna improved the design here in all new models from the late 60's.

So many times I have heard the owner tell me his 1980 172 is nearly new as he tries to justify not spending a cent more than he has to on it, bear in mind if it was a car it would be something like an XD Falcon and you would just have it towed for scrap. The same owner screams when you do the first 100 hourly and find more has 20% of every leading edge rib has corroded away and he needs his wings rebuilt.

Then you have the "just do a little this time" owner, you fall for his sob story genuinely believing he is doing it tough and that he will do the right thing and return to progressively bring his aircraft up to speed. You know its safe enough and do a bare minimum schedule 5 inspection to help the poor bugger out. The next week the aircraft has another owner and at the next 100 hourly CASA are knocking on your door asking for a please explain.

For the sake of keeping flying affordable I would very much be in favour of an owner signed waiver for items such as SB's and SID's. A copy in the log book and a copy to CASA to be kept on the aircraft file, this would show that you as the owner are aware of and choose to ignore the requirement and indemnify the LAME. The aircraft could also be placarded much the same way as experimental aircraft are. You could then maintain your biodegradable spam can to the standard you desired in Private Category only and incur the reduction in value.

[edsbar]

Agree Clearedtoreenter, CASA's advice to industry is inconsistent regarding what is and is not required and it makes it difficult when you are not on a level playing field. The ATSB have a bit of a say regarding what is required in the report on the broken horizontal stabiliser attach fittings and spar on VH-JHF, worth a read if you have not already ....
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4180954/ao-2011-115-final.pdf
If the 2 relevant Government departments can not agree what hope has the LAME or Operator have of determining what is and is not required to maintain an aircraft under CASA Schedule 5?

Call 131 757 and ask an AWI in your district office if SID's are Mandatory under Schedule 5 and see if you get a straight answer ... then call a different district office and compare notes.

Standard of maintenance varies between workshops, I have lost customers in the past as the opposition was happy to ignore manufacturers recommendations even for the no brainers that I would consider protect the investment such as Lycoming SB480 4 month oil change intervals, yet shop B will still allow the customers engine to continue on AD/ENG/5. Dare suggest a customer carries out what you consider to be an important Service Bulletin based on 30+ years of maintenance, such as the Cessna Secondary Seat Stop SEB (SEB07-05) and the customer walks ... :ugh:

I also agree re duty of care, something many LAME's and operators have a poor understanding of in GA.

In the lower operational categories in the USA owners can elect not to carry out the likes of SID's and SB's so why not here in Australia? Personally not my preference as I believe the SID's are justified and will certainly go a long way towards retaining the aircraft condition, structural integrity and value long term however the argument that the US is not littered with Cessna's that have fallen from the skies due to structural problems has some merit.

Here is a hypothetical that is very likely in this country ... Your flying your 1968 182 on a bright and sunny Sunday morning and on takeoff the seat slides back and you loose the aircraft killing your Barrister passenger, the subsequent ATSB investigation finds the Secondary Seat Stop SB has not been carried out yet SID's have. Who is going to be wearing that? Cessna offered the parts and labour free of charge to install this since 2007, your LAME suggested it be carried out but your mates LAME was told by CASA Timbuktu office that SB's were not Mandatory, you have also read various articles from the owners groups also advising that compliance is not really mandatory as Cessna suggest ... :ugh:

CASA is such a clusterf*#k and the 20+ years of rewriting the regulations first to follow FAA and more recently to EASA is nothing short of ridiculous adding to the total spiral of GA in this country.

The regulations must be clear and concise, nothing against Schedule 5 as long as it is used as it was originally intended in conjunction with the AMM.

[Oracle1]

I agree totally with SIDS I think its a good idea. I am an AME and I maintain my own aircraft through work so I am not concerned about the amount of labor, it is my hobby. I do have a problem paying close to six hundred dollars for a part that is at best worth $50. A U bolt is not worth $600 dollars each in anyone's universe.

[edsbar]

Do the maths, perhaps Cessna sell 500 a year?

Have them engineered, manufactured, heat treated, cad plated, passified, NDT inspected, certified, obtain a PMA and then throw in some product liability and get an approval to distribute parts. I reckon you could make them for $700 each at a push. We are not talking a run of 5,000,000 automotive spring u bolts here. Sadly there are not as many 172's as Toyota Camrys and people tend to not realise the economy of scale as we are used to purchasing mass produced high volume items.

I seriously doubt you could do the paperwork for $50 a bolt.

While you are at it I am sure you could also manufacture Tiger Moth Tie Rods as there will be a great market for them and I am sure the last manufacturer was making a killing ....

Sorry too many times I have been through the "I can make that for $5 argument" whilst supplying the part at cost +5% or less and then having to wait 90 days to get paid for it ....

PS. I vaguely recall perhaps Univair producing a PMA alternative.

[Oracle1]

Given that that these bolts are now a SIDS item I highly doubt that Cessna will only sell 500 per year with two per aircraft. Consider how many spring gear aircraft are still in existence out of a production run of perhaps 20,000 pre tube gear models. The engineering and paperwork was all done long ago and I would be highly surprised if Cessna didn't put a lot of them on the shelf in anticipation of their use over the life of the product. With a life of three years or 1000 hours Cessna can certainly expect to sell more of them. The Americans are getting their asses kicked by the Chinese because they fail to realize that they are not delivering a product at a reasonable price. You can make the safest plane in the world but if your customer cannot afford it you wont make any aircraft sales. They have failed to innovate and have not delivered a successful new piston type since their heyday in the 70's.

[yr right]

Don't you fellas get it. Cessna do not wont to support these old aircraft. They don't wont them in the air anymore they had no idea that they still be flying now.
As I've said before most people cant afford to own an GA aeroplane. You all complain about your bills now SIDS. For F&^% sake your arses are in the seat. The LAME hasn't made the rules yet you all come down on us like its our fault.
If you think we are all a bunch of C%**s you go do the exams you get an approval and go do it yourselves. Yeh go buy Chiness crap, bet you drive great walls as well.
Trouble is CASA don't support the LAME and give us clear guidelines. You have a problem you should all ring 131 757 and tell them.


Just remember you only live once.

[edsbar]

Oracle, bear in mind the 0541153 U bolt is only used in 56-71 172's and 56-61 182's all the other spring leg models have a different design or part number (150/180/182 post 62/185/206). Also most US operators will not comply as they do not have too so perhaps my numbers are not far off considering that if you do CPCP the replacement is not required.

The AD overrides the SID so the 500 hour MPI still stands.

The 1,000 hour replacement is not new, it was introduced by Cessna SE78-68 on the 20th November 1978. Obviously your well maintained Schedule 5 C172 would be compliant? This is the bit that will piss you off, the Bulletin lists the price at US$10.20 each!

So they have not used that part since 1971 and the 1,000 hour replacement was introduced in 1978. The original production line was moved and someone would have had to drag out the drawings and crank up production most likely with a new vendor, your lucky they even support your dinosaur as I am sure in many other industries such low volume parts would not be available. At a guess I would say that the average flight time for an aircraft with that part number U bolt would be less than 50 hours a year if that.

China .......... one word SKYCATCHER, wasnt that a success and so affordable :ugh:. Would love to see a 50 year old Great Wall .... you get what you pay for. Try buying Great Wall parts now let alone when the vehicle is 40-50 years old, there is a ute in my local panel shop that has been sitting for 4 months waiting for parts.

Do you really believe the Chinese are interested in punching out low volume hand made light aircraft, the money is high volume goods and rubber dog sh*t.

As for new designs who cares the Cessna line works, aging aircraft will not be an issue with the Cirrus or Diamond as they will be long dead but for sure the mighty Cessna's will live forever with TLC.

As yr right states many that have light aircraft really can not afford them.

If it F*#ks, Flies or Floats ... Rent it don't buy it!

[yr right]

Man has his aircraft service. Man flies aircraft. Aircraft crashes. Vac pump fails. Wife sues Lame. Wife Wins. Judge states, MR issued nothing will go wrong with aircraft for the period of MR issue (Nothing). Casa states no that is not the intent of a MR Issue ie (part 2 of the MR that has a Due LIst). Judge states go away Casa. Wife wins $$$$$, Lame looses every thing, house wife business every thing.


Now here is the rub.


Aircraft flying at night.
Aircraft flying IFR


Pilot Flying at night
Pilot Flying IFR

Aircraft NOT Night VFR RATED
Aircraft NOT IFR RATED


Pilot NOT NIGHT RATED
Pilot NOT IFR RATED


LAME Looses everything for a vac pump that was not changed (pre inspection hole)


Think this cant happen ?


Wrong did and has happen here in Australia

[PLovett]

Wrong did and has happen here in Australia

Citation please because if it was as you stated then there is an immediate appeal provision; that the judge erred in law.

On you stated facts the appeal would succeed on religious grounds. That is when the appeal judge reads the appeal papers and goes, "Geezus Keerist!"

[Aussie Bob]

Wrong did and has happen here in Australia

Link? Proof? Case? Date? come on yr right, otherwise I am just going yeah right, bull ****e?

[gassed budgie]

Citation please because if it was as you stated then there is an immediate appeal provision; that the judge erred in law.
On you stated facts the appeal would succeed on religious grounds. That is when the appeal judge reads the appeal papers and goes, "Geezus Keerist!"

IIRC, it was a Mooney 201 that speared in from around 8,500' out the back the Hay/Balranald area about ten years ago.
The vac pump failed, the A/H fell over and the A/P followed.

[gassed budgie]

Investigation: 199703221 - Mooney Aircraft Corp M2OJ, VH-KUE (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1997/aair/aair199703221.aspx)

There you go.

[Aussie Bob]

That may well be the prang, it's the litigation yr right is on about that I am calling BS on.

[PLovett]

Thanks Gassed but I was hoping for a link to the court case. :ok:

[yr right]

Yes correct accident. As for bull sh*&^*^ proof me wrong. See as a LAME we don't tell pilots how to fly but Pilots are nearly all experts on maintenance, and most pilots can write on a head of a pin with a felt tip pen what they know about maintenance.

[yr right]

BTW that's why we moving to a Release to Service from a Maintenance Release as FAA have it

[Aussie Bob]

As for bull sh*&^*^ proof me wrong.

yr right, you made up a huge rave about litigation and when I call BS, you go "prove me wrong"?????

Your insurance paranoia is amusing, your stories fanciful.

[yr right]

Aussie Bob
You amuse me with your lack of knowledge or ignorance sorry you pick which fits you best.

To say your quote

"Your insurance paranoia is amusing, your stories fanciful"

I have no idea what you do for a living or your aircraft knowledge but I would seam from your posts its limited.
Do you understand why the SIDS program was introduced in the first place.
Do you understand that the LAME problem in Australia and why people are leaving the industry.
Do you understand the TERM For and Behalf Of. Have you ever seen that term.
I live with this term 24/7 and the realities that go along with it. I take it you don't. How dare you say what you do.
We are bound by not only CASA Regulation Ie the Law set in parliament but also Common Law now which the burden of proof is much lower. Casa has extremely deep pockets and the other side can get no win no pay. You do the math if your caught in the sights.
Have you ever had any dealings with CASA, I take it no.
It would seam you have shares in Artline with your comment.

[tnuc]

The bottom line is that the SID’s and other instructions for continued airworthiness for your aircraft, are written by the manufacturers engineering department based on real knowledge of the product, not the opinion of one guy who’s owned one aircraft for a few years and cant bear to fix something that isn’t broke yet, but the combined information and feedback from tens of thousands of airframes, and millions of flight hrs. These inspections represent a minimum standard.
It amazes me that most peoples initial reaction to new or increased maintenance requirements is to fight back or burry their heads in the sand.
Aviation is supposed to be made up of Professional people, so - be professional and act professional.
If an aircraft owner cant get their head around the cost of the minimum standard then get rid of your aircraft, hand in you pilot licence and take up another hobby, your not welcome here.

For the LAME’s having seen first hand several Aviation litigation cases in Australia, all I can say is beware. The case “yr right” mentions is true, it did happen, and is just one example.
What is not mentioned adequately here is the cost of litigation, and more importantly not the cost in actual dollars but the cost in the stress of litigation. The cost on peoples health and sanity listening to lies, stories, untrue and poorly written statements written by unscrupulous rock spider lawyers and barristers.
These cases go on for years.
In an accident related compensation case, The plaintiff is most likely not the aircraft owner or pilot, but rather their next of kin, or the estate of a passenger who knows nothing about aviation, the rules, or anything else pertinent to the case.
The person that was skimping lying and cheating on maintenance costs is most likely dead, but someone else will be making them out to be some sort of hero that had everything done when and as needed. Of course the LAME with a lifetime of experience on the shop floor will be perceived as the villain that must loose everything.

In another case that I have been watching closely relating to a 50 something year old aircraft, the owner is claiming around $ 80,000 in damages for a corrosion related problem, The claim seems vexatious to say the least, and even if the claim did have any merit it only has a basis of around $10,000. Despite this it is ongoing now for around 4 years and over $250,000 has been spent on costs between the various parties. This does not include their own time and the cost on their health and sanity.

[LeadSled]

however one must then ask why Cessna then hasn't put out an AD on this specific problemVery good question, with no good answer, other than the minor quibble that it is the FAA that issues Ads, often on the basis of Cessna SBs, but in this case there was no specific SB. It was certainly brought to the attention of Cessna, and not just from Australia.

My guess would be that the answer was a bit of "too hard basket" and a bit of "SIDS will eventually cover it".

