“SIDS compulsory because of CASA Regulatory Structure?”

[LeadSled]

Interesting article in The Australian newspaper this morning, “Inspection Edict Tearing Light Aircraft Apart” - see article reproduced below - particularly the comment by Jeff Boyd that, “it was not the original deliberate intention to make SIDS compulsory, but it ended up so because of the regulatory structure.”

This seems very strange. Perhaps Cream Puff or someone with expertise in the regulatory system can explain why this was so. Surely CASA can bring in advisory material just like the FAA?

Article as follows…

Inspection edict ‘tearing light aircraft apart’



In general aviation circles they’re calling it SIDS — and it’s leaving the carcasses of light aircraft, some with their engines gone, some with tails and wings amputated, strewn around regional *airports.


SIDS stands for Supplementary Inspection Documents, and according to Tony Brand, who runs light aircraft repair and maintenance company Horsham Aviation Services in western *Victoria, it’s killing the industry.


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is enforcing a program initiated by the large US light *aircraft manufacturer Cessna of *special inspections of its older aircraft to check for problems like corrosion, wear, cracks, and other mechanical risks.


In Australia, Mr Brand said, that covers 3800 Cessna aircraft, and $285 million in additional compliance work.


“There was no industry consultation for this,” he said.


For Mr Brand SIDS means boom times, with his 11 aircraft mechanics including two apprentices working flat-out on aircraft flown in from all around the *country.


“I could put on another five people tomorrow and still not keep up with the work,” he said.


But his concern is that SIDS will financially cripple many of his customers. “It’s driving people out of the general aviation industry one after the other,” Mr Brand said.


“They have just got it so wrong you wouldn’t believe.”


Flying school operators who spoke with The Australian this week all complained about SIDS.


“I had to take one plane *completely apart then put it back together again and it cost me $30,000,” said Ray Clamback, who runs a flying school at Sydney’s Bankstown airport.


“It turned out there was nothing wrong with it.”


Mr Brand said the cost of SIDS was leading some aircraft owners to sell their planes overseas in countries such as the US where the program initiated by Cessna is not mandatory as it is here, but voluntary.


Other older aircraft are just not worth taking abroad, and those are being cannabilised for parts, explaining the carcasses.


CASA chairman Jeff Boyd said it was not the original deliberate intention to make SIDS compulsory, but it ended up so because of the regulatory structure.


“It just got caught up in the way our regulations are written,” Mr Boyd said.


He nonetheless defended the compulsory nature of the *program here, saying it was essential to deal with a real safety issue.


Mr Boyd, a licensed aircraft mechanical engineer and former regional airline owner, said he had done the SIDS exercise *himself on the 1977 Cessna 172XP he owns and flies.


He used it as an opportunity to fully renovate the aircraft.


Mr Brand is scathing of the people he describes as technocrats at CASA who have “not worked a day in general aviation, in the hangar.”


But Mr Brand has nothing but praise for Mr Boyd who has worked in the hangar, and still does from time to time as a *consultant, such as oversighting maintenance for the Thai military.


Mr Boyd, Mr Brand said, was bringing some much needed real world private sector sense to those technocrats.


“He’s been doing an excellent job,” he said.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A further comment on the above, Jeff has certainly got it right.

Instead of the sensible approach of graded maintenance in US, our "one size fits all" is about to hit GA for another six with Part 135, which, at this stage, will require all "Air Transport" aircraft be maintained with all the hoopla of an RPT A380.

The only reason this cost and complexity disaster hasn't hit us yet is an exemption instrument that temporally limits the "new" maintenance regulations to RPT.

Repeal the exemption, and WWAMMO!!

I guess "regulating" GA out of the sky is one way of "improving" our lamentable safety record, compared with USA.

Do you think this new CASA board will act on the rather obvious, that the "regulations" are the problem, not the answer.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Mind you, maybe future maintenance costs won't matter "all that much", because Part 135 aerodrome standards are going to eliminate most light aircraft charter, anyway.

[Lead Balloon]

But does Mr Boyd (1) consider the regulatory structure to be wrong, (2) have sufficient influence to change the regulatory structure, and (3) have the inclination and sufficient energy and support to get the regulatory structure changed?

If the answer to any of those questions is no, his views are interesting but irrelevant.

[yr right]

Omg leadie do you always talk to yourself.
Problem is this aircraft are all getting old. And without making it mandatory people like your self will not do it.
Once we done 100 and major inspections. At the major we took controls off had a good look around. Now we don't do these inspectors. As with the aircraft I just done we done croaked and worn fittings. With out sids program we would not have been able to look at these areas. At the end of the day it's not the maintenance org that's the problem. It's the owners problem that don't allow a proper look and complain about their bills. Hence with the with now ADs that we had that made certain things mandatory that now arnt no wonder Casa made SIDS mandatory. At the end of the day yes it expensive but Cessna do not wont these aircraft in the air anymore. They making it as hard as possible not Casa not the maintenance org and certainly not the lame.

[dubbleyew eight]

the great CAsA concern is that ageing aluminium aircraft will fall out of the sky.

the reality is that only 3 designs have had structural breakups in the air.
the tiger moth predates design standards and is a time honoured design.
the other two designs that broke up were caused by the regulator's incompetence.
the pzl dromadier was approved for increased weight for water bombing.
the aerocommander was approved for increased weight because..., just because.

both of those designs have shed wings in flight in turbulence.

the old cessna you would think would be a candidate for in flight breakups.
...but I don't know of any.

the fluffy headed "we know safety" nutters in CAsA are totally off the planet on this one. they have prevented owners from carrying out maintenance on privately owned cessna's and now the remedial SIDS is the result.

