Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
For those Mooney/Beech/Piper people out there, CASA may (it seems) also introduce an ageing aircraft inspection program soon to cover these aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And can you carry out flight training or charter in your RV? Or carry more than two people and a fart?
If you download the applicable SID document for your aircraft from cessnasupport the deadlines are hidden in the 200+ pages of revisions
If you download the applicable SID document for your aircraft from cessnasupport the deadlines are hidden in the 200+ pages of revisions
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sids......
Me_3. The Dates for completion are in the documents.....I have gone back and forth with CASA on this over the past many months. Unfortunately the way the Regs are written in Aust makes it all grey but in the eyes of CASA....Extract as follows:
However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.
In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Registered Operator, and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained.
Registered Operator’s would need to have a pretty convincing argument as to why they did not consider the incorporation of SIDs to be necessary on their aircraft i.e. particularly in relation to a Coronial Inquiry.
I personally can think of no such argument.
You won't find the mandate for SIDs in an AD (yet) but it is in the Service Manual as SIDs is part of that manual. Even new Caravans, New 182s etc have SIDs as part of the maintenance schedule from brand new. Some people are going to a younger than 20 years old airframe to avoid SIDs. You may avoid some cost in doing the inspection but the inspection applies to all aircraft - even from new. Cessna have a very good tech rep in Australia and for clarification and to hear Cessna's point of view....give Mark a call. If anyone wants his contact details pm me.
Cheers
SC
However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.
In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Registered Operator, and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained.
Registered Operator’s would need to have a pretty convincing argument as to why they did not consider the incorporation of SIDs to be necessary on their aircraft i.e. particularly in relation to a Coronial Inquiry.
I personally can think of no such argument.
You won't find the mandate for SIDs in an AD (yet) but it is in the Service Manual as SIDs is part of that manual. Even new Caravans, New 182s etc have SIDs as part of the maintenance schedule from brand new. Some people are going to a younger than 20 years old airframe to avoid SIDs. You may avoid some cost in doing the inspection but the inspection applies to all aircraft - even from new. Cessna have a very good tech rep in Australia and for clarification and to hear Cessna's point of view....give Mark a call. If anyone wants his contact details pm me.
Cheers
SC
Am aware of a few S/E Cessna's that have been through the process, most of which were very well maintained in the first place. In each case, some issues have been found and resolved, with costs varying between 10 and 30k.
This should come as no surprise; many of the aircraft in question are 40-50 years old. The issues discovered would not normally have been picked up on a "standard" sort of periodic. 40 or 50 years of operating in the bush can really take its toll on any sort of machine; how many Landcruisers or Landrovers are still in regular everyday use at that age?
I have found that some of the most outspoken opponents of this program are people who brag that their aircraft is "perfect" and the past 10 periodics have never cost them more than $600 apiece................it is these very aircraft that I would be most concerned about.
If we are serious about flying safely, then unfortunately it is necessary to bite the bullet and follow the manufacturer's program.
This should come as no surprise; many of the aircraft in question are 40-50 years old. The issues discovered would not normally have been picked up on a "standard" sort of periodic. 40 or 50 years of operating in the bush can really take its toll on any sort of machine; how many Landcruisers or Landrovers are still in regular everyday use at that age?
I have found that some of the most outspoken opponents of this program are people who brag that their aircraft is "perfect" and the past 10 periodics have never cost them more than $600 apiece................it is these very aircraft that I would be most concerned about.
If we are serious about flying safely, then unfortunately it is necessary to bite the bullet and follow the manufacturer's program.
I have seen a couple of 182s go through and I can only echo the sentiments above: well worth it. Well maintained aircraft breezed through at minimal additional cost.
I am also much more comfortable operating Cessna twins over Chieftains because I am reasonably confident that a diligently maintained C404 will be better to operate, with less down time, than a Chieftain with a nasty surprise lurking under the floor or in the tail or whatever
Seen that too.
I am also much more comfortable operating Cessna twins over Chieftains because I am reasonably confident that a diligently maintained C404 will be better to operate, with less down time, than a Chieftain with a nasty surprise lurking under the floor or in the tail or whatever
Seen that too.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Milton, ON, Canada
Age: 72
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We just completed the SIDs on our 1956 Cessna 182 with 6380 TTAF. All four wing attach spar blocks were replaced due to corrosion Three were severely corroded. This could not be detected without removing the wings. Aside from a couple of cracked wing ribs and pockets of level one corrosion (time consuming to clean up), the rest of the airplane was in good shape.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Milton, ON, Canada
Age: 72
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow this link: https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/...jsp?dynVal=240
Click on the appropriate document for your aircraft type.
