Cessna 210 Accident Mt ISA

[Hasherucf]

Cessna 210 (https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/fatal-aviation-incident-mount-isa/news-story/5d436ba3a186635270996364c1fd567e)

Anyone know the rego ?

[wishiwasupthere]

I don’t want to put the rego here in case i’m wrong, but flightaware shows a C210 that’s been operating out of Mount Isa over the past week. Based on the registered operator, probably doing mag survey.

[RatsoreA]

There is actually two of them there, both 210s I think, doing survey work, I was chatting to them a few days ago... very sad. One I think was SUX but I can't remember what the other was...

Fly safe.

[Mister Warning]

Confirmed in media VH-SUX.
Sadly 2 POB and 2 fatalities.

[RatsoreA]

Early rumour say it may have shed a wing... :sad:

[Ixixly]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2019/cessna-210-carry-through-spar-failure/?fbclid=IwAR0kbA1z_Hpn183c95l2brvn11iTX6E1ntUoGnvYHSBCknV0T3 Dzyd6gjYI

In-Flight wing seperation seems to be pretty much confirmed. 12,000hrs but that's not a heck of a lot for a C210!

RIP and condolences to all those affected.

[Josh Cox]

Well done ATSB.

[Hugh Mungus]

Well done ATSB.
Hmmmm Wing seperation Im surprised nobody has mentioned SIDs was the Inspection done and by whom ?

[Eddie Dean]

Hmmmm Wing seperation Im surprised nobody has mentioned SIDs was the Inspection done and by whom ?
Good point Hugh, will be interesting should this section be part of single engine SIDS criteria.

[B772]

Would the installation of wing tip fuel tanks had an impact ?

[DUXNUTZ]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2019/cessna-210-carry-through-spar-failure/?fbclid=IwAR0kbA1z_Hpn183c95l2brvn11iTX6E1ntUoGnvYHSBCknV0T3 Dzyd6gjYI

In-Flight wing seperation seems to be pretty much confirmed. 12,000hrs but that's not a heck of a lot for a C210!

RIP and condolences to all those affected.

i remember years ago some of the ex-Airnorth ones had somewhere close to 20k. Wonder if IDZ is still flying?

[Bend alot]

Hmmmm Wing seperation Im surprised nobody has mentioned SIDs was the Inspection done and by whom ?
The single engine Cessna SID's program (yes has spar/wing inspection requirements) is for non modified aircraft.

That does not mean Supplementary Inspection Documents are not applicable to modified aircraft - just the ones produced by Cessna are not applicable.

I assume an IO-550 with a Black Mac, tip tanks and a stinger would be some of the modifications incorporated.

[Buswinker]

i remember years ago some of the ex-Airnorth ones had somewhere close to 20k. Wonder if IDZ is still flying?

the reg is certainly still in use, and attached to a 210

[Hjane]

Is this not something serious enough that all 210’s should be grounded till they find out if this was from a unique failure to this aircraft? Plenty of 210’s out there with at least that many hours and it would have had sids it’s doing commercial operations.

[plotplot]

i remember years ago some of the ex-Airnorth ones had somewhere close to 20k. Wonder if IDZ is still flying?

She certainly is, and flying well, IFR and all.

Only 12,000 hours but 6000 of those have been smashing around at low level doing surveys. Seems like a lot of punishment on those spars.

[Bend alot]

Is this not something serious enough that all 210’s should be grounded till they find out if this was from a unique failure to this aircraft? Plenty of 210’s out there with at least that many hours and it would have had sids it’s doing commercial operations.
The aircraft in question had been modified,possibly more relevant is that the wings had been modified - not by Cessna, so the Cessna SID's are not applicable.

[Global Aviator]

Many hours in many 210’s. What was the last model built the R? 1986 (yes to lazy to Google...).

Fact is any 210 flying is a minimum of 25 years old and more realistically 30-40+++.

Just like many others... wing separation no matter what type is scary... as a pilot unless your in a Cirrus you are FARKED!

[ironbutt57]

Many hours in many 210’s. What was the last model built the R? 1986 (yes to lazy to Google...).

