Conquest groundings
Moderator
"Therefore, either Cessna or another company may develop an airframe mod or inspection schedule to extend the C441 beyond 22,500 hours."
Seasonally Adjusted
It would be great to see a Conquest 3 on the drawing board, but I don't think it will happen.
Why haven't Cessna produced anything to fill the void between the C208 and the Citation series?
Why haven't Cessna produced anything to fill the void between the C208 and the Citation series?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical Prune,
AZW has not got 22500 hours.
It has not been grounded and you will hear it flying around for a while to come.
It is not the highest time C441 in the World.
It no longer has ANY corrosion.
And there is a chance, having weathered many a 400 series grounding crisis that AZW and other C441 will live to fly on if certain conditions under negotiation are met.
First post sorry. But it really ****s me when stuff is posted that is straight out crap.
Monopole, before u jump down my throat, I can verify that the rumour is just that a rumour and NOT fact.
Cheers
AZW has not got 22500 hours.
It has not been grounded and you will hear it flying around for a while to come.
It is not the highest time C441 in the World.
It no longer has ANY corrosion.
And there is a chance, having weathered many a 400 series grounding crisis that AZW and other C441 will live to fly on if certain conditions under negotiation are met.
First post sorry. But it really ****s me when stuff is posted that is straight out crap.
Monopole, before u jump down my throat, I can verify that the rumour is just that a rumour and NOT fact.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go West,
My statement was never claimed to be FACT. I said rumoured.
I only said what i've been told. Maybe it is the oldest Conquest II. Being something like the 24th (II) off the production line, it would certainly be up there with some of the oldest.
Typical Indeed
Honestly said in the gentlest tone possible as not to be seen "jumping down your throat"
My statement was never claimed to be FACT. I said rumoured.
VH-AZW (ex Network) is rumoured to be the oldest and highest time C441
Typical Prune,
Honestly said in the gentlest tone possible as not to be seen "jumping down your throat"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere in Aus (4 now)
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sep Australian Aviation says that a new allocation for XBC a Conquest II has been given to Rossair.
With a fleet of 5 C441's the company must still be in trouble even if none of theirs are grounded, the value of their fleet has just halved.
With a fleet of 5 C441's the company must still be in trouble even if none of theirs are grounded, the value of their fleet has just halved.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good example of what is called Sovereign Risk: i.e. the risk that the state will take some action that will severely affect your business or confiscate your assests.
A high level of Sovereign Risk is why you might not choose to invest in say, Venezuela - Hugo Chavez might nationalise your business, or why you might not invest in Nigeria because the corrupt local mayor runs you out of town and steals your business while the police do nothing.
Now it looks like Australia has joined these ranks in a slightly different way - bureaucratic fiat that destroys your business or your wealth. Is any Conquest less safe this week than last week? Has the state of manufacture withdrawn it's type certificate? Have there been any incidents that justify instant grounding with no warning?
Try getting finance to buy a second hand GA type in future - The lenders who will take a bath on repossessed scrap metal (formerly known as the C441) will now be looking at "sovereign risk" for aircraft finance in this country so will the banks if trying to secure a loan for something else with an aircraft asset.
Minister Vaile: your "CASA" is an out of control bureaucratic monster - and all this from a so called pro- business government.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude,
Never mentioned anything about age, just time.
I understand u said rumoured, and I was just pointing out the facts.
No offence taken.
And back to the thread............
Cheers
Never mentioned anything about age, just time.
I understand u said rumoured, and I was just pointing out the facts.
No offence taken.
And back to the thread............
Cheers
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet A
The RFDS has been doing it for years. King Air 200, 350 etc. No probs, good gutsy machine thats built to last. Still has an airframe time to 29000 hours. Raisbeck now support FAR 25 with substantial reduction in field requirements.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm waiting for the day a similar decision is made on C210's. There are plenty of high time airframes getting about that have spent their whole lives at MTOW and in harsh tropical/outback conditions. May be some concerns with wing spar life due to overstress caused by the cruise speed being substantially higher then the turb speeds.
Now that would end true GA forever. Or have the people at Cessna forgotten all about this model as they beleive it is only used privately?
Now that would end true GA forever. Or have the people at Cessna forgotten all about this model as they beleive it is only used privately?
Moderator
I don't think "CASA grew balls" - CASA had no option as the manufacturer withdrew support and "recommended that the aircraft be retired when it has accumulated 22,500 flight hours."
Instrument No 316/07
The manufacturer is obviously aware of structural limitations (or other potential defects) of a nature for which there is no known repair, which precludes the aircraft safely operating beyond 22,500 hours TTIS.
