Annual Shocker

[140KIAS]

Just put our C182 RG in for its annual. After 2 years of ownership most of the snags have been ironed out and we had hoped for a fairly straightforward affair.

Just been told that the undercarriage is due an overhaul as Cessna recommend this every 5 years. This was raised last year but it was deemed optional. Now told that's no longer the case although our maintenance org are seeking clarification from the CAA.

Does anyone have similar experiences ? eg. Costs ? Timescales ?

[Blink182]

Surely should be lifed on cycles / operations / hours flown rather than calender date ?

[NutLoose]

When LAMPS took over from LAMS it unfortunately added the requirements, see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap766.pdf section 3 page 2 para 8

you need to see what the manual says, there may be some variations, the 152 manual gives brake hoses as a 5 yr replacement, but a SL allows Teflon hoses to be on condition.

[ROLLER STAMP]

The gear overhaul is a service instruction or service letter,the gear does not need overhauling after 5yrs.
A lot of these SL/SI depend on the aircraft useage & cater for the worst case scenario i.e flown out of bush strips in africa!!!for general use then this will not need to be done.
Just inspect the swivel joints & retraction jacks for leaks & excessive wear.
Get them to print you off the 182RG Maintenance schedule with time life components.
The gear is not on there,you will find the seatbelts/static lines/vac pump/engine hoses/prop govenor etc are.Am doing this from memory so sorry if I have missed an item.
Have just been involved in an ARC renewal on a 182RG.
Lycoming also recomend the engine is overhauled at 12years so are your maintenance company going to make you do this if your engine is 12years old?I suggest you argue this case to save any uneccessary expenses on your part .Good Luck:=

[Pilot DAR]

The owner of the 182RG I used to fly went through this. He elected to replace the suspect parts, and thereby forever end the recurring inspections. This service instruction was based upon a number of reports of cracks being found in the forged block which is the main structural element of the landing gear interface to the airframe.

At the time this owner made the decision, he calculated that the cost of recurring inspections would far exceed the cost of the better quality replacement parts. Upon removal, one of the two blocks had a crack eminating from the threaded hole into which the brake line fitting is screwed. The inspection was justified. I assisted in the work to replace the parts with new. I think they were about $2500 each, ten years ago, plus a few days labour, but of course, get a current quote! If you choose only the inspection, you only saved the price of the new parts, the rest of the work is the same as I recall.

Should you decide to not follow the Cessna recommended inspection interval, you are taking a lot of responsibility for conditions which you may not fully understand. I agree that sometimes manufacturer's recommended intervals can be overly conservative, but... When the recommended inspection interval is based upon unexpectedly poor service history, there's a bit more substance to the reasoning for the interval, than just a "guess" at the beginning of a design, as to how long it will last (engines). Yes, the operating environment will have an effect on the chance and progression of the cracks in these blocks.

Think of it this way, if you are unaware of a progressing crack in this part, because it was not inspected at the recommended interval, it may progress too far. If it does, it will be the complete sudden surprise of a failed landing gear leg. This is different from an engine which burns too much oil and makes metal, or a weaping hose. Also bear in mind, that during one of these inspections, the inspector might actually find that replacement is necessary, it was on the RG I used to fly, and the owner and I were very happy this was found by inspection, not flight. Budget the cost of the replacement parts (which are teminating action to the inspection when installed). If you choose to put off inspections, allow a little more for failed main gear damage. Consider what the explanation to the insurance company might have to be if a part, which has not been inspected as recommended fails, and damage to the plane results. Will they pay?

I loved the 182 RG, and flew it for a few years. It was a very capable airplane, safe, dependable, a real hauler, and fun to fly, but not cheap! The owner gave up on it, and replaced it with a 180HP 172, much cheaper to operate!

Good luck!

[hatzflyer]

I did a ferry flight on a 182rg that (it later tured out) had a dodgy history on the main gear.
When I got to the destination,The nose wheel came down and the mains trailed behind like a wounded duck.No amount of recycling,high g turns,etc. had any effect.
I hope you are never in that position,wishing you had the gear serviced/inspected.
Unfortuneatly the high cost of owning an aircraft with retractable gear is well known and is a choice you make when deciding what aircraft you own.That's why I fly fixed u/c.
However, if you talk to your engineer there may be some ways of minimising the costs if he is susceptable to you doing some of the minor work under his supervision.
I think in these hard times for CofA aircraft owners,engineers have got to modify their outlook in view of the huge benefits and advances of permit to fly aircraft or go out of buisness.

[jxk]

Of course the other problem with the RGs is having the correct jacking equipment to do the retractions; either high tripods or suspension from above. For this reason there are fewer MO's available capable of handling them.

[Pilot DAR]

Yeah, the suggestion that the gear be properly inspected presupposes that the maintenance organisation is properly equipped. Many Cessnas are jacked from under the wing spar, and require very tall jacks. There are usually screw on fittings for jack points, though a few very old Cessnas do not have them.

I was once the custodian of a Cessna 207, which I took for weighing. The aircraft was not properly jacked, and this was the result...

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/IMG_8286.jpg


http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/IMG_8282.jpg

[A and C]

The Jacks are not too expensive but the shipping from the USA can exceed the costs of the Jacking equipment!

But the total cost of getting the Jacking equipment to the UK is cheap when you consider the results of using the wrong equipment.

So in answer to all the Single Cessna RG's we do have the correct jacking equipment for your aircraft if you are looking for a new Part M subpart F & G company to look after your aircraft.

[140KIAS]

Here's what the service manual has to say:

http://web.bethere.co.uk/andy.reid/service%20manual%202.tif
http://web.bethere.co.uk/andy.reid/service%20manual.tif

For our aircraft it would appear to be every 5 years. For later models its on condition.