Don't you fellas get it. Cessna do not wont to support these old aircraftI have heard words to the same meaning from a very senior Piper sales and marketing executive, about fifteen years ago. His view was that small Piper aircraft had a "desired" life of about ten years, then they wanted to sell you a new aeroplane.



Tootle pip!!

[Aussie Bob]

You amuse me with your lack of knowledge or ignorance sorry you pick which fits you best. yr right, I have enjoyed your analysis of myself but you are missing the whole point of my questioning you, that is in this post (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/486246-cessna-100-200-sids-6.html#post8403334) you tell a story that would do an insurance salesman proud but seem unable to provide any evidence of the litigation you describe.

My comments regarding your post stem from a dislike of insurance companies and their salesman and the perception that stories like you have outlined are seldom close to the actual outcome, hence the request for some sort of evidence. Respectfully, this is a request that you seem to be unable to understand or fulfill.

I understand the SIDS program well, I have worked on and observed it being undertaken on 2 x 185's one 206 and a 172. In my opinion it is a much needed program and the 172 in particular has been an eye opener, it has gone from a neat looking flyable aeroplane to a pile of aluminum where the corrosion never stops. Basically a write off with a bill of consequence. I also have a long history of dealings with CASA.

[Avgas172]

If an aircraft owner cant get their head around the cost of the minimum standard then get rid of your aircraft, hand in you pilot licence and take up another hobby, your not welcome here.

Maybe that's why GA has been in decline for the past 20 years and continues to do so exponentially .... :rolleyes:

[Oracle1]

Well said Avgas 172. That's why the ultra light scene has expanded so much, because it represented better value for money. I have reached the same point, I will vote with my wallet. My RV8 tail feathers arrive next week. It may take a lot of work but no longer will I be a slave to multiple bureaucrats, parasite lawyers and maintenance performed by indifferent mechanics.

[edsbar]

Oracle, I do take offence to being "indifferent". We do not make the rules but sadly we are the grim reapers that have to deal with the owners. We do not set the prices Cessna charge for the parts although we bear your dissatisfaction at what the manufacturer charges. In no other industry I know of would you be provided with parts at such a low margin to keep your aircraft flying and as pointed out previously you would pay much more per hour to have your Toyota serviced.

Like I said previously I would be very happy if we had US style rules and the SID's were optional or if you had an option to elect not to do a SB or a SID on a private category aircraft and accept responsibility for doing so. Sadly all too often the LAME is the meat in the sandwich and cops the abuse of the owner that really should be directed elsewhere.

The decline of GA over the last 20 years has a lot to do with the lack of new aeroplanes, the clusterf*#&k regulatory environment and the privatisation of those airports that traditionally bred new pilots that in turn purchased new aeroplanes. I fail to see how you can blame the LAME for this? When I started in the trade the aircraft were a lot newer and did require less maintenance, the cost of a bare 100 hourly has always been around the same in man hours its all of the rectifications, worn parts, little bits of corrosion that need to be cleaned up and now SID's. 100 hourly's on older airplanes are more like rolling restorations as they age.

Pre SID's Cessna in the early 90's introduced an optional aging program called CAPs but again no one wanted to do them either, remarkably they are very similar.

Go to the AMROBA web site and look at the newsletters that show the differences in CASA regulations v the FAA and see how we in the industry have fought for many years to bring some sense to the mess we are currently in.

Please next time you decide to blame this whole mess on the LAME take a deep breath and think who is really to blame? Yes GA is expensive but who's fault is that?

[yr right]

