As has been mentioned here before, CASA has not all of a sudden mandated the Cessna SID inspections; they have merely provided guidance material that points out that the existing regulatory structure has always required compliance.
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.
I own a Piper, so this is only of academic interest to me. It seems that some of the Cessna SID work is good practice, some is common-sense which should have been done along the way and ( for some of the elements) a LAME somewhere should be slapped if faults are found (eg engine mount cracks).
It also seems to me that the SID programme is required primarily because a) there are some Cessna design flaws that have not been addressed with AD's (eg foam filled 200 series trim tab) and other issues which probably should have been part of the manufacturers service schedule, but aren't - or at least I presume things like wing attach points are not of part of the Cessna service schedule or they wouldn't appear in the SID.
It also seems to me that things like Cessna 400 series wing spars highlight a significant design flaw (ie omission of a spar endcap) which has probably significantly compromised the life of the aircraft. The presentation on this in the EASA papers is very good.
But your understanding and mine of the CASA process is different.
I understand that the SID programme in the US simply added an additional service schedule to the existing manufacturers RECOMMENDED service schedule. It has never required compliance for private operations.Therefore there is no compliance period that CASA needed to extend.
In the US, I understand that following the service schedule is not mandated and that the degree of compliance with the manufacturers service schedule varies according to class of operation.
Move to Australia and I suspect we are alone in the world in mandating full compliance with the SID programme uniformly across all classes of operation. While NZ has adopted the SID programme, their regulations are basically a carbon copy of the FAA regs, so I assume they have some of the same latitudes that the US allow.
Previous posts that it is mandated by EASA are clearly incorrect.
If Cessna really found any time bombs in the 100 / 200 series aircraft they would have issues a mandatory Service Bulletin which in turn would be made an AD. Based on the EASA presentations, I also understand that the really critical issues found during the SID program have resulted in AD's. If this is the case, what is the SID really achieving?
If you contrast CASA with EASA, EASA seem to be having a significant & transparent debate about how to handle the SID programme. The open forum that EASA conducted 1 month ago (see my previous post for the link) is clearly part of this process. I thought it was refreshing that they would conduct such a forum with presenters from Cessna, the FAA, the IOPA and maintainers.
CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of non pilots.
I think that part of CASA's problem is their schedule 5 maintenance schedule, which is disgraceful. I think the smart private owners maintain according to the manufacturers schedule, but list "schedule 5" on the MR to get around things like the 12 year calendar life for engines. If we had freedom from some component calendar life (ie engines) we could very easily be compliant with the Piper schedule. However, if an aircraft was truly only maintained to minimum requirements of schedule 5, it could have some accumulated significant problems.
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. They were never created with the intention that they would be mandatory. So, apart from the Cessna SID programme, CASA have nothing they can make mandatory and allowing discretion by individuals is simply not in their lexicon.
tnuc, I'm interested in your view to help my understanding of the process.
I also don't understand the labour hours time difference being quoted in Australia (80 - 120 hours) compared with those being quoted in Europe, the US and NZ.
And, I'll get in an old 100 series non-SID compliant Cessna any day rather than on owner maintained RA (Aus) aircraft. How can we be so strict in one area, yet so abhorrently slack in another?