Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

“SIDS compulsory because of CASA Regulatory Structure?”

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

“SIDS compulsory because of CASA Regulatory Structure?”

Old 11th Jul 2015, 22:10
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Indeed Thorn Bird, there is an amount of "peeling" required.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 00:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just like the Mobil fuel disaster which allowed us to go into areas where we normally could not go the amount of things that were found was quite amassing.
Sids has come about for a number of reasons. Its is what maintenance orgs have found and reported back to the manufacturer, what the manufacturer has found themselves and the fact that the manufacturer did not expect that these aircraft would still be in service now.
In the mid 70s early 80s GA cessnas and other manufactures was booming here in Aust. Aircraft were relatively cheap and disposable.
Much like Beechcraft which had a buy back of the starshio so they could remove its type cert and there fore not have to support it. Some people didn't not return it to beech so they couldn't do it.
Cessnas answer was SIDS. This was to remove as many aircraft as they could by making it so hard and expensive to do, that you would walk away.


Problem is in many cases there are no alternative aircraft available and what are are extremely expensive and out of reach for most.


So some SIDS were you have to remove a rivet that is in a totally incesable position clearly chosen for that very reason to make it as hard as possible to do. Its clearly seen for what it is, to remove the aircraft from service, So what happens we do the inspection find nothing loose money on the service because the owner jumps up and down at the cost.


One saving grace is the now availability of relatively low cost of boroscopes that allow you to get into some of the tighter spots with out the need to disassemble de rivet a complete assy.


Now someone complained about the cost of doing an inspection and that its 1/10 of his hers wage, im sorry how is that my or anyone else's problem if they cannot afford the cost of ownership. I don't see many LAMES in GA with gold teeth. In fact that the LAME has subsidised the GA industry for ever with little or no reward for what the he or her has to achieve to get to the position of holing a Lic. Not to mention the legal holding which goes along with that.


Maintenance in Aust has always been cheap for what has been provided. This can be seen by the way that the average age of Lames is increasing and why the fact not many people are coming and when they do leave the industry. The fact that maintenance orgs are closing down and no new ones are opening up.


SIds is just one more thing if you own a Cessna you have to do to managing your aircraft in a serviceable condition.


ANd leadie isn't it time that you removed yourself from the chair and go to the crew rest
yr right is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 05:59
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cairns
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The current maintenance system, including Schedule 5, was, introduced around 1991/1992 and removed the 3 year major. This was introduced by the regulator in response to lobbying by certain operators, and owner groups. Those that remember the Major should be able to remember that it was far more "in depth" and if it had continued, the condition of the Australian fleet would be far better.
It is unfortunate that since this change the standard of aircraft in this country had dropped dramatically.
Most GA aircraft in Australia are maintained to Schedule 5 (Sched 5 is a “minimum” standard), and without the “Major Inspection” aircraft standards have decreased dramatically.

If we imagined for a moment, that the SID was not “mandated” as it has been through Aviation Ruling 01/2014, how many Registered Operators (Owners) would request that the inspections prescribed in the SID document for their aircraft be carried out, or even taken into account during a 100 Hr or Annual inspection?
In fact how many Owners currently request any additional inspections above and beyond the minimum standard required now ? My guess is very few. All we see on here is constant winging and sookin about the cost of aircraft ownership ! Its hard to believe that anyone with that attitude is going to do anything that is not required off their own back.

If a SE Cessna is taken into maintenance to have the initial SID compliance carried out, it would be fair to say that All of the defects that that SID will or should uncover in that airframe already exist prior to the inspection, and in most cases probably have existed for considerable time, and those defects would still exist if the SID was mandated or not.

From what I have seen physically and in photographs, of dozens of SID inspections the biggest cost is not the actual inspections, but the repairs required because of what is found. The faults being found as a direct result of the lower standard of maintenance that was lobbied for in the early nineties.
Extensive corrosion seems to be the biggest finding, which is time consuming to repair, and unfortunately time is money.

