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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My experience exactly. Not totally convinced its due to dishonesty though. LAME's just seem to vary enormously in their interpretation of what needs to be done. I heard a 172 owner talking recently about having to have all of the control cables replaced at massive expense because it was determined by the LAME concerned that was obligatory under SIDS every 15 years. Can that be right? Apparently, he's taking the tail off next in the name of SIDS to have a look in there. Humm.
My own experiences on a low time less than 10 year old restart model vary between quotes of around $20K and about 6 weeks, just for the inspections (from a highly reputable outfit)... and a few hundred extra on a 100 hourly to have it fully signed off. The latter was certainly NOT a disreputable back yard operation. Soooo, I can only conclude it pays to shop around and talk to the LAME's to work out what you need and what you are getting for your money.
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.
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.
Just one extreme to the other...
Last edited by Clearedtoreenter; 27th Jun 2013 at 22:42.
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.
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...