http://www.pprune.org/ XNSR0IArs4c6QAAAARnQU1BAACxjwv8YQUAAAAJcEhZcwAADsMAAA7DAcdvq GQAADZNSURBVHhe7d0JvG5T+Qfw3UQDkkopRSFNksyXVK5MRSUlTRqU4aoMo cHVlUo0mELReCkhJBppQBMljYQmU0UzRVH/97++677Pa53tfc95z7nnXOdc6/f5POfsvfb47r32s571W8/zrHv83//9X6epqKioqJhRuGf3f0VFRUXFDEJV3hUVFRUzEIu98n7Tm97U/O9//+uuVVRUVCweWOyU97///e/m1ltv7a41zXHHHdcce+yx3bWm+dvf/tZdqqioqJi5WOyU933ve9/msY99bPOMZzyj2XnnnZv//ve/zfvf//5mzz33bJZeeunmK1/5SnfPioqKipmLxdLb5Nxzz2222GKL7todeOITn9j8/Oc/765VVFRUzFwslpz3U5/61Obe9753d+0OzJ49u7tUUVFRMbOx2CnvE044oXnYwx6W6ZI2jj766GattdZ 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 9qk7e3BskZpKJ9KxQ277rprd6nJuVIqKioqpgumvfL+5je/2V1aAN4nwWVPJU499dTmW9/6VnetaZ7+9Kd3lyoqKiruekxr5U1x//73v++uLcA3vvGN7tLU4ZZbbmle8pKXdNea5oUvfGF3qaKiomJ6YFor77e97W 3dpTvw7W9/u7u0AELo58yZ0xx55JHNX//6127pwkFQUInXvOY13aXJg7ziV1xxRXetoqKiYnyYlAFL0Ys8Qj784Q93SxY eX/va1+6UnyRw2WWXNSeeeGLziU98ovnjH//YLU0/5h73aN773vc2K6ywQrdkfJDve/nll2822mijbknTPOIRj5hwdOZo4PnygQ98oPnyl7/cLamoqKgYHpOivG+66aZm2WWXzcExkwUKmJvfIBhM5A74kIc8JAfk/OQnP8n/uQHGICdlLjeKHClRJlUsl8L1118/7w/h+80f3HLp081Vcd68ed21ycOPf/zj5mlPe1ruLRxyyCHZt3yZZZbpbq2oqKgYHQutvAXMiHik9CZLee+1116ZBh kNJ598cla+FK7/sgYKZRc+L3rSvSj/4Q9/mBU15X2f+9wnl1988cXNuuuu27tffuFveMMbci4V5yjxq1/9Ks/MMxVwn2ig973vfdkdkuVfUVFRMQwWWnmH0t5kk02aCy64oFs6cfDw2HTTTbt rgyGzIMrhHe94R7Pkkkv2vE/cizkrhbcLzqG0Y2IG+x500EF5ucTcuXObgw8+OAfytGfaCQU/2XBf/Mbx67fddltOoLXaaquNyMdSUVFRMQgLPWDJ++PrX/967vIffvjhOWydMrrxxhu7ewyP66+/fkzFLSqSr7f8JGiR//znP7nc7Dnc+VjbFC5hnRvQxI2DiYmVo1oOO+ywTFt85zvf6Z1jWEiM5ThUy2 gooz/hD3/4Q3epaVZfffWcKAtt8vnPf77505/+NO77qKiouPtioZX3Djvs0DzucY/LCtXyRz7ykWy9jnfwkkvgMOleTahghvg2cMgXXnhhd22BxYzykBEQJx9goeP n3/KWt+RjDE5qBAbh4x//eLaSTznllNywOD4aCly69Ze+9KWZimnjFa94RXdpAfbff/9eLnJ0joYP7aMhQdvMmjUrb5tqaGwXB8g26fn5PaSd510e+N13331KBpzHA6 6nBtjRgSbF5r2EFiwb84qK8WKhlDelyAeagpN1jyX7z3/+Mys6oeXD4pe//GXzhCc8IUdOjgUNQ9AgOGNWMCUdoJCvvfbabIFT9JYpRkCv8EYR6GOWeZ4ke +yxx6jK28e2xBJL5DwqZdBOic9+9rPZijZYaoAULr/88vzf7D8BroG77bZbXnYPlLaAI72DRQmDvXolixKTQam1cf/73z+/32c/+9lZNttss+6WBR5JjAlGBErvrgI3VuMxO+20U+6dih94+ctfnr8dE2I/+clPHoomrFg4qA9/+ctfumuLCZKF2lkYSQqyk5Rp5+qrr+6VJSXZedvb3jZiv0GSFHcnWa9496Fl +eWX7yRF2nnPe97TSQqzkz7iTrL4O+lD7TzwgQ/srLrqqp3UeOTzv+td7+okqywvJ2u7k6yezjbbbNPZfvvtO6985Ss7yXruHHD AAXl7+pD6Xm+8kiysfD7LqWHJy+S4447LZbHu3tdbb73e+qKQ73znO/keUm+p7/apkEsuuaSz9tpr9922sHL77bf3nrt6F+WpEe+Vr7TSSiOOWRSSlHNn5ZVXzt dPRkYn9Sz77rf55pvnffptqzJ5UuqExUUmZHmjLVAUMvS9+93vzlYpqxNny2 XPf+lZx4JAldLrY1jg09EUv/jFL/J8lCzxM888M3ebY/IGVjkuWaAPy1wXlYVtnssHP/jBuZy15njWL+uZN8pkAPe/xRZbNKlxyZ4sYNJj7o+mY4P99tsvp7v90pe+tEgHKSNDo54R6maqoS6wiMea PGOi0MPqB4PPH/vYxzKltah7NoBWM5sT6Jk+/OEPz8ttfOUrX8k0XMXUwbdW9s4XF0xIeVOWXNySlZsVIDc3ipMyoqSOOOKIr CS53ZnQQAXtB0pLAzAMzF1JKb/2ta/N63yxDfqhHkxz5hqogGOOOSanezWgGf7aybrN94qffuYzn5mpHRQPTlqgjEF D3Vn3PFmgMJz3AQ94QF5H5xgPCBrloQ99aN6OlpkqV8Q2NGBlUJBMiZMBja+ GNAZcNcqgkTeOYT2orrEg6ApHXIKC9txCGQ4LGSlPOumkPPdpPzjfeD5q9bu c1WkQTIDNiAm0xz7a+MxnPtNdGgn1A6VYTsI9ETjeedrPdRB8H77j0eB9lGN JowFd0W/+WM9+NCpDfUKLDmqgSxiXanuKAf0Qk6hMlnE2bVCa4eORU045pfONb3yj85z nPKezySab9MrTA+8ki7eTlETnkEMO6Vx00UWdyy+/fMSxZKeddsrdxWFl33337R178MEH57I999yzkyznXBb7pYraSR9PpmNcNzUs nauuuqpzzTXXdFJvIO8b3VmiexvlSbF3koXU2zYZgsqJ+37Zy16Wu8+77bZb Xk+WYd4nKdXePlMpKKNkEY64v/TxjNgH/ZSs5ExBpJ5KJzW++Z5RPEsssUQuT1Ztb/9PfOIT+Twbbrhh5yEPeUiuD6khzM9+2WWXHXGtEO9i/fXX750PdeVc6pHtaDjr6YPvbLTRRp0nPvGJ+fq2ocjUrbj+bbfd1jtv0CbpI 877WyfJsu3tnxRiJzXuuQ44t+PQGieccEJvn2SQ5HtwrG3XX399JzW2veuod 7FvP0mGRm/fZCT03Wc0SQqrs+KKK3ZSDzHTe87je1G3zzvvvN7vIu4zGSz5OJSYZ+W9BW3 59re/PR/v3fv/qle9qnedF77whfn3OY9tynxnlon7mD17dicpvd4+3t1yyy3X22efffbpnW/evHkjzpeMt86aa67Z29dzSY1f59JLL+0svfTSvfLtttuudw6SFHG+N9dJPae 8z4c+9KG87YILLuik3mzv9/t9+++/f+9c6m4yJPK+6NEoL+Wggw4acb2ZKhNW3uecc04ntWpZUR566KF52YfvY992 223zPs9//vM7Z5xxRn5gyfrqHYsHbj/QscQxcbzrKNt11117ylsl2XLLLXvK2/4vetGLOo9+9KN7x1HSKoYPI/UO8sebrPae8qbYUo/iTtdeWFFZnf/UU0/NSu3II4/M6xqLZP11Pve5z+VKeOutt3ZSD6J3v5MtPhj/y3sLfr4UCji2h6L0QURZsqZzGaVmPZQvoWz8rmS9dVLPp3fMuuuu27nxxht7 YyPJcutt22CDDTrPfe5zR4x9aHApgvL9bb311r3tUZ/6KW/iOUd56qHlMnXDeImy2G/vvffu7XfxxRf3yqOMItQQUIzGCaI8Wda9fUvRGMY+hNLtt98gufbaa3vHary UHXjggXldHbd+4okn9vZp8/mf/OQnc723nHoeeZ+jjz46rzMkrL/uda/r7U/5x7k0YLFM1Ff7lGXGLi688MIRBpB3Fecrn9EjHvGIzhe/+MXO3Llze2Ua7TXWWKPzve99rzNr1qxeeYxLEcaBsh/96Ed5/eUvf3leTz2UvO7bjeNI6kF2jj/++N56jK/ccMMNndSr7ZVT/J5v6IyZLhNS3l5WWFVLLbVU57TTTsvLrHEVIHWXOx/84Aez5a0yWy+Pf+1rX9t7oMNIe3AtlPecOXNyJUjd2d6+rAWDqJTy+eefnys aS4wlzupw7xQHq8AABonKTHn7/4Y3vKF3vsmQ0lI1KEoRWE5d02wRsWwpcJU1LIzJFhU8dR/zcvv5t/fdaqutettCeXt+URbKm1KIMu8+jt90003zfw1TbN94441720lbyR177LF58H GHHXbIA8uMgdgWVrH3HWVnnnlmLhukvL3XKA/lTRlFWTTYGvooY4TE8WVD4r6Uua8oKy31UvQ0Yx+icei33yCJAUwSZRRblIU CW2aZZXpl6nPsu8UWW+Q67juI7eqZbQaOoyx+E+s+yli7yljteicaO+uxnVg nZaOndxvl6kaU+/6UUZZRxoqPffUYovzd7353Los6Ve4X7+hRj3pUXveNxHF6s7FflJEoKxuTOm CZIAQdH5dOkDlKA4PEoCV+GbecupbZfdBgQbLAc4BMYBAHPgjOVQIHZhAMD4 7DJR/96EfzAJW8JbgvU6DhHbnu8acm3MokhOIbLN2s+5AAq0xuBXxwX//613fXFh7pQ8rXd2/cxAQavfKVr8w5w/n+GswykGjGe37JUwHn9z6AC2UJEakTAVfLALe89CHld+N3jRfcF5OlncctDP Qat+DOqSxm/S8Dv9Sx8SIpxjzWAAYUoXz3g87pHkB9DwSvPxYErLWBKxaUhVcOkcfHvuojx EA3iEsIRMCZXDiBiBpOyjb7tPs+fQuBOL7kfH0HbUS9UFfM+TqaC22ZygHf3 A8xSFs+t/K48vziPGD+/Pn5fzkOZLwKfL/tGA8OCgEuvXcnTEh5l+Br+8Y3vjErSgM6Ju31EA1oGDx80pOelEPADQjywoD REk71A6VQQiXnu+1jpkBUnmTB5gEqSlvwDCXJhzuEctC4iABNFnhOaqWcsnS PGpeyMvEP/sEPfpAHRScDngHFpDHT6HgePhY+yBoS0ZoxGDvZ4Enzpje9qbu24MMofaKlB pgIKNgVV1yxu7Yg34z1fgprNFA2bSgzwGYQWV1KVlf21V0Y8LNW9ygTUbber QH1iWCQYhOvUII3Uxs8pShcGSxDYtLsQOpFdJeaZrnllusuNb2B0NKgofA8c 0aHRGpQDt5ptLxvjbd3JodPP0V3V3q9xKCkgW8QEyGrqPs2oOu+BdzVwKY7s NDKG7j7yQ/C8wQoQqO8Khg3KYr1rLPOyh4ePqBBLfUglK019zYWklB61o8Ra40CC5a74Nl nnz3CygeJn1gBPD9UBJYI5a23wKWPklDZw8IKaNUvv/zy/NtS9yv3ICThmgh8xD7QgAmN3b/R9mc961nd0qmBnC6uzfIKKaNRKbSw+GCY0f0AL4YyMtbH5T2PB4JY+sG5BLF wRaXwJuM58W6iEETWCibTA5pM+C0amoD604brp67/iJ4La5cLaz+o6214hwJ/AiKcTzjhhOZFL3pRXi89p4477rjcMHjHLGr1vt+znEhvZrJResToGbtvPWv3 7duWr6hiAabkbWklX/e61+Vl1isFbp2V3q8ijge6u85DYaAfKG8WP1c8jUR0Q8tKwHKzXbdSBfeBcV 3jd80C0S3TALUbFR+HbhoriZI644wz8kcSoIBRIhqkYdBuVBYF9EQ0PGHFhr gX1meAv36gLB8N3iULlEWsRxFARaCAFgZoBT0U55YjxrsaT6PSDyxudQaFJd J2qizN8lmO9hzayrK8n9KyL2mHsifIqAjoWWnkAmVvRizBTEF53xGtXNEfE1 beFOEgaDF9wHhx1gXKgjVCQY4Xa665ZndpQRIsvp9RsVnSaBrgZx4+uLgxFm 0koEJZsMopYhSFc1hmfWsE3Ce0lYOGhw95iehdAAuKZVhascCvlyVlgmQTF2 scWDpTFagyGnzU5UdeouRN/QYNFIRvOsQzoUzbuOqqq3o+tJSh3lXAOyqfZ7wzPsRQKqd+kHsmELRBSUFMx ErUA4s6Etz3MH7b4wXKbptttumuNTlf+zBAlQS/X1KLpT912VNAf0U+HM/6zUVg3HOf+9zu0gIlX1JZehwxN+xY72EQJnrcWJANNCC1QAnjUG3OeyyUdTn ueZg0HDMBE1beLNZB3PXGG2+cLVIWrv8qTnBx44U0qQHUBo5Yl9ELwC9SwJ/73Od6gzImTnje856Xu1iUMiXgpQtI8SJZnT4QSaKcBz8eA2GscaDcDS5SzvY pEflNNBpoIQMtusABXLygJRGchx56aP5I0CMSJy1qyCeCbvAb+6HkwSE+FoP OAb0m914qg7AEcbUomeBXQ2FRtqgTVm5APdA4vPjFL87rZd0pLctA+ZHiPnW X9SICuv6SPZXHlgZFuRz7lB+t8QW5RWIAEPDfAqmg3z2VGM14AQ1ZKFqNZNm wBfo1QJ/85Cfzf79fDxK8QzA20x4XiUaOgaJHGtD7DYpBg0nRC0hDL3puQZvENcaLcsB 2UAPYb+yjfK6+szY0dKFkBdmpi74vdYsuMIhdUkIl+l0vjDvgqLDPPvuMGA+ Y0UgPs68byljCp3pQXg5ub+HK1RZ+vumyQ0v6SHvH8tPkJsi/WF4SZfxG/ecnnRRt57rrrsuuRcnyHXEezvvcz1Klzu5cfNB/+MMfZpcvkpRJz+2If+3uu++e/X75s5d5WyLYge8pNyR+pHzZkyLM5amL39t3PJKUfGe//fbru20ikpRqdp1LDVaHq6LApnI7f3IBEOljyPuQ1CBnX2qBFKUPrt/IJTN9VHk/53U+z4UftuAcPvN8jgVWlC5ZXDYd4zzyS/D15hrJdVDAjW3eW9uljpth6rHk49Qzrp3ei/tV5vjUu8sBNd5t3P/OO++cXeXUizi/+/Vs+fhzN3N8Umydc889t5MUes/3m0shtza+6vFc/E89qVxXuNUpI55JuMKNJskI6AUDuQ5XSEFMcR+28Vsuj/GsBQWtsMIKvfrGDz4prRH7hfid4RNdit8iSMjxITvuuGNvu28o6ohnKD7Duy nP4XuJ5+tZ8Fv3LLzzeBbeq+tzD/YOlLkndUgAGvfH8l1zxbW/oJ04h8Ab35Fr8qHnI17edwTWeJ6rrLLKiOO43npO5TtLRkLe/5Zbbsn1xzlcW1BZ/LaZLuNS3jfffHMndT3zA4kADErANr6X/FEjsKAtgjxOP/30HJFVvpRS+K56+WWZYI/UyufIR+eJCqzSU1Ai5lQOyi+uRXnzfVWpnEMggkagVI5+CwXsw0lWeq5oosf 48qoIsZ9GQOCRZfevYsS9aQBUKn7llIUyvqvJKusd309cRyBL6Vfr2DIQaTq I+2x/zKUkSyfXBcsU6XS7/+kk6sQVV1yRv4Nk+Q0VVevZa7SSFd53ewiDpV95iChi54l3NVPE7/es+m2rMg7lnbq9uZIIEpg/f362lFirqSuWt4ukCmtCiK4ykYVaahZe6n7n0N4Id22LwBHHlOHpIttYcqIA NRYizU466aS8nzB8AQkRBnzyySdni8lHwdFfhJ3yUiIw4/DDD8/3oWFQOVimrJ3Yj8Xi+pZZZ6w8wQcsS+WsSZaDBsLxMhyGhUQ0LKIGXUNUW/lxsQrtIzrUOuvNuutYt+w/i0gPIY6rUqVKlVKG5rxxcTgoHga8Mvibcj0KVygDDakbnTmt1H3KHJUBRpyi 5ED4PYOPBhbbwJHyAmnDYBhODjfJVzV1vXKWOMBFcyHC3Rk0xG3hmY3089G2 vQ2DbvKP4+vdE84XD2hUO1nO3b2azKvxwU5KPQ9annPOOdnrAbdnEBI3LpDE vRmow8O7B8Avytlt0JZbouRbMS2bwU7+3Th2ZQbg8PHcH3GiV155ZebpHYtT nMgAb0VFxd0EbW0+luCbdf2S4u6VyZ2MixaCzTpmicY2/CcqhdWKn0RvpMuOkF122aW3f1keZThYHCDOGtdWXjsElxch2LhYId5Bd6BI8 JbBLQrFZtW3u2QsbveCy8Z1l9vw4nJtoArw6/ZlLUdOBtY8Ttgya1sovt6K9QgxJ/g5/LhQ7FtvvbVXrkfBCnddPYcor1KlSpV+MlB5GzTA36JGoozye9CDHpQVqwGfZ I3mcv8lHrJcKl2CZ5bjxICL9TI/REicB70QZcmi7p0DpYImkYXPOipGHhJcXuwjhwkOWu6QaDwk6ZGpzkAkisTg lEEZ1Eyby00WdB4kGURVGLQJpfrZz3425/oICodQyJR+rBM8OoUs0VOU2ceAjwZJPgeJcvDFQTkRDVTki0CzeLYGXVJPpn eeKlWq3L2lr/KmYI1SG5ml6P70pz/lclY0jw9Wp3UJnVic1ingN77xjdlLIM5DwbFynUviIqPLrNdQUoSFHPvbJ8q dK8oNkroHnHaUuc6TnvSk3gi1wUueEpaltZRZjcKOgUxcPd76z3/+c06cZMRbuV4BpU056zlIIymFKK8FFrt9PA/3bXmQaBSkRW2XGyiigGPd4JNruL6ZgJQZC3B/fiNuH5fuXmxzXWUaU94X/se5qlSpcveVvsqbS00sU74UdLmdUMgyClpGSaAGZK0LC5cCpIRZnbxFKKpQz KWUFjDvjygv8wSPJgb+eG2wznl9RPnrX//6bHWz/FnA1iNVLcqEcueBYnC1pE80IH4PCuYJT3hC9kRxP7xpYp9+wg0MLdQup5Adz zKPMi6IegXROBCNpMZJOkuulpHhzrHRw0DHxJRtVapUuXvLPfxJCmIEhHtHV