Instrument No 316/07
The Cessna Aircraft Corporation (the manufacturer) has recently issued a Supplemental Inspection Document (SID) for the Cessna 441 Conquest which recommends that the aircraft be retired when it has accumulated 22 500 flight hours because continued airworthiness can no longer be assured due to the aircraft’s structural limitations at this level of usage. The manufacturer has not developed a remedial maintenance program.
CASA considers that, in view of the manufacturer's recommendations, these aircraft should immediately be grounded in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
There are some 34 Cessna 441 Conquest aircraft on the Australian Civil Aircraft Register.
CASA considers that, in view of the manufacturer's recommendations, these aircraft should immediately be grounded in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
There are some 34 Cessna 441 Conquest aircraft on the Australian Civil Aircraft Register.
The manufacturer is obviously aware of structural limitations (or other potential defects) of a nature for which there is no known repair, which precludes the aircraft safely operating beyond 22,500 hours TTIS.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetA_OK
Gaunty; old argument however do you know of a FAR 25 type that can operate with 10 POB into 1000-1100 metre unpaved strips? Lets leave aside the economic arguments and look at the mission.
The only FAR25 aircraft that will do it would be the Dash8, everything else would be FAR23 or SFAR41.
This then opens the old licensed / unlicensed argument, CAR92 where by you cant operate an aircraft with more than 30 seats into an unlicensed airfield.
This is why Sir Dennis dumped the Dash8 and went for the Braz…. Certain other WA operators think the same.
Hasta-la-vista Conquest, Who is next?
Originally Posted by JetA_OK
Gaunty; old argument however do you know of a FAR 25 type that can operate with 10 POB into 1000-1100 metre unpaved strips? Lets leave aside the economic arguments and look at the mission.
The only FAR25 aircraft that will do it would be the Dash8, everything else would be FAR23 or SFAR41.
This then opens the old licensed / unlicensed argument, CAR92 where by you cant operate an aircraft with more than 30 seats into an unlicensed airfield.
This is why Sir Dennis dumped the Dash8 and went for the Braz…. Certain other WA operators think the same.
Hasta-la-vista Conquest, Who is next?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TW:
That's why is I wrote "Cessna - or another company".
The motivation is $$business$$. If Cessna or another company see a C441 life extension STC as a good business venture then it may one day be attempted.
I'm not sure how many C441's were ever made. If it's a small fleet, then the business case will never stack up.
Why would Cessna be motived to do that? Unlikely, as it is not a current production aircraft.
The motivation is $$business$$. If Cessna or another company see a C441 life extension STC as a good business venture then it may one day be attempted.
I'm not sure how many C441's were ever made. If it's a small fleet, then the business case will never stack up.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all appears a tad "Ground Hog Day"ish, remeber the Cessna SID business for the C310's not that far back.
The word "Recommends" makes quite a showing in all the relevant documentation.
The word "Recommends" makes quite a showing in all the relevant documentation.
Seems to me Cessna is just doing what Beechcraft did a while back with the Starship, only Cessna are using a different method probably due to the much larger fleet.
By getting a bunch of them out of the sky they are considerably reducing their liability exposure.
By getting a bunch of them out of the sky they are considerably reducing their liability exposure.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Beech found it uneconomic to produce spares and support the Starship, compensation for the grounding was a shiny new Beechjet or an agressive buyback scheme.
Obviously Cessna couldn't do this with the worldwide numbers!
Obviously Cessna couldn't do this with the worldwide numbers!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Real Conquest
A fantastic aeroplane.
I flew one between 1978 &1981, including a delivery flight Gander/Shannon that took 6hs 50 min.,with enough fuel at Shannon to go to any suitable airport in the UK. On the approach to Gander I learnt something new, the controller kept advising " one metre something". As we turned off the runway to the parking apron I soon found out the reason, the snow was so high that the parking "bunkers" meant the wings were over snow when you parked. The Conquest had a couple of inches to spare!.
A fine aeroplane & it is a Legend. Sorry to see it pass into history.
I flew one between 1978 &1981, including a delivery flight Gander/Shannon that took 6hs 50 min.,with enough fuel at Shannon to go to any suitable airport in the UK. On the approach to Gander I learnt something new, the controller kept advising " one metre something". As we turned off the runway to the parking apron I soon found out the reason, the snow was so high that the parking "bunkers" meant the wings were over snow when you parked. The Conquest had a couple of inches to spare!.
A fine aeroplane & it is a Legend. Sorry to see it pass into history.