Stating that the SID has devalued aircraft seems non sensical, it is the fact that it is probably carrying defects that devalues the aircraft.
I agree that many owners of aircraft cannot afford the cost of SID compliance, I have seen this, and sometimes the cost of compliance may be equal to or greater than the value of the aircraft, I also see that many owners struggle with the cost of the minimum maintenance standard without SID inspections. surely this argument can't be used to lower standards further, simply put, aircraft are expensive, learn this before you buy one, if you don't you will lean soon after your purchase. It is terrible seeing people buy an old aircraft only to sell it a couple of years later for a fraction of what they paid for it and leave the industry with a bad taste in their mouth, but it is a regular occurrence.
There is a solution but who knows what it is ?
tnuc is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 08:34
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Major inspections became a bore when all aluminium aeroplanes, (sorry airplanes for the spellchecker), became popular in Australia. Austers needed the fabric looked at and wood in the wings problematic. In tube fuselage aeroplanes, (sorry airplanes), rust was a problem also. Today modern fabrics repel even the best testing punches and there are inspection ports everywhere on Cessna's and Piper's. Be this as it may, the modern engineer just isn't up to scratch in inspections and many "modern" aeroplanes have been found with cut and broken cables, corroded brackets, illegal fuel systems and a plethora of other small things like delaminating skins.
The engineer who did a major did the work. Schedule 4-5 just let them off the hook and the lawyers entered the business over duty of care problems.


The main point these days is some engineers just can't do anything unless someone tells them to do it or it's written in the reg's. Can't bother doing what needs to be done in the name of common sense and a mindset of demarcation if they do something the reg's don't tell them they don't have to do.


The poor bloody owner usually cops it in the neck either way.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 08:47
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The main point these days is some engineers just can't do anything unless someone tells them to do it or it's written in the reg's. Can't bother doing what needs to be done in the name of common sense and a mindset of demarcation if they do something the reg's don't tell them they don't have to do


That's because that's the way we as lames have to approach it. We are reamed that there is no such thing as common sense. We the ones that get Casa on our backs all the time. We the ones that get charges and fined. Any wonder why we are gun shy. And when you been to court and your friend is done over because he used common sense when there was no maintenance program for that inspection and went beyond aches 5 in positive way and gets changed and looses on that point where are we at
yr right is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 10:58
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?
terminus mos is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2015, 14:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?
No
PLovett is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 00:09
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Piper have SAIB's

The various Piper aircraft seem to be easier to maintain than some of the equivalents about. The Tomahawk, for example, is very well constructed and laid out, and as a result a breeze to maintain.
There are bulletins and now FAA SAIB's that the LAME's would be referring to during their inspections of these types. Many of the problematic areas revolve around dis-similar metal corrosion issues.

An owner of these aircraft would presumably be reading the SAIB's and getting involved in preventative maintenance. A spray of Inox or or other CIC would go a long way to keeping their machine healthy.
Piper have a very good free subscription service for owners' also.
baron_beeza is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 00:43
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Honestly leadie you need to see a dr and quickly. Your "Q" syndrome is out of control.
yr wrong,
If anybody here need to see a shrink it is you, with your facade of an illiterate drongo being a bit tiresome, to say the least.

And as a matter of interest how many flying hours do you have.
And what possible relevance could my hours have to the matter of Cessna SIDs, other than you penchant for attacking anybody who disagrees with you, and attacking those two categories that you clearly regard as such serious threats to aviation safety:aircraft owners and pilots. Who, as a class, in your considered view, are so dumb they could not survive committing aviation without you heroic efforts.

Bring on the Canadian owner maintenance program, which would be a huge boost to light GA.

Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?
With Piper, it is an interesting story, with the bankruptcy history separating the current company called Piper from previous companies, and exactly just which entities hold the Type Certificates. I haven't followed it in detail in recent years, but there was a major effort to separate any liabilities from the old company and insulate the new company(s) from product liability for aircraft produced by the company that produced most of the aircraft we know as "Piper".

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2015, 11:52
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
one should never attack the man.

I'm glad you don't service wheelbarrows because I wouldn't borrow one you'd worked on.
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 00:13
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with yr write;


Experience is of paramount importance in the aviation industry and it would seem his 70,000 hours as an engineer puts him/her in a category. By my sums 70,000 hours is 7.99 years. Less the learning / apprentice period of 4 years still leaves him/her with 3.99 years of real world experience.