Fact is any 210 flying is a minimum of 25 years old and more realistically 30-40+++.

Just like many others... wing separation no matter what type is scary... as a pilot unless your in a Cirrus you are FARKED!


even in a Cirrus, unless you're quick to the draw, you're done. The airplane's reaction to a wing separation (unless it's a partial one) is sudden and violent, by the time most of us would have our wits about us, the speed would be well above the CAPS deployment envelope

[Eddie Dean]

Cessna has issued an Emergency SB about this issue.

[On eyre]

Cessna has issued an Emergency SB about this issue.

Mandatory and all - just do it people.

[QFF]

Isn't there an AD/Cessna 210/61 to do with checking corrosion in the wing spar carry through every 6 years? Would evidence of fatigue cracking be discovered during these inspections? Or does it just suddenly occur ?

[anxiao]

As I read the SL it states, and I am sure Cessna will not mind a quote here,

"The Carry-Thru spar inspection presented in this service letter applies to airplanes listed in the Effectivity Section. The compliance time is for unmodified airplanes, and represents the maximum allowable time. Airplanes that have been modified to alter the airplane design, gross weight, or airplane performance, may need to inspect sooner. Examples of common supplemental type certificates (STC’s) include vortex generators, wing cuffs, STOL kits, wing tips, and add-on wing fuel tanks. Contact the STC holder for revised inspection intervals.

MANDATORY. This service document must be accomplished within 10 flight hours from date of receipt as follows...>"

So I would say it is not strictly true that it "does not apply to modified aircraft." If you have any modifications it could well be that the ten hours to compliance will be less. And I'll bet that most of the STC holders have yet to do an analysis on the the stress loadings for their mod. If I had tip tanks on a high time C210 that has not been eddy current tested I would put it on the ground now and get it done.

In some countries this SB has been done at (I think) every 2,000 hours as a mandatory procedure for years.

[rutan around]

In some countries this SB has been done at (I think) every 2,000 hours as a mandatory procedure for years.

Any idea how many carry through spars were found to be unserviceable in all those years? I would think approx none unless the aircraft had an unusual operational history like 6,000 hours of fast low flying in rough conditions.Does anyone yet if the aircraft had any previous accident history?

[Bend alot]

In most cases this "mandatory" Service Letter is not required to be carried out in Australia. (This will vary with some AWI's)

Different if it is a Service Bulletin.

Cessna have passed on responsibility of modified aircraft.

I have heard that 1 in 4 (25%) that have been inspected in the USA failed - I am not sure if that was due corrosion limits and/or cracking.

I expect an FAA AD will soon follow and booking your NDT now might be a smart move - An owner/operator saying "but SL's are not mandatory" should be looking for a new pilot.

[lucille]

“6,000 hours of fast low flying in rough conditions”

Are you sure they fly fast? Most survey work is done at slower speeds to get better resolution.
If their operations are 200AGL or less, it may not be nearly as rough as one imagines. The thermals will not have had time to build and accelerate.

[Bend alot]

One thing to think about is Cessna, and will they supply new Carry-Thru Spars?

[Cloudee]

“6,000 hours of fast low flying in rough conditions”

Are you sure they fly fast? Most survey work is done at slower speeds to get better resolution.
If their operations are 200AGL or less, it may not be nearly as rough as one imagines. The thermals will not have had time to build and accelerate.

200 ft agl at 140 to 150 knots, then hook it around to get on line for the next closely spaced run for five hours at a time. This aircraft had tip tanks.
From the ATSB:OperationThe flight was one of a number of flights undertaken for the purpose of a geological survey to the north and north-east of Mount Isa.

The survey was conducted in a grid pattern, with closely spaced east and west lines along with more widely spaced north and south lines flown for data verification purposes. The flight profile closely followed the topography of the survey area at a speed of about 140-150 kt with procedure turns flown at each end of a survey line.

Each flight typically lasted for about 5 hours with multiple flights required to complete each survey. Two flights were normally flown each day in accordance with allowable environmental and daylight conditions, each flight on a given day being operated by a different pilot.

The aircraft typically departed with full fuel, resulting in it operating at close to the maximum allowable take-off weight.

