What will happen to non compliant SIDS aircraft?

[Alchemy101]

This question has been hinted at - but not answered - in the other SIDS threads I have read. I've heard that after the end of this month, no cessna without SIDS compliance can be flown in Australia, regardless of whether it's for private use or commercial.

I'm aware of plenty of aircraft that are used by private owners (and shared with other PPL holders) which have not had SIDS done. There must be hundreds, if not 1000+ of these I've also noticed a lot of cessnas with no or partial SIDS listed online for bargain basement prices.

Assuming many owners won't have $20k for SIDS, and that there are plenty of aircraft with uncertainty about whether they'll pass SIDS, or that the cost of SIDS + compliance will exceed the cost of the airframe, what will happen? Will we see half the cessnas at local airfields sent to the wreckers? Or is there another option I'm not aware of?

[thorn bird]

Beer Cans?

[tail wheel]

Scrap aluminium currently quoted Aus$0.20 to Aus$1.50 per kilogram.

Scrap Metal Prices | Australia (http://www.scrapsmetalprices.com/)

That values a 730 kg Cessna 172 around Aus$620.50 at average price.

Not bad for some of the Cessna 172's I've seen over the years!

:} :}

[Ultralights]

i wonder why there is a sudden increase in the numbers of cessnas now available for wrecking and parts..

[tail wheel]

This thread contains the first PPRuNe Wiki Post anywhere in the public areas of PPRuNe! :ok:

[Squawk7700]

As a matter of interest there are a bit over 4,000 Cessna's currently on the Australian GA register.

The approximate breakdown is as follows: (Not including turbine models other than c208)

1 x c120
12 x c140
385 x c150
163 x c152
4 x c162
22 x c170
1089 x 172
27 x 175
61 x 177
92 x 180
773 x 182
54 x 185
60 x 188
3 x 190
9 x 195
176 x 206
20 x 207
101 x 208
302 x 210
9 x 303
11 x 305
110 x 310
41 x 337
20 x 340
2 x 401
53 x 402
1 x 411
9 x 414
11 x 421
36 x 404
41 x 441

[underfire]

Or is there another option I'm not aware of?

Sell them in the US!

[Alchemy101]

Thanks for the replies. So they're basically scrap! Seems like a terrible waste as many good aircraft will presumably be ditched. Or maybe an opportunity to buy one and put it through SIDS..

And what happens to the not yet compliant Cessnas that are parked at airfields with no LAME cover... will they even be able to be flown to another airfield to undergo the checks?

[Squawk7700]

And what happens to the not yet compliant Cessnas that are parked at airfields with no LAME cover... will they even be able to be flown to another airfield to undergo the checks?

You would simply put them on the back of a truck and drive them to the LAME. Not a big deal really having to take the wings off. They will most likely need to come off anyway.

[Lead Balloon]

Or get a ferry flight SFP.

Should be easy, for a no-pax, no forecast turbulence flight to the maintenance org.

[Alchemy101]

Thanks guys that makes sense.

Seems a bit crazy that people might stop flying old cessnas due to no SIDS, and shift to flying old pipers instead!

Might be time to acquire a few cessnas for decoration around the yard.

[gassed budgie]

The feedback at the moment seems to be that around 50% of the Cessna fleet affected (afflicted?) by the SID's program have yet to be inspected, or at least only partially comply with the program. That figure translates to around 15% of the entire GA fleet. I would assume that on the 30th of June we're going to see a similar reduction in staffing levels at CAsA.

And one other thing. If I see a certain 70 year old Globe/Temco Swift taking to the skies after the end of the month when hundreds/thousands of previously airworthy Cessna's have been pushed up against the wall at the back of the hangar, I'm hoping the owner will be able to tell me what ageing aircraft program or equivalent SID's documentation he has in place to keep us all safe from his pontentially dangerous, unsafe flying machine.

If its good enough for me to piss a ****load of money up against the wall on my 35 year old 172, all in the name of safety of course, its gotta be good enough for him with his 70 year old Swift.

[FAR CU]

who knows why this is? who can supply a reasoned informed argument
that explains why one much older aircraft of all metal construction
is not subject to the rigorous inspection schedules that the owners of older Cessna 100 and 200 series are? we who have invested large sums of moolah in our aircraft deserve honest and detailed answers to this.

