New Cessna Special Inspections Documents (SIDs)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jockistan
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. How does information like this get disseminated out?
Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory?
My 182 is offline now due to engine getting shockload test so one saving grace is we should be able to address the engine mount inspection.
Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory?
My 182 is offline now due to engine getting shockload test so one saving grace is we should be able to address the engine mount inspection.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. How does information like this get disseminated out?
In my experience, most shops don't care much about service bulletins, they focus on the mandatory stuff only, i.e. ADs.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
140KTS
We have a Cessna maintenance manual paper updat subscription and the SID,s data arrived in the post Last Friday so I would expect most CAMO,s in the UK to be taking a long hard look at all of this in the coming week.
JXK
I think that you make a good point, I too think that we have not yet seen an accident with a small Cessna due to corrosion and other old airframe issues however if left uncorrected I don't think that such an accident is far away.
This was made clear to me a year or so back when a proud new owner of a C172 turned up for an annual check, it was quite clear from the start that this aircraft had seen very little maintenance in a long time and had issues with a lot of the items that the SID,s checks address, I have no doubt that had the aircraft continued to be maintained by the previous maintenance company there was a very strong chance of a fatal accident, of course the owner was of the opinion that we were overdoing things when the maintenance bill was more than he had paid for the aircraft.
This check will hit the C150 fleet very hard, the value of the a lot of the aircraft will be far below the cost of the check, let alone rectifying the defects that the check finds.
JXK
I think that you make a good point, I too think that we have not yet seen an accident with a small Cessna due to corrosion and other old airframe issues however if left uncorrected I don't think that such an accident is far away.
This was made clear to me a year or so back when a proud new owner of a C172 turned up for an annual check, it was quite clear from the start that this aircraft had seen very little maintenance in a long time and had issues with a lot of the items that the SID,s checks address, I have no doubt that had the aircraft continued to be maintained by the previous maintenance company there was a very strong chance of a fatal accident, of course the owner was of the opinion that we were overdoing things when the maintenance bill was more than he had paid for the aircraft.
This check will hit the C150 fleet very hard, the value of the a lot of the aircraft will be far below the cost of the check, let alone rectifying the defects that the check finds.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable flying a C152 due to their age. Most of my clubs C152 fly daily and fly from 8am to 9pm on days with brilliant weather. And even on rubbish days, they get flown, blown and hammered.
I think our maintenance engineers are great and whilst there are much older planes in use (spitfires for example) I still think they should be retired.
We have a lot of C152s at our club and most have some form of dents in the wings. No idea how they got there. Pungent fuel smells in a couple of them make me worry too. Engineers says its safe and I know the 152 is a robust ol' girl, but still.
I think our maintenance engineers are great and whilst there are much older planes in use (spitfires for example) I still think they should be retired.
We have a lot of C152s at our club and most have some form of dents in the wings. No idea how they got there. Pungent fuel smells in a couple of them make me worry too. Engineers says its safe and I know the 152 is a robust ol' girl, but still.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pudoc
You have nothing to fear from a well maintained C152, however if you reported a "pungent fuel smell" on one of my aircraft it would be investigated and corrected before the aircraft was flown.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SID's Cessna RIP
Having read through the SID for a Cessna 177RG I was scared sh....less!
I realize that the work involved is only intended to address problems that one can only expect to find on an aging aircraft and that a normal annual inspection should deal with a large majority of them anyway, but when you see the list in its entirety it is most scary. Scary mainly from a "Bloody hell how much is this going to cost" point of view.
The corrosion map of the UK denote that it is either severe or moderately rated so encurring a higher level of inspection.
I am Sooo glad I am out of the certificated regime and in the warm busom of the LAA. (Never thought I would say that!) The thought of being the owner of a 150/2 or an older 172 would fill me with dread as the cost of an annual inspection could easily cost more than the value of the aircraft.
Piper and other manufacturers will probably read the Cessna SID's and come up with their own lists as well so for me being a single owner operator of limited income it is a case of certificated aircraft RIP. I have enjoyed the experience over the years but now it is LAA all the way.