[The Big E]

An owner/operator saying "but SL's are not mandatory"

It is not what the Name of the Document is - It is the actual content that needs attention or the required Maintenance etc. This SB and SL myth has been perpetuated for a long time. Look how McCauley have updated some of their older Prop. Manuals over the years, e.g. through the use of SLs.

Ya all take heed out there.

[Bend alot]

It is not what the Name of the Document is - It is the actual content that needs attention or the required Maintenance etc. This SB and SL myth has been perpetuated for a long time. Look how McCauley have updated some of their older Prop. Manuals over the years, e.g. through the use of SLs.

Ya all take heed out there.
Not what CAsA say in most offices - just look at what SID's are now "mandatory" nothing short of a joke!

[anxiao]

Digging a bit deeper into the SL and the documents that it references. I am working on the C177 figures but as far as we see the C210 is the same, as it has essentially the same carry through spar structure.

The documents for reference includes Temporary Revision number 8 dated 1 December 2011 (for the C177) which defined Severe usage and Severe environments. Severe Usage is defined below, and for Australia all the coastline and inland for about 500km is considered as severe environment. (It is difficult to see the scale on the corrosion maps but it looks about 500km to a non Oz)

The SL goes on to say that:

For airplanes flown in SEVERE Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00:

Airplanes that have more than 2,500 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours.

Airplanes that have less than 2,500 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours upon reaching 2,500 flight hours.

It is acceptable to accomplish this service document before 2,500 hours to align with a scheduled maintenance event or inspection.


2. Inspection Requirements

A. Two types of inspection requirements are available based on operating usage and two additional types of inspections are available based on operating environment.
(1) Operating Usage

(a) Severe Usage Environment

1 If the average flight length is less than 30 minutes, then you must use the SEVERE inspection time limits.

2 If the airplane has been engaged in operations at low altitudes such as pipeline patrol, fish or game spotting, aerial applications, police patrol, sightseeing, livestock management, etc. more than 30% of its life you must use the SEVERE inspection time limits.


(b) Typical Usage Environment
1 If neither 2(A)(1)(a)(1) or 2(A)(1)(a)(2) above applies, the TYPICAL usage environment applies.

(2) Operating Environment

(a) Severe Corrosion Environment

1 If the airplane is operating more than 30% of the time in a zone shown as severe on the corrosion severity maps in Section 2A-30-01, then the SEVERE CORROSION environment time limits apply.

(b) Mild or Moderate Corrosion Environment

1 If 2(A)(2)(a)(1) does not apply, then the MILD/MODERATE CORROSION environment time limits apply.

So your low level aircraft around the coast of Australia come under the Severe Usage 2500 hour limit as above.

For airplanes flown in TYPICAL Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00: (ie not Severe usage)

Airplanes that have more than 15,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours.

Airplanes that have less than 15,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours upon reaching 15,000 flight hours.

It is acceptable to accomplish this service document before 15,000 flight hours to align with a scheduled maintenance event or inspection.


So if you have a 14,900 hour C210/C177 in the middle of Australia that has had an easy life, relax, you've got another 100 hours before you need to do the SL. :}

That is if CASA even follows the American SL/SB system, which as a non Oz I do not know.

FWIW

[Bend alot]

Digging a bit deeper into the SL and the documents that it references. I am working on the C177 figures but as far as we see the C210 is the same, as it has essentially the same carry through spar structure.

The documents for reference includes Temporary Revision number 8 dated 1 December 2011 (for the C177) which defined Severe usage and Severe environments. Severe Usage is defined below, and for Australia all the coastline and inland for about 500km is considered as severe environment. (It is difficult to see the scale on the corrosion maps but it looks about 500km to a non Oz)

The SL goes on to say that:

For airplanes flown in SEVERE Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00:

Airplanes that have more than 2,500 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours.

Airplanes that have less than 2,500 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours upon reaching 2,500 flight hours.

It is acceptable to accomplish this service document before 2,500 hours to align with a scheduled maintenance event or inspection.


