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?

Presentation 6a by the IAOPA sets out the whole SIDs timeline and confirms that the Cessna SID programme is not mandatory under EASA

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.

I think this presentation refers to Cessna twins, whereas the other specifically refers to 100 series & 200 series singles.

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.

No. Other issues may affect Piper and other manufacturers, but the big hitters in the Cessna SIDs programme are unique Cessna design issues.

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.

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

Some proof of that outlandish statement? :mad:

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 ?

Really?
wheres your evidence? :ugh:

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. :ok:

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.

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.

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

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?

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

I own a Piper, so this is only of academic interest to me. It seems that some of the Cessna SID work is good practice, some is common-sense which should have been done along the way and ( for some of the elements) a LAME somewhere should be slapped if faults are found (eg engine mount cracks).

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?

"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

Old Akro,
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!!

yr right,
Could you please use a spell checker, there are plenty of free apps about.
Tootle pip!!

First for the doubters re the Mooney Vac Pump liability case and subsequent award in the District Court of NSW, a copy of the ruling. This was difficult to find as it does not appear on any of the Court Case Search Engines. (thanks tnuc)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqe0qns65v...20Aeroclub.pdf

Mention of it can also be found on page 3 of this AAC

http://www.abs.org.au/uploads/CASA_A..._June_2006.pdf

Why the AAC was cancelled I do not know, it does make clear that in 2006 the SIDs were considered mandatory and clarifies that Schedule 5 is not a stand alone Inspection list. CASA seem to go around in circles!

Old Akro, I think you have SIDs mixed up with the optional CAPSs program, Cessna always intended to make them mandatory and that is why they are incorporated into the Maintenance Manual and not a SIL or SB.

From the Cessna Maintenance Manual Temporary Revision

INSPECTION TIME LIMITS - STRUCTURE
1. Scope
A. This provides the mandatory times and inspection time intervals for components and airplane
structures. This section also gives the required details to monitor them using scheduled inspections. This section applies to items such as fatigue components and structures, which are part of the certification procedures. Refer to the description paragraph below for detailed information concerning
each of these sections.
NOTE: The time limits and maintenance checks listed in this section are the minimum requirements for airplanes operated under normal conditions. For airplanes operated in areas where adverse operating conditions may be encountered, such as high salt coastal environments, areas of high heat and humidity, areas where industrial or other airborne pollutants are present, extreme cold, unimproved surfaces, etc., the time limits should be modified accordingly.
NOTE: The inspection guidelines contained in this section are not intended to be all-inclusive, for no such charts can replace the good judgment of certified airframe and power plant mechanics in performance of their duties. As the one primarily responsible for the airworthiness of the airplane, the owner or operator should select only qualified personnel to maintain the airplane.

tnuc's suggestion to "Read, digest and manage" is a good one, I do a SID's tracking program to assist owners with this. For a 68 model 185 for example there are around 300+ Service Bulletins that need to be checked for compliance. Self research and go in armed knowing what does and does not need to be done can save a lot of money.

Cheers and thanx

I was one of the doubters. Above is the description given, edsbar has provided a link to the court case. Clearly the outcome described above and the court case outcome are very different. Thank you for this link.

Aussie Bob, thank you for the courtesy of responding as a doubter. Sadly some of the LAMEs here don't have great literary or debating skills, don't be too hard on us.
We do cop a lot of grief due to our unique rules and regulations and many shop for the cheapest option and that hurts those of us who just want to do the right thing stay out of trouble and turn a good job for a fair price.

Eh? :eek:

Old Akro, that is precisely what the SIDs are.

The current iteration of Piper/New Piper/Piper Aircraft Company has no liability if PA31s start falling out of the sky - they are not the same company that built the things or most of the other Pipers in Australia.

Give me a SIDsed Cessna over the equivalent Piper any day.

I have said numerous times that I appreciate yr rights input on this forum. :ok:

I like yr rights writing style
No worse than texting

Not quite right yr right
 

Just had a close read of the judgement and it makes for interesting reading,

The pilot was rated for IFR and held a command instrument rating, so yes he was rated. His rating was not current, by three days, big difference.

The flight was conducted under IFR rules, however the prevailing weather was night VFR.


The Mooney Maintenance Manual was pretty clear in recommending 500 hour replacement of the pump. The manufacturer of the pump recommended 500 hours.

An Airworthy Advisory Circular circa 1985 recommended 3 years and 500 hours and both the manufacturer and the circular gave clear warning the pumps were subject to catastrophic failure without warning, and were bound to be unreliable beyond 600 hours. The LAME admitted hew knew this,

LAME's defence was the aircraft was under schedule 5.

