New Cessna Special Inspections Documents (SIDs)

[achimha]

Cessna finally released the Special Inspection Documents (SIDs) for its 100 series aircraft. These call out for numerous additional inspections depending on hours and service and age. The 400/300 series twins were the first to get SIDs and their market value collapsed since then. The 100 series inspections appear to be less intrusive but they are numerous and time consuming. I wonder what effect this will have.

Model 100 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1953 thru 1962)
Model 100 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 9 (1963 thru 1968)
Model 177 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 8 (1968 thru 1978)
FR172 Reims Rocket Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1968 thru 1976)
Model 150 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 6 (1969 thru 1976)
Model 172 and Skyhawk Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1969 thru 1976)
Cardinal RG Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1971 thru 1975)
Model 180/185 Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1969 thru 1980)
182 and Skylane Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1969 thru 1976)
Model 177RG Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 10 (1976 thru 1978)
Model 150 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1977)
Model 172R Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1977 thru 1981)
Model 188 and T188 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1966 thru 1984)
Model 152 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1978 thru 1985)
Model 172 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1977 thru 1986)
Model 172RG Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 6 (1980 thru 1985)
Model 180/185 Service Manual Temporary Revision 7 (1981 thru 1985)
Model 182/T182 Series Service Manual Temporary Revision 5 (1977 thru 1986)
Model R182/TR182 Service Manual Temporary Revision 8 (1978 thru 1986)

[Bob Upanddown]

I am surprised no-one has commented on this as it will surely increase maintenance costs. EASA will want all these inspections added to maintenance programmes and, of course, compliance will be recorded by the engineer each time he carries out each inspection. Good engineers know these airplanes are old so inspect them accordingly. Now he will spend more time pushing pen rather than being an engineer!
How many Cessna landing and taxi light switches were changed for no reason?
You only have to look at how EASA is certifying engineers to see where this is all going for light aviation. People with degrees sign off the aircraft The hands-on people don't. So the pen-pushers need it all written down so they can use their degrees to sign off the aircraft.

[achimha]

Are these really mandatory under EASA rules? In the US, they are not for Part 91 operators.

If this really becomes mandatory, it will be catastrophic. Some of the inspections call for very costly procedures, e.g. the engine mount inspection requires you to remove the engine and most accessories and even recommends doing an engine overhaul while at it (you have until 2015). Others require the application of certain older service bulletins which have always been optional.

The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. Same here?

[172driver]

The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. Same here?

It would appear so: article in Flying Mag

[achimha]

I talked to the CAA here (LBA) this morning. They confirmed that in principle, the SIDs are mandatory as they are part of the inspection guidelines and both CAMO and individual maintenance programs are based on the manufacturer's maintenance guidelines.

EASA and the CAAs will look into the SIDs and decide what to do. These inspections are much worse than they appear at first look. If this becomes mandatory, it might be worth going to FAA-reg.

[Bob Upanddown]

EASA and the CAAs will look into the SIDs and decide what to do. These inspections are much worse than they appear at first look. If this becomes mandatory, it might be worth going to FAA-reg.

This is what happened with Cessna Twins. EASA considered they were part of the maintenance programme so had to be completed. Many Cessna Twins are on the FAA as a result.

[A and C]

This is going to hurt !

I have had a brief scan of this document and it is going to ground a large number of aircraft in the UK, if your aircraft has been getting cheap annual checks for the last ten years then you can expect your next annual to cost you about £15K in aditional work.

Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30 % above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull.

I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintaned old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft.

To put it in UK industry terms anything that CABAIR once owned is likely to be a target for instant grounding!..........if the new owner has not already put a lot of work into the aircraft.

[englishal]

Removing the engine is not really such a big deal or that expensive.....But I agree, all these bits do add up, plus VAT, so can easily bring an annual to over 5 grand (plus VAT). But at least you know your engine won't fall off !

[achimha]

Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30 % above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull.

How could your reputable maintenance company execute inspections in the past that were not defined yet? Do you think the reputable company will just put a checkmark next to them? I highly doubt...

[jxk]

I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintained old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft.

No, I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs.

I bet all maintenance organisations believe they are doing a good job after all they are supervised by their surveyors and their paperwork is controlled by their quality managers.

[A and C]

Achimha

It is quite simple, most of the SID,s is just defining what is good practice. If your maintenance providor has been inspecting the aircraft properly and addressing the defects that were found the SID,s inspection is likely to result in few nasty surprises. On the other hand if the maintenance providor has just been ticking the boxes and not looking deeply enough to try to achieve a cheap job for the customer then it is likely that the true state of the airframe is unknown and problems that have been lurking for years will be found.

To give you an example, my C152's have been treated with one of the approved corrosion inhibitors for the last eight years, the rudder inspection was mandated by the UK CAA long before EASA came to be and we have continued to make these inspections despite the fact that they were not mandated by EASA, at engine changes we crack checked the engine frame, repaired all defects and re-painted the frame. We have always inspected the airframe in the areas that the SID,s inspection mandates at the annual check.

