Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
Based on the presentation by EASA at the March 13, 2014 (ie 1 month ago) open session (see my previous link) it does NOT appear that the Cessna SID programme is mandatory.
It is clear that EASA WILL make some parts of the SID mandatory for some aircraft in the future. But as I read it they are still deciding what to do. See presentation 4b, slide 8. And remember that this powerpoint was delivered by EASA itself.
Both EASA and the FAA in presentations acknowledge that they do not have data or have not analysed data they do have in order to understand which elements of the Cessna SID are important in the real world.
So, the question remains. Why has CASA made all elements the Cessna SID (which was written with the intent of being an optional programme) mandatory for all aircraft in all classes of operation by prescribed deadlines?
It is clear that EASA WILL make some parts of the SID mandatory for some aircraft in the future. But as I read it they are still deciding what to do. See presentation 4b, slide 8. And remember that this powerpoint was delivered by EASA itself.
Both EASA and the FAA in presentations acknowledge that they do not have data or have not analysed data they do have in order to understand which elements of the Cessna SID are important in the real world.
So, the question remains. Why has CASA made all elements the Cessna SID (which was written with the intent of being an optional programme) mandatory for all aircraft in all classes of operation by prescribed deadlines?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wellington
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled says;
You should be thinking about whether you want to fly in an unairworthy aeroplane, some of the Cessna wings I have seen pulled apart are truly scary.
I've heard similar stories over here. In fact I'm now seriously considering only flying Cessnas that have had the SIDs done. These same issues must affect Pipers etc.
You should be thinking about whether you want to fly in an unairworthy aeroplane, some of the Cessna wings I have seen pulled apart are truly scary.
I've heard similar stories over here. In fact I'm now seriously considering only flying Cessnas that have had the SIDs done. These same issues must affect Pipers etc.
Last edited by Weekend_Warrior; 12th Apr 2014 at 00:03. Reason: spelling as usual
Old Akro great infomation, however the presentations contradict each other
Presentation 7 Slide 12
Presentation 7 Slide 12
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very simple really. Cessna had no intent at these aircraft would still be flying let alone still used in the commercial world.
So to cover them selfs and though the detail data they have accumulated thought out the years they developed the system. Now if you don't do it and you have an accident they covered if you have not done the inspections. Cessna all they have to say is we recognised this problem this is the inspection it was failed to be complied with.
So to cover them selfs and though the detail data they have accumulated thought out the years they developed the system. Now if you don't do it and you have an accident they covered if you have not done the inspections. Cessna all they have to say is we recognised this problem this is the inspection it was failed to be complied with.
These same issues must affect Pipers etc.
Its worth the reality check that only Cessna has created a SID programme. Piper hasn't. Beechcraft hasn't. Mooney hasn't. Socata hasn't. Cirrus hasn't (the oldest Cirrus are now 16 years old). Aviat hasn't. Maule hasn't. Gipps Aero hasn't (oldest GA8's are 18 years old), Thrush hasn't. Air Tractor hasn't. Piaggio hasn't. American Champion hasn't.
Its also worth noting that Cessna did not intend the SIDs programme be mandatory.
The real question that our regulators should answer is "where is the data to support this requirement?". How long have we been collecting accident & incident data? If there is a smoking gun, there is no excuse for not knowing where it is.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm no it's not great work for lames at all actually. It's the opposite. The amount of work that is required just in the research is enough to stop you in your tracks let alone the work then required to do the job. Any way lames don't set the rules or the maintenance procedures to the point it is a pain in the arse to be trueful and there are a lot of dead pilots around that maintain there own aircraft. I guess you be saying to your doctor next if you need a bypass it's ok I'll do it myself cause I cut the meat for the BBQ.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been mentioned here before, CASA has not all of a sudden mandated the Cessna SID inspections; they have merely provided guidance material that points out that the existing regulatory structure has always required compliance.
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.
In any case inspecting and ensuring that said aircraft is airworthy should not be a matter of is it mandatory on not, it should be a matter of common scene or should we say professionalism.
