Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1985: Cessna became a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamic Corporation.
1992: General Dynamics announced the sale of Cessna to Textron Inc.
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
Unlike "old" Piper and "New Piper", there is no new and old Cessna.
Tootle pip!!
Agreed, but does that give them the right to retrospectively change the life of components of an aircraft they never built?
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!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Avgas172; 9th Mar 2014 at 01:09. Reason: Added a bit ...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Addendum to my previous post, I have found two wing failures in a C172S, details of one as follows:
The other is similar cause and investigation results on a P model, but is a tad long to repost here
Cheers
A172
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.
Cheers
A172
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.
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.
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
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.
REALLY?
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compliance
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/_asset...s/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.
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/_asset...s/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.
Last edited by Perspective; 22nd Mar 2014 at 13:03. Reason: Add sentence
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction
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.
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.
Cost of Compliance and Compliance Date
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/...df?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.
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/...df?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.
Last edited by edsbar; 29th Mar 2014 at 09:09.
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...-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 ...
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 ...
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.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4180954...-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 ...
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 ...
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of parts
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.
Cost of parts
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.
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.
Last edited by edsbar; 26th Mar 2014 at 07:38. Reason: PS
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of Parts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.