JekU0ccccSIgAJlgixErD3gAQ/IA3wc5K+77ro8KChkXYBIOneO3BsUEi8gIsLoIVm/Pcd9QQXC0UVmCu02gOc8BgQNHIooEwRiZhxZ7EQ1iqwUUg3u1/5m/Jk9e3Z20Bfu7p4E1wjyEMQgiKYfXOeoo47KwT2u1S+gAIQ/G8QUvCPviVD9NgxGCpqQ6U3yLDCoKpw5MqZ5bgYoN9pooxwO7v4FtQjWEAyT lHse5LQe2QErKiruxggtXoruf8n9sgKTMslWIOHrzDqP9YlIzP5RSr/9hhEzabBWBVk4T0w+Ww462u43WDb42I/iMNgq4X37t7X3RXlwYSz3IUF19BM9jLD8RxM0i/8op7Jc/mvPXc+mLK9SpcrdU/pa3qk7n3N+SJfKNY/ld+KJJ44rD4QQV9Z5meyJBSunxHbbbZdD522TOS6SRHHL40roWPmMufT1g+1 JGeYwWfeUFF4ORf/e976X3f5Y1SxXvYEIeefayOJmacvexs3PeQKXXXZZDqmXk4Urn4yC4W7I+o/Up47Rs3D8Nddcky191/LbWM3peeb9+sHvYcGX1y0hWZTzOhfYj/ul36h34d4j98VY4N6ox1JRUTH9QSdhCMaDvso7gNaQo3ki2fAoDtTLIEUVoC DRJaH0XKvMGxFJo/y4UGoBftKugf6QsxrtwOfapL6nnXZaVsYB+YH5pfMN58MtOyGaRy4StAb6gr 95pIUt78FvkGArtg2C34A6GU2B+70aw/ZvAdeRTAsVFbCfnBboofFADnQNXEVFxfSHb7zMkTQMRlXeiwIsb4EyAnvwuo JYrIfSx/FKSMQapqjx67ZR2JIfLbnkktnalvDIbC4SJSnDKVPkehAwf/78fIzEN1JkSmZlUgZJpATuAKWr0dErGAsaFcE1FDrFOpZir6ioqJhM3OXKO8 BK3G+//XIKVgOmcmWLODQoaZlVbaAODcJSFrFo1g2Z4ljPBxxwQM4FbGIG1IPzUPQsc pAW89xzz80Di6x7ljxFbRBQ9CgrnCWPAkFvyFjIAtZAaFCCrnA92QY1KLNmz cqDlbIYVlRUVCxKLHLl/bvf/S57olCSlB+vErm25YbmDYKXZm0LdaewA6Z4kpZUuL30shSsY/DcPDx4vsidbRl/zYpXZhIGniqoEkrWNgqXxW0fOZB5qrDmcctC8i1LQ+r+NCryH7tHFIaUnCx2 YOWjfCItJ77cfrxehPJrUCoqKiqmBJT3ZIk0oQJJSk8S3hMrrrhiTvwUyZ8E vcTs8wKBREeKwJTsKgKAShG0wo9cJKLoRmUiFwXWCIsX/KNMoI5zyoYnA+A666yToxOF1fPrlhyL37Usg8cdd1w+hleNe5EVUHKppMBz0 Aw/8zJ8nQiNP/XUU7OfuORTfodMcbbNnz8/h8dLG8pfXTBQeWyVKlWqTKaMW3nL7xsZ8Eg7/amgHgrU/yijwGX5o4TLfWXmE2ZP2Y+WBzsyF2633Xadb3/723lZvt6zzjprxH6RsU+ouQhMuX4pabnHlSerPIfPC4gJV0jBO4KKLK+88sr ZJS8yFY7m+idoR/CSsHV5kTUs5XbKvFwW0u8+hkkFWqVKlSpjyVBZBbm3RTZALoOy46ErgDuegU G8M5jyzAAib42PfvSjucws7agEA4oGHbm/4ZJ5fySFngcMBakMAooFDDTGlGNc9wSxlECBmCTY+WU15LrH7RFlgg83PVW4 DMbUVAY2UR+QHkh2ETRhK5QTH7fBjRLvLdOiYB4UCm4eD48+QZmgXFAzZlTB 38tiyAUy4Fm23YPcT0VFRcWYaGvzUlAIaZec/8PkAfKIsDL9l6Aq9kMzCEUXJFOGfDteQIwETqxnIeKsZ+eUJyX2Y+FKXhXrb YnwfLlJZPSzLEeIQBlZAE2YYJvJF1AbtktkJahF0M3cuXPzNYXpxznl25YDh bUuOZQ8LWbPsc2+/pfWcz9x3ec973m9dXlfUDnK5FQxUYS8LBJRlccRz8R1WP0xC4pEVWieoGtQN OUxVapUqRIyJm1C4VFyuGL0hgRUyilsdAhlmSzZXJYs4zwpg2XctfSnxx9/fGfOnDl5IoRI0Rp5O0Io/nnz5o0oKwVn7b9IyqA7CMpG9j2RkWXa1RCTJlCQ8o70y02SLN+cvdCkDhJDR blGwH+zBAWlEoLL1jBYpmSdv+TpTQUlOlJOF5RMZBGM7cQzpeR/8IMf5EyKkk/hzp1Lul33q1xDVx5XpUqVKiFjepugTOT34AnC60KODvSF6EYUA0qDC164zom U5K2RFGCe+HbTTTfNXhx8r1Es6AqUA1e9gEkPTHKLguB/zaebx4moQhGZrs/DxPGDoi4HQXQkGmPQpKX9wIdbwA63QvdtkmN5UkSbomJEgjqvyXkFMvmtJf1 hf/f5mte8pknKO+dXQd/4zY43KYVgnYMPPjhTPOglEyKLPLWvACLP1AQPk+WG6PejaUz0wCPH79p4441 798jPniumdyXnikCimAx3WHh3zmPC3dR45d/lPYJ64r0PC15JqDbPYiJA25mUl2upSTEiWnZh4LfxJhJM4R1ONdSN1LvLExB zW/WuBKDJfSMIa7wQuCbozjsWGXz00Uf3cussSnDPHU9dGBYoUXrEtyd6G00q6G 2qYJJy7s2ugy5e5Ghr80HCgyM8REpvElY5ixuFYHLQ8hgSc1yyJP0vJ14IMc EDi9YEBrIDyubHq0TObtt5lMimJ+NfWL3Dihzfju+3bSxhPUd2Q/lNUDXu0UCpgVM5TtrHED0F3jCOlUGwpGusy7DIQkedxJyfKCZTuaFcZDm85J JLRuRSXxhBc6GQvLuYeNkAq3ejZ+C9mrjVvuUcozIfts81msRxcS4iN7kyHj 7lvmOJerLZZpv13TaMeAdxP+iofvuMJgbly6n0brrppt75eBuV+06FoOBcC+ 1m3eTJ6EVlJWU5rOy22275WD3MV7/61Xm5TMc8msgW2q98ImJqRNe+ZZLm0/QdletSOTs/8Q2V2yZbTEId1wq6NqR02JgqGUp5c/EzzyN6oZwlh3ixKpZUpuEKGEJpqDSUES5XGYqj3CeE4tII+NjRKhRbfLwmJr YdT00J/L41kQKe3TVQNhSOxgU37lpSvvKQMeONmW2GqTQUr5l7zJ2J7sFfcyVU8XDjt tkv6JW2oJPkDKekea60lTy6B21CgZrgIiae8KGqCCrFeBupQXLkkUf2KljMJ NQWbpSR3jdS4JK2d9BY4h07rkyNS9EpS5bviH1HE5NMxz20vXiGlUhORtBT/fYZTTyPGIsI4b3kfGjAsnwqRP1wvXY5w2HppZe+U/lowsMpngUDKPUe8hhWzAI1mqgP8ub32zYR8S26D+NQ/baPR9RP5yrLNNTxW9vvb7LF+J/r8FIry1GfZssvy6ZChra8R5PZs2fnl9JvW1vkyl5hhRXyMqXLorHM0uFnrRF wLhMkePjc68K3m7DgDWDyC1epNCqsVXw4xU3JOxfh141nx4ebhYdCd5xc3fK Nu298Pe67nDBBxfbxU6A4di/IffNh14BR2hRCOUNOKfhrHwlLvd0ih1DUznfjjTeOGLxlbRu8nYyWW4MWFVl vpt8+Ie4llo1v9PO3H0bC7z1kIsq7/ABjEHkiosfD9bPfttFEj8+12x8/I6WsJ1Ml5XtTP9rb11hjjTuVjSZ6xHG+8lsaS9RLx0xWT8P7iPtYcskl++4z rNAb0asryxel8ibt+sDY8C25t7J8KmShIyxxs7hO3G8/4KAOOuigzJmLTuSGh+NO1l7mokHEo6yAeFGSrO7MzXI/lDcEn5ReRN5XrpJtt90287UiHpM1ncPhueLhx03+ixMUAo+zXX311XNIO25P 6Dy4Fo4ZknLP/Krz4My4B+LJ5EHB2bseHlpucTlXHGuZy+Ppp5+exwDawN27JxGh+HDugzjmN twrLtzvnQp4dqJZAc84Gi/nt4kqNZ4RnKFIUhka5TYPeOZcLU08LQUBLlnqAGMe8rvYbiyEeySYgJnrqP2 MnwwDzz8SkkGqo/k/11DJxmLcwxiIcQJuoNw1wbtWt7wb6RFw39xHRfKC96auOg8+3sTT6qcxDucT peu3ANdTrp3GAETkipqFZGmNGIvg3mk8wW/noqo+49pdC68sV47f4Pl63yavNgZhLMfzacPvNOk2OFb9UOcD3onfFFB3/X7P2biKPD+4cTjvvPPyO5WTH7wX5/LcQEZOvLr0EMYpRDYDPtfk3u6TW64oYmNZyejJ9Tvcdz1Dk2h7v+7B/arru+yyS95ewjwAnn2MP82fPz/zxQH3KYGcc6sr+GRlvm3XjjLZPNdbb708NgZ0imdtzOawww7LYy7guRif8m6 MUbk/eiBgTCUp+/xbfaeOp1eAroj6zN2Xm7MxHOeKsapkGOT7im/iN7/5TY4KT41UHqMQ4e19qyvxrYBnpk5J/WECc/XKM9lnn33y9qERWnwqhCWdLpH5uygLrw5dC5wUCiG2BTfNasVlmVdSty34cq 0ca1a5IJzg7NAc3P14hrhenI8Fb/5KHF+4IrJqWPXBxaN2eHdERCRqRYvt/uQAR7285CUvyfdm+jLcO+syNQq965D0MjOl5B55trD4/Q4cvmjMct9ScN39yhdWPCfPIgTX3m+/tqCK4hjTr/GoQVVFWWnJeqZ6RrEe+6y22mq9svFa3ugyPStcfJwvgrQIyiLKUVjlscqMn1 gu6aII5lJn/JbwduK6ajuOnlXNc4nnUxwnsMrz8G71RqK85Irj96HU1D90hyjb6LmwdOM41 BtJjU2vrB3FG+IcsQ/RNe838bb6aTu3VNdXl63r0tsu0ljEb5xHHU5KKG/T41Smt+o79Gzcn22mIUxKNG93TrNUBdVRPiOuwMqI56QM7RVlpYi0du04th/tGM+TRFlZF6z7zb7hKNOjjmkTS8tbhLXZqbxf6+X1ULzK9PStqxPWRXnHPnG eiKaOdZSo7SXnbd19CRC0rh6gTPfYY4+8zVhZ7BveeSHKot6OR6ZMeVOKuFQ 0AJe91OLmCu4jKPdT6YJa8LGU24jQef/xxyq9Zd0vk/GKbvTDUSfxsVgPhYhOSa1tLkODKPPBx9Rp1r14yt0y8aGb6T4qoI83tpXit8 UyxW5AUFfQy/cSNSZ+c1RoPHh5/FQLN03XDfGc++3XlnKgL9wyg4snZbfbhxEDriQGtH1sUTZe5Z2skaxIUGBxT f78sZ2SjfKSi9Wglu8kWXW9/UJ5m+PUetAOGvDYJ37XaN3uKI+5UuO5lPcXcQyxD2MgjmPMKDM2E2WDfPnNV Rr7lEKRoBtjvygPhSzyOMpin1BUJH6n76W9H0rQOoVvPRrtNm3CmIpjfWNR7 lv1PZX7hhgb8z1YjmNJe5yMMRDbosw12mXGv9plpHx/Um8o801GWXwHxjSsxziQ8tgnDJ1YN0CscRAF7l2jY23vdw9BubVpk7Leloaf 6w4zSUs/GSrCciLQrUuWZ6YyUA+6W7pAJgkAVAJqQndVN5hbnG6rCRwCukdcxXSF0Ryi MUHXxzb0SPoRzeabb567urpRuuwmLdDt11WynasVikIXSZdH11C3GnSr0COA atGF0r3VZUoWSY9qKaEripIIuA8ZCh0vsRWawbVRJ7q4oi/RS4sSfncJz3Ci0CUMcPUMeAcohMmCd4i20BXVvY9uZqrgeRo70KUOSkAdSj2 pvKy77P2OBl1tCNqlpHEm8nyibqjDAV1hUNe9A13qQLg9xu8CXex+SA1MjtD VDS+RGuXcxVe/QT0DdAXokg8D9AX4XgLOCyil0SC3vcyakBrGTA0A+mJQ1x89EFMexvsD1NFY KJ/heBDunNyXA75T329QgVxiIRke+T9EhHXAO0I7oTp805GYbjxQb0WaA2rI9Im AVptoArspU94lVAocm0rO7/uqq67KfqY+PBWcWMa54ZICMgL6KPGIPmgTHfiI+anipilg63hnKVwpYjwTro vCwXnioXCGQvpdP7X0OYe4D5+/s0ZDxU8WSX6QoZhxgDgxH1HqGnbvaAGS1Z+50kC8bPeFE6PAncfLFvpPeSfr Pu+zqBCVMsBPfaLQkBmvAOMCeFIfv7QDkwkcc3DXgIsOlB/5vHnzuktNT2G7p1A+g5B6RFlhezfGYPCnCwPKFcqUB6WiUX8nAgoYB4pr1aA Zt5CsP8DA8VvA98LocQ/28X6GQSgPSkyjIv7A/eJ8oyEYDcErQ7wnz6NUggG+8fjkQNnImhxltNQYk4G28sfZB4yvtCFPfwk6Y jJQfi/GPUDjF8bjeLFIlDcg7Fk+FPBqq62WX7KBphIsklJ5U+gGTQyOUYgeOiUUg2j Suxr00KpTJqkrmAcUKVeDoSb8ZblQ4AaBVDgfLYUv4EKgg8ru/F4iRasV1FI7j4+btcBaL2HAUm4WUDEMrgrokbZWelnn9kJYpawUKAdKFgXiG QfKCjsRlNYBi1PgSzlot7DQoBqUZi15bkT634CGOXLZeKby6YDencazVA6jQ T1hbc6aNSs31pOBQZZhu/czLAw8qlMBCjUazID6BqxeAWLy6iiL3sVYiF6HRkK+IBa9/xqKsgEdBD2ksPrtz/iZM2dOXm+D8eJdxnt1j2WQXvv7mmqMZcm3txt8nAzQK1gC0KB5XwzWiWKRKW 8PxMh6mXiJxcBSDlDUFIMKpUvOunUMBc36M6pt1F/LqHvKm8THq/VSAe53v/vlj5KlrpHQ3aGgddNEazq/Ckr5skxRJOgMFp/WnzXDimDZ2a5Cur5GwIN2nJF8tEpAj8D1WeuOj3OLWryrEZ4D4LmNhrLR7Af P0wcLnruezGRCQ4nu4vkTonvpeQd4RQRKy8+x5X6D4N3yeNBA8IbgibIwiN6 N+hrg9RBAFU4E6nG76w4MifAYCqqGta1O2x9FOZZiCpS9FMZOiWEppGjQUTj uLWakKqEhco/eZbxXPV6UZKCc/qvf/fvGJhMlFRV1oKwLYZhNBcp6i4WgeyaKRaa8V1999VzJKeAAl6XgwIH1i1uiG ChD/BluTfZB9IXwXhYCiykUSYnoOu+11175BaFWPCwtP6BZnMfHXnLrPgQUB+6a9 ed6WkhcqxaSKyTlr+LpAYTbVUBlx+vjwyh+7k8s3+OPP767x10DFSMqqo9Ij 6UfjjnmmBFc9iBwgQuEq+VkAE3AZbOf1Vheh7WPswR1JOiKseiP+Pi5Q4L3x PKk9ALh+lYqCu5+GvVBlJN6BmXDFxSAmZ4cX57PmMiwYHmHm2cJVAowSGxH7 4Feid6ob6CNfspPDzHgXAwp0AuNLn1k1QyFio4sQWHHc9Oj7Qf0ZT96zXddU nvxTbHMS7h2v15juG0G1O9BKBsESprxpYEE3zSoE4HgpieCuBYKFdrUGYoqJ jOnY+IZTwipa9d3JHNRCDep0dzoxitcg1KFyiGyXIl4jaSfmCPS/BdezAuDlwQPkX7nmIi4ToT9SxPAHdFy+pBG7HdXSemmZOTdMxCAwSOI54Xts W/pKhhunaWILn3pS196p3ISx5XRZXKnR3m5b0hq0PMIvf2SQu27TxxPSje98CT qFzVbeshYVpYsql4Z4cEUy+oLzw+unlGWenE5oMuxXCSjnHdTXCfOyauEB8c SSyyRgzTC+8kzjONSY5rLuCRGGc+kOFcIL5fYzh0zngsviNQD7UV4RoRhiNz 4O+ywQ2/d/Xu+vC6iLPVQe9fhZRXlPKX8rtKDx3cU2wWptUPRCbc328tAsxBJ6WwLt9y2+ A7j/NwSBSSVnjjcFpMyH+E+GN4icW7iN4vkVs6TLMqTYZjLymcSyfF4UlnnMWI96 kK8I88tjvFclbWldBUMDyDR3VHmuuEqWEq4S4YX1ERl2sxhORlgxbMGJIZiZ eLgWFe8C1hsOHItNosN1z3MwMxYwPdpXSWpAgOhKJPSo2A6wBiAIAOUE2sDH 44S4oUTXWg9DvRQ3DtLjlVmMDiAwmLNl2XAKscNhuXhHJ51WCCsP2MS7V4LK oTVZ7t9DT5Hr8q70+vBUcd5U33NfCmLzjKrzvhECZYa+iqsKxavJFV6Q3pGu Ee0ifPaz6AZei08iFifeiOsXFa9+qMuxeCWe1GHguNFWbhP1vwWW2yRewuOY c0ZnDMnK6iDLFTvIcZA3JuemsC1gLEeYwDuB83o3Kx/3XnWvvod8L7Qe3oiaAv3hs5AZbgP2w16GrwHz9q7iyAqxxK9YpagnPMl3Ctv LQ4HJV0YUEf0qtu9E9fVm/Ic9Kw8g6AM3KN65z3qnQQEvRgv8k7UM2Mb3q16GeMd7jN6Br53lKXBVh4gnB GsR0Ac2pQ+0KMuy5xT3XDPBsLpAnXC+wwvGs/QvblX4rkZWwvogaPIolfjXasz4P79dvVYMrt+8FyitzNRLBbK20esYojEii4 4jhfHqfL5aGOwRAWR0YwS4xlSDpxMBM4z0dHiioqZCI2wbw7dqKGk3I0lVAw GvUTBo0wofcZOOQA9Ecw45Y2rxgf6rzVlybGIcNaUNCuYEjdwyV+Vvy2wiHG qrBxWmMFKFpMWtAzRraioGB3Bc1PgviU9g4rRwTVab4qw/PWKYsxmolhkA5aTAQODRmgNJOo+8cNmPXMj4yqmy6qLaFBAPhJdd3SBrhQLQ RdVd9LIt0FM25TrqlPiBhjLQayKioqRKLv6KCWUScXYoLMATUiBL6zihnslJ XZHxMMMAHco3JukTzi6iGgDFrQWbu7cuTkIQTIZ1gFLAedHeYvS5IbInVAZ/1j+qjwGUCi6f+2R8IqKigXgssvlln+54JXSHbViMMRE4NvRJqVr5MJgsRmwR I+wBGQ/CxrEYBbFjes26LDWWmvlwTaO8ULpWextoFxkoCsHUioqKiqmGxYb5c2/lZfAMMEaFRUVFTMdi5WrYEVFRcXdBTNqwLKioqKiYgGq8q6oqKiYgajKu6Ki omIGoirvioqKihmIqrwrKioqZiCq8q6oqKiYgajKu6KiomIGoirvioqKihmI qrwrKioqZiCq8q6oqKiYcWia/wfOmakSlSRaAgAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==