Beat that LeadSled!

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 14th Jul 2015 at 00:15. Reason: I must qualify that post by admitting maths was not my best subject.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 00:34
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually Frank, to be charitable, I think he meant working hours. @40 hrs a week, that actually 33 years I think......
porch monkey is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 01:46
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh, I see now. The 40 hour week. Didn't think of that.
Would that be 16.5 years on tools and 16.5 years filling out CAsA paperwork less the aforementioned student/ apprentice period, (when he learned "the reg's"), still leaves a very credible 12.5 years in the real world.
What say you, LeadSled? Huh!

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 14th Jul 2015 at 01:46. Reason: Irony is lost on many these days.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:06
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Folks,
Obviously, in yr wrong's way of thinking, without the extraordinary skill, daring, dexterity, dedication to duty and altogether humble virtuousness of the sainted LAME, the paramount goal of "air safety" would not be possible, as all those irresponsible and generally incompetent threats to air safety, known collectively as "pilots" and "owners", would have destroyed themselves.

yeh bring it on with some of the stuff ive seen in my 70000 hours of working on aircraft give our take a bit. the worst was done by an airline pilot. In fact the worst people to deal with are people of your stature.
In my opinion, the above statement is as good an example of blind prejudice as I have seen in a while. Never let the facts stand in the way.

The success of the Canadian system is now well proven over 20 or so years, but let's uses a local example. The most common category of aircraft to turn up new on the VH-register (or RAOz 19-) are Experimental Amateur built, with performance that puts "factory built" aircraft in the shade. As most of the builders and maintainers are NOT LAMEs, I assume yr wrong would advocate they all be grounded immediately.

In fact the worst people to deal with are people of your stature.
Just a guess, but probably because we don't suffer fools gladly.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Speaking of law, I will give you a tip, it can be very expensive publishing the statement that somebody is a liar.

Last edited by LeadSled; 14th Jul 2015 at 02:22.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 02:30
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 568
Received 71 Likes on 25 Posts
I ask this genuinely as I want to own an aircraft in the hopefully not so distant future (yes I know, insane etc etc I've heard it all before), do most LAMES in Australia share the attitude of yr right towards aircraft owners and operators, or is he not typical of your average LAME?
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 03:35
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 2,186
Received 144 Likes on 96 Posts
LAMEs come in all flavours - good, bad, competent, incompetent, safe, dangerous, expensive, cheap, rich, not-so-rich. Never met one who was really poor, though some claimed to be. No different to pilots, really.
When you do buy an aeroplane just remember that if you are selective you can pick any two of fast, cheap and reliable. You will never have all three.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 03:37
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30.
wishiwasupthere is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 03:44
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: nosar
Posts: 1,287
Received 23 Likes on 12 Posts
Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30.
And despite all that, expect a bill for 10 hours ...
Aussie Bob is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 06:25
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Lead sled is right LAMES come in ally shapes and sizes.

For the most part they are just trying to do a job made difficult by an obnoxious regulator.

Yr Wrong seems to be one of those LAMES that see us owners as cash cows, irrespective what our circumstances are.

My philosophy has always been if the work needs doing then do it, but don't come to me with a load of bull**** and tell me you know what right and me as the owner just take it.

In a previous life I had a reasonably large transport aircraft that needed some structural repairs. The engineer gave me the spiel of what had to be done in his view and refused to listen to my point of view.

It ended when he stated

"What would you know, I am the engineer you are just the pilot ands owner"

My reply, left him in no doubt

"Yes you are a LAME but I have the bit of paper ( degree) that says I'm a structural engineer who actually has the qualifications to design these structures"

Needless to say I eventually went elsewhere.

Perhaps we all need to take a step back and realise we are all in the same lifeboat.
dhavillandpilot is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2015, 07:51
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Posts: 568
Received 71 Likes on 25 Posts
Very interesting replies, thank you.

Also appreciate I didn't get any lectures on the idiocy of aircraft ownership.. that has to be a first!
junior.VH-LFA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.