2. Inspection Requirements

A. Two types of inspection requirements are available based on operating usage and two additional types of inspections are available based on operating environment.
(1) Operating Usage

(a) Severe Usage Environment

1 If the average flight length is less than 30 minutes, then you must use the SEVERE inspection time limits.

2 If the airplane has been engaged in operations at low altitudes such as pipeline patrol, fish or game spotting, aerial applications, police patrol, sightseeing, livestock management, etc. more than 30% of its life you must use the SEVERE inspection time limits.


(b) Typical Usage Environment
1 If neither 2(A)(1)(a)(1) or 2(A)(1)(a)(2) above applies, the TYPICAL usage environment applies.

(2) Operating Environment

(a) Severe Corrosion Environment

1 If the airplane is operating more than 30% of the time in a zone shown as severe on the corrosion severity maps in Section 2A-30-01, then the SEVERE CORROSION environment time limits apply.

(b) Mild or Moderate Corrosion Environment

1 If 2(A)(2)(a)(1) does not apply, then the MILD/MODERATE CORROSION environment time limits apply.

So your low level aircraft around the coast of Australia come under the Severe Usage 2500 hour limit as above.

For airplanes flown in TYPICAL Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00: (ie not Severe usage)

Airplanes that have more than 15,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours.

Airplanes that have less than 15,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours upon reaching 15,000 flight hours.

It is acceptable to accomplish this service document before 15,000 flight hours to align with a scheduled maintenance event or inspection.


So if you have a 14,900 hour C210/C177 in the middle of Australia that has had an easy life, relax, you've got another 100 hours before you need to do the SL. :}

That is if CASA even follows the American SL/SB system, which as a non Oz I do not know.

FWIW
You will find almost every C210 and I expect C177 in Australia are classed as severe.

In Australia (depending on your CAsA personal) most systems of maintenance have required "Mandatory Service Bulletins" to be carried out, but not Service Letters.

That said - I do not recall seeing a Service Letter classed as mandatory before.

[anxiao]

I see your point. If the 30% usage under stressful conditions is taken, then the examples given of "pipeline patrol, fish or game spotting, aerial applications, police patrol, sightseeing, livestock management, etc." would very likely make up 30% of a C210s life in Australia.

Putting it in "Severe use" and back to 2500 hrs inspection.

Less likely for a C177 which may well have been privately owned for recreational flying.

[anxiao]

My apologies for duff gen.

The "Typical" hours of 15,000 came from the C177 letter. The C210 letter quotes

For airplanes flown in TYPICAL Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00:

Airplanes that have more than 4,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours.

Airplanes that have less than 4,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours upon reaching 4,000 flight hours.

It is acceptable to accomplish this service document before 4,000 flight hours to align with a scheduled maintenance event or inspection.

So That brings a lot more C210s into the crosshairs, as Bend alot suggests.

[Bend alot]

My apologies for duff gen.

The "Typical" hours of 15,000 came from the C177 letter. The C210 letter quotes

For airplanes flown in TYPICAL Usage as defined in Section 2A-10-00:

Airplanes that have more than 4,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours.

Airplanes that have less than 4,000 flight hours must accomplish this document within 10 flight hours upon reaching 4,000 flight hours.

It is acceptable to accomplish this service document before 4,000 flight hours to align with a scheduled maintenance event or inspection.

So That brings a lot more C210s into the crosshairs, as Bend alot suggests.



It is the location that captures most of the aircraft both 210 &177 the rest will have some flight issues - but there are generally no clear records oh flight times, low level work other than modified for survey but again normally no clear records.

[The Big E]

MEL-54-03 (https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/contacts/pubs/ourpdf.pdf?as_id=52371)

While not specifically related to the C210 or C177, this is another example of the Technical Maintenance content of a Service Letter which forms part of the Manufacturers Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Once again, it is the Technical content, and not what the Document is actually entitled.
Get that.
Em nau.

[Murray Cod]

No, thermals build quick enough and their more sudden. The 210 is fairly slippery ,so after coming down a hill your moving along

[Murray Cod]

Low level survey in hot countries would rate as the most severe, a lot more than other airwork ops. In fact I was told that 1 hour of mag survey amounts to 3 hours "normal flying".
I heard that this 210 failed at a different area of the fuse that is usually inspected.
MC

[Murray Cod]

The spar would get checked every 100 Hrly

[Squawk7700]

Low level survey in hot countries would rate as the most severe, a lot more than other airwork ops. In fact I was told that 1 hour of mag survey amounts to 3 hours "normal flying".
I heard that this 210 failed at a different area of the fuse that is usually inspected.
MC

It failed at the wing spar carry thru section which is within the fuselage.

[Connedrod]

The crack was initially started from a pin piont on the lower side of the centre section. The crack went internal as could not be sighted from the outside.. the only way that the crack would have been visable would have been via a NDT inspection.
there was NO visable indiication under normal eye sight.
this accident was the first recorded failure of the centre section that is known.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

FWIW...
The following received at 1526hrs WST today, Wed 3rd July...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-aopa-comments-wanted-on-cessna-177-and-210-spar-cracking/?MailingID=82&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FAA%2C+AOPA

That is all.

[Eddie Dean]

FWIW...
The following received at 1526hrs WST today, Wed 3rd July...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-aopa-comments-wanted-on-cessna-177-and-210-spar-cracking/?MailingID=82&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FAA%2C+AOPA

That is all.
And that is all that should be needed to move with alacrity to ensure the inspection is done ASAP.

[IFEZ]

Forgive my possible ignorance, but does this affect all C210 models or just the ones without struts..?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

A picture is worth...…..

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/textron-service-letter-affects-cardinals-centurions/

Cheers

[Murray Cod]

Hi Squawk,
I'm not familiar with 210's but am familiar with mag survey and had a quick chat with a LAME that serviced survey 210's and he was a bit alarmed a where it failed,
not the usual place that developed cracks?

[john_tullamarine]

A sobering read from a CASA AWB I received today - a small corrosion pit and rapid crack growth - just what no-one wants to see.

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-53-011-issue-1-cessna-210-and-177-wing-carry-through-spar?utm_source=phplist1879&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=CASA+Airworthiness+Bulletin+AWB+53-011+Issue+1+-+Cessna+210+and+177+Wing+Carry-through+Spar++%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D

[Bend alot]

A sobering read from a CASA AWB I received today - a small corrosion pit and rapid crack growth - just what no-one wants to see.

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/awb-53-011-issue-1-cessna-210-and-177-wing-carry-through-spar?utm_source=phplist1879&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=CASA+Airworthiness+Bulletin+AWB+53-011+Issue+1+-+Cessna+210+and+177+Wing+Carry-through+Spar++%5BSEC%3DUNCLASSIFIED%5D

A number of 210's have been inspected I.A.W the new Cessna Service Letter, most have passed.

But if they do not it is a very big item,with the usual extra things it will be very close to a $200K job to replace - from what I hear.

That said it is great to see owners and operators doing this SL voluntarily.

[Denied Justice]

But if they do not it is a very big item,with the usual extra things it will be very close to a $200K job to replace - from what I hear.

Seems awfully high - What 'facts' give you that number, or is it some bloke at a hotel bar talking bull:confused:

Labour estimate:
1. Remove and replace wings
2. Dismantling and replacement of the affected roof and centre section(s)

Even if that took 200 hours, total labour is about $27,000. Would parts for this really be costed out at $173,000?

Anyone else care to chime in with some numbers?

[185skywagon]

Price a replacement carry through structure and you will have your answer. If you can get one.
The inspection and preparation itself only took about 2-3 days for our 210.

[Bend alot]

Seems awfully high - What 'facts' give you that number, or is it some bloke at a hotel bar talking bull:confused:

Labour estimate:
1. Remove and replace wings
2. Dismantling and replacement of the affected roof and centre section(s)

Even if that took 200 hours, total labour is about $27,000. Would parts for this really be costed out at $173,000?

Anyone else care to chime in with some numbers?
Pretty much on the money.

But take out a few bucks to build a fuse jig, if you do not have one.

[Desert Flower]

This just in:

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2019/07/cessna-wing-spar-alert/

DF.