For the 100 series, the compliance date is on 2A-13-00, Page 5.
For the 200 series, the compliance date is on 2A-14-00, Page 1.
Click on the appropriate document for your aircraft type.
For the 100 series, the compliance date is on 2A-13-00, Page 5.
For the 200 series, the compliance date is on 2A-14-00, Page 1.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schedule 5 can no longer be used if there is a maintenance program for the aircraft. There is a CASA listing for what aircraft can use Schedule 5 if your aircraft is not on it you cant use it. Therefore you need to have your log book statement changed and sent to CASA, this means Manufactures program or spend the money and have your own approved but you must be able to prove what you are submitting, which means now that SIDS MUST be done on ALL aircraft in all cats.
Now go to CASA and get a definition for the word RECOMENED. They will not give it to you. In a court it means you MUST. Meaning 30000 hours game over thanks for coming. Same as the engine 12 years inspection, sorry it must be done. We have now nearly all that was covered under Aust AD;s gone and now manufacture's rule, As to the other post here is why costs of servicing is increasing to cover cost of research to do the maintenance as it cost the same to employ a person to do the work as to do the research to be able to do it.
Welcome to not our fault CASA system.
I might add that this goes for all components on an aircraft, ie tyres to wheels to windscreen to the fire extinguisher, everything has to be looked at.
Now go to CASA and get a definition for the word RECOMENED. They will not give it to you. In a court it means you MUST. Meaning 30000 hours game over thanks for coming. Same as the engine 12 years inspection, sorry it must be done. We have now nearly all that was covered under Aust AD;s gone and now manufacture's rule, As to the other post here is why costs of servicing is increasing to cover cost of research to do the maintenance as it cost the same to employ a person to do the work as to do the research to be able to do it.
Welcome to not our fault CASA system.
I might add that this goes for all components on an aircraft, ie tyres to wheels to windscreen to the fire extinguisher, everything has to be looked at.
Thread Starter
To do or not to do
My Cessna turns 60 this year.
I started on the SID's journey when they first came out and was doing them one step at a time.
When I got to the wings my LAME and I decided that we remove them and have a good look in the area as to do the Spar carry through, the wing attach blocks it cannot be done thoroughly with the wings in place.
Spar carry through, corrosion between the doublers. Replacement parts $1400 USD.
Wing attach blocks OK.
Wings looked OK but thought I would change the bag and do a fuel vent mod while the wings were off. Easiest way to do that is unzip the end rib with the wing off. Not good, signs of corrosion at the spar skin join.
I elected to dig a little further and the more I dig the worse it got. End result both wings require total rebuild. The spars had significant cx in the laminate that could not be seen until the strip down. The bill so far for the wings alone is 30K and they have yet to be put back together.
I am guessing that I will have her back in the air in two years time and about 100K poorer. However I will know exactly what I have.
My experience is that only a fool would not do the SID program, my old girl looked OK but I was quite shocked with what we found under the hood. The life of my family is worth more that what I am paying to fix the old girl.
You cannot do the inspection properly with removing the wings and getting into the tank bays and the spar carry through. My engineers have all remarked that factory corrosion proofed Cessnas' are mostly getting through OK but the failure rate on high time and non cx proof machines is about 50/50.
High time Cessna restart machines are starting to enter the SID program and are starting to show problems in the landing gear, vertical fin and hori stab. The landing gear fix for one R model is going to be in excess of 28K.
I started on the SID's journey when they first came out and was doing them one step at a time.
When I got to the wings my LAME and I decided that we remove them and have a good look in the area as to do the Spar carry through, the wing attach blocks it cannot be done thoroughly with the wings in place.
Spar carry through, corrosion between the doublers. Replacement parts $1400 USD.
Wing attach blocks OK.
Wings looked OK but thought I would change the bag and do a fuel vent mod while the wings were off. Easiest way to do that is unzip the end rib with the wing off. Not good, signs of corrosion at the spar skin join.
I elected to dig a little further and the more I dig the worse it got. End result both wings require total rebuild. The spars had significant cx in the laminate that could not be seen until the strip down. The bill so far for the wings alone is 30K and they have yet to be put back together.
I am guessing that I will have her back in the air in two years time and about 100K poorer. However I will know exactly what I have.
My experience is that only a fool would not do the SID program, my old girl looked OK but I was quite shocked with what we found under the hood. The life of my family is worth more that what I am paying to fix the old girl.
You cannot do the inspection properly with removing the wings and getting into the tank bays and the spar carry through. My engineers have all remarked that factory corrosion proofed Cessnas' are mostly getting through OK but the failure rate on high time and non cx proof machines is about 50/50.
High time Cessna restart machines are starting to enter the SID program and are starting to show problems in the landing gear, vertical fin and hori stab. The landing gear fix for one R model is going to be in excess of 28K.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take
From what I understand, (sorry if posted already) if you complete all of the requirements of the SIDS inspection documents, there includes feedback forms
To fill out. This is a major part of the SIDS programme, as it lets Cessna know
What sort of defects are found, how common to a particular component or area
Of the aircraft and they can adjust the inspection criteria accordingly, for example, every Cessna A152 I am checking the Horizontal Stabilizer rear spar
On, under the elevator bell crank box structure, I am finding 3-4 inch cracks, the SID directs you to HFEC the doubler, but these defects are on the Spar under the Skin, behind the doubler. This information will be sent to cessna, they my add additional inspections around the area and alter the inspection accordingly.
They also know that this is now a common area for close inspection etc. and high incidence of cracking area.
so far we have found a Cracked C182 wing strut end fitting, that did not show up
On a Flouro dye check-post crack located. (I just wanted to see if the crack showed up, and it did not, but trust me, through an HFEC it was definately there). The C A152 Stabs, and other defects that honestly should have been picked up at the 100hrly/annual, such as rudder pedal brake pivot pins almost
Worn completely through the pedal, which we picked up during the Annual phase of the check. (Edit: this is the first time we have seen this aircraft) I also think that a lot of the SIDS are items that would normally be checked at a 100hrly inspection, so completing the SIDS during an annual is the most cost effective. Ultimately, Cessna want the feedback on what people are finding out there.
On compliance, I have read quite a lot of text on the matter, I have an AWB that talks about compliance which breaks down charter, private etc to be incorporated at slightly different intervals (circa2007 from memory)
Also within the SIDS document there is a compliance/incorporation date of dec13 for 200 series, jun 14 for 100 series. It doesn't mention that I remember anything about what category the aircraft are in (eg pvt, charter)
The log book statements don't just say, CASA schedule 5, and that's it,
Read below that as to what is also required per MM.
SIDS is part of the MM, so if you carry out maintenance using the correct revision Aircraft Maintenance Manual, SIDS is part of that manual so should be included.
Show me where it states, "SIDS not mandatory"
Also, what I tell people is, the things, defects, you find as a result of carrying out
A SID inspection, should be fixed anyway regardless how they are found, and in my experience we are finding defects which May, have not been picked up.
In reality, when we perform maintenance on aircraft, quite often, we inform the owner that we want to investigate a little further, dig a little deeper, open up some structure to get access to.. And if on the outside, the thing you are going to dismantle looks reasonable, it can be quite hard to get the owner onside, that what you are doing is necessary, after all, it hasn't been A problem before, and
Every owner of an aircraft knows about "intrusion", the possibility to damage surrounding structure, or disturb a local component or wiring by getting to the thing you want to look at. Particularly more frustrating to said owner when it turns out the thing you thought was suspect is ok.
But SIDS assists both maintainer and manufacturer alike, setting out tasks to look at certain areas of interest, you are able to show the owner areas cessna are concerned about on ageing aircraft, so you dismantle that quite good looking rear spar on the horizontal Stabilizer and find the 3inch crack hidden between the layers, you feel vindicated, happy you found a defect before it lead to something worse, then quickly brought back to earth when all the owner does is get upset that you found it and it will cost how much! Most are happy you found it.
There is a lot of Talk of over maintaining aircraft, I like to say there is a right amount of Maintenance. People also make a lot of comparisons to other machines, but I find it hard to compare aircraft to other vehicles.
I am always surprised when I speak with our customers, and they make reference to a car engine for example. My Car engine red lines at 7000 rpm,
But spends 90% of the time at18-1900 rpm.
One Cherokee I fly redilnesaround 2600, cruises at around 2350. That baby is working a lot closer to its mechanical limit than my car. Add to that for instance, a reference I heard, not sure of accuracy, that Subaru make more engines in one year, than TCM Continental have made...ever!
Think of the investment in one line of engine for a car, water cooled, low average rpm, uninhibited fuel delivery technology and computer controlled,
Fantastic clearances, usually derated for life increase, now think of continental or lycoming, extensive regulatory oversite, expense of getting new technology certified, LOW Volume unit movement, and they have to make it as light as possible, air cooled, large capacity, relatively high power, think 300hp @2700,
And when not running at full power for takeoff etc, sustained high power output,
Say 75% of max torque. (Note: I know cars have strict oversite but spread that cost between a few million units as apposed to a few thousand) and treated with respect, will get 2000hours or more before requiring a rebuild. I think they o a pretty good job considering.
But back on SIDS, we (I) am applying a consistent view they are part of the MM,
There is text directing them to be carried out, along with compliance dates, AWB, And as such mandatory.
Tell me again where it states NOT to do it...
Think of Cessna"s philosophy behind the incorporation of SIDS and the data, info they are collecting, and defects that are being found like wing strut cracking,
Find a good shop with people you can talk to, that will deliver the right amount of maintenance for you aircraft, start to carry out SIDS during the periodic to reduce double handling, if your aircraft has been maintained well it should go through smoothly.
Also a thorough check of the log book for things like engine mount removed at last engine overhaul, stripped and inspected, which Is what we normally do, and if it is documented and is within the SID inspection guideline then you don't need to double handle that either, the clock started when it was done previously.
SIDS are also in late model T206h aircraft also, so it's not just an older aircraft
Inspection.
The way I understand it Schedule 5 days are numbered, regardless the justification for placing the aircraft on it was due inadequate MM, (J3 Cub)
Which a lot of GA aircraft, I don't believe suffer from, I would like to see Schedule 5 gone, except for noted models with inadequate MM, everyone can have a consistent approach in regards to component o/haul periods (dukes fuel pump for example) and remove as much "open to interpretation" as possible.
And consistency with the maintenance allowing owners to budget effectively.
Find a good shop with people you can talk to, able to deliver the right amount of maintenance for your aircraft, fix up the cosmetics over time, start incorporating the SID inspections during a periodic if possible to reduce double handling.
If your aircraft is in overall good condition the SIDS will be incorporated without to much rework. And the things you find due to SID inspections should be fixed anyway!
Wow that was rambling!
Smooth seas and fair winds..
To fill out. This is a major part of the SIDS programme, as it lets Cessna know
What sort of defects are found, how common to a particular component or area
Of the aircraft and they can adjust the inspection criteria accordingly, for example, every Cessna A152 I am checking the Horizontal Stabilizer rear spar
On, under the elevator bell crank box structure, I am finding 3-4 inch cracks, the SID directs you to HFEC the doubler, but these defects are on the Spar under the Skin, behind the doubler. This information will be sent to cessna, they my add additional inspections around the area and alter the inspection accordingly.
They also know that this is now a common area for close inspection etc. and high incidence of cracking area.
so far we have found a Cracked C182 wing strut end fitting, that did not show up
On a Flouro dye check-post crack located. (I just wanted to see if the crack showed up, and it did not, but trust me, through an HFEC it was definately there). The C A152 Stabs, and other defects that honestly should have been picked up at the 100hrly/annual, such as rudder pedal brake pivot pins almost
Worn completely through the pedal, which we picked up during the Annual phase of the check. (Edit: this is the first time we have seen this aircraft) I also think that a lot of the SIDS are items that would normally be checked at a 100hrly inspection, so completing the SIDS during an annual is the most cost effective. Ultimately, Cessna want the feedback on what people are finding out there.
On compliance, I have read quite a lot of text on the matter, I have an AWB that talks about compliance which breaks down charter, private etc to be incorporated at slightly different intervals (circa2007 from memory)
Also within the SIDS document there is a compliance/incorporation date of dec13 for 200 series, jun 14 for 100 series. It doesn't mention that I remember anything about what category the aircraft are in (eg pvt, charter)
The log book statements don't just say, CASA schedule 5, and that's it,
Read below that as to what is also required per MM.
SIDS is part of the MM, so if you carry out maintenance using the correct revision Aircraft Maintenance Manual, SIDS is part of that manual so should be included.
Show me where it states, "SIDS not mandatory"
Also, what I tell people is, the things, defects, you find as a result of carrying out
A SID inspection, should be fixed anyway regardless how they are found, and in my experience we are finding defects which May, have not been picked up.
In reality, when we perform maintenance on aircraft, quite often, we inform the owner that we want to investigate a little further, dig a little deeper, open up some structure to get access to.. And if on the outside, the thing you are going to dismantle looks reasonable, it can be quite hard to get the owner onside, that what you are doing is necessary, after all, it hasn't been A problem before, and
Every owner of an aircraft knows about "intrusion", the possibility to damage surrounding structure, or disturb a local component or wiring by getting to the thing you want to look at. Particularly more frustrating to said owner when it turns out the thing you thought was suspect is ok.
But SIDS assists both maintainer and manufacturer alike, setting out tasks to look at certain areas of interest, you are able to show the owner areas cessna are concerned about on ageing aircraft, so you dismantle that quite good looking rear spar on the horizontal Stabilizer and find the 3inch crack hidden between the layers, you feel vindicated, happy you found a defect before it lead to something worse, then quickly brought back to earth when all the owner does is get upset that you found it and it will cost how much! Most are happy you found it.
There is a lot of Talk of over maintaining aircraft, I like to say there is a right amount of Maintenance. People also make a lot of comparisons to other machines, but I find it hard to compare aircraft to other vehicles.
I am always surprised when I speak with our customers, and they make reference to a car engine for example. My Car engine red lines at 7000 rpm,
But spends 90% of the time at18-1900 rpm.
One Cherokee I fly redilnesaround 2600, cruises at around 2350. That baby is working a lot closer to its mechanical limit than my car. Add to that for instance, a reference I heard, not sure of accuracy, that Subaru make more engines in one year, than TCM Continental have made...ever!
Think of the investment in one line of engine for a car, water cooled, low average rpm, uninhibited fuel delivery technology and computer controlled,
Fantastic clearances, usually derated for life increase, now think of continental or lycoming, extensive regulatory oversite, expense of getting new technology certified, LOW Volume unit movement, and they have to make it as light as possible, air cooled, large capacity, relatively high power, think 300hp @2700,
And when not running at full power for takeoff etc, sustained high power output,
Say 75% of max torque. (Note: I know cars have strict oversite but spread that cost between a few million units as apposed to a few thousand) and treated with respect, will get 2000hours or more before requiring a rebuild. I think they o a pretty good job considering.
But back on SIDS, we (I) am applying a consistent view they are part of the MM,
There is text directing them to be carried out, along with compliance dates, AWB, And as such mandatory.
Tell me again where it states NOT to do it...
Think of Cessna"s philosophy behind the incorporation of SIDS and the data, info they are collecting, and defects that are being found like wing strut cracking,
Find a good shop with people you can talk to, that will deliver the right amount of maintenance for you aircraft, start to carry out SIDS during the periodic to reduce double handling, if your aircraft has been maintained well it should go through smoothly.
Also a thorough check of the log book for things like engine mount removed at last engine overhaul, stripped and inspected, which Is what we normally do, and if it is documented and is within the SID inspection guideline then you don't need to double handle that either, the clock started when it was done previously.
SIDS are also in late model T206h aircraft also, so it's not just an older aircraft
Inspection.
The way I understand it Schedule 5 days are numbered, regardless the justification for placing the aircraft on it was due inadequate MM, (J3 Cub)
Which a lot of GA aircraft, I don't believe suffer from, I would like to see Schedule 5 gone, except for noted models with inadequate MM, everyone can have a consistent approach in regards to component o/haul periods (dukes fuel pump for example) and remove as much "open to interpretation" as possible.
And consistency with the maintenance allowing owners to budget effectively.
Find a good shop with people you can talk to, able to deliver the right amount of maintenance for your aircraft, fix up the cosmetics over time, start incorporating the SID inspections during a periodic if possible to reduce double handling.
If your aircraft is in overall good condition the SIDS will be incorporated without to much rework. And the things you find due to SID inspections should be fixed anyway!
Wow that was rambling!
Smooth seas and fair winds..
