PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/486246-cessna-100-200-sids.html)

Avgas172 8th Mar 2014 04:32


1985: Cessna became a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamic Corporation.
1992: General Dynamics announced the sale of Cessna to Textron Inc.
One wonders what legal liability or right Textron Inc. has to issue orders on aircraft built before this date :confused:

LeadSled 8th Mar 2014 05:07


One wonders what legal liability or right Textron Inc. has to issue orders on aircraft built before this date :confused:
The answer to that is straightforward, CESSNA still holds the Type Certificates of all Cessna models, so whoever owns CESSNA at any given time has to support the company. Or they could choose to not support the company, and put it into bankruptcy, in the event of a major hit.
Unlike "old" Piper and "New Piper", there is no new and old Cessna.

Tootle pip!!

Avgas172 8th Mar 2014 10:10

Agreed, but does that give them the right to retrospectively change the life of components of an aircraft they never built?

LeadSled 8th Mar 2014 14:58


Agreed, but does that give them the right to retrospectively change the life of components of an aircraft they never built?
Avgas 172,
Cessna built Cessnas, period. The corporation has been a continuous entity since it was founded. Who the shareholders of Cessna were at any particular time is not relevant.

The whole SIDs program didn't just "happen", there are several Acts of Congress, that started with aging airline aircraft, driving the process.

Given what I have seen in stripped down airframes, I would not buy any strutted Cessna older than about 15 years, unless the wings had been rebuilt, including the multilayer spars from the root to the strut attach point.

Tootle pip!!

Avgas172 9th Mar 2014 01:05


If the strut breaks on your strut braced Cessna, well, it's not going to end well. That said, it is widely accepted that there has never been the failure of a strut braced Cessna in flight. I am aware of a 185 which was so badly overstressed recovering from a spin through cloud, that the wings were bent outboard of the strut. It still landed safely, and the wings were rebuilt.
This is from a lengthy discussion in a previous Pprune US thread, I can find no documented evidence of a wing failure in a 172/152 other than from coming into contact with another aircraft mid air, however to get back to my original point of U bolts on the spring undercarriage of a C172, Cessna deciding something should be changed 'just because we said so' will inevitably end up in court, meanwhile I personally would not buy another Cessna product full stop .... Under 15 years old or not.

Incidentally I am currently in the process of organising the SIDS program for my machine, and will keep in touch with any problems found in the process.

Avgas172 9th Mar 2014 01:26

Addendum to my previous post, I have found two wing failures in a C172S, details of one as follows:

A witness stated she observed the airplane in straight and level flight at 1,500 feet. The airplane appeared to be traveling very fast. The nose of the airplane was observed to descend down to a 45-degree attitude and the airspeed increased. The airplane was observed to start a spin to the right and turned 180-degrees when a wing separated from the airplane. Another witness stated she observed the airplane in a 45-degree nose down attitude. The airplane was making a loud noise similar to an increase in airspeed. The nose of the airplane pitched down 90-degrees and she thought the pilot was performing a stunt maneuver. She then observed parts separate from the airplane and paper falling to the ground. Review of radar data showed the airplane's climb from the departure airport to a cruise altitude of 5, 700 feet. The radar data did not capture the breakup event. Review of failed components submitted to the NTSB Materials Laboratory revealed all failure fractures were consistent with overstress fracture, and there was no evidence of significant wear or corrosion. CAUSE: The pilot exceeded the design limits of the airplane which resulted in the right wing separating and subsequent loss of control.
The other is similar cause and investigation results on a P model, but is a tad long to repost here
Cheers
A172

185skywagon 21st Mar 2014 04:56

Dr Oakenfold,
I would brace yourself for a figure well north of $6500, unfortunately.
The tolerances for wear and corrosion are very tight.
PM me if you wish to discuss. I have been through the process with the 185.

185.

LeadSled 21st Mar 2014 07:14


I can find no documented evidence of a wing failure in a 172/152 other than from coming into contact with another aircraft mid air
Avgas 172,
My views are not based on accident data, they are based on really nasty corrosion I have seen in stripped down wings, in the leaves of the main spar, between the root fitting and the strut attach point.

Every one I have seen has had corrosion of varying degrees in this area, and this includes several aeroplanes that spent most of their life in "dry" conditions. In several cases, complete leaves were just dust, once the spar was opened up. It was not visible with the fuel tanks removed, and "tap" tests didn't reveal the extent of the damage.

It really says something for the actual strength of these aircraft, that there has NOT been a history of in-flight structural failure.

Hasherucf 21st Mar 2014 08:07

Rumour is that an AD will be issued to make SIDS compulsory and that Schedule 5 is on the way out.

Horatio Leafblower 21st Mar 2014 12:52

REALLY?
 
Sorry to sound like I am grinding an axe but surely... have any of you guys never seen a corroding Piper?

Seems unfair to enforce mandatory inspections on well-supported Cessnas when effectively unsupported Piper products have no such program or requirement.

Youse pay yer munny yer take yer chance!

Perspective 22nd Mar 2014 12:59

Compliance
 
Hi hasherucf,
When carrying out maintenance on an aircraft, you must use the latest revision Maintenance manual. For Cessna's, SIDS is part of the maintenance manual.
CASA Schedule 5 is simply a list of things you must look at, it doesn't tell you how to maintain the aircraft, the maintenance manual does, and as you have to maintain the aircraft i.a.w. the maintenance manual, I think you would have a hard time explaining why you chose to ignore the well documented inspections in the manual.
Remember, CASA Schedule 5 is designed for aircraft deemed to have an inadequate maintenance manual inspection programme, such as a J3 Cub, refer
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...s/cao100_5.pdf
And it is the Owners responsibility that maintenance has been carried out with the latest revision data etc,
I believe CASA will come out and state definitively cessna owners will have 2 more years to become sids compliant. I don't think schedule 5 will completely disappear but the intent of application of aircraft type will probably be enforced more strictly.
At the end of the day, there is an AWB, and plenty of data stating SIDS to be done, and when by, the AWB I read stated around 2007, the cessna PowerPoint
Presentation stated compliance by dec2013 for 200 series, June 2014 for 100 series from memory. Unless you can show me where it states you are somehow exempt. Also read,
in CAAP 42B1-1' the use of CASA schedule 5 requirements..

6.1
The replacement or overhaul of time lifed components required in an airworthiness Limitations Section of the aeroplane’s maintenance manual and any ""special techniques"" required by the manufacturer or an Airworthiness Directive are required to be complied with. If it is clear from the terms of the manufacturer’s requirement that the manufacturer considers compliance is optional, then that requirement is optional.
I'm pretty sure you would find SIDS coming under special techniques..

Now some manuals don't have much in the airworthiness limitations section, but again I would not want to be the one to try explain why, for example, if I chose not to overhaul the dukes fuel pump, when I well know the manufacturer directs it to be overhauled at 10 years, if something was to happen to said pump which caused an incident.
As I said, a lot of the inspections can be achieved during a periodic without double handling, and the things found as a result of SIDS should be rectified regardless how they we found.

ChickenHouse 22nd Mar 2014 13:11

There is one simple reason Cessnas are subject to the SIDs - Textron was the first to release such a program for aging aircraft. All other manufacturers are obliged to do the same, so stay tuned - the others will follow.

Avgas172 23rd Mar 2014 08:14


Every one I have seen has had corrosion of varying degrees in this area, and this includes several aeroplanes that spent most of their life in "dry" conditions. In several cases, complete leaves were just dust, once the spar was opened up. It was not visible with the fuel tanks removed, and "tap" tests didn't reveal the extent of the damage.
Thanks for your input Leadie, I have no doubt you have found this problem, however one must then ask why Cessna then hasn't put out an AD on this specific problem rather than saying we want you to pull your entire aircraft apart because we found a problem with corrosion within the wing spar?
This also does not address the other issue that bought me into this debate in the first place, ie the U bolts on spring undercarriage having a mandatory time life of three years, that my old mate is 1st class B/S and only does Cessna a disservice in the ongoing sale of their product. Thanks for allowing me my 2c worth and I shall refrain from further comment.
Cheers
A172

Oracle1 23rd Mar 2014 10:17

Correction
 
Avgas,

I have made an error that I have discovered upon closer examination of the document. If the aircraft has the cessna approved corrosion control and prevention program in place then the life of the bolts returns to flight hours only and the 3 years no longer applies. The corrosion and control program is thorough and involved though. I thought that cessna simply placing a three year calendar life on a bolt was unbelievable. However at over $1000 simply for the parts this is still gouging.

edsbar 25th Mar 2014 16:08

Cost of Compliance and Compliance Date
 
I won't get into the are they Mandatory or not argument, IMHO they are warranted and under Schedule 5 required as per the previous posts of Tridac and Perspective.

The FAA did direct all of the TC Holders to develop Supplemental Inspection programs and few did this, what will happen to those types long term that do not have SI programs is anyones guess.

SIDs will not be cheap and $6,500 for the Dr's 1966 Cessna 172 does seem a little light for the work involved unless the labour rate is ten bucks an hour. For example the first task on Operation One of the SID for 100 SERIES (1963 - 1968) states

Inspect aircraft records to verify that all applicable Cessna Service Information Letters, Cessna Service Bulletins and Supplier Service Bulletins are complied with

Researching SB's etc back to 1966 and cross referencing against AD's, old Rex drawings as well as preparation and final certification of the work package alone will take days of work before a panel is even removed. So already the best part of $3,000 has been spent before we even start looking at the aircraft ....

Some suggest the compliance date has changed, for the 100 SERIES (1963 - 1968) the compliance time is ...

If an airplane has exceeded the inspection limits given, the inspection must be done before June 30, 2014. Inspections in subsequent revisions to the SID shall be accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the revised inspection.

All SIDS would be therefore due on this date except the Engine Mount MPI as the SID document states ...

This is a complex and involved inspection. It is recommended that the inspection be coordinated with an engine overhaul, even if the time does not exactly agree with inspection hours. Recurring inspections will be satisfied by inspections at engine overhaul. The initial inspection must be completed by June 30, 2015.

ref https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/...df?as_id=37390

Avgas, Cessna do not put out AD's these are the responsibility of the governing NAA, in the case of Cessna Aircraft the FAA. The SID's I am sure will be amended in time to reflect the findings and address additional areas of concern, some may be added, removed or the compliance times changed.

Yes Oracle the U bolts on the older spring leg aircraft are not the best design and do often fail NDT but remember in 1955 they were probably high tech! Would you rather a SB mandating the fitment of a better designed UC leg as per the later models? Such a mod I would hazard to guess would be tens of thousands of dollars. Remember Cessna improved the design here in all new models from the late 60's.

So many times I have heard the owner tell me his 1980 172 is nearly new as he tries to justify not spending a cent more than he has to on it, bear in mind if it was a car it would be something like an XD Falcon and you would just have it towed for scrap. The same owner screams when you do the first 100 hourly and find more has 20% of every leading edge rib has corroded away and he needs his wings rebuilt.

Then you have the "just do a little this time" owner, you fall for his sob story genuinely believing he is doing it tough and that he will do the right thing and return to progressively bring his aircraft up to speed. You know its safe enough and do a bare minimum schedule 5 inspection to help the poor bugger out. The next week the aircraft has another owner and at the next 100 hourly CASA are knocking on your door asking for a please explain.

For the sake of keeping flying affordable I would very much be in favour of an owner signed waiver for items such as SB's and SID's. A copy in the log book and a copy to CASA to be kept on the aircraft file, this would show that you as the owner are aware of and choose to ignore the requirement and indemnify the LAME. The aircraft could also be placarded much the same way as experimental aircraft are. You could then maintain your biodegradable spam can to the standard you desired in Private Category only and incur the reduction in value.

edsbar 25th Mar 2014 21:58

Agree Clearedtoreenter, CASA's advice to industry is inconsistent regarding what is and is not required and it makes it difficult when you are not on a level playing field. The ATSB have a bit of a say regarding what is required in the report on the broken horizontal stabiliser attach fittings and spar on VH-JHF, worth a read if you have not already ....
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4180954...-115-final.pdf
If the 2 relevant Government departments can not agree what hope has the LAME or Operator have of determining what is and is not required to maintain an aircraft under CASA Schedule 5?

Call 131 757 and ask an AWI in your district office if SID's are Mandatory under Schedule 5 and see if you get a straight answer ... then call a different district office and compare notes.

Standard of maintenance varies between workshops, I have lost customers in the past as the opposition was happy to ignore manufacturers recommendations even for the no brainers that I would consider protect the investment such as Lycoming SB480 4 month oil change intervals, yet shop B will still allow the customers engine to continue on AD/ENG/5. Dare suggest a customer carries out what you consider to be an important Service Bulletin based on 30+ years of maintenance, such as the Cessna Secondary Seat Stop SEB (SEB07-05) and the customer walks ... :ugh:

I also agree re duty of care, something many LAME's and operators have a poor understanding of in GA.

In the lower operational categories in the USA owners can elect not to carry out the likes of SID's and SB's so why not here in Australia? Personally not my preference as I believe the SID's are justified and will certainly go a long way towards retaining the aircraft condition, structural integrity and value long term however the argument that the US is not littered with Cessna's that have fallen from the skies due to structural problems has some merit.

Here is a hypothetical that is very likely in this country ... Your flying your 1968 182 on a bright and sunny Sunday morning and on takeoff the seat slides back and you loose the aircraft killing your Barrister passenger, the subsequent ATSB investigation finds the Secondary Seat Stop SB has not been carried out yet SID's have. Who is going to be wearing that? Cessna offered the parts and labour free of charge to install this since 2007, your LAME suggested it be carried out but your mates LAME was told by CASA Timbuktu office that SB's were not Mandatory, you have also read various articles from the owners groups also advising that compliance is not really mandatory as Cessna suggest ... :ugh:

CASA is such a clusterf*#k and the 20+ years of rewriting the regulations first to follow FAA and more recently to EASA is nothing short of ridiculous adding to the total spiral of GA in this country.

The regulations must be clear and concise, nothing against Schedule 5 as long as it is used as it was originally intended in conjunction with the AMM.

Oracle1 26th Mar 2014 06:54

Cost of parts
 
I agree totally with SIDS I think its a good idea. I am an AME and I maintain my own aircraft through work so I am not concerned about the amount of labor, it is my hobby. I do have a problem paying close to six hundred dollars for a part that is at best worth $50. A U bolt is not worth $600 dollars each in anyone's universe.

edsbar 26th Mar 2014 07:33

Cost of parts
 
Do the maths, perhaps Cessna sell 500 a year?

Have them engineered, manufactured, heat treated, cad plated, passified, NDT inspected, certified, obtain a PMA and then throw in some product liability and get an approval to distribute parts. I reckon you could make them for $700 each at a push. We are not talking a run of 5,000,000 automotive spring u bolts here. Sadly there are not as many 172's as Toyota Camrys and people tend to not realise the economy of scale as we are used to purchasing mass produced high volume items.

I seriously doubt you could do the paperwork for $50 a bolt.

While you are at it I am sure you could also manufacture Tiger Moth Tie Rods as there will be a great market for them and I am sure the last manufacturer was making a killing ....

Sorry too many times I have been through the "I can make that for $5 argument" whilst supplying the part at cost +5% or less and then having to wait 90 days to get paid for it ....

PS. I vaguely recall perhaps Univair producing a PMA alternative.

Oracle1 26th Mar 2014 10:11

Cost of Parts
 
Given that that these bolts are now a SIDS item I highly doubt that Cessna will only sell 500 per year with two per aircraft. Consider how many spring gear aircraft are still in existence out of a production run of perhaps 20,000 pre tube gear models. The engineering and paperwork was all done long ago and I would be highly surprised if Cessna didn't put a lot of them on the shelf in anticipation of their use over the life of the product. With a life of three years or 1000 hours Cessna can certainly expect to sell more of them. The Americans are getting their asses kicked by the Chinese because they fail to realize that they are not delivering a product at a reasonable price. You can make the safest plane in the world but if your customer cannot afford it you wont make any aircraft sales. They have failed to innovate and have not delivered a successful new piston type since their heyday in the 70's.

yr right 26th Mar 2014 12:25

Don't you fellas get it. Cessna do not wont to support these old aircraft. They don't wont them in the air anymore they had no idea that they still be flying now.
As I've said before most people cant afford to own an GA aeroplane. You all complain about your bills now SIDS. For F&^% sake your arses are in the seat. The LAME hasn't made the rules yet you all come down on us like its our fault.
If you think we are all a bunch of C%**s you go do the exams you get an approval and go do it yourselves. Yeh go buy Chiness crap, bet you drive great walls as well.
Trouble is CASA don't support the LAME and give us clear guidelines. You have a problem you should all ring 131 757 and tell them.


Just remember you only live once.

edsbar 26th Mar 2014 17:16

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 :ugh:. 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!

yr right 26th Mar 2014 23:06

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

PLovett 27th Mar 2014 04:56


Wrong did and has happen here in Australia
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!"

Aussie Bob 27th Mar 2014 05:46


Wrong did and has happen here in Australia
Link? Proof? Case? Date? come on yr right, otherwise I am just going yeah right, bull ****e?

gassed budgie 27th Mar 2014 05:58


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!"
IIRC, it was a Mooney 201 that speared in from around 8,500' out the back the Hay/Balranald area about ten years ago.
The vac pump failed, the A/H fell over and the A/P followed.

gassed budgie 27th Mar 2014 06:02

Investigation: 199703221 - Mooney Aircraft Corp M2OJ, VH-KUE

There you go.

Aussie Bob 27th Mar 2014 07:20

That may well be the prang, it's the litigation yr right is on about that I am calling BS on.

PLovett 27th Mar 2014 07:20

Thanks Gassed but I was hoping for a link to the court case. :ok:

yr right 27th Mar 2014 09:18

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.

yr right 27th Mar 2014 09:24

BTW that's why we moving to a Release to Service from a Maintenance Release as FAA have it

Aussie Bob 27th Mar 2014 20:21


As for bull sh*&^*^ proof me wrong.
yr right, you made up a huge rave about litigation and when I call BS, you go "prove me wrong"?????

Your insurance paranoia is amusing, your stories fanciful.

yr right 27th Mar 2014 23:11

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.

tnuc 28th Mar 2014 00:26

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.

LeadSled 28th Mar 2014 02:36


however one must then ask why Cessna then hasn't put out an AD on this specific problem
Very good question, with no good answer, other than the minor quibble that it is the FAA that issues Ads, often on the basis of Cessna SBs, but in this case there was no specific SB. It was certainly brought to the attention of Cessna, and not just from Australia.

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
I have heard words to the same meaning from a very senior Piper sales and marketing executive, about fifteen years ago. His view was that small Piper aircraft had a "desired" life of about ten years, then they wanted to sell you a new aeroplane.



Tootle pip!!

Aussie Bob 28th Mar 2014 08:08


You amuse me with your lack of knowledge or ignorance sorry you pick which fits you best.
yr right, I have enjoyed your analysis of myself but you are missing the whole point of my questioning you, that is in this post you tell a story that would do an insurance salesman proud but seem unable to provide any evidence of the litigation you describe.

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.

Avgas172 28th Mar 2014 09:36


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.
Maybe that's why GA has been in decline for the past 20 years and continues to do so exponentially .... :rolleyes:

Oracle1 28th Mar 2014 21:07

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.

edsbar 29th Mar 2014 00:04

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?

yr right 29th Mar 2014 02:26

http://www.pprune.org/data:image/png...BJRU5ErkJggg==

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.











yr right 29th Mar 2014 02:51

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:32.


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