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 21st Jul 2015, 21:14
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,274
Received 410 Likes on 202 Posts
This ^^^^^.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 21:38
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
The scary part is this is just the Cessnas I've seen similar with Chieftains

One of the things that attracted me to the Twin Commander was the inspections. Because of past wing spar problems things like what was illustrated would get picked up early

I'll bet Pipers will get a SID too
dhavillandpilot is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2015, 23:44
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree that some of the photos on the CASA doc show items that should have been picked up on regular inspections but some of those and the bad ones that I've seen would never have been picked up without at least partial de-skinning.

Until SIDS I'm not sure that an owner would agree to any LAME proposal to remove the skin just because there may be a problem underneath.

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 00:17
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 27/09
IMHO those photos prove nothing.

You shouldn't need a SIDS programme to find those issues. Some of the examples in that bulletin are examples of gross negligence or incompetence. They were certainly did not come about through proper maintenance.

If the relevant manufacturers inspections had been carried out by a competent person most of the those examples would have been found without a SIDS programme. For those items that may not be picked up on an inspection checklist, my experience has been that any engineer worth his salt will know from experience to look for these issues as well.

Omg. These are just a few pics. Some examples of what is out there to be found.
You don't wish to do SBs or manufacturers insp you wish to do Schedule 5. Yet you expect that everything is looked at. Well it can't. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. Oh I'll just de rivet this wing to have a look. Oh and we won't charge you as well because you expect that as well.
Point is if these were old cars they be off the road
yr right is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 00:33
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In most countries the regs normally spell out the owner's obligations regards the maintenance.
It is normally the owner that is responsible for ensuring the aircraft is maintained in the correct manner. My experience has always been that the LAME or A&P desires a greater depth that many owners are prepared to accept.
There would appear to have been many owners/operators that wanted Sched 5, AC43 App C, or similar minimal levels that are perceived to cost the least.

The SID's has highlighted the aging aircraft philosophy for many and all the Pipers I currently work on are maintained to the manufacturer's schedule with the SAIB's and SB's being used for the preventative tasks.

Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Corrosion SAIB | AMT Community


https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/alerts/SAIB/

Here is the listing for a 140..
PA-28-140
CE-11-14 01/05/2011 Stabilizers- Vertical Stabilizer on Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Attach Point Corrosion
CE-11-13 01/05/2011 Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34 Forward Spar Corrosion
CE-10-17 02/23/2010 Landing Gear - Piper PA-28 and PA-32 Main Landing Gear Torque Link Inspection Interval
CE-11-42 06/29/2011 Flight Controls: Control Cable/Pulley Inspections
CE-11-10 01/05/2011 Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Corrosion on Flap Hinges, Brackets, and Ribs
CE-09-23 04/07/2009 Fuel: Piper PA-28, PA-32, PA-34
CE-09-17 03/10/2009 Fuel: Piper PA-28 Series Aircraft Fuel Vent and Supply Hose Condition
CE-11-01 10/04/2010 Stabilizers -Horizontal Stabilator – Turnbuckle
CE-11-11 01/05/2011 Wings - Piper PA-28, PA-32, and PA-34 Aileron Hinge Fitting Corrosion
CE-11-12 01/05/2011 PA-28, PA-32, PA-34, and PA-44 Rear Spar Corrosion at Fuselage Attach Fitting
CE-13-26 03/27/2013 Engine Air Intake System; Air Box Vanes
CE-14-22 07/10/2014 Fuel Selector/Shut-Off Valve
CE-14-23 08/06/2014 Powerplant; Air Intake

Again, I think all the owners would subscribe to the free notification and publication service offered by both the FAA and Piper.

Those guys, at least, have been proactive and should have an inkling of any plans Piper may have for the future re-write of any schedules.

The beauty of many of those inspections is that a regular spray of Inox or similar would go a long way to big savings later on down the track.

Surely there can't be many owners about that are just ignoring this basic stuff.

Last edited by baron_beeza; 23rd Jul 2015 at 11:11.
baron_beeza is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2015, 03:05
  #66 (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
the core of the problem isn't the corrosion, the cracks or the deterioration.

the question is why owners want to persist with old aeroplanes?
the answers are easy to see if you look.

design standards, those things that are so poorly understood, haven't been maintained by engineers for years. they have been adulterated by clerical arse coverers for years to the point that they are near on meaningless.
why weren't corrosion issues addressed at the design phase?
why were companies allowed to design for a throw away 12 year nominal life?
couldn't anyone see the current issues developing?

litigation, the great contribution made by lawyers, has seen what were cheaply produced aeroplanes so loaded up with insurance costs that they became inordinately expensive investments.

amortisation against income tax has not been available to owners for as long as I can remember.
only businesses can amortise and write off the value of an investment against the income it generates. so while businesses can dispose of a zero residual value item and replace it with a new one to be written off over time the poor old private owner is stuck with an inordinately expensive item that stays at its purchase price.

certification has at its core a huge logic fault.
if I buy a car and I prang it that is my problem. the manufacturer has no real issues once the guarantee period has expired.
I'm free to drive and maintain that car as I wish within roadworthiness guidelines. if I prang the car the manufacturer isn't hauled in front of a court and made to pay huge penalties. outside of the warranty period we have effectively gone our separate ways.
as a result of this and other factors cars are cheaper than aeroplanes.

why in hell does the legal system pursue aircraft manufacturers to the point that none are even commercially viable now?
why is it that CAsA were sued 10 million for the crash of the restored warbird when it suffered a cracked jet pipe?
CAsA had nothing to do with the aircraft manufacture, nothing to do with the aircraft restoration, nothing to do with the maintenance. so why was it liable?
why it was liable is a legal pox that needs to be corrected.

all of these factors conspire to make aviation a hopeless industry.

issues with LAME's, commercial viability, crappy old aeroplanes are all just symptoms of an environment that hasn't been healthy and hasn't worked well in decades.
since you've micromanaged it into a death, thanks for nothing CAsA.
dubbleyew eight is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.