Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS

[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/jqe0qns65v...20Aeroclub.pdf

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

http://www.abs.org.au/uploads/CASA_A..._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?

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.

[megle2]

I like yr rights writing style
No worse than texting

[Oracle1]

Not quite right yr right

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/Flu...ure/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]

Gold Plated Bolts

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,




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




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/newslett...0Issue%205.pdf

[Oracle1]

Keep Laughing

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.