I realize that the work involved is only intended to address problems that one can only expect to find on an aging aircraft and that a normal annual inspection should deal with a large majority of them anyway, but when you see the list in its entirety it is most scary. Scary mainly from a "Bloody hell how much is this going to cost" point of view.
The corrosion map of the UK denote that it is either severe or moderately rated so encurring a higher level of inspection.
I am Sooo glad I am out of the certificated regime and in the warm busom of the LAA. (Never thought I would say that!) The thought of being the owner of a 150/2 or an older 172 would fill me with dread as the cost of an annual inspection could easily cost more than the value of the aircraft.
Piper and other manufacturers will probably read the Cessna SID's and come up with their own lists as well so for me being a single owner operator of limited income it is a case of certificated aircraft RIP. I have enjoyed the experience over the years but now it is LAA all the way.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,867
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory?
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th May 2012 at 07:27.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this.
Seriously, the CAMO should be keeping up to date and advising you, not the other way around. What are you paying him for otherwise?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just a few days since Cessna put the SIDs online and I suppose most CAMOs are subscribed to the paper or microfiche version. Give them some time to catch up...
Moderator
I read about the pilots who are indignant that they might be offered a worn out old plane to fly, and how it should be maintained to a very high standard. And, I read about how scary the prospect of subjecting these old aircraft to additional inspections. And then finally, the panacea of the non certified aircraft as the economical escape route to fly without the regulatory or inspection burden.
Let's remind ourselves that it costs money to be airborne, some ways more than others. Cessna are expert in knowing how to provide a safe means of being airborne, if you do it their way (or equivalently well). Aircraft of other manufacture, and particularly non certified, can be very much more variable and less certain.
Some people think that older planes should be retired. Those people are very welcome to pay the cost to fly in very new aircraft only, those planes are available too. They just have higher cost of use due to their higher value. If that's your choice, no problem, pay the cost, fly in an aircraft whose "bugs" may yet to be found, and don't complain!
Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours (for what I have briefly read). Sounds very fair and appropriate to me. I have 24,000 hours to go on my 150, and that'll keep me fine! A Cessna 207 I used to fly had 19,700 hours, and seemed very airworthy, I oversaw a comprehensive inspection, and nothing was really wrong with the structure or systems (Paint and furnishings were ratty). It had been well maintained. The 1977 C152 I did my fist solo in, had 33 hours when I did that (in 1977). It was retired from the flying club decades later with more than 14,500 hours, and still flies privately today. Presuming up to date maintenance, I would not be the least "uncomfortable" to fly that plane.
Yes, some poorly maintained Cessnas are going to be "found out" by these inspections - that's the whole point! Such aircraft are probably headed toward a very justified retirement. If the owner has maintained the aircraft well throughout, there is little to be worried about here.
And, when renters are presented with "old" Cessnas, which are right up to date with all of these new inspections, will they relax, have confidence in the quality of the aircraft, and become less "uncomfortable"?
Some of this reminds me of the people who complain about the poor condition of the road, then complain about the cost and traffic delays to repair it!
Then, we have the non certified proponents, whose subtle message is that it costs less to correctly maintain a non certified aircraft. Well, perhaps this could appear to be, simply because of the much lower utilization compared to the Cessnas, and lack of the cost of OEM support. If these non certified aircraft were operating in a commercial role, getting flown, blown and hammered, I dare say that it would rapidly become more expensive to maintain to the non "old" standard of quality expected by the renter. And, when that non certified aircraft needs replacement parts 50 years after it was manufactured, will the manufacturer still make parts available for it? Cessna does!
We either want to fly well maintained aircraft, and are prepared to pay the cost, or, we will fly unknown quality aircraft, and not complain....
Let's remind ourselves that it costs money to be airborne, some ways more than others. Cessna are expert in knowing how to provide a safe means of being airborne, if you do it their way (or equivalently well). Aircraft of other manufacture, and particularly non certified, can be very much more variable and less certain.