On a Flouro dye check-post crack located.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C172 with leaf springs
For all those drivers of older Cessna's with spring style gear get ready for a fright. Not sure about the other series as I have not checked yet but the u-bolts in my 172 are now called for replacement rather than just MPI inspection. The price (wait for it) over $500 each! Then ongoing replacement is 1000 hours or three years whichever comes first. A calendar life on such an item especially 3 years is unrealistic. Don't know if you will still have to MPI them every 500 hours. Looks like that RV8 empennage cant come soon enough. I agree with the inspections and that they are worthwhile but that price for two bolts at $1000 a pop every three years is a bridge too far. If Cessna thinks that they will create demand for parts or new airframes from this they are wrong. They will simply destroy the value of their product.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of this has already been quoted in this thread, but I understand the letter is in the public domain, so needs repeating:
UNCLASSIFIED
The current CASA policy on the Cessna SIDs is thus;
The SIDs represent important approved manufacture's data.
The requirement for the incorporation, or otherwise, of the Cessna SIDs in Class B aircraft, is determined by the maintenance schedule elected by the Registered Operator / owner.
CAR 42A Manufacturer’s Maintenance Schedule option – would require compulsory incorporation of Cessna SIDs where available, and it would be difficult to argue for SIDs not to be incorporated on CAR 42C Approved System of Maintenance where available.
Many Registered Operators choose to use CAR 42B CASA Maintenance Schedule (Schedule 5).
I can confirm that there is nothing in CAR 42B that specifically mandates compliance with, or incorporation of, a Cessna SID. Note that CAR 42B dates back to 1988, prior to Cessna developing SIDs programs for their fleets – which were also 25 years younger at that time.
However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.
In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Registered Operator / owner, and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained.
Registered Operator’s would need to have a convincing argument as to why they did not consider the incorporation of SIDs to be necessary on their aircraft.
Hope this is of assistance to you.
Regards,
John Retzki | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Certificate Management Team Leader - CMT 3
The current CASA policy on the Cessna SIDs is thus;
The SIDs represent important approved manufacture's data.
The requirement for the incorporation, or otherwise, of the Cessna SIDs in Class B aircraft, is determined by the maintenance schedule elected by the Registered Operator / owner.
CAR 42A Manufacturer’s Maintenance Schedule option – would require compulsory incorporation of Cessna SIDs where available, and it would be difficult to argue for SIDs not to be incorporated on CAR 42C Approved System of Maintenance where available.
Many Registered Operators choose to use CAR 42B CASA Maintenance Schedule (Schedule 5).
I can confirm that there is nothing in CAR 42B that specifically mandates compliance with, or incorporation of, a Cessna SID. Note that CAR 42B dates back to 1988, prior to Cessna developing SIDs programs for their fleets – which were also 25 years younger at that time.
However, CAR 42V requires persons undertaking maintenance (including inspections) to do so in accordance with applicable maintenance data. CAR 2A(2)(c) defines such data to include instructions issued by manufacturers of aircraft, components and materials.
In CASA’s view, SIDs are manufacturer’s instructions which, for the purposes of maintaining continuing airworthiness of an aircraft, must be considered by the Registered Operator / owner, and if applicable to their aircraft, complied with regardless of the schedule under which the aircraft is maintained.
Registered Operator’s would need to have a convincing argument as to why they did not consider the incorporation of SIDs to be necessary on their aircraft.
Hope this is of assistance to you.
Regards,
John Retzki | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Certificate Management Team Leader - CMT 3
And yet Pipers don't need any such maintenance program simply because...
...because...
...because the manufacturer doesn't support their product adequately?
...because...
...because the manufacturer doesn't support their product adequately?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
! Then ongoing replacement is 1000 hours or three years whichever comes first. A calendar life on such an item especially 3 years is unrealistic.
The average trailer leaf spring U bolt will last for decades under extremely harsh conditions, including being immersed in Sea water and pounded across corrugated outback roads without failing. Shame Cessna Shame
Folks,
The legal situation of Piper is somewhat different, the Piper that built most of the aircraft no longer exists, it went bust.
The new Piper has, as far as I can determine, declined to take legal responsibility for continuing airworthiness of the previous company's products, presumably they do not want to voluntarily assume unknown liabilities for which they are not currently liable.
Tootle pip!!
The legal situation of Piper is somewhat different, the Piper that built most of the aircraft no longer exists, it went bust.
The new Piper has, as far as I can determine, declined to take legal responsibility for continuing airworthiness of the previous company's products, presumably they do not want to voluntarily assume unknown liabilities for which they are not currently liable.
Tootle pip!!