AIRWORTHINESS BULLETIN Cessna's Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) and Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCPs) AWB 02-007 Issue 7 Date: 28 November 2007


4.1 Are Cessna’s SIDs and CPCPs mandatory?








Brief you to keep your aircraft airworthy. They point you to the manufacturer as the best source of advice on the maintenance needed to do that. For a Cessna that means SID and CPCP, if available, unless you can show your alternative addresses the same risks as safely. Your insurance company will probably expect the same.

[yr right]

Bob
Well I know the facts of the incident. I not interested in looking for court papers sorry doesn't interest me. If you wont to research it please feel free to do it. And gee you been involved with 4 Sids inspection, dose that make you an expert ? Did you sign for the work you did, or did you have to have a LAME sign and take responsibility for the work you preformed ?


Avgas 172
GA has been in decline in aust at the change of government in the mid eighty's. When I started aircraft weren't able to get into the circuit area as it was to busy. Casa don't wont GA its too hard for them to regulate. the prefer the big org because its all kept in house.


Oracle
" maintenance performed by indifferent mechanics"


So for a start we not mechanics. You may like to think of calling us that. I actually find it a little offensive. Wish I was cause ill earn more money if I was. Next were are you, so I can let your local engineer know and tell him what you think of him , I guessing you know it all about building aircraft and never need anyone's help from your local engineering shop. You all seam to think that we a bunch of C&&^s. Just there to take your money and charge you a bomb for parts. Then expect that the engineering shop is your personal bank for payment in 30 then 60 then 90 days. Have you any idea the cost of running a work shop is. Well im sorry im not indifferent but people like you make me wont to be.

[yr right]

CAAP 42B-1(1)



CASA Maintenance Schedule









6. Periodic Inspection Schedule




6.1 The replacement or overhaul of time-lifed components required in an Airworthiness Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any special techniques required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional

[43Inches]

GA has been in decline in aust at the change of government in the mid eighty's. When I started aircraft weren't able to get into the circuit area as it was to busy. Casa don't wont GA its too hard for them to regulate. the prefer the big org because its all kept in house.


Cessna and Piper flooded the market with masses of cheap light aircraft in the 60s & 70s and then were sued into virtual non existance due to liability cases.

From the 80s onward the cost of procuring new aircraft and parts advanced faster than the industry could keep up with. The new aircraft not doing anything particularly better than the old with respect to costs. The prospective users finding other more satisfying things to do with their cash.

New GA types are now hamstrung by costs so not many new types are hitting the market en mass, except expensive tourers. The only trainers being delivered being for large training providers with lots of cash. It is hard to say if these schools will pass them on at reasonable hours to fill the second tier market or just hang on to them until they are 30 years old and worn out.

If it was the Australian government that caused the rot then they must have spread it all over the world.

[LeadSled]

yr right,
Are you actually a LAME. Just wondering, based in the literary style. If you are a LAME, some of your log book entries mus take considerable interpretation/translation.
and the 172 in particular has been an eye opener, it has gone from a neat looking flyable aeroplane to a pile of aluminum where the corrosion never stops.
Aussie Bob,
My experience exactly.

Tootle pip!!

[yr right]

yes born into the industry 34 years full time in the industry 25 years as an LAME. Work in 4 country's and every state of Aust with exception with Tassy which I've only visited. Sorry didn't realise that writing qualities are part of it. Ohhh and my log book entry's are just fine but thanks for asking. lol

[caa]

From memory the gear bolts are an AD = AD overrides the SID requirement. Same as 300/400 series fork bolts.

[Perspective]

From the ATSB.


Some registration holders of class B aircraft, however, believed that their aircraft were exempt from the manufacturer’s supplemental inspections as long as the aircraft were maintained using the CASA maintenance schedule. This belief sprang from a misinterpretation of the Australian Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR). The CASA maintenance schedule did not make any specific reference to the incorporation of the manufacturer’s supplemental inspections, but it was a CAR requirement that all aircraft be maintained in accordance with approved maintenance data that, by definition, included those inspections.


CASA are telling you SIDS is mandatory.
ATSB are telling you SIDS is mandatory.
The Cessna SIDS document stated "Mandatory"
You have to maintain the Aircraft I.a.w. the Maintenance Manual, yes?

Do you really want to have to stand up and justify why you believe it was not required, when now more than ever, there is so much text directing you to comply.

Thought I'd have a quick look at some numbers,

Why is GA in decline? Obviously a number of reasons... But this might be a couple..

Average wage in Australia in 1980 was $13,348.
A Friend bought his aircraft in 1980 for $15,000, a 15 year old 182H.
Roughly 1 years wage's.

Average wage in Australia in 2014 is $ $57,930
A 15 year old 182 in 2014 is conservatively $169,000. (Let me know if about right!)
Roughly 3 years wage's.

Average Wages in Australia (http://www.abcdiamond.com/forum/australian-employment/average-wages-in-australia/)

Now let look at the rising cost of Avgas which has been rising steadily since around 2000, yes it's in USA, easiest one to find..

Aviation Gasoline Average Price, All Sectors, Iowa (EIA) - Data and Charts from Quandl (http://www.quandl.com/EIA/SEDS_AVTCD_IA_A-Aviation-Gasoline-Average-Price-All-Sectors-Iowa)

We got our 210 in the 70's, the old man was in his 30's
We have family friends who have owned aircraft since they were in their 20's,
Not sure of anyone I have met in the last few years who owns an aircraft under
The age of 40.
And i believe the average age of LAME's in Aus is 58.
Ageing industry all round..

[yr right]

Unfortunately the ATSB cant set or uphold any regulations. They can only surgiest, confirm ,and investigate. And in court advise of their findings . Basically they have zero power.


An senior American Continental rep told me many years ago that the cost of insurance was so high that they could develop a compete aircraft engine series form a sheet of paper each year. Hence this cost is passed on to the end costumer

[Perspective]

Quote,
"Why would i need to? Unless I have a mishap in an aircraft as a result of it not having SIDs done.... And that's not happening."

Really, (and no, I'm not being a smart a£€e, you just sound very nonchalant)

News: Confusion over regulations leaves ageing aircraft vulnerable (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2013/confusion-over-regulations-leaves-ageing-aircraft-vulnerable.aspx)

Took me a few seconds to find...

Quote,
"SIDs is not risk management. Well, not for us anyway." You as an owner, registered operator are more responsible than I think you perceive.

& Who is Us?
Are you referring to pilots in general, or owners, owner pilots,
Owner maintainers..
& What makes you think I don't fly, and don't own aircraft.

Lets say you are an owner,
CAAP 41-2 states,

1.1 A Certificate of Registration holder for class B aircraft is required, by regula- tion 41 of the CARs, to select a maintenance schedule from one of three op- tions.

Lets say your aircraft is maintained on the CASA schedule 5.

3.3 The certificate of registration holder of a private class B aircraft below 5700 kg may elect to have an annual inspec- tion using the CAA Maintenance Sched- ule. This inspection would be required to be completed every 12 months regard- less of hours flown.

Not really intended for your 2006 C182, but So far so good.

3.4 The procedures specified in the ap- proved maintenance data detailing how maintenance is to be performed must be complied with when using the CAA Maintenance Schedule.

So far, they have directed that if you use schedule 5, you must use the procedures specified in the approved maintenance Data.

The items listed in schedule 5 are those to be inspected,
The procedures are in the maintenance (data) manual.

Ok, so you give me the, 'open to interpretation' or worse...

CAAP 42B-1(1)
When electing to use Schedule 5,

6.7 Except where otherwise approved or directed by CASA the procedures and limits prepared by the aeroplane manufacturer are to be used when performing an inspection required by this schedule.

1. The holder of the certificate of registration for a class B aircraft must ensure that all maintenance required to be carried out on the aircraft (including any aircraft components from time to time included in or fitted to the aircraft) by the aircraft’s maintenance schedule is carried out when required by that schedule.

Seems pretty clear to me..

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100178/maint-guide-owner-operators.pdf

Good for a brouse if you have a few spare mins, who does these days!

[No Hoper]

Yr Right, seems you are the lone LAME posting here, and good on Yr.
As another LAME I support your viewPoint and interpretation of the Regulations.
Posters like Leadsled et al, will argue the opposite and denigrate your trademanship and I see now denigrating your communication skills.
THese posters are well versed in Ad Hominem argument to try to undermine your very valid points.

Fvk em mate they are only eggs.

[yr right]

What's strange is I deal with professional pilots on a daily bases. I work in remote area where the aircraft are also in remote locations. I get a call I make decision on what is told to me and a joint decision to bring her back or I go to the machine. Never had a problem. I will not give a pilot an aeroplane I wont fly in myself, end of story. I think it U/S it is U/S. You don't wont to think it is ,fine no problem. I put it together push it out side end of problem. Take it some where else. Never ever ever had a problem with a professional pilot. Owner's of small GA aircraft all the time. As an owner you are liable as much as the LAME. Have an accident and it is investigated, ASTB start at the front end at the back and everything in between. I've had one fatal in my career compete pilot error, Never had a wheels up, in flight shut down or engine failure period. Why cause I know my sh@@.
The Fatal I had I never got a call from police atsb casa coroner, not one.