I have been involved in several SIDS (as both an A/C owner and a LAME) and The “inspection” component of the SID on the 100/200 series Cessna’s is going to take somewhere between 80-120 man hours (Say $8,000 to $12,000) which is about the same cost as a reasonable funeral – I chose the SID over the funeral.
The repairs that may be required can be extensive. And the fact that defects may be found and that repairs may be required should not be an excuse to look at every way out of doing the actual inspections.
Of course the repairs required as a result of defects found and their possible cost is always the big mystery, however these repairs (or retiring the aircraft from service) should be carried out with or without a SID requirement.
Many aircraft owners and operators actually lack the funds to own their aircraft and when discussing the SID subject they comment with their pocket rather than their brain, considering that the 100/200 series SID was first published about 2 years ago everyone should already be on top of this.
The action to take now is just do it,
1st get a copy of the Manual, or more specifically the SID section, read it and take the time to understand it.
As the owner you are responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft, so manage the job, much like you might manage a building project, in the process be respectful of the LAME / Workshops obligations at the same time. To keep costs contained set boundaries, and request quotes for specific items as they pop up.
Talk to your preferred workshop and LAME, communication is key.
Jointly work out which inspections are most likely to present issues on your aircraft. By issues I mean things that might cause the aircraft to be uneconomical to continue. It would be a shame to find that something big required replacement/repair on the last inspection after everything else had been attended to.
Plan to phase in individual inspection operations or groups of inspections, perhaps fitting them in with other scheduled maintenance, and going from potentially worst to easiest. I.e. “At this inspection, I would like to include Cessna inspection operation 3, 5, 11, and 14 (randomly chosen numbers)”
Aircraft owners are funny animals, and for many aircraft ownership is some sort of status symbol, as well as a play thing. Its not anywhere near as satisfying striding into the aero club and telling your peers to come out and look at your new R/H wing spar cap than it is to get them to look at your new Garmin panel or leather upholstery, but at least you will be alive to drink with them.
By phasing in items over the new extended compliance interval this will ease the initial large cost burden, and hopefully by the compliance date you can have a completely compliance aircraft
As for the horror stories of what has been found, perhaps some photos would be a good way to show what is actually being found ?
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.
In any case inspecting and ensuring that said aircraft is airworthy should not be a matter of is it mandatory on not, it should be a matter of common scene or should we say professionalism.
I have been involved in several SIDS (as both an A/C owner and a LAME) and The “inspection” component of the SID on the 100/200 series Cessna’s is going to take somewhere between 80-120 man hours (Say $8,000 to $12,000) which is about the same cost as a reasonable funeral – I chose the SID over the funeral.
The repairs that may be required can be extensive. And the fact that defects may be found and that repairs may be required should not be an excuse to look at every way out of doing the actual inspections.
Of course the repairs required as a result of defects found and their possible cost is always the big mystery, however these repairs (or retiring the aircraft from service) should be carried out with or without a SID requirement.
Many aircraft owners and operators actually lack the funds to own their aircraft and when discussing the SID subject they comment with their pocket rather than their brain, considering that the 100/200 series SID was first published about 2 years ago everyone should already be on top of this.
The action to take now is just do it,
1st get a copy of the Manual, or more specifically the SID section, read it and take the time to understand it.
As the owner you are responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft, so manage the job, much like you might manage a building project, in the process be respectful of the LAME / Workshops obligations at the same time. To keep costs contained set boundaries, and request quotes for specific items as they pop up.
Talk to your preferred workshop and LAME, communication is key.
Jointly work out which inspections are most likely to present issues on your aircraft. By issues I mean things that might cause the aircraft to be uneconomical to continue. It would be a shame to find that something big required replacement/repair on the last inspection after everything else had been attended to.
Plan to phase in individual inspection operations or groups of inspections, perhaps fitting them in with other scheduled maintenance, and going from potentially worst to easiest. I.e. “At this inspection, I would like to include Cessna inspection operation 3, 5, 11, and 14 (randomly chosen numbers)”
Aircraft owners are funny animals, and for many aircraft ownership is some sort of status symbol, as well as a play thing. Its not anywhere near as satisfying striding into the aero club and telling your peers to come out and look at your new R/H wing spar cap than it is to get them to look at your new Garmin panel or leather upholstery, but at least you will be alive to drink with them.