The result of this maintenance is that we know the aircraft very well by now and are unlikely to find any nasty surprises, there are only so many ways to inspect a component so the fact that Cessna have found it necessary to define an inspection dose not necessarily make the last inspection of that component invalid. I see no reason to strip a component that has recently been fully inspected in accordance with the Cessna maintenance manual & AC43 just because Cessna produce a new bit of paper, I will respect the maintenance limits for such a component and will ensure that the aircraft maintenance program reflects this.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I agree with A & C. The thrust of the SID is detecting corrosion. Good regular maintenance will look out for and catch developing corrosion and stop it from getting a hold. Cheap maintenance will basically eschew any indepth structural inspections allowing corrosion to fester.

The SID will be a killer for these aircraft because when the dark corners are opened repairs are going to be required. Since all of the SID inspections are for major structural members, repairs are going to be uneconomic for a lot of marginally maintained aircraft.

The other issue is there is both calendar and hour limits. At 20 years of airframe age, which is every legacy Cessna single, all the big inspections kick in regardless of airframe hours. This is going to be a big all once hit even for good aircraft.

Finally this is not a one time deal. There are continuing inspections required and for aircraft over 12,000 hours the inspection interval is dramatically shortened.

So far in Canada the SIDs are not mandatory for private aircraft and most flying schools have written their Maintenence Control Manuals (whuch are approved by Transport Canada) so they are not obligated to perform the SID,s. However there are indications that TC may mandate them anyway.

If these are inspections are made mandatory for private aircraft my SWAG is that half the fleet of the privately owned single engine Cessna,s will never fly again....

[achimha]

A and C: the issue is not potential problems that get discovered during the inspections and require costly repairs. Who wants to continue flying with a corroded airframe? The issue is that performing the SIDs will cost a lot of money.

With Part M, these SIDs are generally considered to be mandatory service instructions in EASA land. The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory here, although they were stripped down a bit through alternate methods of compliance.

This can really bite us...

[A and C]

I agree about this bite in this but it is not the inspection that is likely to bite the hardest, it is the defects that are found. The rectification of these defects could well cost more the aircraft is worth.

This inspection will show up the aircraft that have been neglected for years, not the aircraft that have been properly maintained.

[achimha]

A and C: I've gone through the SIDs for my TR182 and a first estimate is between 6,000-8,000 €.

What I don't know is how much it costs to remove the engine and accessories to inspect the engine mount. The SID 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.

How much effort is that? A day? More than that?

[Pilot DAR]

How could your reputable maintenance company execute inspections in the past that were not defined yet?

Just doing a through job of it.

As I read through the requirements for my 150, I realized that Cessna has documented many of those extra things I have been inspecting for years. They are written into my maintenance schedule with only my name as a reference, as the maintenance manual never described them ('till now!). Every aircraft type has its peculiarities, which come to be well known by maintainers experienced with that type. As Cessna has written, these requirements were drafted in consultation with owners and operators. That is evident in the content.

I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs.

Maybe a bit, but not wholly. I attended a seminar at Cessna years ago when this was emerging for the twins. Cessna presented and described it well. Cessna, in partnership with the University of Kansas had initiated inspections of long use Cessna 400 series twins. They bought two back from operators, and took them all apart, documenting every defect they found. It would be this experience which is the basis for their SID's. Interestingly, they said that the structures were better than they expected, but in both cases, the wiring was in terrible condition.

The aging aircraft initiative instigated by the FAA has some relevance to this, though it is aimed at larger aircraft, and generally did not target aircraft less than 12,500 pounds. At an FAA seminar I attended, the FAA presenter did say that what was appropriate for larger aircraft, was also necessary for the smaller ones, just appropriately more simple. These SID's, to me, are evidence of that.

As has been said, if you have been maintaining your aircraft well, you have little to fear - you're use to paying for proper maintenance, and it has been done in a preventive sense, so the plane will be okay. I sure would be weary of poorly maintained aircraft though. This will open a whole new vista of critical importance to a very through pre purchase inspection! People are going to be dumping out dogs now, and you sure don't want to be stuck with one now (if ever)!

[Curlytips]

What about Rheims models?

The only one shown is the FR172. Does that mean the original Rheims built machines (that had better corrosion proofing anyway) are not covered? So if your marque starts with an F, are you outside USA Cessna's admin?

[achimha]

Reims built Cessnas are just Cessnas with the exception of the Reims Rocket that is a separate model. The document for the 172 contains the French built models as well. Corrosion protection was a factory option for the US built models.

[jxk]

Being Devil's Advocate:

Are there any known cases of Cessna 100 series aircraft 'crashing' as a result of corrosion/ex-foliation (not engine failure) or poor maintenance?

Also, I would be interested to know if the SIDs are statistically related or intuitive.

And another: has a seat belt failure occurred causing an injury or worse.

[englishal]

In the maintenance of our aeroplanes (not Cessnas) we always went above and beyond what was *required*. We even removed the engine and mount to inspect for corrosion and repaint. The reason was that the rest of the aeroplane was in superb condition and this brought the front end up to a known similar condition and made it look nice. I don't remember the cost now, it was a few years ago, but it was by no means horrific for that portion of the work.

Actually you can remove the engine yourself....on our current aeroplane, when rebuilding the thing, me and the co-owner assisted with removing the engine, and then took the mount off ourselves, shot blasted it ourselves, had it inspected and then re-painted. We put the bolts back in but got the maintenance organisation to torque the bolts and and re-fit the engine and inspect.

I'd rather have a known quantity in the aeroplane that an unknown quantity, and doing this type of thing rests the mind.