Some people think that older planes should be retired. Those people are very welcome to pay the cost to fly in very new aircraft only, those planes are available too. They just have higher cost of use due to their higher value. If that's your choice, no problem, pay the cost, fly in an aircraft whose "bugs" may yet to be found, and don't complain!
Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours (for what I have briefly read). Sounds very fair and appropriate to me. I have 24,000 hours to go on my 150, and that'll keep me fine! A Cessna 207 I used to fly had 19,700 hours, and seemed very airworthy, I oversaw a comprehensive inspection, and nothing was really wrong with the structure or systems (Paint and furnishings were ratty). It had been well maintained. The 1977 C152 I did my fist solo in, had 33 hours when I did that (in 1977). It was retired from the flying club decades later with more than 14,500 hours, and still flies privately today. Presuming up to date maintenance, I would not be the least "uncomfortable" to fly that plane.
Yes, some poorly maintained Cessnas are going to be "found out" by these inspections - that's the whole point! Such aircraft are probably headed toward a very justified retirement. If the owner has maintained the aircraft well throughout, there is little to be worried about here.
And, when renters are presented with "old" Cessnas, which are right up to date with all of these new inspections, will they relax, have confidence in the quality of the aircraft, and become less "uncomfortable"?
Some of this reminds me of the people who complain about the poor condition of the road, then complain about the cost and traffic delays to repair it!
Then, we have the non certified proponents, whose subtle message is that it costs less to correctly maintain a non certified aircraft. Well, perhaps this could appear to be, simply because of the much lower utilization compared to the Cessnas, and lack of the cost of OEM support. If these non certified aircraft were operating in a commercial role, getting flown, blown and hammered, I dare say that it would rapidly become more expensive to maintain to the non "old" standard of quality expected by the renter. And, when that non certified aircraft needs replacement parts 50 years after it was manufactured, will the manufacturer still make parts available for it? Cessna does!
We either want to fly well maintained aircraft, and are prepared to pay the cost, or, we will fly unknown quality aircraft, and not complain....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAR, the only issue with new aircraft is that there aren't any for flight training! What can really replace a Cessna 152? DA20 is a lot more fragile. Aquila have tried to enter that market and produced a ruggedized version called SXT (with a funny double nose tire) but nothing beats a Cessna 152 when it comes to flight training.
Last edited by achimha; 30th May 2012 at 15:30.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours
On the one hand it does amaze me that Cessna have not replaced these old workhorses.
They blame certification costs, which I am sure is bogus.
But Cessna are not stupid. They are the most clever company in the GA business, and have huge resources. They must have a reason.
I wonder what it is?
Could it be that the payload of a "new" C15x is not enough to make the average training flight legal? The 162 is a totally stripped down carcass, to improve the payload.
Could it be that those planes look so agricultural that most people with more than 2$ to rub together walk away shortly after walking into a flying school and see what they will be flying in?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK; I forgot the 162 doesn't have an ICAO CofA.
In fact Cessna stopped taking orders for it from Europe (according to a recent news release) allegedly because EASA is dragging its heels on approving it.
So.... why doesn't Cessna make a new 152?
In fact Cessna stopped taking orders for it from Europe (according to a recent news release) allegedly because EASA is dragging its heels on approving it.
So.... why doesn't Cessna make a new 152?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suprised its dragging
Its got some funny spin characteristics which apparently have not solved properly because of the certifying standards they are using. Its up to the parachute to save you.
Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough.
Looking at it though that nose wheel won't do the job for training.
Its got some funny spin characteristics which apparently have not solved properly because of the certifying standards they are using. Its up to the parachute to save you.
Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough.
Looking at it though that nose wheel won't do the job for training.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough.
When I used to make these in the UK, we used to get 1-2% duff ones - largely because they used to skip the electronic test when the end of the month was coming up
The Chinese will deliver whatever you ask them for, and pay them for.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't doud't that is the case with massed produced electronics. With german hardware production lines. Same with the car production.
And it doesn't matter where they make it, that nose gear won't cut the mustard.
And it doesn't matter where they make it, that nose gear won't cut the mustard.