By phasing in items over the new extended compliance interval this will ease the initial large cost burden, and hopefully by the compliance date you can have a completely compliance aircraft
As for the horror stories of what has been found, perhaps some photos would be a good way to show what is actually being found ?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and there are a lot of dead pilots around that maintain there own aircraft.
wheres your evidence?
lucky im a pilot that not only maintains his own aircraft, but have built others and maintain aircraft im sure you have flown on! and im not a LAME either..
Hey TNUC
send me a PM, you're my kind of LAME.
send me a PM, you're my kind of LAME.
TNUC, you have just summarised this whole thread. It should just be done, or scrap the whole aircraft.
Like you I have seen some shockers, and in some cases the owner can not afford to keep the aircraft flying, or has short arms and deep pockets.
They will also not blink at $140 per hour to service the Merc or BMW, yet tell you that $100ph for the Cessna is extortion.
I am retired now and only just do small contracts.
Like you I have seen some shockers, and in some cases the owner can not afford to keep the aircraft flying, or has short arms and deep pockets.
They will also not blink at $140 per hour to service the Merc or BMW, yet tell you that $100ph for the Cessna is extortion.
I am retired now and only just do small contracts.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's not been explained well is the SIDS are broken up into two major components.
Inspections for ageing aircraft fatigue and the second for identification of corrosion, repair and then control of corrosion in the future.
I am a LAME, Owner and Pilot and I applaud Cessna for being the first to stand up and do this.
I have carried out SIDS inspections on a number of machines and some of the things I've found is frightening to say the least.
We understand that a lot of owners can't afford to spend the money on carrying out the SIDS and that it's hard to justify the cost when the value of the aircraft is not high as well, but bear in mind these machines really weren't designed to be in service this long.
On a side note with regards to owners doing maintenance.
I walked into a hangar the other day to do a job on a friends aircraft, and there was an owner of a light sport aircraft with his prop off looking a little puzzled.
He was trying to work out how some spacers were fitted and was unsure.
Now, if I had not come past and helped him out the possibility existed of it being fitted incorrectly and the result of that possibly catastrophic.
Inspections for ageing aircraft fatigue and the second for identification of corrosion, repair and then control of corrosion in the future.
I am a LAME, Owner and Pilot and I applaud Cessna for being the first to stand up and do this.
I have carried out SIDS inspections on a number of machines and some of the things I've found is frightening to say the least.
We understand that a lot of owners can't afford to spend the money on carrying out the SIDS and that it's hard to justify the cost when the value of the aircraft is not high as well, but bear in mind these machines really weren't designed to be in service this long.
On a side note with regards to owners doing maintenance.
I walked into a hangar the other day to do a job on a friends aircraft, and there was an owner of a light sport aircraft with his prop off looking a little puzzled.
He was trying to work out how some spacers were fitted and was unsure.
Now, if I had not come past and helped him out the possibility existed of it being fitted incorrectly and the result of that possibly catastrophic.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tunc prop stike rnts you all said what I've been saying execs that Toyota charge around $140 an hour as we'll and if you go to places like port Hedland now it's over $200.
The biggest thing with Cessna was they didn't corrosion proof as it was an option at extra cost. Piper and beech did. How ever at some point they too will bring some sort of SIDS out I'm sure.
Anyone remember the Mobil fuel ad. Where you really could not inspect all these areas particularly 300 and 400 Cessnas. Then we had to remove entire fuel systems the stuff I found was a real eye opener places that on a normal service you could not justify removing components to have a look now Mobil paying and we had to. It was scary to say the least.
Now we back there with SIDS but now the owner has to pay and a $100 an hour to run a work shop pay staff insurance power water dosnt leave a lot. Now mining here and lame are leaving the industry so fast to get paid great money and no basic responsabity who wouldn't
Cheers
The biggest thing with Cessna was they didn't corrosion proof as it was an option at extra cost. Piper and beech did. How ever at some point they too will bring some sort of SIDS out I'm sure.