CAsA are utter nutters. THEY are the cause of the problem.

If CAsA had any intellect at all what should happen are 3 things.
1. introduce Canadian owner maintenance for private owners.
2. allow for the decertification of privately owned commercially built aircraft
3. introduce an experimental - amateur maintenance category of registration for any privately owned aircraft.

because of the deeply entrenched nutter mentality of the place I'll bet they won't.

If I owned a Cessna I'd be suing the arse off CAsA for preventing effective owner maintenance.

[Jabawocky]

Tony Brand is a good LAME and a good guy. :ok:

He also did one of those unapproved courses. :ooh:

[jas24zzk]

Yr Right has some points, valid and invalid.

Cessna have not made SIDS mandatory....from the manufacturer, its HIGHLY reccomended. CASA have made it mandatory.

Owners won't pay to have inspections/repairs done...big fooey.
I work in the auto industry.
Big difference you say....dam right there is, and you have more power than I do, but all you LAME's are the same.

I get a service in, I do the work and the inspections. If an owner decides they do not wish needed work done, then I note it on the invoice for the client to acknowledge the item. I also do not release the car until I have been paid.
This is where LAME's have a tool that I don't. YOU HAVE TO SIGN for the aeroplane to be returned to flight.
Too many of you sign simply so you get paid, and most of you release without being paid...in the hope the cheque is really in the mail.

The pay rates for tradies in the AME business are crap, and very disporportinate to the end bills.

____________________________________________


Mr Boyd states that he took the opportunity to completley refurbish his aeroplane.

The SIDS is so invasive, that a refurbished aeroplane is what comes out the other side. :ugh:

[Sunfish]

Some of you should have seen the cracks in the C172 elevator on the aircraft I had just done 16 hrs in. I was not impressed.

[PLovett]

D8 is wrong, well nearly so.

SIDS came about because a C402 landed in the US with the pilot complaining that he had run out of aileron trim to keep it level. The aircraft was high time (> 20,000 hrs from memory) and had been used on a short sector low-capacity RPT run (lots of pax & bag weight). On inspection the aircraft was found to have a cracked spar. It was well on its way to an in-flight break-up.

It was then that Cessna came to the decision that their aircraft were being used far more than the original design envisaged and that if they were to be kept airworthy then something more than the run-of-the-mill inspections were required.

I have seen what SIDS have uncovered by way of unseen corrosion on C310 and C206 aircraft. I have also heard about what has been uncovered on C172 aircraft, a design that was believed would have very few problems. Yes, SIDS is expensive and no, it doesn't had the equivalent value to the aircraft, but if we wish to continue to operate ageing aircraft it would seem to be a responsible decision.

[dubbleyew eight]

I accept your point plovett.

however I see the other side of the experience.
take my mate freddoh and his little vintage cessna 150.
it was rebuilt by a victorian LAME out of two aircraft one a crashed fuselage and one a crashed wing. the undamaged bits were married into one aircraft.
the aircraft is still the only cessna I've flown that has no need for control trim tabs it is such a straight airframe.
lived all its life in a hangar.
I don't believe it needs a sids teardown.
it is totally uneconomic to do the program and as a result a perfectly serviceable cessna will end up being scrapped.

I'd take the aeroplane out and fly it now.
I have a pretty good idea what it is like inside.
I've done work on it.

another cessna 150 I know of is sitting in a hangar somewhere in the eastern states.
it has a total of 300 hours on it.
the owner has had medical problems for decades evidently.
the sids cost will probably see it scrapped eventually.

hang your heads in shame CAsA.

[LeadSled]

the aerocommander was approved for increased weight because..., just because.doublueight,
The Aero Commander problem was a design/manufacturing flaw (actually several) and not related to the increased gross weight for some AC500 models in Australia.

Sadly, Aero Commander shed wings in NZ, US and elsewhere. There is an excellent article of the subject by Steve Swift (ex CAA/CASA) which you will probably find on Google.

Since that article, there have been two more in flight breakups in Australia, neither related to the above flaws, but still related to the basic design. In these two referred, the wings failed in downward bending, outboard of the engines, not at the wing root.

None of the above are "aging aircraft" problems. Indeed, at least one failure was at quite low hours, don't quote me, but about 3700 hours.

What a wonderful thing it would be to have the Canadian system here, there was a move to do so in 1997, the objections of the likes of yr wrong and the CAR 30 Workshop holders plus AWIs ( described at the time as "opposed by industry and CASA safety experts) killed it.

yr wrong,
You are just a dill, you would not have a clue what my attitude to the Cessna SIDs are, or what my experience on the subject might be.

Tootle pip!!