The pump in question had done 1248 hours.

We all know vacuum pumps fail without warning with monotonous regularity at any time.

The maintenance organization was only found 30% liable in this case. There was no mention in the judgment that the aircraft was not rated for IFR,

only

(a)that the maintenance organization didn't hold an approval to do IFR instrument maintenance

(b) that the aircraft was a Category B aircraft


It did say however that IFR instrument maintenance was subcontracted to an approved company by the maintenance provider, a situation we know is pretty common.

So the two things you claim in defence of the LAME do not correlate in the judgement,


The pilot did have a rating, just not current

and

The judgement made no mention of the aircraft not being in the IFR category and that in fact the Vacuum system was being inspected and maintained.


If it was me that failed to replace the pump I would be jumping for joy that I was only 30% liable.

Aero Club 15% for not determining the pilots qualifications and how he would operate the aircraft.

Dead Pilots estate 55%

Also you stated that it was the wife that sued, implying the wife of the deceased pilot sued when in fact it was the wife of the deceased passenger.

Again big difference,


all in all a very different picture than the one you have painted?

The Mooney Maintenance Manual only reflected Airborne Service Letter 59, similar Mandatory bulletins refer to check valves, regulators and filters.

http://www.parker.com/literature/Flu...ure/SL-58A.pdf

oh excuses me that how long ago was the incident 1997 that I got a few things wrong when most of you didn't even know about it. How ever there was another incident in vic and I think I added the two together it what happens over such a long time. Now it was accepted practice back then that the vac pump was changed on condition ie when it broke,
It shows though very clear as an owner that you are responsible as well. Nearly 17 years later and we are having the same debate
Cheers

Gold Plated Bolts
 

Just a quick update on the rolled gold, heat treated, passivated, mutually masturbated bolts that you blokes were telling me were worth every penny of $520 each.

Went to install them in the aircraft and guess what? The Vastly superior methods of American Aviation quality control/extortion couldn't even produce a bolt that was straight PMSL

This the new bolt,


http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/a.../IMG_00901.jpg

This the old bolt, which of course there is nothing wrong with


http://i875.photobucket.com/albums/a.../IMG_00891.jpg

I am now more worried than I was before about having a problem with the gear (which means I wasn't worried in the slightest before). Every time I hear people who are gullible enough to defend this extortion I roll around on the floor pissing myself........


Would you like lube with that?

Oh yes please sir it is so much more pleasant with lube, in fact why dont you do it some more PMSL

Now I am the one rolling around the floor laughing, thanks for making my day. Never did I state they were worth every penny, just highlighting the processes of manufacture of such low volume parts.

Do you know if the new part or the old part is deformed, I would be asking Cessna for the drawing and vaguely recall coming across this before. Maybe that is why they have had a 1,000 hour life since 1978??

Again as LAME's we do not make the rules we are just the grim reapers, a position none of us enjoy. Personally I would not have changed them and continued on the AD until the SID date as per the AAC, in the mean time I would have been looking for a way out by PMA alternative or AMOC via perhaps a SOM writing them out of the SID by repetitive MPI.

FYI http://amroba.org.au/images/newslett...0Issue%205.pdf

Keep Laughing
 

Keep Laughing mate as your industry vanishes. The parts were purchased before CASA extended the date, so I fitted them anyway, they were due MPI. I don't have time to stuff around I need the aircraft in the air. As for the options you presented I found one that's even smarter I bought an RV8 empennage and started riveting.

I don't need a drawing to work out that what I am looking at is **** manufacturing. I am prepared to do 2500 hours work to get out of the system does that paint a picture for you? At least I will end up with a decent aircraft.

A first year apprentice could tell that this is **** engineering and quality control.

As stated the price of the bolt is a rip off, the bolt is not straight and the American protection rackets are headed for a nasty surprise. The market is already voting with their wallet.


RE AMROBA and CASA again if you are gullible enough to believe that lobby groups are going to change CASA direction you are sadly mistaken. Nothing short of total revolution in government will stop the overall decline of aviation and indeed Australia. The corruption and incompetence runs way to deep. I suggest you stock up on lube!

Someone I could tell by the change of the screw is not included in the list of components with life mm . In the 100 and 200 series.It is a mistake to cessna should include it in a new revision of the manual?.

I've said it before and I'm happy to repeat it, the Cessna SIDS program will send them to the wall, why anyone would buy a new product from this company that may retrospectively introduce conditions on the product far into the future is beyond me. :ugh: