From AVWEB: SIDs for Cessna Singles?
 

Good way to sell more of your C162, 172, 182 and 206s.... :rolleyes: :ugh:

Is this an end to these birds ?

fair dinkum Dog One, you're too slow ;)

Good night Cessna high wing singles this will flow down to all of them and CASA will mandate SIDS for all even privately owned.

They haven't forced the issue with the likes of 310's and private ownership.

Gidday Super,
Howsit?

Joker, can't see a problem, if your machine has been regularly inspected for this sort of thing. Corrosion is a bigger problem than stress in the strutted singles. SIDS has been in place for any Cessna conducting any low level work. for some time, as far as I know.

185

Is that really a big deal?

Really?

Surely, its not that hard to pull the wings off a Cessna. I guess the issue will be if they find corrosion and what it will cost to fix. Can't imagine they will find many with the wings about to rot off. High wing Cessnas have been flying for 60 years+ and the main reason they crash has nothing to do with corrosion or airworthiness of any kind. If CASA do decide to cover their arses on this one in the name of airworthiness, it will be another sad day for Aussie GA. Must say though it would be interesting to know why Cessna went for the 336/7 and not the unstruted 210/177 first off.

Folks,
This problem has been a around for a long time --- in Australia. First identified here about 10 years ago.

A major area to be checked for corrosion is the built up spar from the main wing attach point to the strut attach point (non-strutted Cessna singles, 195/177/210, have a completely different structure), hence the estimated cost.

There are at least two sets of jigs in Sydney Australia to re-build the wings, which is what we are talking about. Australia wide, I have no idea. From personal experience I would say $60,000 covers cost of rebuilding the two wings to an as new or better than new if you corrosion paint everything before re-assembly. It is not possible (again, based on experience here in Australia) to determine the extent of the corrosion, without tearing the main spar down, , ahead of the fuel tanks. There is no satisfactory NDT method to determine the extent of the corrosion. There is no "damage tolerance" for corrosion in the area.

It is a real problem, not some marketing ploy by Cessna.

Further, US Congress has passed several pieces of "aging aircraft" legislation, outside the FARs, FAA and manufacturers/type certificate holders have no choice but to respond.

Indeed, if you were to examine the history, you would finds the extent of the problem for strutted Cessna, and the minimum inspection and fix was first raised in Australia ( by LAMEs, not CASA), but it seems the sheer number of aeroplanes put it all in the "too hard" basket.

Given the cost of anything that might substitute for a C152/172/180/182/185/205/206, I would think that rebuilt wings on the 182/206 are probably a commercial proposition, as for the rest, case by case.

Somebody mentioned the 300 series in private use. Anybody who has a 300/400 series used in any category, talk very carefully to your aviation lawyer and make certain your insurance company agrees in writing to cover the aircraft, if the Cessna Maintenance Manual (inc. the SID) has not been complied with.

What constitutes "acceptable data" for Schedule 5 inspections is thoroughly misunderstood. Don't depend on "advice" from CASA, that will be of little help in court.

If you are a LAME, make certain your Hangar Keepers and Professional Indemnity insurance states, in writing, that you and your business and employees are covered, if you sign a MR for an aircraft where the SID has not been done, "because it's only used for private operations".

Tootle pip!!

Uum... beg to differ mate. mine is parked up and hasn't moved for over 12 months because of it.:(

Looking on the CASA database there is only 44 x 337/336 aircraft in aus , so its not really an issue . When they mandate the 100 and 200 series then you will see GA hit hard

I am sure Wiz of Oz is right . Even private 310's are affected by SIDS

Thanks Ledsled..

Sounds like legacy strutted Cessna wrist slashing time approaching then?

True, IF it becomes mandated for all legacy struted Cessnas. Where is the risk management justification for that? As for insurance companies not covering non SIDS compliant aircraft, well maybe, they wont cover anything they don't have to, but in terms of aircraft falling out of the sky, they have much bigger risks than that to worry about.

Well, yes, 60 grand a pop, only two jigs in Sydney, extensive new requirements possibly affecting the backbone of the GA industry, its quite possible to see some of the LAME fraternity being more than happy to support that.

When mandated for the 100 and 200 series, would it be applicable to those 100 series that have gone off the VH- register to the sports aircraft register?

Re SID's on C310's
 

Gentlemen,

This subject is a little touchy and has been done to death in previous posts. I can confirm that CASA will not make you do the SID's inspection. What they have done, back in September, is mandated that you have to maintain your aircraft to the the country of origin, read USA & FAA, with respect to AD's and mandatory service bulletins etc. So If you operate in charter or RPT SID'S is mandated. Private, you can do what you like. Now I can also confirm that many C310 owners, charter or otherwise, have not completed the SID's programme on their aircraft. This gives them an unfair advantage over operators who have. Will CASA make a stand on this? No they won't and please don't ask why as I do not know. However if there were any type of incident resulting in death or injury in an aircraft that is not compliant, kiss your house and any other assets that you may have, goodbye.

Now I expect some people will correct me and that's fine because interpretation is what it is all about but I can assure you this is the state of play right now. Should SID's be done? Yes because the programme has uncovered many defects and this will make your aircraft first, safer and second, worth more at resale.

Groggy

I was sure that due to the Manufacturers requirement for the SIDs to be done, and CASA mandating that we follow the the manufacturers maintenance requirements, that it had to be done even if the aircraft was in the pvt category. this is how it was explained to me by CASA when I was trying to clarify the regs with CASA. I was informed by my LAME that it was also the case. I have also had it explained to me by other LAMEs that it could be interpreted differently and you could get away without having to do it. All you had to do was find the LAME that followed the same interpretation and was happy to sign your aircraft out. I agree that it would be best if it was done, but I have seen a few get through the SID without much at all wrong with them, and others that were good on initial appearance, get scrapped due to cost of SIDs compliance Vs value of aircraft.
I'm afraid mine would fall into the later category. $80K aircraft + $50K to $80K SIDs doesn't = $150K aircraft. I have seen some of the SIDs cost upwards of $150K and take 18 month to complete.

You have a PM Mr Shifty

PM replied to Mr.Thethil. ;)

Folks,
Based entirely on my personal experience, not second hand:

1. The condition of some C-402 of various models has been "scary", not only extensive corrosion and cracking around fastener hole in the inner wing/undercarriage/engine mount area, but elsewhere in the airframe, including serious corrosion up the fin.

In may cases, the "normal" level of inspection at an annual/100h would not have detected it. Don't blame LAMEs, ain't their fault, either the problem, or the cost of repairs. Several orgs. have set up semi production lines, this reduces cost for the 300/400 SID, talk to AMROBA to find out who they are.

Believe me, this is NOT a business development exercise by LAMEs, or Cessna.

2. Less experience with 300 series, but I have the impression that the problem is not so extensive, and the resultant cost of a SID is not so great, but still is a serious amount of change. From owners I have talked to, for a -310, the $40,000+ to $70,000+, around half a 402 cost ---- but these are ballpark figures, and nobody can give you a "firm" price, because you don't know what damage needs to be repaired, until you tear down the structure.

At least in Australia, we have some very good NDT people, including being able to do crack detection in fastener holes, without necessarily having to use the fastener.

3. Strutted singles: Best summarized by saying that, based on corrosion I have personally observed, for the last 10 years or so, I would automatically factor in the cost of rebuilt wings into any purchase, and that has been my advice to others, when requested.

It is a testimony to the soundness of the strutted design, that this problem has not, apparently, resulted in recorded in-flight structural failure. But, then again, many GA accidents are not fully investigated, so I wouldn't rely on the record so far.

Tootle pip!!

Nor has Cessna made any secret of the fact that a SIDs programme was going to be developed for all of their aircraft. In fact, it is heartening to see a company that is prepared to stand by their product which may be due to the fact that it is essentially the same company that made the aircraft, unlike say Piper.:ugh:

The aircraft that brought the problem to light was a 402 used in low capacity short haul route in the USA. The pilot landed the aircraft complaining that he had run out of aileron trim. Not surprising as the spar was cracked.:eek:

The thought process was that these aircraft were never designed to do the hours that they have and Cessna decided that if they were to continue supporting the product then they needed an inspection programme that would enable these aircraft to continue past their original design parameters.:ok:

What has been discovered, as other posters have pointed out, is that in unexpected areas these aircraft had problems and as more inspections are being carried out the more problems are being discovered. I have seen a number of 310s with the whole of the top deck removed as corrosion was discovered there. Incidentally, the price quoted 2 years ago for a SID on a 310 was in the region of $150k.:sad:

This is not work creation by Cessna but a very responsible decision.:D

A SID's program on a 200/100 series would be much easier than a twin as you dont have engines , control cables or undercarriage to deal with . Also if as every owner believes there is nothing wrong with their aircraft then it should be a wings off /ndt /boroscope/wings on procedure . Hopefully Cessna wont make any further SID's programs to involved.

Having being involved in a few full SID's programs the 310 was the worst for access and reassembly.

Vintage or veteran aeroplanes...an investment?
 

Wizard, you make a point about the value of your aeroplane after the SIDS inspection/repairs and I understand this relates to some personal circumstances. However, you have brought up a related and interesting conversation.

In making your point, you have hit one of many nails on the head as to why GA in Australia is going backwards. Surely, when talking about the value of the aeroplane, you need to stack it up against the comparable cost of replacement? IE We seem to blanch at what should be considered good maintenance or life extension on vintage (or at best, very old) aircraft even though we consider the cost of new aircraft too high. In any other industry, people simply won't go near machinery as old as what we find the norm in general aviation because it is considered unsafe. In aviation, we talk about safety a lot and then hope something often as much as 35-40 years old is going to be free of corrosion, and expect maintenance to be cheap. As some have suggested here already, it is possible Cessna and other manufacturers want people to retire their older aeroplanes and get new ones.

On that basis, in working out whether GA can survive, and whether we as individuals can afford to be in it, maybe we need a major and concerted campaign to get banks and other institutions to allow new equipment to be more readily used as security against finance, for the equipment to be written down over more sensible periods, and for the repayment terms to be more representative of the huge initial outlay?

Update from Avweb

CESSNA CONFIRMS SKYMASTER WING INSPECTIONS
Cessna Aircraft Company this week confirmed to AVweb it is developing a supplemental inspection document (SID) focused on the wing attachment points of its long out-of-production model 336/337 centerline-thrust piston twins. According to company spokeperson Doug Oliver, the forthcoming SID may be released as early as the third quarter of 2010 and will call for "relatively involved" inspection procedures despite there being no related accident or incident. Although a SID is not mandatory for non-commercial small piston-powered aircraft registered in the U.S., operators in other countries may be required to perform the inspection by their regulatory authorities. Cessna, for its part, would consider the inspection called for under the SID mandatory, according to Oliver. AVweb

For more information about the proposed SID's on the Cessna Skymaster go to:

Cessna SID Update - Skymaster Forum

The Skymaster Owners have been working with Cessna on the content of these proposed SID's and have concerns about the inspections of the wing/strut attach points. This will be a very expensive procedure and in most cases will exceed the value of the aircraft. It may not be required here in the USA for Part 91 operation but other foreign jurisdictions will be subjected to perform these inspections immediately. The planned format for the published inspections will be included in a new Service Manual for each model Skymaster and potentially could raise questions during routine annual inspections. Given that the design of the attach points are of the same design in all high wing Cessna aircraft, it can only be assumed that these same inspections will be written for the entire high wing Cessna fleet.

"This will be a very expensive procedure and in most cases will exceed the value of the aircraft. "

Yeah lets not worry about weather it is necessary or not.

Will have to find another use for the recently overhauled engine, if the Council closes the aerodrome anyway.!

Boat anchor sounds good

Was thinking more Airboat motor, rather than mooring anchor..

Frigatebird, build an RV!

Get to fly in my hanger co-sharers sometimes when he invites me - nice ship. Sensitive. Needs an autopilot and upgraded to I.F.R. Tend to embarass him sometimes when I comment that he hasn't fully shut the canopy on the take-off roll though.. Goes faster than my old girl but I can take my back seats out and carry more than he can..

Firigatebird...........maybe my IFR RV has the payload you need......... But you cant have her!:}

January 6, 2010

Cessna Confirms Skymaster Wing Inspections

By Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Aviation Safety Editor-in-Chief


Cessna Aircraft Company this week confirmed to AVweb it is developing a supplemental inspection document (SID) focused on the wing attachment points of its long out-of-production model 336/337 centerline-thrust piston twins. According to company spokeperson Doug Oliver, the forthcoming SID may be released as early as the third quarter of 2010 and will call for "relatively involved" inspection procedures despite there being no related accident or incident. Although a SID is not mandatory for non-commercial small piston-powered aircraft registered in the U.S., operators in other countries may be required to perform the inspection by their regulatory authorities. Cessna, for its part, would consider the inspection called for under the SID mandatory, according to Oliver. AVweb first reported Cessna was developing the SID late last month.

"We continually look at aircraft still flying in a light driving us toward safe operations," Oliver told AVweb. The company's ongoing effort to develop the new inspection procedure is part of that effort, he said. Although the company is not prepared to state what it has found as part of its continuous airworthiness program for the 336/337 fleet, speculation is additional stress is placed on the wing structure by the types' twin-boom tail configuration. "Using advanced systems and techniques, Cessna has become proficient in fatigue analysis, so when we started looking at our various fleet models, we knew the twin-boom design of the 336/337 had higher loading than a single-fuselage design and it is one of the early aircraft addressed," Oliver told AVweb via e-mail.

my italics and bolds

Maybe will not filter over to rest of the strutted fleet as feared.

Oz Bus you are dreaming

Maybe will not filter over to rest of the strutted fleet as feared.

With the corrosion found in recent times in various C 172 spar carry through stuctures the high wing SIDS is not far away.

We need to take note of the fact most of the C 150 / C 152 / C 172 used in training are antiques by any measure.

Fair comment Joker10. So what has Cessna done differently in the current model to alleviate the concerns raised in the same model manufactured previous to 1982?

OZBUSDRIVER

Corrosion proofing, option only on pre 90's models.
And only rarely seen at that.

corroision proofing = optional extra always was still is !!

Glad the original owner of my old C310 took that option. she is old and corrosion free. The corrosion proofing does a very good job.

An option is NOT a change in manufacturing process!

If corrosion proofing is required to protect the assembly then it is no option.

EDIT-One hopes Cessna does come to the party if this be the case...however, only seen this assembly in heavily exposed airframe wrecks. Excepting that water may possibly sit on the top of the flange of vertically aligned laminates...is there a a vector for moisture invasion at this point of the airframe?

I must be wrong, I thought Cessna now did corrosion proof (prime) all their modern airframes:uhoh:

Maybe modern airframes get the treatment, a 30 year old spam can is unlikely to have such luxury.

The HARS team have seen some real shockers in recent times by unriveting the skin over the carry through spar on the smaller high wing aircraft.

No argument about old airframes, my old girl was de-skinned and primed about 12 years ago because Cessna didnt do it many years before that.:p