Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
Oracle, bear in mind the 0541153 U bolt is only used in 56-71 172's and 56-61 182's all the other spring leg models have a different design or part number (150/180/182 post 62/185/206). Also most US operators will not comply as they do not have too so perhaps my numbers are not far off considering that if you do CPCP the replacement is not required.
The AD overrides the SID so the 500 hour MPI still stands.
The 1,000 hour replacement is not new, it was introduced by Cessna SE78-68 on the 20th November 1978. Obviously your well maintained Schedule 5 C172 would be compliant? This is the bit that will piss you off, the Bulletin lists the price at US$10.20 each!
So they have not used that part since 1971 and the 1,000 hour replacement was introduced in 1978. The original production line was moved and someone would have had to drag out the drawings and crank up production most likely with a new vendor, your lucky they even support your dinosaur as I am sure in many other industries such low volume parts would not be available. At a guess I would say that the average flight time for an aircraft with that part number U bolt would be less than 50 hours a year if that.
China .......... one word SKYCATCHER, wasnt that a success and so affordable . Would love to see a 50 year old Great Wall .... you get what you pay for. Try buying Great Wall parts now let alone when the vehicle is 40-50 years old, there is a ute in my local panel shop that has been sitting for 4 months waiting for parts.
Do you really believe the Chinese are interested in punching out low volume hand made light aircraft, the money is high volume goods and rubber dog sh*t.
As for new designs who cares the Cessna line works, aging aircraft will not be an issue with the Cirrus or Diamond as they will be long dead but for sure the mighty Cessna's will live forever with TLC.
As yr right states many that have light aircraft really can not afford them.
If it F*#ks, Flies or Floats ... Rent it don't buy it!
The AD overrides the SID so the 500 hour MPI still stands.
The 1,000 hour replacement is not new, it was introduced by Cessna SE78-68 on the 20th November 1978. Obviously your well maintained Schedule 5 C172 would be compliant? This is the bit that will piss you off, the Bulletin lists the price at US$10.20 each!
So they have not used that part since 1971 and the 1,000 hour replacement was introduced in 1978. The original production line was moved and someone would have had to drag out the drawings and crank up production most likely with a new vendor, your lucky they even support your dinosaur as I am sure in many other industries such low volume parts would not be available. At a guess I would say that the average flight time for an aircraft with that part number U bolt would be less than 50 hours a year if that.
China .......... one word SKYCATCHER, wasnt that a success and so affordable . Would love to see a 50 year old Great Wall .... you get what you pay for. Try buying Great Wall parts now let alone when the vehicle is 40-50 years old, there is a ute in my local panel shop that has been sitting for 4 months waiting for parts.
Do you really believe the Chinese are interested in punching out low volume hand made light aircraft, the money is high volume goods and rubber dog sh*t.
As for new designs who cares the Cessna line works, aging aircraft will not be an issue with the Cirrus or Diamond as they will be long dead but for sure the mighty Cessna's will live forever with TLC.
As yr right states many that have light aircraft really can not afford them.
If it F*#ks, Flies or Floats ... Rent it don't buy it!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man has his aircraft service. Man flies aircraft. Aircraft crashes. Vac pump fails. Wife sues Lame. Wife Wins. Judge states, MR issued nothing will go wrong with aircraft for the period of MR issue (Nothing). Casa states no that is not the intent of a MR Issue ie (part 2 of the MR that has a Due LIst). Judge states go away Casa. Wife wins $$$$$, Lame looses every thing, house wife business every thing.
Now here is the rub.
Aircraft flying at night.
Aircraft flying IFR
Pilot Flying at night
Pilot Flying IFR
Aircraft NOT Night VFR RATED
Aircraft NOT IFR RATED
Pilot NOT NIGHT RATED
Pilot NOT IFR RATED
LAME Looses everything for a vac pump that was not changed (pre inspection hole)
Think this cant happen ?
Wrong did and has happen here in Australia
Now here is the rub.
Aircraft flying at night.
Aircraft flying IFR
Pilot Flying at night
Pilot Flying IFR
Aircraft NOT Night VFR RATED
Aircraft NOT IFR RATED
Pilot NOT NIGHT RATED
Pilot NOT IFR RATED
LAME Looses everything for a vac pump that was not changed (pre inspection hole)
Think this cant happen ?