Anyone remember the Mobil fuel ad. Where you really could not inspect all these areas particularly 300 and 400 Cessnas. Then we had to remove entire fuel systems the stuff I found was a real eye opener places that on a normal service you could not justify removing components to have a look now Mobil paying and we had to. It was scary to say the least.
Now we back there with SIDS but now the owner has to pay and a $100 an hour to run a work shop pay staff insurance power water dosnt leave a lot. Now mining here and lame are leaving the industry so fast to get paid great money and no basic responsabity who wouldn't
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although, when you take a BMW to be serviced you do get a concierge to point you in the right direction for the hourly rate you pay.
Might need to get the apprentice to drag out his tuxedo overalls !!
But seriously..
When we started doing the 300/400 series SIDS. The amount of wing attach fittings that we replaced due corrosion or stress cracking was alarming.
Yep !! The bits that hold your wing on..
Are YOU a gambler?
Might need to get the apprentice to drag out his tuxedo overalls !!
But seriously..
When we started doing the 300/400 series SIDS. The amount of wing attach fittings that we replaced due corrosion or stress cracking was alarming.
Yep !! The bits that hold your wing on..
Are YOU a gambler?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rnuts
Ditto. Ive said it before and ill say it again. I will not give a pilot an an aircraft I will not fly in my self. I wont and don't do sh^t work period. the hardest word in aviation is still
NO
Cheers
Ditto. Ive said it before and ill say it again. I will not give a pilot an an aircraft I will not fly in my self. I wont and don't do sh^t work period. the hardest word in aviation is still
NO
Cheers
As has been mentioned here before, CASA has not all of a sudden mandated the Cessna SID inspections; they have merely provided guidance material that points out that the existing regulatory structure has always required compliance.
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.
They (CASA) have gone the extra mile and extended the compliance period.
It also seems to me that the SID programme is required primarily because a) there are some Cessna design flaws that have not been addressed with AD's (eg foam filled 200 series trim tab) and other issues which probably should have been part of the manufacturers service schedule, but aren't - or at least I presume things like wing attach points are not of part of the Cessna service schedule or they wouldn't appear in the SID.
It also seems to me that things like Cessna 400 series wing spars highlight a significant design flaw (ie omission of a spar endcap) which has probably significantly compromised the life of the aircraft. The presentation on this in the EASA papers is very good.
But your understanding and mine of the CASA process is different.
I understand that the SID programme in the US simply added an additional service schedule to the existing manufacturers RECOMMENDED service schedule. It has never required compliance for private operations.Therefore there is no compliance period that CASA needed to extend.
In the US, I understand that following the service schedule is not mandated and that the degree of compliance with the manufacturers service schedule varies according to class of operation.
Move to Australia and I suspect we are alone in the world in mandating full compliance with the SID programme uniformly across all classes of operation. While NZ has adopted the SID programme, their regulations are basically a carbon copy of the FAA regs, so I assume they have some of the same latitudes that the US allow.
Previous posts that it is mandated by EASA are clearly incorrect.
If Cessna really found any time bombs in the 100 / 200 series aircraft they would have issues a mandatory Service Bulletin which in turn would be made an AD. Based on the EASA presentations, I also understand that the really critical issues found during the SID program have resulted in AD's. If this is the case, what is the SID really achieving?
If you contrast CASA with EASA, EASA seem to be having a significant & transparent debate about how to handle the SID programme. The open forum that EASA conducted 1 month ago (see my previous post for the link) is clearly part of this process. I thought it was refreshing that they would conduct such a forum with presenters from Cessna, the FAA, the IOPA and maintainers.
CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of non pilots.
I think that part of CASA's problem is their schedule 5 maintenance schedule, which is disgraceful. I think the smart private owners maintain according to the manufacturers schedule, but list "schedule 5" on the MR to get around things like the 12 year calendar life for engines. If we had freedom from some component calendar life (ie engines) we could very easily be compliant with the Piper schedule. However, if an aircraft was truly only maintained to minimum requirements of schedule 5, it could have some accumulated significant problems.
CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonable. These schedules were written years ago - sometimes based on "best guesses" and have never been updated based on real world experience. They were never created with the intention that they would be mandatory. So, apart from the Cessna SID programme, CASA have nothing they can make mandatory and allowing discretion by individuals is simply not in their lexicon.
tnuc, I'm interested in your view to help my understanding of the process.
I also don't understand the labour hours time difference being quoted in Australia (80 - 120 hours) compared with those being quoted in Europe, the US and NZ.
And, I'll get in an old 100 series non-SID compliant Cessna any day rather than on owner maintained RA (Aus) aircraft. How can we be so strict in one area, yet so abhorrently slack in another?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of non pilots"
As Sids is a maintenance issue it should red the following sorry.
CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of pilots that are ex military and have zero experience in the real world.
Casa are sheading all responsibility in all areas they can. Just look at the formatted FAA AD. Takes a week of reading to get to the AD.
Aviation in Australia has never been in a more dangerous place than where we are now. Multitude regulation changes with all but zero back up and change for change sake.
We lost Ads that were clear and concise which left no room for inturpatation and given sh%t as a replacement AD hose a clear example. To now to look up a reg takes an hour of looking every where to find it it. Its a disgrace to but it mildly.
Shed 5 is ok as we had back up with Aust Ads but these being lost its a no where system and casa trying to get rid of that as well.
Cheers
As Sids is a maintenance issue it should red the following sorry.
CASA has done no such thing and in a process that has no transparency at all - and probably decided in an airconditioned conference room in Canberra by a group of pilots that are ex military and have zero experience in the real world.
Casa are sheading all responsibility in all areas they can. Just look at the formatted FAA AD. Takes a week of reading to get to the AD.
Aviation in Australia has never been in a more dangerous place than where we are now. Multitude regulation changes with all but zero back up and change for change sake.
We lost Ads that were clear and concise which left no room for inturpatation and given sh%t as a replacement AD hose a clear example. To now to look up a reg takes an hour of looking every where to find it it. Its a disgrace to but it mildly.
Shed 5 is ok as we had back up with Aust Ads but these being lost its a no where system and casa trying to get rid of that as well.
Cheers
I think that part of CASA's problem is their schedule 5 maintenance schedule, which is disgraceful.
CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonable
CASA need to get everyone off "schedule 5" but mandating the manufacturers schedule is clearly unreasonable
Schedule 5 is a copy, almost word for word, FAR 43, Appendix D. Is Appendix D, the heart of all FAA maintenance, disgraceful??
In fact, Schedule 5 has suffered,in part, because of the CASA (and predecessors) approach to "Approve data", and what has been taught (or not taught), right back to TAFE.
For a good proportion of FAR 23 light aircraft, the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual is only part of the data needed to accomplish the maintenance as required by Part 91, 135 (or other operating part) via FAR Part 43, and that MM is not comprehensive, you also need the suite of relevant ACs, starting with AC43.13A and .13B.
To try and make Schedule 5 work as it should, shortly after Bruce Byron became CASA CEO, an instrument was published, making the whole FAA AC library "acceptable data" ) ie: approved, plus equivalent data from other NAA, for aircraft type certified in their respective countries. Schedule 5 does not stand alone, you must have the data to accomplish each inspection. You can't make it up as you go along.
This eliminated the "maintenance data approval industry", but many LAME, who had grown up with the "Australia" system, were not happy. They wanted CASA to tell them what data to use, by "approval", not have to decide what data to use. Needles to say, the people Mr. McCormick promoted to positions of power in CASA ( who, in a number of cases, had been consigned to backroom jobs by Byron) have 100% reversed the Byron instrument, and the "approval industry", largely made up of ex-AWIs, is back in full swing.
The answer to proper continuing airworthiness of the Australian light aircraft fleet, is to emulate the FAA approach to maintenance. The cost savings would be very substantial, and we would have aeroplanes in a lot better conditions.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 13th Apr 2014 at 07:06.