As for some before saying LAMEs don't know about sids, BULL****, you own one aeroplane wow you think you know all about it. Think about it before you make that statement. How many 150 type aircraft are there 152. 170,172,180,185.206.207.210.300.303.310,400,401,402,404 get it now each serial number may not between each SB plus now think about you may have all the piper, beech may be an aero commander, or a metro or pitts. maybe an airtactor as well. So how the fU^& can you know every sids at a drop of a hand. Answer you cant. Every cesnna sids package is different and takes time to do.

[yr right]

The hardest word in aviation is
NO

[yr right]

Cheers No Hopper
Yep a lot of super hero's on here, funny they don't give out there qualifications. Yeh well English not my strongest trait but I don't care, by the way I am Australian.
I got a call yesterday from a friend looking for a LAME another two of his staff leaving and going to the mines, funny mines like LAME because we are focused on our job.


What these owners need to do is look at the regulation's and actually see what they mean to themselves and see how liable they are. Then if there is an accident what happens to their insurance pay out.


What seams to be lost is that Aviation works on PREVENIVE MAINTENANCE that means we fix before it breaks, simple term hard to enforce or carry out in GA in private cat when owners have no $$$$$$$ what they forget is they in the seat and generally family and friends in the seats be side them.

[Aussie Bob]

Yep a lot of super hero's on here, funny they don't give out there qualifications.

yr right, I think you will find that 99% of us are pilots and most commercial or higher. Judging from your posts you are an engineer. I for one have enjoyed and learned from your posts as I am sure others here have too BUT remember, the majority of us fly aeroplanes as opposed to maintaining them.

I am not a LAME, but I am one of a very few pilots who can be instantly put to work in an engineering workshop. Most either can't or have no interest in trying. Really, I don't think many are super heros!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
At today's SCC meeting CASA announced a timetable for the completion of SIDs for all 100/200/300/400 Cessna, regardless of the category of operation.
The timetable will be published in the very near future.
Tootle Pip!!

[Perspective]

CASA are telling you, however you interpret the Regs,
that SIDS is part of Maintenance, per the CAR's.
I would imagine a letter to owners, maintainers, explaining
To that effect would be adequate.
Eg, maybe referring to CAO 100.5, 9 (9.1)
For CAR 1988, sub reg 38 (1) maintenance directions.
This would be the instrument to point people toward, that already
Exists in reference to CASA directions in regards to Maint.

[c100driver]

NZCAA issued an instruction on the incorporation of the Cessna SID inspection once Cessna actually published the changes to the AMM.

CAA deleted part 43 (the equivalent of schedule Aussie schedule 5) about 8 years ago as they said the the type certificate holder is more knowledgeable of an individual model than CAA, and any NZ specific issues can be dealt with by AD.

The best comment that CAA made in the instruction was:

Note
It is CAA’s expectation the initial SID inspection of each aircraft is considered a workshop project with an associated management plan, not a larger than normal routine inspection.

[LeadSled]

CAA deleted part 43 (the equivalent of schedule Aussie schedule 5) about 8 years ago as they said the the type certificate holder is more knowledgeable of an individual model than CAA, and any NZ specific issues can be dealt with by AD.

Folks,
This is about the one area ( as a result of a pro - JAA/EASA bias in maintenance regulation) that the Kiwis got wrong, but it's too late (early) and I will explain at another time.
Tootle pip!!

Clue: Have a look at FAR 43 Appendix D.

[shadowoneau]

CASA have released AWB 02-048 (http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/048.pdf) basically outlining their understanding that the SIDs are mandatory part of the ICA.

[yr right]

We'll that clears it up now. About time. But every one will wait till the last minute as usual blah blah blah

[edsbar]

No surprise you have to do them as per the current regulations or justify an equivalent.
So the AWB confirms they are mandatory yet the exemption extending the compliance date commences on the 14th April, technically what happens between now and the 14th for those models already outside of the Cessna published due dates?

[Oracle1]

Some of the time frames seem to have been extended beyond what cessna had originally specified. I thought D Day was June 30 this year. I will still be trying to get mine done as soon as possible.

[Ozgrade3]

I'm happy to see any thing that rids the sky of some of the pitiful excuses for aircraft that I have had to fly. I've had bits fall off aircraft, seen feet through wing walks, landing gear legs falling off. Anything that sits out in the open for 20+ years will be riddled with corrosion.

However the state of GA in Oz merely reflects the state of the country, one that is in decay. Industry in Oz has all but gone, a government that punitively taxes any sort of endeavour. The government harps on about the cost of the road toll, but slugs people with GST if they buy a new (safer) car, and for anyone who works hard so they can by something nice, the government slugs you with a punitive "luxury" car tax thank you very much.

We need tax breaks to allow is to buy new aircraft, accelerated depreciation, a cleanup of the regulatory system to make the costs of compliance less. We need a population that is less interested in sitting on its arse waiting for Centrelink payments.

[Avgas172]

We'll that clears it up now. About time. But every one will wait till the last minute as usual blah blah blah


Or like me that gives me the time to decide to continue with the ongoing constant maintenance I have been doing for the last 12 years on my machine, or just to scrap it ... I most certainly would not be going anywhere near your workshop either way, and I suspect many out there will just scrap their machines.

[yr right]

Avgas that is up to you to decide what you wish to do. However to say you wouldn't take it to my work shop once again up to your self. But you more than likely can't afford to have it in the first place. But the statement still stands everyone will wait till the last minute and then expect every work shop to think they the most important person in the world and drop everything. Happened before and will happen again. And maybe I wouldn't won't to work on your machine any way have you considered that.
Cheers any way.

[Avgas172]

now a Cont 0-300. 100 hp 4 cly and on a good day 2500 rpm. so when you get det in the 308 the cly is roughly half the size of that of the little cont.

With this magnificent knowledge of my 0 300 equipped 172 ... no I won't be bothering you with my business ... feel free to check out Wiki to find out some facts before shooting your mouth off. :ugh:

[yr right]

Avgas it was meant as an repersantatuon about cly size. I'm sorry but I would have forgotten more than you know. So blah blah blah

[Perspective]

Hey Avgas,
Is yours a H model, and is your connie one of those
Geared ones, not many around any more, a good machine
Most likely, could have done with spats that don't look like they
Are off a 20's sidecar though,
Ozgrade,
I think your comments are pretty much on the money, albeit
I have a feeling a change in culture has had an equal amount of
Effect as possible tax incentive changes,
when I was a kid the Sunday Night at the Aero club would see at least 20-25 families all coming together for a regular dinner/drinks etc, and usually at least one other night of the week there would be something on, plus the big Xmas party @ the end of the year etc,
I'm led to believe there has been a large reduction in Oz the existence of aero clubs, and in Vic at least, I believe is largely responsible also, for such a decline in GA. or was the lack of GA what led to them disappearing in the first place?

[Old Akro]

I'm led to believe there has been a large reduction in Oz the existence of aero clubs,

In the last 2 decades, I would say there has been a decline in clubs - full stop. This goes across Rotary, Lions, car clubs, pony clubs, etc. Our society just works differently now. I don't think that the change in club participation has anything to do with the decline of GA.

The decline of GA is to do with:
1. Fashion (other activities have taken over / eaten into flying)
2. Reduced number of airports. The closed airports in the Melb basin include; Berwick, Moorooduc, Sunbury, Pakenham, Philip Is (nearly), Rockbank.
3. Urbanisation of Australia. There is just less need to go to country towns / country towns are smaller.
4. Improved roads / cars making driving places more competitive.

However, I would suggest that the single biggest reason for the decline of GA is....... CASA.

CASA is the single most prominent reason why GA in Australia is more expensive, more bureaucratic and just plain harder than either 20 years ago or compared with the FAA / USA.

20 years ago, you could walk up to a flying school and within an hour or so do your first flying lesson. Now? Pretend you know nothing about flying, but are interested in starting. Go to the CASA website and try and research what you need to get a student pilot licence and find the forms. I dare you!

At the industry briefings for the new Part 61 regs last year, the time delay and difficulty in getting student pilot licences probably came up as the single greatest impediment that flying schools have in securing new students.

[Old Akro]

If you google Cessna SIDs or just read the US based magazines, the SIDs programme is a) not generating 1/10 the controversy as Australia and b) doesn't seem to be regarded as the cost impediment that it is here.

Why?

Am I correct in believing that compliance with the Cessna SIDs proramme is not mandatory in the US?


If you look at the Cessna video it doesn't look unreasonable and I would expect that most of the inspections can / should be part of a normal 100 hourly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68AdXVHHI8

[edsbar]

Under. Part 91 in the USA I believe the SIDs are not mandatory.

The Cessna presentation is a little misleading, what model Cessna do you have?

[Old Akro]

So, without debating the merit of SIDs, but instead CASA's decision making.

Why has Australia mandated something that the country in which the aircraft is manufactured and the country that set the design standards that are adopted by the rest of the world is not making mandatory?

Is this another ADS-B type example where Australia is on its own ahead of the rest of the world, with no reasoned logic and not looking over its shoulder to see if anyone is following?

What is the logic, or where is the evidence that Australia should make it mandatory for all Cessna aircraft in all classes of operation when America (and I'm assuming all other countries with significant GA) are not?

Why is CASA's decision making not transparent? How can decisions be made that cost s significant amounts of money be made without the decision logic ever being prosecuted?

[edsbar]

The AWB is just a clarification that under our rules the SIDs are mandatory, it did not mandate them with its issue they already had to be done.

Similar AWB's have been issued for compliance IAW manufacturers data such as AWB 02-44 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/044.pdf) for R44 helicopters

We also went through this with the 300 / 400 series several years ago.

What it does do is stop the owner shopping for an opinion and wondering off to another Maintenance Shop that would sign the aircraft out ignoring the manufacturers recommendations. Those aircraft that have had reasonable maintenance will not have many problems, the owners that shop each time for the cheapest 100 hourly may be in for a shock. Like LAME's there are good and bad owners.

In the SIDs Operation One it states Inspect aircraft records to verify that all applicable Cessna Service Information Letters, Cessna Service Bulletins and Supplier Service Bulletins are complied with. For those older aircraft the SB list is quite long eg for a 68 Model 185 approx 25 pages in Non Recurring Log Book Format. Some cross reference to AD's and some to old Rex drawings, a little research will be involved.

Recent Maintenance Manual Revisions for Cessnas also include
(varies between models)

COMPONENT REPLACEMENT
Engine Compartment Flexible Fluid 5 years or engine overhaul
Engine Air Filter 500 hours or 36 months
Engine Mixture, Throttle, and Propeller Controls At engine TBO
Engine Driven Dry Vacuum Pump 6 years
Engine Driven Dry Vacuum Pump 500 hours
Standby Dry Vacuum Pump 500 hours or 10 years
Switch (Landing Light) 4 years
Landing and Taxi Light Switch 4 Years
Aircraft serials: (Note 11
Switch (Beacon Light) 4 years
Auxiliary Electric Fuel Pump 10 Years
Vacuum Manifold Valve 5 Year Test, 10 year replace
Restraint Assembly Pilot, Copilot and Passenger Seats, 10 years (not all models ... yet)
Trim Tab Actuator 1,000 hours or 3 years (O/H)
Vacuum System Filter 500 hours
Vacuum System Hoses 10 years
Pitot and Static System Hoses 10
Magneto O/H and 500 hour inspection IAW Slick or Bendix SB's
Check Valve Turbocharger Every 1,000 hours

For the Vac pumps most by now would have the PMA wear indicator pumps that do not have the 500 hour requirement.

Old flat spring leg models have recent maintenance manual revisions with strict limits on corrosion and refinishing procedures, many older Cessnas I have seen in service will not pass these inspection limits.

The AWB and Aviation Ruling 01/2014 has implications for other aircraft types where the manufacturers data is not taken into consideration.

What the Cessna Video and presentation does not show is the wings coming off for the ECI inspection of the strut and wing attach points, the complete removal of the interior for the corrosion inspection, Axle removal to inspect the bolt bores on flat spring leg models, fitting the forward door post Service Kit if it is not fitted, removing the ailerons and replacing the hinges if the SB has not been carried out, removing the rudder, letting all of the control cables go for inspection and re rigging, fitting the flap roller SK if it is not fitted, ECI of the top torque link on nose leg models, or removing the engine on certain models to do the initial MPI engine mount inspection.

[Old Akro]

Edsbar, thanks for an informative post.

But still I don't understand why we make something mandatory that the US has not made mandatory.

I'm not even sure that Cessna regard SIDs as mandatory - If they felt it was critical they could have issued a mandatory Service Bulletin.

SIDs may be good practice, but why is Australia alone in the world in making it mandatory?

[edsbar]

We are not alone NZ and EASA require them to be carried out.

Cessna issued them as a Maintenance Manual revision rather than an SB, they are not a stand alone document like the previous CAPs.

It's the difference in our regs.

Even in the US if you did not comply and there was an incident that could be even remotely related the lawyers would have a field day, you may get off but the legal bill could be millions.

[Old Akro]

There are some really good presentations here:

http://easa.europa.eu/events/events.php?startdate=13-03-2014&page=Cessna_SID_-_Open_session

If you open the compressed file marked presentations, the Cessna presentation titled Cessna single engine SID 13 March is particularly good.