Wrong did and has happen here in Australia
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrong did and has happen here in Australia
On you stated facts the appeal would succeed on religious grounds. That is when the appeal judge reads the appeal papers and goes, "Geezus Keerist!"
Citation please because if it was as you stated then there is an immediate appeal provision; that the judge erred in law.
On you stated facts the appeal would succeed on religious grounds. That is when the appeal judge reads the appeal papers and goes, "Geezus Keerist!"
On you stated facts the appeal would succeed on religious grounds. That is when the appeal judge reads the appeal papers and goes, "Geezus Keerist!"
The vac pump failed, the A/H fell over and the A/P followed.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes correct accident. As for bull sh*&^*^ proof me wrong. See as a LAME we don't tell pilots how to fly but Pilots are nearly all experts on maintenance, and most pilots can write on a head of a pin with a felt tip pen what they know about maintenance.
As for bull sh*&^*^ proof me wrong.
Your insurance paranoia is amusing, your stories fanciful.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Bob
You amuse me with your lack of knowledge or ignorance sorry you pick which fits you best.
To say your quote
"Your insurance paranoia is amusing, your stories fanciful"
I have no idea what you do for a living or your aircraft knowledge but I would seam from your posts its limited.
Do you understand why the SIDS program was introduced in the first place.
Do you understand that the LAME problem in Australia and why people are leaving the industry.
Do you understand the TERM For and Behalf Of. Have you ever seen that term.
I live with this term 24/7 and the realities that go along with it. I take it you don't. How dare you say what you do.
We are bound by not only CASA Regulation Ie the Law set in parliament but also Common Law now which the burden of proof is much lower. Casa has extremely deep pockets and the other side can get no win no pay. You do the math if your caught in the sights.
Have you ever had any dealings with CASA, I take it no.
It would seam you have shares in Artline with your comment.
You amuse me with your lack of knowledge or ignorance sorry you pick which fits you best.
To say your quote
"Your insurance paranoia is amusing, your stories fanciful"
I have no idea what you do for a living or your aircraft knowledge but I would seam from your posts its limited.
Do you understand why the SIDS program was introduced in the first place.
Do you understand that the LAME problem in Australia and why people are leaving the industry.
Do you understand the TERM For and Behalf Of. Have you ever seen that term.
I live with this term 24/7 and the realities that go along with it. I take it you don't. How dare you say what you do.
We are bound by not only CASA Regulation Ie the Law set in parliament but also Common Law now which the burden of proof is much lower. Casa has extremely deep pockets and the other side can get no win no pay. You do the math if your caught in the sights.
Have you ever had any dealings with CASA, I take it no.
It would seam you have shares in Artline with your comment.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that the SID’s and other instructions for continued airworthiness for your aircraft, are written by the manufacturers engineering department based on real knowledge of the product, not the opinion of one guy who’s owned one aircraft for a few years and cant bear to fix something that isn’t broke yet, but the combined information and feedback from tens of thousands of airframes, and millions of flight hrs. These inspections represent a minimum standard.
It amazes me that most peoples initial reaction to new or increased maintenance requirements is to fight back or burry their heads in the sand.
Aviation is supposed to be made up of Professional people, so - be professional and act professional.
If an aircraft owner cant get their head around the cost of the minimum standard then get rid of your aircraft, hand in you pilot licence and take up another hobby, your not welcome here.
For the LAME’s having seen first hand several Aviation litigation cases in Australia, all I can say is beware. The case “yr right” mentions is true, it did happen, and is just one example.
What is not mentioned adequately here is the cost of litigation, and more importantly not the cost in actual dollars but the cost in the stress of litigation. The cost on peoples health and sanity listening to lies, stories, untrue and poorly written statements written by unscrupulous rock spider lawyers and barristers.
These cases go on for years.
In an accident related compensation case, The plaintiff is most likely not the aircraft owner or pilot, but rather their next of kin, or the estate of a passenger who knows nothing about aviation, the rules, or anything else pertinent to the case.
The person that was skimping lying and cheating on maintenance costs is most likely dead, but someone else will be making them out to be some sort of hero that had everything done when and as needed. Of course the LAME with a lifetime of experience on the shop floor will be perceived as the villain that must loose everything.
In another case that I have been watching closely relating to a 50 something year old aircraft, the owner is claiming around $ 80,000 in damages for a corrosion related problem, The claim seems vexatious to say the least, and even if the claim did have any merit it only has a basis of around $10,000. Despite this it is ongoing now for around 4 years and over $250,000 has been spent on costs between the various parties. This does not include their own time and the cost on their health and sanity.