Also, we would appear to be dealing with the CAA's (rather hardline?) interpretations of EASA rules. So it may be different in other jurastications ?

What's really :mad: me off is that this has come right out of the blue. If our service organisation had prewarned us of this then we could have planned around it. It now looks like the aircraft is going to be offline at the time of the year when we least want.

[140KIAS]

looks like we're going to have little choice but comply with this is we want a flyable aricraft. Preliminary investigations suggest a £12,000 hit. Ouch :uhoh:

[ROLLER STAMP]

Reading carefully it also says overhaul the Brake discs!!!how do they intend on overhauling the brake discs?this was written by a lawyer in the 70,s who had no engineering knowledge whatsoever.
I suggest you take it to another maintenance company who won,t make you do all this uneccessary work & expense.:=
pm me if you wish.

[Malcom]

I think we'll all have to go to venice italy where we can ignore the manufacturers overhaul periods and still get an ARC issued, unlike here in the UK where we are obliged to to follow them to the letter, in this wonderful pan-european level playing field we now inhabit.:ugh:

LAMP 3.8.1 ""Overhaul, additional inspections and test periods shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder or supplementary type
certificate holders"". Manufacturers recommendation - overhaul 5 years. Simples.

It was the same under LAMS, but there was scope to sweep such inconvieniences under the carpet there, and its not exactly a new requirement either, its been around since 1996 at least, so prospective owners really should be aware of what they are lining themselves up for.

Brake disc overhaul - dunno, but you could measure them and give them a nice shiney coat of overhaul paint at least!:ok:

[ROLLER STAMP]

Maybe you should fly it down here but you had better stick some floats on it first.
Don,t think there is an STC though on the 182 RG!!
As for UK sticking to all the manufacturers overhaul periods ,really?.
The 12 year engine overhaul is not adheared too, if used privately,this should also be applied to the gear, lets be sensible.
Lets look at the aircraft useage & make a descision.
I find that in the Uk sticking to the letter of the law varies considerably depending where you take your plane for ARC renewals
Many CAMO,s in the UK would not make you overhaul the gear.
There is also a requirement to replace the static lines on a lot of Cessnas,sense says you inspect them, start to pull them around & a lot off the plasic fittings will snap off causing more problems,some companies in the UK do this on condition & rightly so.
From memory, the engine controls on 150/152 are lifed at 1500hrs or engine replacement how many companies actually stick to this?
What will happen now is that people will fly even less,there will be more planes laying idle at airfields as owners cannot afford them anymore.
The GA market in the UK will be diminished, as has hppened in Italy over the years due to bureaucrats with no hand on experience whatsoever joining the regulatory authorities.
Failing this you could always try the EASA approved horses head in the bed or concrete wellies on the side of a canal, with your engineer that usually does the trick.

[Malcom]

As for UK sticking to all the manufacturers overhaul periods ,really?.
The 12 year engine overhaul is not adheared too, if used privately,this should also be applied to the gear, lets be sensible.

Common sense went out when easa came in, mainly due to caa gold plating of the rules, and any variations in the application of the rules by CAMOs and MOs are due to lack of understanding and/or a willingness to go out on a limb - for which they wont be thanked in the long run.

we have a procedure for engine tbo extension in the uk, so that issue is already covered, but rumour control has it not for much longer though.

the discussion of whether manufacturers items deemed mandatory by the maintenance program are mandatory or not is a no-brainer, surely - its clear to me if you are obliged to do something you do it, and if you are not then its up to you.

Thus, our obligation to follow the requirement "Overhaul, additional inspections and test periods shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder or supplementary type certificate holders" here, the word "SHALL" does not mean can, might, maybe or any other choice giving you the option. If that wasnt the intent, it needs redrafting. Didnt the FAA have a FAR about this? - ISTR but cant find it anywhere

On-condition is fast becoming an alien concept, which, quite frankly is ridiculous-it takes decision making away from those doing the work and costs the owner more for no appreciable gain in safety. Owners dont like it, but are stuck with it until the next regulation backtrack session.

[ROLLER STAMP]

Can I take it Malcom that you are the CAMO/MO making the owners of this plane overhaul all the gear?

[NutLoose]

Roller u are missing the point, in the UK it now is a requirements under LAMPS and without it the Aircraft would be deemed as not meeting the requirments of it's continued Airworthiness. Don't shoot the messenger, the poor guy is just trying to do his job with the cr*p hr has dumped on him by EASA and the CAA........ None of us like it, but that is the cards we have been dealt.

I would be seriously be suprised if it isn't actually a requirement under EASA in Italy as well.

[Malcom]

Can I take it Malcom that you are the CAMO/MO making the owners of this plane overhaul all the gear?

No. Completely un-related. (Probably)

As said before, this particular task is part of the maintenance programme, so I and many others here do want to learn how you comply with MA302 when you dont carry out the MA302 tasks. Your experiences will be invaluable to these owners, and to the rest of us in the future. We are all willing to learn and take advice:ok:

[140KIAS]

So does anyone know of any UK organisations with capability and experience in overhauling 182RG undercarriage ?

Malcolm, many thanks for your logical responses which have made a lot of sense and helped us put this into perspective. Typical of us Brits to follow the rules to a T ! And btw if you are a CAMO PM me your details as I think we need to engage one which is a bit more proactive in anticipating and planning our future maintenance needs.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Malcom]

If you understand this, then unfortunately we have identified "Comprehension Hazard" which will necessitate a redraft of Part M to maintain an adequate level of misunderstanding and other unsavory stuff! :ooh:

PM'ed.

[Rod1]

“any UK organisations with capability and experience in overhauling 182RG undercarriage ?”


I think Derby specializes in RG’s.

Rod1