[dubbleyew eight]

about the time that allan bond won the america's cup ( so about 1982) the guy opposite me in the office asked what an aeroplane cost.
I didn't know.
his reply was that I had a phone beside me, find out.
I rang Transwest at jandakot. they were the cessna agents at the time.
a Cessna 152 cost $250,000.

yes, a quarter of a million dollars for a 2 seat aeroplane that wasn't even corrosion proofed.

there in lies the problem. as a private owner you can't amortise the cost against your income.

to get this in perspective I built my home in perth about 4 years previous to the phone call. the total cost of a new brick and tile home on a 650 square metre block was under $35,000.

the poor bugger with the 300 hour cessna 150 I take my hat off to.
he has fought cancer for years I was told.
to him that little cessna is an investment approaching a quarter of a million dollars.
its current value was probably $25,000 to $30,000 before sids.
its value now is probably the weight in scrap aluminium.

just consider for a moment what that poor guy has lost.

of course the clueless in CAsA have no idea of the tragedies their fckuwitted approach to safety has caused.
none of them ever owned aircraft during their working lives.
none of them ever put a dollar of their own money toward what they flew.
they don't have a bloody clue and my gods does it show.

hang your heads in shame CAsA.

[Squawk7700]

Some of you should have seen the cracks in the C172 elevator on the aircraft I had just done 16 hrs in. I was not impressed.


By George you are lucky to still be with us!

What did the owner say when you returned his aircraft with all those cracks after 16 hours of your botched landings?

[Lead Balloon]

What relevance do cracks in elevators have to SIDS, Sunfish?

[Frank Arouet]

W8, in 1983 bank rates were 25% for short term loans and similar for 90 day bills and property was moving at record pace. $250K for a C150 seems wrong but believable, however and perhaps Gaunty, who did some time at Rex Aviation, (the Cessna dealers not the airline), could probably tell you what they were worth in 1970. I don't believe they were 10 times the average wage. In which case one new then and still flying probably represents good value. I do recall the Kiwi's buying all the OZ 152's and on-selling them back to the Yanks, but that's another story. Whatever, the SIDS can't be measured as part of the value if it can only be recouped in Australia.

[iPahlot]

Some of you should have seen the cracks in the C172 elevator on the aircraft I had just done 16 hrs in. I was not impressed

Guessing your pre-flight inspections need a bit more attention to detail...

[edsbar]

I rang Transwest at jandakot. they were the cessna agents at the time.
a Cessna 152 cost $250,000.:ugh:

Manufacturers list price in 1982 was as follows ........

152 US$24,300
152 II US$30,000
152 Trainer US$31,680
152 Aerobat US$32,400

Corrosion proofing was a US$1,675 option

[LeadSled]

Cessna have not made SIDS mandatory....from the manufacturer, its HIGHLY reccomended (sic). CASA have made it mandatory.

Jaz24zzk,
That is only partially correct, and CASA did nothing "special". The Cessna SID is certainly a requirement (mandatory) for any aircraft used in Part 135 ( roughly charter) in USA.

Cessna made the SID part of the Cessna MM for various aircraft, and Australian maintenance rules do not differentiate between categories of operation, so owners/operators of aircraft all are stuck with the requirement.

US rules do not take the "one size fits all" approach of Australia, to the long standing relief of private owners in the US.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Cracks in elevator torque tube were not visible until the elevator skin was removed

[thorn bird]

Jeez Sunny,
you mean you have to peel the aircraft during SID,s??

[Eddie Dean]

Indeed Thorn Bird, there is an amount of "peeling" required.

[yr right]

Just like the Mobil fuel disaster which allowed us to go into areas where we normally could not go the amount of things that were found was quite amassing.
Sids has come about for a number of reasons. Its is what maintenance orgs have found and reported back to the manufacturer, what the manufacturer has found themselves and the fact that the manufacturer did not expect that these aircraft would still be in service now.
In the mid 70s early 80s GA cessnas and other manufactures was booming here in Aust. Aircraft were relatively cheap and disposable.
Much like Beechcraft which had a buy back of the starshio so they could remove its type cert and there fore not have to support it. Some people didn't not return it to beech so they couldn't do it.
Cessnas answer was SIDS. This was to remove as many aircraft as they could by making it so hard and expensive to do, that you would walk away.


Problem is in many cases there are no alternative aircraft available and what are are extremely expensive and out of reach for most.


So some SIDS were you have to remove a rivet that is in a totally incesable position clearly chosen for that very reason to make it as hard as possible to do. Its clearly seen for what it is, to remove the aircraft from service, So what happens we do the inspection find nothing loose money on the service because the owner jumps up and down at the cost.


One saving grace is the now availability of relatively low cost of boroscopes that allow you to get into some of the tighter spots with out the need to disassemble de rivet a complete assy.


Now someone complained about the cost of doing an inspection and that its 1/10 of his hers wage, im sorry how is that my or anyone else's problem if they cannot afford the cost of ownership. I don't see many LAMES in GA with gold teeth. In fact that the LAME has subsidised the GA industry for ever with little or no reward for what the he or her has to achieve to get to the position of holing a Lic. Not to mention the legal holding which goes along with that.


Maintenance in Aust has always been cheap for what has been provided. This can be seen by the way that the average age of Lames is increasing and why the fact not many people are coming and when they do leave the industry. The fact that maintenance orgs are closing down and no new ones are opening up.


SIds is just one more thing if you own a Cessna you have to do to managing your aircraft in a serviceable condition.


ANd leadie isn't it time that you removed yourself from the chair and go to the crew rest

[tnuc]

The current maintenance system, including Schedule 5, was, introduced around 1991/1992 and removed the 3 year major. This was introduced by the regulator in response to lobbying by certain operators, and owner groups. Those that remember the Major should be able to remember that it was far more "in depth" and if it had continued, the condition of the Australian fleet would be far better.
It is unfortunate that since this change the standard of aircraft in this country had dropped dramatically.
Most GA aircraft in Australia are maintained to Schedule 5 (Sched 5 is a “minimum” standard), and without the “Major Inspection” aircraft standards have decreased dramatically.

If we imagined for a moment, that the SID was not “mandated” as it has been through Aviation Ruling 01/2014, how many Registered Operators (Owners) would request that the inspections prescribed in the SID document for their aircraft be carried out, or even taken into account during a 100 Hr or Annual inspection?
In fact how many Owners currently request any additional inspections above and beyond the minimum standard required now ? My guess is very few. All we see on here is constant winging and sookin about the cost of aircraft ownership ! Its hard to believe that anyone with that attitude is going to do anything that is not required off their own back.

If a SE Cessna is taken into maintenance to have the initial SID compliance carried out, it would be fair to say that All of the defects that that SID will or should uncover in that airframe already exist prior to the inspection, and in most cases probably have existed for considerable time, and those defects would still exist if the SID was mandated or not.

From what I have seen physically and in photographs, of dozens of SID inspections the biggest cost is not the actual inspections, but the repairs required because of what is found. The faults being found as a direct result of the lower standard of maintenance that was lobbied for in the early nineties.
Extensive corrosion seems to be the biggest finding, which is time consuming to repair, and unfortunately time is money.

Stating that the SID has devalued aircraft seems non sensical, it is the fact that it is probably carrying defects that devalues the aircraft.
I agree that many owners of aircraft cannot afford the cost of SID compliance, I have seen this, and sometimes the cost of compliance may be equal to or greater than the value of the aircraft, I also see that many owners struggle with the cost of the minimum maintenance standard without SID inspections. surely this argument can't be used to lower standards further, simply put, aircraft are expensive, learn this before you buy one, if you don't you will lean soon after your purchase. It is terrible seeing people buy an old aircraft only to sell it a couple of years later for a fraction of what they paid for it and leave the industry with a bad taste in their mouth, but it is a regular occurrence.
There is a solution but who knows what it is ?

[Frank Arouet]

Major inspections became a bore when all aluminium aeroplanes, (sorry airplanes for the spellchecker), became popular in Australia. Austers needed the fabric looked at and wood in the wings problematic. In tube fuselage aeroplanes, (sorry airplanes), rust was a problem also. Today modern fabrics repel even the best testing punches and there are inspection ports everywhere on Cessna's and Piper's. Be this as it may, the modern engineer just isn't up to scratch in inspections and many "modern" aeroplanes have been found with cut and broken cables, corroded brackets, illegal fuel systems and a plethora of other small things like delaminating skins.
The engineer who did a major did the work. Schedule 4-5 just let them off the hook and the lawyers entered the business over duty of care problems.


The main point these days is some engineers just can't do anything unless someone tells them to do it or it's written in the reg's. Can't bother doing what needs to be done in the name of common sense and a mindset of demarcation if they do something the reg's don't tell them they don't have to do.


The poor bloody owner usually cops it in the neck either way.

[yr right]

The main point these days is some engineers just can't do anything unless someone tells them to do it or it's written in the reg's. Can't bother doing what needs to be done in the name of common sense and a mindset of demarcation if they do something the reg's don't tell them they don't have to do


That's because that's the way we as lames have to approach it. We are reamed that there is no such thing as common sense. We the ones that get Casa on our backs all the time. We the ones that get charges and fined. Any wonder why we are gun shy. And when you been to court and your friend is done over because he used common sense when there was no maintenance program for that inspection and went beyond aches 5 in positive way and gets changed and looses on that point where are we at

[terminus mos]

Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?

[PLovett]

Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?

No :=

[baron_beeza]

The various Piper aircraft seem to be easier to maintain than some of the equivalents about. The Tomahawk, for example, is very well constructed and laid out, and as a result a breeze to maintain.
There are bulletins and now FAA SAIB's that the LAME's would be referring to during their inspections of these types. Many of the problematic areas revolve around dis-similar metal corrosion issues.

An owner of these aircraft would presumably be reading the SAIB's and getting involved in preventative maintenance. A spray of Inox or or other CIC would go a long way to keeping their machine healthy.
Piper have a very good free subscription service for owners' also.

[LeadSled]

Honestly leadie you need to see a dr and quickly. Your "Q" syndrome is out of control.yr wrong,
If anybody here need to see a shrink it is you, with your facade of an illiterate drongo being a bit tiresome, to say the least.

And as a matter of interest how many flying hours do you have.

And what possible relevance could my hours have to the matter of Cessna SIDs, other than you penchant for attacking anybody who disagrees with you, and attacking those two categories that you clearly regard as such serious threats to aviation safety:aircraft owners and pilots. Who, as a class, in your considered view, are so dumb they could not survive committing aviation without you heroic efforts.

Bring on the Canadian owner maintenance program, which would be a huge boost to light GA.

Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?

With Piper, it is an interesting story, with the bankruptcy history separating the current company called Piper from previous companies, and exactly just which entities hold the Type Certificates. I haven't followed it in detail in recent years, but there was a major effort to separate any liabilities from the old company and insulate the new company(s) from product liability for aircraft produced by the company that produced most of the aircraft we know as "Piper".

Tootle pip!!

[dubbleyew eight]

one should never attack the man.

I'm glad you don't service wheelbarrows because I wouldn't borrow one you'd worked on.

[Frank Arouet]

I agree with yr write;


Experience is of paramount importance in the aviation industry and it would seem his 70,000 hours as an engineer puts him/her in a category. By my sums 70,000 hours is 7.99 years. Less the learning / apprentice period of 4 years still leaves him/her with 3.99 years of real world experience.


Beat that LeadSled!

[porch monkey]

Actually Frank, to be charitable, I think he meant working hours. @40 hrs a week, that actually 33 years I think......:confused:

[Frank Arouet]

Oh, I see now. The 40 hour week. Didn't think of that.
Would that be 16.5 years on tools and 16.5 years filling out CAsA paperwork less the aforementioned student/ apprentice period, (when he learned "the reg's"), still leaves a very credible 12.5 years in the real world.
What say you, LeadSled? Huh!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Obviously, in yr wrong's way of thinking, without the extraordinary skill, daring, dexterity, dedication to duty and altogether humble virtuousness of the sainted LAME, the paramount goal of "air safety" would not be possible, as all those irresponsible and generally incompetent threats to air safety, known collectively as "pilots" and "owners", would have destroyed themselves.

yeh bring it on with some of the stuff ive seen in my 70000 hours of working on aircraft give our take a bit. the worst was done by an airline pilot. In fact the worst people to deal with are people of your stature. In my opinion, the above statement is as good an example of blind prejudice as I have seen in a while. Never let the facts stand in the way.

The success of the Canadian system is now well proven over 20 or so years, but let's uses a local example. The most common category of aircraft to turn up new on the VH-register (or RAOz 19-) are Experimental Amateur built, with performance that puts "factory built" aircraft in the shade. As most of the builders and maintainers are NOT LAMEs, I assume yr wrong would advocate they all be grounded immediately.

In fact the worst people to deal with are people of your stature.
Just a guess, but probably because we don't suffer fools gladly.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Speaking of law, I will give you a tip, it can be very expensive publishing the statement that somebody is a liar.

[junior.VH-LFA]

I ask this genuinely as I want to own an aircraft in the hopefully not so distant future (yes I know, insane etc etc I've heard it all before), do most LAMES in Australia share the attitude of yr right towards aircraft owners and operators, or is he not typical of your average LAME?

[Mach E Avelli]

LAMEs come in all flavours - good, bad, competent, incompetent, safe, dangerous, expensive, cheap, rich, not-so-rich. Never met one who was really poor, though some claimed to be. No different to pilots, really.
When you do buy an aeroplane just remember that if you are selective you can pick any two of fast, cheap and reliable. You will never have all three.

[wishiwasupthere]

Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30.

[Aussie Bob]

Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30.

And despite all that, expect a bill for 10 hours ...

[dhavillandpilot]

Lead sled is right LAMES come in ally shapes and sizes.

For the most part they are just trying to do a job made difficult by an obnoxious regulator.

Yr Wrong seems to be one of those LAMES that see us owners as cash cows, irrespective what our circumstances are.

My philosophy has always been if the work needs doing then do it, but don't come to me with a load of bull**** and tell me you know what right and me as the owner just take it.

In a previous life I had a reasonably large transport aircraft that needed some structural repairs. The engineer gave me the spiel of what had to be done in his view and refused to listen to my point of view.

It ended when he stated

"What would you know, I am the engineer you are just the pilot ands owner"

My reply, left him in no doubt

"Yes you are a LAME but I have the bit of paper ( degree) that says I'm a structural engineer who actually has the qualifications to design these structures"

Needless to say I eventually went elsewhere.

Perhaps we all need to take a step back and realise we are all in the same lifeboat.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Very interesting replies, thank you.

Also appreciate I didn't get any lectures on the idiocy of aircraft ownership.. that has to be a first!

[Hasherucf]

Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30.

Where do I get that job ? Start at 6am and finish when the work is finished. Saturdays and Sundays. Yes I take breaks during the day .... after all I am human.

Working in a workshop with people all doing the same. No I don't drink coffee all day because it makes me sick.

I get paid well for my job and average about 9 hours a day. If you wimps want to complain about my work I invite you to come work with me during wet season.

As for SIDs this could have be a good thread, but was derailed by some peoples hate of LAMES. :ugh:

[Propstop]

LFA,
The choice to own an aircraft is yours only (and possibly the bank) so becomes your problem.
They are no more expensive, if you can afford it, than beautiful women or German sports cars. I guess a lot cheaper; I am sure there are posters here who can vouch for that fact after their divorce.
The LAME bashing here is pointless as the average charge of the LAME is a LOT LESS than the German car mechanic. There are the good, bad, and average in all areas.
I am still, after 50 years, passionate about this industry, as are most pilots and engineers of my vintage. Our biggest concern is the dumbing down in all areas and the people coming through now who view it as just a job.
18 months now from whoa to go to become a LAME and for a pilot 200h to be in the RH seat of a airliner. In both cases a knowledge of procedures is emphasised more than a thorough understanding of the systems and their interactions with each other; one module done and passed so forget all and move onto the next one.
I have tried to explain to some how things really work and why; the stock answer is "I know" and the eyes glaze over. At that point I walk away and show no further interest in them. Sad!

[yr right]

Its quite funny all those that say they know me but actually don't. I actually get on very well with owners operators etc. Its just the odd few that rock my boat. I always look for the best outcome in all the work I do and the team around me.
And as for working im wondering how many of you miss xmas or new years day working in the heat of summer protecting others community houses lives or weekends to be on call but not get paid for it. How about ringing your local plumber or electrician to come out after hours. Yep they do that for free. And don't forget when your on a trip and you have a dead mag and go to the hangar and expect everyone to drop what they doing and give you 100 precent because your just the most important person in the world.


And then don't forget that we know nothing and you all know it all. Fact is most pilots what they know about maintenance can be written on a head of a pin with a felt tip marker.


This is what we do week in week out. Every wonder why there arnt many Lames on here.
Fact is Lames are a dying breed. Money is not the best for the legal responsibility that we hold. When a Dr makes a mistake he takes one out at a time, we take multiply. And if its so easy why don't you do it,
But bus drivers like leadsled that know it all but actually don't that tell you that you are not issuing a M/R right but never have issued one in their life and tell you doing it wrong and you don't know what your doing but never have signed for anything either, typical of the breed.


Its easy to be brave when you don't have to sign for it

[yr right]

PS: Speaking of law, I will give you a tip, it can be very expensive publishing the statement that somebody is a liar


Read what I wrote leadsled I think the radiation at altitude has diminished some of what left of your grey matter.
I said I don't suffer fools liars etc if you read that into yourself then feel free but that is not what I wrote.


And those that would not me work on a wheel barrow or your aircraft that's fine no problem. Please PM me with your name and aircraft rego so if you do have a break down ill know not to come out and get you going again.


And BTW frank over 35 years full time work on aircraft and that dose not count of a full life time in and around the industry.

[RatsoreA]

yr right/wrong,

It's amazing how your writing goes from indecipherable gibberish to mostly legible, when it suits you...

[jas24zzk]

Yr-right,
If I owned an aeroplane, I'd let you work on it, as you seem to be a conscientious bloke that would produce a positive outcome for my aeroplane.

But there is no way in hell I would permit YOU to put pen to paper on its logs!!

I know we are only on an internet forum, however at least trying to type up something that makes sense is just as important to making your point, as it is to entering information on an aeroplanes logs.

__________________________

I took the time recently, in light of this discussion to view the invoices of a few friends, and I almost fell over.

The worst was......
100 hourly inspection to VH-XXX.... $XXXX.XX

They didn't improve much from there.

The hourly rate paid to LAME's is just a joke! Any wonder it cannot retain people...the smash repair industry is not much better.

The smarter LAME's are issuing invoices that show actual time on the aeroplane, and as a seperate line, the time spent doing the administrative tasks associated with that work.

The owners getting the dual line invoices are surprised, as the cost of paperwork is often half the bill.

How many owners on here are paying $100 per hour or more for maintenance?

As propstop says, most are happier to pay more for their porsche than they are for their 50 year old cessna.

[Aussie Bob]

To the several LAME's who may have taken offense at my previous comments, I hold your trade in the highest regard. Personally I have no real complaints about any of the work I have received, or any of any of the bills relating to the said work that I have paid, and that is all of them.

Back to the subject of SIDS, whether they are mandatory in other countries or not, my observation is that they are required. Seemingly good looking Cessnas, when thoroughly inspected are nothing more than a heap of corroded metal gathered together by rivets and paint. Cessna, in this instance know what they are talking about.

I feel for some Cessna owners, their pride and joy has had its value reduced to nothing more than the second hand value of the viable parts. Looking through the Aviation Trader, I see Cessna aircraft with SIDS completed are for sale at around the value they they sold for prior to the term being coined. I also see Cessna aircraft being advertised with the rather dubious "SIDS compliant" label, which suggests to me that the owner is of the opinion that the aircraft will pass these inspections. I also see bargain basement prices for aircraft that would have fetched double or even triple the asking price a few years ago, that may or may not pass a through SIDS program.

Very little lasts forever, certainly not Cessna aircraft. Certainly I am glad I sold mine some time before SIDS were invented and purchased a machine built this century, but even it has had corrosion and age issues.

Buy a pre SIDS Cessna at your peril. A post SIDS Cessna may last another couple of decades or so if the work was done correctly and the aircraft is hangared.

[Dexta]

The problem with the mandatory SIDS (and other blanket rulings from the regulator) is that a few of the old Cessna's were rebuilt, maybe 5-10 years ago, due to the regular inspections finding problems or simply as a restoration project. Now these owners or subsequent owners are told they have to have a full inspection despite knowing that the whole aircraft was stripped and rebuilt not that long ago. Yes it will pass the inspection with flying colours but it is another cost imposed upon a conscientious person who looks after their aircraft.

[Aussie Bob]

I agree, and the biggest problem with anything mandatory is that it caters only to the lowest common denominator. I really do feel for some Cessna owners and I know of a few exactly as described by Dexta.

But what to do? Personally I am totally in favour of giving the LAME much more scope in what he/she does. Mandatory stuff makes me want to rebel ;-)

[LeadSled]

Read what I wrote leadsled I think the radiation at altitude has diminished some of what left of your grey matter.
I said I don't suffer fools liars etc if you read that into yourself then feel free but that is not what I wrote.

Yr wrong,
I did note what you wrote, here maybe the the problem is that you can't read and understand what you wrote. Context is everything.
Tootle pip!!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Quit the bickering or the thread gets locked. :ugh:

[thorn bird]

really you guys, I'm going back to Aunty!

[Wunwing]

Laws, unfortunately are always made for the lowest common denominator.
From what I've seen of a few GA aircraft that I've been involved with during SIDS inspections, there are some pretty bad aircraft out there.A similar age motor vehicle would have been totally rebuilt or scrapped long ago.

How CASA can ensure these aircraft are rebuilt or scrapped without impacting on the good ones is a difficult subject. If you talk to truckies in NSW at least, they will tell horror stories of RMA and Police inspections on their perfectly "serviceable" vehicles. Unfortunately major defects and loading problems still regularly turn up even in that almost strict regime.

How to handle SIDS in Australia in a "fair" way seems to me to be an impossible task . Denigrating the LAMEs who have to make the decisions on what needs to be done within an almost impossible regulatory system achieves nothing but show that the poster doesn't remotely understand either the legal or practical area that LAMEs work under daily for a wage well under that of the equivalent motor tradesman.

Ultimately there will be no LAMEs. Who would come into an industry that chronically underpays for work done (including the paperwork) and exposes the LAME to massive potential legal liabilities. My recommendation when asked is to avoid the job and go somewhere else that pays well and isn't so full of legal traps.

Wunwing

[Looigi]

I have been reading this thread with quite a bit of interest.

Here in New Zealand, the SID's program is also mandatory. What I am hearing around the campfire is that these inspections are turning up some serious issues with some otherwise well maintained aircraft. I have seen a few pictures of defects that would have caused serious accidents if they were left much longer. I can think of at least two very nice looking Cessna's in which wheet-bix looking wing ribs were replaced due to a SID's inspection.

As to the argument between some of the pilots and engineers on here, if a pilot makes a mistake, they generally pay the consequences immediately. By comparison, an engineer's oops may lay dormant for years before causing an accident. I have to sign an aircraft is airworthy and I have no idea what you are going to do with it once it leaves my hangar. Imagine going to jail because of a mistake you made on a job you did 20 years ago! It has happened.

LAME's take their jobs seriously and I have never met one who intentionally does a bad job. Having said that, there are good ones and some not so good.... just like pilots I guess.

You might have figured out that I am a LAME..... And a (private) pilot..... And an aircraft owner. This SID's program is not one that we have asked for, so can we please accept that it is here, we all have to make the best of it we can, and get on with it? Peacefully??

[LeadSled]

Looigi,
By the sound of it, the NZ experience is much the same as here.

Even before the SIDs were published, based on experience. I decided that, if I ever bought another 100 series Cessna, I would only buy one with completely rebuilt wings. This came about as a result of an association with a program to completely rebuild C-152 to "better than new" standards, part of the "better" being effective corrosion proofing during re-assembly.

Nothing I have seen since has suggested that was an excessively cautious decision. Some C 402 have varied from ugly to scary. None, nil, naught have been "good".

One thing I like about my activities in NZ (and US/CA) is the almost complete absence of the kind of rancor that so infests aviation in Australia, with various AU groups for ever at each other's throats, handing an already pre-divided sector to the "regulators" to conquer with minimum effort.

This is evident throughout the Australian based threads/posts on pprune, and most other Australian aviation related blog sites.

With the exception of your CAA doctors (the head honcho being Australian), even NZ CAA is a relative pleasure to do business with, compared to CASA here, CAA NZ being a "can do" outfit, versus CASA "can't do".

Is is so surprising that so many other countries have followed the NZ approach to aviation legislation in their own reform programs, it works.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Sorry about the slight thread drift, folks.

[yr right]

The amount of work that the s required just to do the inspectors is in believeable. A lot of SIDS is also referenced SBs etc which a lot of you do not wish to do. So you have to find out what has been done. What needs to be done.
A 310 for example take nearly 3 days of work in just looking and doing research into the log book. That's before you have even lifted a panel. So that takes one person 24 hours that needs to be paid for. So are you saying that it should be free ? It gets worse if it a 400. Even 100 and 200 series aircraft take a considerable amount of time. Then you have to have a guy if required to do eddy current insp that on a 310 for example going to cost upwards of $3000 and the cost continues. I and a lot of us find some of these insp a waste and it's clear that what the reasoning is behind it is. How ever it's not a pick and choose. It's also clear that it's picking up a lot of SBs etc that have not been complied with. Dose it make it safer. Yes and no.

[jakessalvage]

The SIDS experience in NZ has been better managed because of a couple of significant differences. NZ does not have CASA Schedule 5 and the ARA process addressed many aircraft poor records and compliance matters with modifications and repairs many years ago. There are other advantages like the 337 system but all of what has been implemented in NZ could be implemented in Australia. Except it won't work if it's Australianised like other regulatory reform.

[PLovett]

Have a look at some of the photographs on the following and then say SIDs is a waste of money.

CASA Airworthiness Bulletin (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/048.pdf)

[Sunfish]

You should have seen the cracks in the elevator torque tubes of the C172 I flew. What a mess after deskinning.

[27/09]

PLovett: Have a look at some of the photographs on the following and then say SIDs is a waste of money.

CASA Airworthiness Bulletin

IMHO those photos prove nothing.

You shouldn't need a SIDS programme to find those issues. Some of the examples in that bulletin are examples of gross negligence or incompetence. They were certainly did not come about through proper maintenance.

If the relevant manufacturers inspections had been carried out by a competent person most of the those examples would have been found without a SIDS programme. For those items that may not be picked up on an inspection checklist, my experience has been that any engineer worth his salt will know from experience to look for these issues as well.

[Lead Balloon]

This ^^^^^. :D

[dhavillandpilot]

The scary part is this is just the Cessnas I've seen similar with Chieftains

One of the things that attracted me to the Twin Commander was the inspections. Because of past wing spar problems things like what was illustrated would get picked up early

I'll bet Pipers will get a SID too

[Wunwing]

I agree that some of the photos on the CASA doc show items that should have been picked up on regular inspections but some of those and the bad ones that I've seen would never have been picked up without at least partial de-skinning.

Until SIDS I'm not sure that an owner would agree to any LAME proposal to remove the skin just because there may be a problem underneath.

Wunwing

[yr right]

IMHO those photos prove nothing.

You shouldn't need a SIDS programme to find those issues. Some of the examples in that bulletin are examples of gross negligence or incompetence. They were certainly did not come about through proper maintenance.

If the relevant manufacturers inspections had been carried out by a competent person most of the those examples would have been found without a SIDS programme. For those items that may not be picked up on an inspection checklist, my experience has been that any engineer worth his salt will know from experience to look for these issues as well.


Omg. These are just a few pics. Some examples of what is out there to be found.
You don't wish to do SBs or manufacturers insp you wish to do Schedule 5. Yet you expect that everything is looked at. Well it can't. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. Oh I'll just de rivet this wing to have a look. Oh and we won't charge you as well because you expect that as well.
Point is if these were old cars they be off the road

[baron_beeza]

In most countries the regs normally spell out the owner's obligations regards the maintenance.
It is normally the owner that is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is maintained in the correct manner. My experience has always been that the LAME or A&P desires a greater depth that many owners are prepared to accept.
There would appear to have been many owners/operators that wanted Sched 5, AC43 App C, or similar minimal levels that are perceived to cost the least.

The SID's has highlighted the aging aircraft philosophy for many and all the Pipers I currently work on are maintained to the manufacturer's schedule with the SAIB's and SB's being used for the preventative tasks.

Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Corrosion SAIB | AMT Community (http://www.askbob.aero/content/piper-pa-28-pa-32-pa-34-and-pa-44-saib-ce-11-12)


https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/SAIB/

Here is the listing for a 140..
PA-28-140
CE-11-14 01/05/2011 Stabilizers- Vertical Stabilizer on Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Attach Point Corrosion
CE-11-13 01/05/2011 Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Spar Corrosion
CE-10-17 02/23/2010 Landing Gear - Piper PA-28 and PA-32 Main Landing Gear Torque Link Inspection Interval
CE-11-42 06/29/2011 Flight Controls: Control Cable/Pulley Inspections
CE-11-10 01/05/2011 Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Corrosion on Flap Hinges, Brackets, and Ribs
CE-09-23 04/07/2009 Fuel: Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34
CE-09-17 03/10/2009 Fuel: Piper PA-28 Series Aircraft Fuel Vent and Supply Hose Condition
CE-11-01 10/04/2010 Stabilizers -Horizontal Stabilator – Turnbuckle
CE-11-11 01/05/2011 Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, and PA-34 Aileron Hinge Fitting Corrosion
CE-11-12 01/05/2011 PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Rear Spar Corrosion at Fuselage Attach Fitting
CE-13-26 03/27/2013 Engine Air Intake System; Air Box Vanes
CE-14-22 07/10/2014 Fuel Selector/Shut-Off Valve
CE-14-23 08/06/2014 Powerplant; Air Intake

Again, I think all the owners would subscribe to the free notification and publication service offered by both the FAA and Piper.

Those guys, at least, have been proactive and should have an inkling of any plans Piper may have for the future re-write of any schedules.

The beauty of many of those inspections is that a regular spray of Inox or similar would go a long way to big savings later on down the track.

Surely there can't be many owners about that are just ignoring this basic stuff.

[dubbleyew eight]

the core of the problem isn't the corrosion, the cracks or the deterioration.

the question is why owners want to persist with old aeroplanes?
the answers are easy to see if you look.

design standards, those things that are so poorly understood, haven't been maintained by engineers for years. they have been adulterated by clerical arse coverers for years to the point that they are near on meaningless.
why weren't corrosion issues addressed at the design phase?
why were companies allowed to design for a throw away 12 year nominal life?
couldn't anyone see the current issues developing?

litigation, the great contribution made by lawyers, :yuk: has seen what were cheaply produced aeroplanes so loaded up with insurance costs that they became inordinately expensive investments.

amortisation against income tax has not been available to owners for as long as I can remember.
only businesses can amortise and write off the value of an investment against the income it generates. so while businesses can dispose of a zero residual value item and replace it with a new one to be written off over time the poor old private owner is stuck with an inordinately expensive item that stays at its purchase price.

certification has at its core a huge logic fault.
if I buy a car and I prang it that is my problem. the manufacturer has no real issues once the guarantee period has expired.
I'm free to drive and maintain that car as I wish within roadworthiness guidelines. if I prang the car the manufacturer isn't hauled in front of a court and made to pay huge penalties. outside of the warranty period we have effectively gone our separate ways.
as a result of this and other factors cars are cheaper than aeroplanes.

why in hell does the legal system pursue aircraft manufacturers to the point that none are even commercially viable now?
why is it that CAsA were sued 10 million for the crash of the restored warbird when it suffered a cracked jet pipe?
CAsA had nothing to do with the aircraft manufacture, nothing to do with the aircraft restoration, nothing to do with the maintenance. so why was it liable?
why it was liable is a legal pox that needs to be corrected.

all of these factors conspire to make aviation a hopeless industry.

issues with LAME's, commercial viability, crappy old aeroplanes are all just symptoms of an environment that hasn't been healthy and hasn't worked well in decades.
since you've micromanaged it into a death, thanks for nothing CAsA.