It amazes me that most peoples initial reaction to new or increased maintenance requirements is to fight back or burry their heads in the sand.
Aviation is supposed to be made up of Professional people, so - be professional and act professional.
If an aircraft owner cant get their head around the cost of the minimum standard then get rid of your aircraft, hand in you pilot licence and take up another hobby, your not welcome here.
For the LAME’s having seen first hand several Aviation litigation cases in Australia, all I can say is beware. The case “yr right” mentions is true, it did happen, and is just one example.
What is not mentioned adequately here is the cost of litigation, and more importantly not the cost in actual dollars but the cost in the stress of litigation. The cost on peoples health and sanity listening to lies, stories, untrue and poorly written statements written by unscrupulous rock spider lawyers and barristers.
These cases go on for years.
In an accident related compensation case, The plaintiff is most likely not the aircraft owner or pilot, but rather their next of kin, or the estate of a passenger who knows nothing about aviation, the rules, or anything else pertinent to the case.
The person that was skimping lying and cheating on maintenance costs is most likely dead, but someone else will be making them out to be some sort of hero that had everything done when and as needed. Of course the LAME with a lifetime of experience on the shop floor will be perceived as the villain that must loose everything.
In another case that I have been watching closely relating to a 50 something year old aircraft, the owner is claiming around $ 80,000 in damages for a corrosion related problem, The claim seems vexatious to say the least, and even if the claim did have any merit it only has a basis of around $10,000. Despite this it is ongoing now for around 4 years and over $250,000 has been spent on costs between the various parties. This does not include their own time and the cost on their health and sanity.
however one must then ask why Cessna then hasn't put out an AD on this specific problem
My guess would be that the answer was a bit of "too hard basket" and a bit of "SIDS will eventually cover it".
Don't you fellas get it. Cessna do not wont to support these old aircraft
Tootle pip!!
You amuse me with your lack of knowledge or ignorance sorry you pick which fits you best.
My comments regarding your post stem from a dislike of insurance companies and their salesman and the perception that stories like you have outlined are seldom close to the actual outcome, hence the request for some sort of evidence. Respectfully, this is a request that you seem to be unable to understand or fulfill.
I understand the SIDS program well, I have worked on and observed it being undertaken on 2 x 185's one 206 and a 172. In my opinion it is a much needed program and the 172 in particular has been an eye opener, it has gone from a neat looking flyable aeroplane to a pile of aluminum where the corrosion never stops. Basically a write off with a bill of consequence. I also have a long history of dealings with CASA.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an aircraft owner cant get their head around the cost of the minimum standard then get rid of your aircraft, hand in you pilot licence and take up another hobby, your not welcome here.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Said
Well said Avgas 172. That's why the ultra light scene has expanded so much, because it represented better value for money. I have reached the same point, I will vote with my wallet. My RV8 tail feathers arrive next week. It may take a lot of work but no longer will I be a slave to multiple bureaucrats, parasite lawyers and maintenance performed by indifferent mechanics.
Oracle, I do take offence to being "indifferent". We do not make the rules but sadly we are the grim reapers that have to deal with the owners. We do not set the prices Cessna charge for the parts although we bear your dissatisfaction at what the manufacturer charges. In no other industry I know of would you be provided with parts at such a low margin to keep your aircraft flying and as pointed out previously you would pay much more per hour to have your Toyota serviced.
Like I said previously I would be very happy if we had US style rules and the SID's were optional or if you had an option to elect not to do a SB or a SID on a private category aircraft and accept responsibility for doing so. Sadly all too often the LAME is the meat in the sandwich and cops the abuse of the owner that really should be directed elsewhere.
The decline of GA over the last 20 years has a lot to do with the lack of new aeroplanes, the clusterf*#&k regulatory environment and the privatisation of those airports that traditionally bred new pilots that in turn purchased new aeroplanes. I fail to see how you can blame the LAME for this? When I started in the trade the aircraft were a lot newer and did require less maintenance, the cost of a bare 100 hourly has always been around the same in man hours its all of the rectifications, worn parts, little bits of corrosion that need to be cleaned up and now SID's. 100 hourly's on older airplanes are more like rolling restorations as they age.
Pre SID's Cessna in the early 90's introduced an optional aging program called CAPs but again no one wanted to do them either, remarkably they are very similar.
Go to the AMROBA web site and look at the newsletters that show the differences in CASA regulations v the FAA and see how we in the industry have fought for many years to bring some sense to the mess we are currently in.
Please next time you decide to blame this whole mess on the LAME take a deep breath and think who is really to blame? Yes GA is expensive but who's fault is that?
Like I said previously I would be very happy if we had US style rules and the SID's were optional or if you had an option to elect not to do a SB or a SID on a private category aircraft and accept responsibility for doing so. Sadly all too often the LAME is the meat in the sandwich and cops the abuse of the owner that really should be directed elsewhere.
The decline of GA over the last 20 years has a lot to do with the lack of new aeroplanes, the clusterf*#&k regulatory environment and the privatisation of those airports that traditionally bred new pilots that in turn purchased new aeroplanes. I fail to see how you can blame the LAME for this? When I started in the trade the aircraft were a lot newer and did require less maintenance, the cost of a bare 100 hourly has always been around the same in man hours its all of the rectifications, worn parts, little bits of corrosion that need to be cleaned up and now SID's. 100 hourly's on older airplanes are more like rolling restorations as they age.
Pre SID's Cessna in the early 90's introduced an optional aging program called CAPs but again no one wanted to do them either, remarkably they are very similar.
Go to the AMROBA web site and look at the newsletters that show the differences in CASA regulations v the FAA and see how we in the industry have fought for many years to bring some sense to the mess we are currently in.
Please next time you decide to blame this whole mess on the LAME take a deep breath and think who is really to blame? Yes GA is expensive but who's fault is that?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRWORTHINESS BULLETIN Cessna's Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) and Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCPs) AWB 02-007 Issue 7 Date: 28 November 2007
4.1 Are Cessna’s SIDs and CPCPs mandatory?
Brief you to keep your aircraft airworthy. They point you to the manufacturer as the best source of advice on the maintenance needed to do that. For a Cessna that means SID and CPCP, if available, unless you can show your alternative addresses the same risks as safely. Your insurance company will probably expect the same.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
Well I know the facts of the incident. I not interested in looking for court papers sorry doesn't interest me. If you wont to research it please feel free to do it. And gee you been involved with 4 Sids inspection, dose that make you an expert ? Did you sign for the work you did, or did you have to have a LAME sign and take responsibility for the work you preformed ?
Avgas 172
GA has been in decline in aust at the change of government in the mid eighty's. When I started aircraft weren't able to get into the circuit area as it was to busy. Casa don't wont GA its too hard for them to regulate. the prefer the big org because its all kept in house.
Oracle
" maintenance performed by indifferent mechanics"
So for a start we not mechanics. You may like to think of calling us that. I actually find it a little offensive. Wish I was cause ill earn more money if I was. Next were are you, so I can let your local engineer know and tell him what you think of him , I guessing you know it all about building aircraft and never need anyone's help from your local engineering shop. You all seam to think that we a bunch of C&&^s. Just there to take your money and charge you a bomb for parts. Then expect that the engineering shop is your personal bank for payment in 30 then 60 then 90 days. Have you any idea the cost of running a work shop is. Well im sorry im not indifferent but people like you make me wont to be.
Well I know the facts of the incident. I not interested in looking for court papers sorry doesn't interest me. If you wont to research it please feel free to do it. And gee you been involved with 4 Sids inspection, dose that make you an expert ? Did you sign for the work you did, or did you have to have a LAME sign and take responsibility for the work you preformed ?
Avgas 172
GA has been in decline in aust at the change of government in the mid eighty's. When I started aircraft weren't able to get into the circuit area as it was to busy. Casa don't wont GA its too hard for them to regulate. the prefer the big org because its all kept in house.
Oracle
" maintenance performed by indifferent mechanics"
So for a start we not mechanics. You may like to think of calling us that. I actually find it a little offensive. Wish I was cause ill earn more money if I was. Next were are you, so I can let your local engineer know and tell him what you think of him , I guessing you know it all about building aircraft and never need anyone's help from your local engineering shop. You all seam to think that we a bunch of C&&^s. Just there to take your money and charge you a bomb for parts. Then expect that the engineering shop is your personal bank for payment in 30 then 60 then 90 days. Have you any idea the cost of running a work shop is. Well im sorry im not indifferent but people like you make me wont to be.