[Squawk7700]

Talk to a LAME about it... it's not always as bad as it may appear at first. I've heard prices from $3k to $20k+. One particular aircraft at the bottom end of the price scale I heard of was out of action for 10+ years so it was a no-brainer in terms of signing it off.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

At the moment, C182P and newer appear to be increasing in value in the US...something they know that we do not?

[LeadSled]

who knows why this is? who can supply a reasoned informed argument
that explains why one much older aircraft of all metal construction
is not subject to the rigorous inspection schedules that the owners of older Cessna 100 and 200 series are? we who have invested large sums of moolah in our aircraft deserve honest and detailed answers to this. Far Cu,
Surprisingly, there are reasons.
The first is that the Cessna program sprang from US legislation (not FAA) creating an Aging Aircraft Act ( to use the AU terminology) surveillance programs, from memory about 2001.There are now "SIDs" for virtually all CAR4/FAR 25 aircraft.
There has been some recent very interesting argie bargie between Cessna and FAA on the subject, look it up, Cessna had a big loose v. FAA, and all to the very great financial benefit of aircraft owners.
There have never been programs for Piper aircraft, because of interesting legal issues as to who is responsible for compliance with the above Act, given various bankruptcies and changes of ownership.
The Beechcraft version of reasons was more complex, but now it is owned ( for practical purposes) by Cessna (Textron), watch this space, I have seen some really 'horrible corrosion in a couple of Barons.

As to many aircraft like the Swift (and there are hundreds of long since defunct manufacturers) there is no Type Certificate Holder liable to produce a SID program, and in risk management terms, FAA is not too bothered, and Mr. Skidmore's aeroplane represents no measurable risk to "other airspace users or those on the ground under the flight-path of the aircraft".

What does not apply to a private aircraft in US applies here, because of our "one size fits all" approach, as opposed to the FAR Part 91/135/125/121 graded (risk managed) approach to continuing airworthiness. SIDs do apply to an aircraft operated under FAR Part 135 (roughly charter).
Tootle pip!!

[Band a Lot]

The other thing to note is the number of Cessna parts no longer available.

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-57-015-issue-1-cessna-400-series-wing-front-spar-lower-attachment-fittings

More after market parts is NOT safer always.

[kobi]

As a matter of interest there are a bit over 4,000 Cessna's currently on the Australian GA register.

The approximate breakdown is as follows: (Not including turbine models other than c208)

1 x c120
12 x c140
385 x c150
163 x c152
4 x c162
22 x c170
1089 x 172
27 x 175
61 x 177
92 x 180
773 x 182
54 x 185
60 x 188
3 x 190
9 x 195
176 x 206
20 x 207
101 x 208
302 x 210
9 x 303
11 x 305
110 x 310
41 x 337
20 x 340
2 x 401
53 x 402
1 x 411
9 x 414
11 x 421
36 x 404
41 x 441


Do you mind sharing where you get this info from? I've been looking for stats like this.

[601]

Beer Cans?
Not possible due to the composition of the alloys used in the airframe.

[Vag277]

Kobi

CASA aircraft register

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Just to add to my previous post, the FAA maintenance requirements for aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 determine what has to be done, FAR Part 43 tells you how to do it, and the relevance of the manufacturer's maintenance manual is NOT the same as here ------ the argy-bargy I referred to in the previous post alludes to the FAA rejecting the SIDS in MMM as being mandatory.

FAA determined that the original certification plus subsequent ADs determines the airworthiness of the aircraft ---- effectively FAA said that making the MMM SIDS mandatory for a Part 91 aircraft amounted to retrospective re-certification, and not on.

But CASA does not differentiate operational usage, and the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual and all who sail in her has almost biblical significance to CASA, it would seem, hence "one size fits all".

If you are operating under FAR Parts 121/125/135 the maintenance requirements will flow from that Part, and will be more extensive than Part 91 --- which is largely Private and much of what we would call Airwork.

In short, graduated risk management --- anathema to CASA.

Last time I looked, NZ followed the US --- NOT Australia.

So, the bottom line is --- blame CASA for this expensive write-off of aircraft ---- "Safety is our first (and only) priority" and to hell with the costs.

A result of S.9A of the Act, and the amendments proposed by Minister MickMac changes nothing ----- unlike the amendments agreed between Barnaby Joyce, Anthony Albanese and Dick Smith, which at least had some prospect of making a difference.

Tootle pip!!