It suggests that they are finding that low time properly maintained singles are taking 10 hours to complete the SID and high time well maintained singles are taking 25 hours. Plus any repairs required, naturally.

It doesn't look very scary for a fixed gear strut wing 100 / 200 series. The cantilever wing 200 series don't look nearly as easy. You really wonder if they may have a use-by date.

[Aussie Bob]

Plus any repairs required, naturally

Sadly Old Acro, here is the crux of the matter. I don't have a heap of experience but all the Cessna's undergoing this program that I have seen have needed substantial repairs. One is almost a write off.

[edsbar]

Old Akro great infomation, however the presentations contradict each other
Presentation 7 Slide 12

Maintenance experience
• our experience says SID inspection need
around 50 to 80 labour hours for the whole
inspection (without findings)
• for aircrafts without CAP – SID inspection
needs around 100 -120 labour hours

There would be very few Cessnas in Australia that had the CAPs inspections carried out, if any. On a pre restart Cessna (Pre 1996) you would not do the paperwork in 10 hours!

The labour figures quoted in the Cessna Presentation are not possible (or even close to possible) for a 100 or 200 Series that is 20 years old.

Give me a model, Total Time and area it has lived and I would be happy show the inspections required and that this is just not possible.

Better still give Cessna a call and ask them for a 25 hour fixed price SID!

[172R]

I have a 97 "R" 172, I have already been "over serviced " long story, now sorted. SIDS inspection looks like another $6 k just for the inspection. The minister of finance is starting to have issues!! She will not be happy if I get a $20k bill for SIDS ! It is confusing to say the least, and I don't have a lot of confidence in the lame ( nothing against lame's !! I think they have THE most thankless hard job in GA thanks to CASA) just that I don't want to be the " test" case for his SIDS education. My plane has been opened up 4 times in 18 months, and no, it hasn't done 400 hours.... Now it seems it all has to be done again. Anyway, I am new here... Have found these forums pretty informative.

[Aussie Bob]

Anyway, I am new here..

Greetings 172R and welcome :)

[LeadSled]

Under. Part 91 in the USA I believe the SIDs are not mandatory.

Folks,
The US does not run a "one size fits all" system, if your aircraft operates under Part 91, the maintenance required is spelt out in Part 91. If your aircraft is being operated under Part 135, Part 135 is where you will find maintenance requirements, and so on.

You should be thinking about whether you want to fly in an unairworthy aeroplane, some of the Cessna wings I have seen pulled apart are truly scary.

From experience, in the strutted models, the most critical area is the main spar from the root fitting to the strut attach point, and you can only really determine the condition by getting into it, an external visual inspection, even with the tank out, is not enough.

This is not just a matter of "compliance with regulations", this is about your neck, or more importantly, the well being of other who might be in the aircraft.

Tootle pip!!

[Old Akro]

Based on the presentation by EASA at the March 13, 2014 (ie 1 month ago) open session (see my previous link) it does NOT appear that the Cessna SID programme is mandatory.

It is clear that EASA WILL make some parts of the SID mandatory for some aircraft in the future. But as I read it they are still deciding what to do. See presentation 4b, slide 8. And remember that this powerpoint was delivered by EASA itself.

Both EASA and the FAA in presentations acknowledge that they do not have data or have not analysed data they do have in order to understand which elements of the Cessna SID are important in the real world.

So, the question remains. Why has CASA made all elements the Cessna SID (which was written with the intent of being an optional programme) mandatory for all aircraft in all classes of operation by prescribed deadlines?

[Old Akro]

Presentation 6a by the IAOPA sets out the whole SIDs timeline and confirms that the Cessna SID programme is not mandatory under EASA

[Weekend_Warrior]

LeadSled says;
You should be thinking about whether you want to fly in an unairworthy aeroplane, some of the Cessna wings I have seen pulled apart are truly scary.

I've heard similar stories over here. In fact I'm now seriously considering only flying Cessnas that have had the SIDs done. These same issues must affect Pipers etc.

[Old Akro]

Old Akro great infomation, however the presentations contradict each other
Presentation 7 Slide 12

I think this presentation refers to Cessna twins, whereas the other specifically refers to 100 series & 200 series singles.

[yr right]

It's very simple really. Cessna had no intent at these aircraft would still be flying let alone still used in the commercial world.
So to cover them selfs and though the detail data they have accumulated thought out the years they developed the system. Now if you don't do it and you have an accident they covered if you have not done the inspections. Cessna all they have to say is we recognised this problem this is the inspection it was failed to be complied with.

[Old Akro]

These same issues must affect Pipers etc.

No. Other issues may affect Piper and other manufacturers, but the big hitters in the Cessna SIDs programme are unique Cessna design issues.

Its worth the reality check that only Cessna has created a SID programme. Piper hasn't. Beechcraft hasn't. Mooney hasn't. Socata hasn't. Cirrus hasn't (the oldest Cirrus are now 16 years old). Aviat hasn't. Maule hasn't. Gipps Aero hasn't (oldest GA8's are 18 years old), Thrush hasn't. Air Tractor hasn't. Piaggio hasn't. American Champion hasn't.

Its also worth noting that Cessna did not intend the SIDs programme be mandatory.

The real question that our regulators should answer is "where is the data to support this requirement?". How long have we been collecting accident & incident data? If there is a smoking gun, there is no excuse for not knowing where it is.

[yr right]

Mmmm no it's not great work for lames at all actually. It's the opposite. The amount of work that is required just in the research is enough to stop you in your tracks let alone the work then required to do the job. Any way lames don't set the rules or the maintenance procedures to the point it is a pain in the arse to be trueful and there are a lot of dead pilots around that maintain there own aircraft. I guess you be saying to your doctor next if you need a bypass it's ok I'll do it myself cause I cut the meat for the BBQ.
Cheers

[Avgas172]

and there are a lot of dead pilots around that maintain there own aircraft.

Some proof of that outlandish statement? :mad:

[tnuc]

As has been mentioned here before, CASA has not all of a sudden mandated the Cessna SID inspections; they have merely provided guidance material that points out that the existing regulatory structure has always required compliance.
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.
In any case inspecting and ensuring that said aircraft is airworthy should not be a matter of is it mandatory on not, it should be a matter of common scene or should we say professionalism.
I have been involved in several SIDS (as both an A/C owner and a LAME) and The “inspection” component of the SID on the 100/200 series Cessna’s is going to take somewhere between 80-120 man hours (Say $8,000 to $12,000) which is about the same cost as a reasonable funeral – I chose the SID over the funeral.
The repairs that may be required can be extensive. And the fact that defects may be found and that repairs may be required should not be an excuse to look at every way out of doing the actual inspections.
Of course the repairs required as a result of defects found and their possible cost is always the big mystery, however these repairs (or retiring the aircraft from service) should be carried out with or without a SID requirement.
Many aircraft owners and operators actually lack the funds to own their aircraft and when discussing the SID subject they comment with their pocket rather than their brain, considering that the 100/200 series SID was first published about 2 years ago everyone should already be on top of this.
The action to take now is just do it,
1st get a copy of the Manual, or more specifically the SID section, read it and take the time to understand it.
As the owner you are responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft, so manage the job, much like you might manage a building project, in the process be respectful of the LAME / Workshops obligations at the same time. To keep costs contained set boundaries, and request quotes for specific items as they pop up.
Talk to your preferred workshop and LAME, communication is key.
Jointly work out which inspections are most likely to present issues on your aircraft. By issues I mean things that might cause the aircraft to be uneconomical to continue. It would be a shame to find that something big required replacement/repair on the last inspection after everything else had been attended to.
Plan to phase in individual inspection operations or groups of inspections, perhaps fitting them in with other scheduled maintenance, and going from potentially worst to easiest. I.e. “At this inspection, I would like to include Cessna inspection operation 3, 5, 11, and 14 (randomly chosen numbers)”
Aircraft owners are funny animals, and for many aircraft ownership is some sort of status symbol, as well as a play thing. Its not anywhere near as satisfying striding into the aero club and telling your peers to come out and look at your new R/H wing spar cap than it is to get them to look at your new Garmin panel or leather upholstery, but at least you will be alive to drink with them.
By phasing in items over the new extended compliance interval this will ease the initial large cost burden, and hopefully by the compliance date you can have a completely compliance aircraft
As for the horror stories of what has been found, perhaps some photos would be a good way to show what is actually being found ?

[Ultralights]

and there are a lot of dead pilots around that maintain there own aircraft.

Really?
wheres your evidence? :ugh:

lucky im a pilot that not only maintains his own aircraft, but have built others and maintain aircraft im sure you have flown on! and im not a LAME either..

[Horatio Leafblower]

Hey TNUC

send me a PM, you're my kind of LAME. :ok:

[Propstop]

TNUC, you have just summarised this whole thread. It should just be done, or scrap the whole aircraft.
Like you I have seen some shockers, and in some cases the owner can not afford to keep the aircraft flying, or has short arms and deep pockets.
They will also not blink at $140 per hour to service the Merc or BMW, yet tell you that $100ph for the Cessna is extortion.
I am retired now and only just do small contracts.

[rnuts]

What's not been explained well is the SIDS are broken up into two major components.
Inspections for ageing aircraft fatigue and the second for identification of corrosion, repair and then control of corrosion in the future.
I am a LAME, Owner and Pilot and I applaud Cessna for being the first to stand up and do this.
I have carried out SIDS inspections on a number of machines and some of the things I've found is frightening to say the least.
We understand that a lot of owners can't afford to spend the money on carrying out the SIDS and that it's hard to justify the cost when the value of the aircraft is not high as well, but bear in mind these machines really weren't designed to be in service this long.

On a side note with regards to owners doing maintenance.
I walked into a hangar the other day to do a job on a friends aircraft, and there was an owner of a light sport aircraft with his prop off looking a little puzzled.
He was trying to work out how some spacers were fitted and was unsure.
Now, if I had not come past and helped him out the possibility existed of it being fitted incorrectly and the result of that possibly catastrophic.

[yr right]

Tunc prop stike rnts you all said what I've been saying execs that Toyota charge around $140 an hour as we'll and if you go to places like port Hedland now it's over $200.
The biggest thing with Cessna was they didn't corrosion proof as it was an option at extra cost. Piper and beech did. How ever at some point they too will bring some sort of SIDS out I'm sure.
Anyone remember the Mobil fuel ad. Where you really could not inspect all these areas particularly 300 and 400 Cessnas. Then we had to remove entire fuel systems the stuff I found was a real eye opener places that on a normal service you could not justify removing components to have a look now Mobil paying and we had to. It was scary to say the least.
Now we back there with SIDS but now the owner has to pay and a $100 an hour to run a work shop pay staff insurance power water dosnt leave a lot. Now mining here and lame are leaving the industry so fast to get paid great money and no basic responsabity who wouldn't

Cheers

[rnuts]

Although, when you take a BMW to be serviced you do get a concierge to point you in the right direction for the hourly rate you pay.
Might need to get the apprentice to drag out his tuxedo overalls !! :)
But seriously..
When we started doing the 300/400 series SIDS. The amount of wing attach fittings that we replaced due corrosion or stress cracking was alarming.
Yep !! The bits that hold your wing on..
Are YOU a gambler?

[yr right]

Rnuts
Ditto. Ive said it before and ill say it again. I will not give a pilot an an aircraft I will not fly in my self. I wont and don't do sh^t work period. the hardest word in aviation is still
NO
Cheers

[Old Akro]

As has been mentioned here before, CASA has not all of a sudden mandated the Cessna SID inspections; they have merely provided guidance material that points out that the existing regulatory structure has always required compliance.
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.

I own a Piper, so this is only of academic interest to me. It seems that some of the Cessna SID work is good practice, some is common-sense which should have been done along the way and ( for some of the elements) a LAME somewhere should be slapped if faults are found (eg engine mount cracks).

It also seems to me that the SID programme is required primarily because a) there are some Cessna design flaws that have not been addressed with AD's (eg foam filled 200 series trim tab) and other issues which probably should have been part of the manufacturers service schedule, but aren't - or at least I presume things like wing attach points are not of part of the Cessna service schedule or they wouldn't appear in the SID.

It also seems to me that things like Cessna 400 series wing spars highlight a significant design flaw (ie omission of a spar endcap) which has probably significantly compromised the life of the aircraft. The presentation on this in the EASA papers is very good.

But your understanding and mine of the CASA process is different.

I understand that the SID programme in the US simply added an additional service schedule to the existing manufacturers RECOMMENDED service schedule. It has never required compliance for private operations.Therefore there is no compliance period that CASA needed to extend.

In the US, I understand that following the service schedule is not mandated and that the degree of compliance with the manufacturers service schedule varies according to class of operation.

Move to Australia and I suspect we are alone in the world in mandating full compliance with the SID programme uniformly across all classes of operation. While NZ has adopted the SID programme, their regulations are basically a carbon copy of the FAA regs, so I assume they have some of the same latitudes that the US allow.

Previous posts that it is mandated by EASA are clearly incorrect.

If Cessna really found any time bombs in the 100 / 200 series aircraft they would have issues a mandatory Service Bulletin which in turn would be made an AD. Based on the EASA presentations, I also understand that the really critical issues found during the SID program have resulted in AD's. If this is the case, what is the SID really achieving?


If you contrast CASA with EASA, EASA seem to be having a significant & transparent debate about how to handle the SID programme. The open forum that EASA conducted 1 month ago (see my previous post for the link) is clearly part of this process. I thought it was refreshing that they would conduct such a forum with presenters from Cessna, the FAA, the IOPA and maintainers.

CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of non pilots.

I think that part of CASA's problem is their schedule 5 maintenance schedule, which is disgraceful. I think the smart private owners maintain according to the manufacturers schedule, but list "schedule 5" on the MR to get around things like the 12 year calendar life for engines. If we had freedom from some component calendar life (ie engines) we could very easily be compliant with the Piper schedule. However, if an aircraft was truly only maintained to minimum requirements of schedule 5, it could have some accumulated significant problems.

CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonable. These schedules were written years ago - sometimes based on "best guesses" and have never been updated based on real world experience. They were never created with the intention that they would be mandatory. So, apart from the Cessna SID programme, CASA have nothing they can make mandatory and allowing discretion by individuals is simply not in their lexicon.

tnuc, I'm interested in your view to help my understanding of the process.

I also don't understand the labour hours time difference being quoted in Australia (80 - 120 hours) compared with those being quoted in Europe, the US and NZ.

And, I'll get in an old 100 series non-SID compliant Cessna any day rather than on owner maintained RA (Aus) aircraft. How can we be so strict in one area, yet so abhorrently slack in another?

[yr right]

"CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of non pilots"




As Sids is a maintenance issue it should red the following sorry.


CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of pilots that are ex military and have zero experience in the real world.


Casa are sheading all responsibility in all areas they can. Just look at the formatted FAA AD. Takes a week of reading to get to the AD.


Aviation in Australia has never been in a more dangerous place than where we are now. Multitude regulation changes with all but zero back up and change for change sake.


We lost Ads that were clear and concise which left no room for inturpatation and given sh%t as a replacement AD hose a clear example. To now to look up a reg takes an hour of looking every where to find it it. Its a disgrace to but it mildly.


Shed 5 is ok as we had back up with Aust Ads but these being lost its a no where system and casa trying to get rid of that as well.
Cheers

[LeadSled]

I think that part of CASA's problem is their schedule 5 maintenance schedule, which is disgraceful.

CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonableOld Akro,
Schedule 5 is a copy, almost word for word, FAR 43, Appendix D. Is Appendix D, the heart of all FAA maintenance, disgraceful??

In fact, Schedule 5 has suffered,in part, because of the CASA (and predecessors) approach to "Approve data", and what has been taught (or not taught), right back to TAFE.

For a good proportion of FAR 23 light aircraft, the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual is only part of the data needed to accomplish the maintenance as required by Part 91, 135 (or other operating part) via FAR Part 43, and that MM is not comprehensive, you also need the suite of relevant ACs, starting with AC43.13A and .13B.

To try and make Schedule 5 work as it should, shortly after Bruce Byron became CASA CEO, an instrument was published, making the whole FAA AC library "acceptable data" ) ie: approved, plus equivalent data from other NAA, for aircraft type certified in their respective countries. Schedule 5 does not stand alone, you must have the data to accomplish each inspection. You can't make it up as you go along.

This eliminated the "maintenance data approval industry", but many LAME, who had grown up with the "Australia" system, were not happy. They wanted CASA to tell them what data to use, by "approval", not have to decide what data to use. Needles to say, the people Mr. McCormick promoted to positions of power in CASA ( who, in a number of cases, had been consigned to backroom jobs by Byron) have 100% reversed the Byron instrument, and the "approval industry", largely made up of ex-AWIs, is back in full swing.

The answer to proper continuing airworthiness of the Australian light aircraft fleet, is to emulate the FAA approach to maintenance. The cost savings would be very substantial, and we would have aeroplanes in a lot better conditions.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

yr right,
Could you please use a spell checker, there are plenty of free apps about.
Tootle pip!!

[edsbar]

First for the doubters re the Mooney Vac Pump liability case and subsequent award in the District Court of NSW, a copy of the ruling. This was difficult to find as it does not appear on any of the Court Case Search Engines. (thanks tnuc)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqe0qns65vouit7/Davidson%20v%20Condobolin%20Aeroclub.pdf

Mention of it can also be found on page 3 of this AAC

http://www.abs.org.au/uploads/CASA_AWB_02_003_22_June_2006.pdf

Why the AAC was cancelled I do not know, it does make clear that in 2006 the SIDs were considered mandatory and clarifies that Schedule 5 is not a stand alone Inspection list. CASA seem to go around in circles!

Old Akro, I think you have SIDs mixed up with the optional CAPSs program, Cessna always intended to make them mandatory and that is why they are incorporated into the Maintenance Manual and not a SIL or SB.

From the Cessna Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision

INSPECTION TIME LIMITS - STRUCTURE
1. Scope
A. This provides the mandatory times and inspection time intervals for components and airplane
structures. This section also gives the required details to monitor them using scheduled inspections. This section applies to items such as fatigue components and structures, which are part of the certification procedures. Refer to the description paragraph below for detailed information concerning
each of these sections.
NOTE: The time limits and maintenance checks listed in this section are the minimum requirements for airplanes operated under normal conditions. For airplanes operated in areas where adverse operating conditions may be encountered, such as high salt coastal environments, areas of high heat and humidity, areas where industrial or other airborne pollutants are present, extreme cold, unimproved surfaces, etc., the time limits should be modified accordingly.
NOTE: The inspection guidelines contained in this section are not intended to be all-inclusive, for no such charts can replace the good judgment of certified airframe and power plant mechanics in performance of their duties. As the one primarily responsible for the airworthiness of the airplane, the owner or operator should select only qualified personnel to maintain the airplane.

tnuc's suggestion to "Read, digest and manage" is a good one, I do a SID's tracking program to assist owners with this. For a 68 model 185 for example there are around 300+ Service Bulletins that need to be checked for compliance. Self research and go in armed knowing what does and does not need to be done can save a lot of money.

[yr right]

Cheers and thanx

[Aussie Bob]

Man has his aircraft service. Man flies aircraft. Aircraft crashes. Vac pump fails. Wife sues Lame. Wife Wins. Judge states, MR issued nothing will go wrong with aircraft for the period of MR issue (Nothing). Casa states no that is not the intent of a MR Issue ie (part 2 of the MR that has a Due LIst). Judge states go away Casa. Wife wins $$$$$, Lame looses every thing, house wife business every thing.


Now here is the rub.


Aircraft flying at night.
Aircraft flying IFR


Pilot Flying at night
Pilot Flying IFR

Aircraft NOT Night VFR RATED
Aircraft NOT IFR RATED


Pilot NOT NIGHT RATED
Pilot NOT IFR RATED


LAME Looses everything for a vac pump that was not changed (pre inspection hole)

I was one of the doubters. Above is the description given, edsbar has provided a link to the court case. Clearly the outcome described above and the court case outcome are very different. Thank you for this link.

[edsbar]

Aussie Bob, thank you for the courtesy of responding as a doubter. Sadly some of the LAMEs here don't have great literary or debating skills, don't be too hard on us.
We do cop a lot of grief due to our unique rules and regulations and many shop for the cheapest option and that hurts those of us who just want to do the right thing stay out of trouble and turn a good job for a fair price.

[Horatio Leafblower]

CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonable. These schedules were written years ago - sometimes based on "best guesses" and have never been updated based on real world experience.

Eh? :eek:

Old Akro, that is precisely what the SIDs are.

The current iteration of Piper/New Piper/Piper Aircraft Company has no liability if PA31s start falling out of the sky - they are not the same company that built the things or most of the other Pipers in Australia.

Give me a SIDsed Cessna over the equivalent Piper any day.

[Aussie Bob]

Sadly some of the LAMEs here don't have great literary or debating skills, don't be too hard on us.

I have said numerous times that I appreciate yr rights input on this forum. :ok:

[megle2]

I like yr rights writing style
No worse than texting

[Oracle1]

Aircraft flying at night.
Aircraft flying IFR


Pilot Flying at night
Pilot Flying IFR

Aircraft NOT Night VFR RATED
Aircraft NOT IFR RATED


Pilot NOT NIGHT RATED
Pilot NOT IFR RATED



Just had a close read of the judgement and it makes for interesting reading,

The pilot was rated for IFR and held a command instrument rating, so yes he was rated. His rating was not current, by three days, big difference.

The flight was conducted under IFR rules, however the prevailing weather was night VFR.


The Mooney Maintenance Manual was pretty clear in recommending 500 hour replacement of the pump. The manufacturer of the pump recommended 500 hours.

An Airworthy Advisory Circular circa 1985 recommended 3 years and 500 hours and both the manufacturer and the circular gave clear warning the pumps were subject to catastrophic failure without warning, and were bound to be unreliable beyond 600 hours. The LAME admitted hew knew this,

LAME's defence was the aircraft was under schedule 5.

The pump in question had done 1248 hours.

We all know vacuum pumps fail without warning with monotonous regularity at any time.

The maintenance organization was only found 30% liable in this case. There was no mention in the judgment that the aircraft was not rated for IFR,

only

(a)that the maintenance organization didn't hold an approval to do IFR instrument maintenance

(b) that the aircraft was a Category B aircraft


It did say however that IFR instrument maintenance was subcontracted to an approved company by the maintenance provider, a situation we know is pretty common.

So the two things you claim in defence of the LAME do not correlate in the judgement,


The pilot did have a rating, just not current

and

The judgement made no mention of the aircraft not being in the IFR category and that in fact the Vacuum system was being inspected and maintained.


If it was me that failed to replace the pump I would be jumping for joy that I was only 30% liable.

Aero Club 15% for not determining the pilots qualifications and how he would operate the aircraft.

Dead Pilots estate 55%

Also you stated that it was the wife that sued, implying the wife of the deceased pilot sued when in fact it was the wife of the deceased passenger.

Again big difference,


all in all a very different picture than the one you have painted?

[edsbar]

The Mooney Maintenance Manual only reflected Airborne Service Letter 59, similar Mandatory bulletins refer to check valves, regulators and filters.

http://www.parker.com/literature/Fluid%20Systems%20Division/AFD%20Static%20Files%20for%20Literature/SL-58A.pdf

[yr right]

oh excuses me that how long ago was the incident 1997 that I got a few things wrong when most of you didn't even know about it. How ever there was another incident in vic and I think I added the two together it what happens over such a long time. Now it was accepted practice back then that the vac pump was changed on condition ie when it broke,
It shows though very clear as an owner that you are responsible as well. Nearly 17 years later and we are having the same debate
Cheers

[Oracle1]

Just a quick update on the rolled gold, heat treated, passivated, mutually masturbated bolts that you blokes were telling me were worth every penny of $520 each.

Went to install them in the aircraft and guess what? The Vastly superior methods of American Aviation quality control/extortion couldn't even produce a bolt that was straight PMSL

This the new bolt,


http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab320/oracle1_2009/IMG_00901.jpg (http://s875.photobucket.com/user/oracle1_2009/media/IMG_00901.jpg.html)

This the old bolt, which of course there is nothing wrong with


http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/ab320/oracle1_2009/IMG_00891.jpg (http://s875.photobucket.com/user/oracle1_2009/media/IMG_00891.jpg.html)

I am now more worried than I was before about having a problem with the gear (which means I wasn't worried in the slightest before). Every time I hear people who are gullible enough to defend this extortion I roll around on the floor pissing myself........


Would you like lube with that?

Oh yes please sir it is so much more pleasant with lube, in fact why dont you do it some more PMSL

[edsbar]

Now I am the one rolling around the floor laughing, thanks for making my day. Never did I state they were worth every penny, just highlighting the processes of manufacture of such low volume parts.

Do you know if the new part or the old part is deformed, I would be asking Cessna for the drawing and vaguely recall coming across this before. Maybe that is why they have had a 1,000 hour life since 1978??

Again as LAME's we do not make the rules we are just the grim reapers, a position none of us enjoy. Personally I would not have changed them and continued on the AD until the SID date as per the AAC, in the mean time I would have been looking for a way out by PMA alternative or AMOC via perhaps a SOM writing them out of the SID by repetitive MPI.

FYI http://amroba.org.au/images/newsletters/Vol%2011%20Issue%205.pdf

[Oracle1]

Keep Laughing mate as your industry vanishes. The parts were purchased before CASA extended the date, so I fitted them anyway, they were due MPI. I don't have time to stuff around I need the aircraft in the air. As for the options you presented I found one that's even smarter I bought an RV8 empennage and started riveting.

I don't need a drawing to work out that what I am looking at is **** manufacturing. I am prepared to do 2500 hours work to get out of the system does that paint a picture for you? At least I will end up with a decent aircraft.

Do you know if the new part or the old part is deformed, I would be asking Cessna for the drawing and vaguely recall coming across this before. Maybe that is why they have had a 1,000 hour life since 1978??

A first year apprentice could tell that this is **** engineering and quality control.

As stated the price of the bolt is a rip off, the bolt is not straight and the American protection rackets are headed for a nasty surprise. The market is already voting with their wallet.


RE AMROBA and CASA again if you are gullible enough to believe that lobby groups are going to change CASA direction you are sadly mistaken. Nothing short of total revolution in government will stop the overall decline of aviation and indeed Australia. The corruption and incompetence runs way to deep. I suggest you stock up on lube!

[INAk]

Someone I could tell by the change of the screw is not included in the list of components with life mm . In the 100 and 200 series.It is a mistake to cessna should include it in a new revision of the manual?.

[Avgas172]

I've said it before and I'm happy to repeat it, the Cessna SIDS program will send them to the wall, why anyone would buy a new product from this company that may retrospectively introduce conditions on the product far into the future is beyond me. :ugh: