Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
 

Cessna has just released the SID documents for the 100 series and 200 series continued airworthiness program.

The big ticket was that they do not consider an aircraft in excess of 30,000 hours to be airworthy!

How many Cessna over 30,000 hours are still flying?

Do they then fall into the 'experimental' category??

Probably less C100 series in excess of 30,000hrs than C200 series.

morno

If it's timex @ 30,000 hours & you bought it @ 29,000 you got a good 7-10 of private flying years left. Get a 182, don't f@ck around :ok:

Morno, the highest time C210s' were (I believe) at Alice Springs and when I was there last (2008) they were in the low to mid 20 K. :eek: Cessna engineers used to come and have a look at them. :uhoh: Mind you, one of them was a bit like George Washington's axe, I think the only original bit may have been the maker's name plate. :}

I never heard of a higher time C200 series aircraft but perhaps there are some C206s' about that are in that ballpark and dunno about any C207s' but if any of them got into that figure then i have the greatest sympathy for the poor bleedin' pilot. :ugh:

Parta the reason is probably why buy an old spam can when for not much more yer can get the latest brand new fully blinged two seat LSA hot rod..:)





.

Very few 172's in this country would be over 15,000 hours, 182's most are under 10,000 hours. A few 206's I know of are 20,000 hours +.

Most cheap 100 series Cessna's are in need of paint, engines, interior and SIDs.

Do the maths! (engine 35k + fitted, paint 15k, another 10k to fix the corrosion hidden by the paint, interior 7k, windows 3k+, cables, SIDs, replace the c*#p avionics, seat belts) Before you know it that 25k "bargain" owes you 150k.

Plenty of 2000 and on model 172's on TAP starting at 80k so why would you bother??

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?...-seq=4&s-lvl=0

Dr,
I put my 185 through it last year.
If you don't have any major corrosion issues, it shouldn't be too bad. Absolutely everything gets looked at if it is done properly. This may turn up some extra work to be done, that you may not have allowed for. 185's get a 30000 life, and 206's get 40000, I think.
Cheers.

Judge for yourself Dr

Here are the links;

172 69-76
https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/...df?as_id=37396

182 69-76
https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/...df?as_id=37400

i would love to know how they arrived at that figure? what does the Manufacturer say about a 30,000hr life limit?

For the 172 ......

The Supplemental Structural Inspection Program is valid for Model 172 airplanes with less than 30,000 flight hours. Beyond this, continued airworthiness of the airplane can no longer be assured. Retirement of this airframe is recommended when 30,000 flight hours has been accumulated.

I guess they looked at the fleet age and had to decide on a point to which they would do the calculations based on the average for model. That would explain why the 206 has a higher life, higher average TTIS compared with other models ....

I'm putting a 95,000 hr limit on the 10, at least 315 years of maintenance free flying.............yeahhhhhh :D

Go the Tomahawk bro

If the machine has had regular maintenance by a reputable engineer then the SIDs are no big deal just a little expensive for the first time.

As 185 said it is mainly about corrosion management or lack there of.

Here is the 150 SIDs link Dr ..........

https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/...df?as_id=37395

They are no big deal but note they are repetitive.

Get a good pre-purchase so there are no surprises, have a good look at the underfloor area around the seat tracks, top hat through the roof, wing and strut attach. If the engine has been in it for some time (on condition) make sure your engineer is going to be comfortable signing it out, 0-200's are bloody expensive to overhaul!

Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
 

Previously I have been involved in many 300 & 400 series initial Sids, as well as ongoing requirements. I am currently involved in the full SID inspection on a 6000ish hour 152. I didn't expect much initially, however nearly every inspection has revealed deficiencies. Most items found relate to corrosion some quite excessive, which is an issue given the small maximum allowance for material removal before replacement or repair is necessary, lots of cracking around the horizontal and vertical stab mountings, rusty and worn control cables, etc We have probably gone further than prescribed in the document in some cases, but this does not alter the fact that the defects exist. An example may be the rudder pedal torque tube inspection, the SID only calls for a visual insp in place, due to sone other work being carried out we putted them out. Instead of visual we did a Fluro pen inspection, only because we whet doing something else at the time. The pedal torque tubes where showed 4 cracks that could not be seen visually. The repairer inspected by MPI and found 4 more cracks.
We know this inspection will exceed the value of the aircraft.

Tnuc,
That will be quite a common experience, I fear. Fortunately it wasn't too bad for me, although it was a bit bracing.
185

Folks,
One thing we have found from experience is that even well maintained 100 series can have very difficult to detect corrosion. The area in question id in the main spar sandwich from the main fuselage attach point to the strut attach point.
Even with the tank out, it is very hard to detect, short of dismantling the multiple leaves of the spar t this point.
Having seen what I have seen, I would not buy a strutted Cessna unless the wings had been rebuilt, because this very insidious corrosion will happen to the best maintained aeroplane.
Does the SIDS doc. call up any particular inspection of the area, visual is not nearly good enough?
Tootle pip!!

Agree Leadsled, especially in bag wings. Without removing the top skin and tank liners you will never see what's lurking in there, and in a lot it would not be pretty!

Cessna 100 and 200 SIDS
 

I think most people are just burying their head in the sand and don't want to know about this requirement

The same happened with the 300 / 400 series SIDs .......

Were on Schedule 5, we don't need to do that! :ugh:

Having seen some of the horror shows that came out of the SIDS program on the 300 and 400 series as well as a C206, people would be well advised to carry it out if they want to continue operating those aircraft.

These aircraft were never designed to do the hours that some are now wracking up and Cessna at least have had the balls to admit the fact and do something about it. I would be very surprised if the other manufacturers products didn't also show similar unforeseen problems if they were subjected to a similar program. After all, wasn't there a spar failure in a Beech Mentor that was being used in a warbird scenario? The same spar that is used on the Bonanza, Baron and Duke I think.

It was a spar crack in a C402C that led to Cessna instituting the SIDS program. The aircraft had done over 22,000 hours and a pilot complained that he had run out of aileron trim to keep the wings level. The aircraft was being used as a low-capacity RPT transport.

Schedule 5 should be scrapped for aircraft where there is a manufacturers recommended maintenance schedule.

I've heard there been cracked wing attach fittings found on a 100 series that weren't visible before wing removal..:ooh:

Going on the above you wouldn't touch it unless you got it for knicks and even then it will cost you more than it's worth?

And how many of those hours are aerobatic??

Riems or Cessna Dr? All Riems models were factory corrosion proofed where it was an option on the US built models. The factory corrosion proofed airframes fair a lot better.

Where has it lived? Coastal or inland?

PM for ya :ok:

Suggestion....
 

Mid 70s Aerobat, 11,000 hrs....
Might I suggest a Slimpack?

Mid 70's, 11,000 hour Aerobat eh? Only just over a third of its life in SIDs terms then:) I'd love one of those. I learned on one when it was quite young. Really nice with the 130HP. I'd hate to think it had been doing what my instructor did to it every day for the last 40 years and gone through 40 cold, damp British winters though.

Looks like the old girl might still be going well... still in the same school 35 years later and must have something in the teens of hours by now!

Photo Search Results | Airliners.net

Still, if its not gone through SIDs and the wings have fallen off it would be a pity.

I'd bet its all fine though and they haven't and if it does die it won't be SIDs that kills it. I'd doubt theres any evidence whatsoever in risk management terms to suggest that this lawyer driven program has made any contribution to increased safety. What's even more silly is that the Cessna 182 maintenance manual revision of July 2012 seems to say it all has to start at 500 hours or 5 years... so in theory, even restart Cessnas are due for for a $20,000 pull apart from next year. Great work for LAMEs!

Well..........won't be buying a Cessna then :cool:

I beg to differ. If it had been the company lawyers they would have recommended washing their hands of the whole thing.

This was driven by the engineers. By getting involved with SIDS Cessna have basically exposed themselves to liability issues all over again having been absolved from that mess by US legislation. If you recall Cessna stopped making piston aircraft for a time. This was due to product liability suits and the insurance premiums made the whole business a waste of time. However, Congress passed legislation that effectively put a sunset clause on product liability for aircraft. Can't remember the time period but think it was either 20 or 30 years. SIDS has opened up Cessna to liability issues for those aircraft again.

Build your own & build it bullet proof :ok:

True enough. Its lawyers aided and abetted by engineers. When my wings fall off (which I reckon they probably won't but someones somewhere might) the lawyers can say 'well we told you if you didnt do our SIDS program, this MIGHT happen'. (but actually you're much more likely to crash due to some minor oversight in your flying rather than any engineering issue, but we won't compare that in risk terms.)


Yeah, buy a Bonanza:ok:

So Bonanza's dont corrode then???:confused:

Possibly a facetious comment there?

You'd have to be better off with a Cessna!:ugh:

SIDs
 

G-BUZN,
If the SIDS is incorporated into the Reims 172 service manual as it is with the US built 172's, I'd say yes.

How are all the Cessna 100/200 series operators going out there with SID's compliance? Just over 6 months to go on 200 series and a year on the 100s! Gonna be a few cheap Cessnas coming up I fear. :(

I have just completed the SIDS on my 210. It seems as though operators are ignoring the requirement for the SIDS to be completed.
I reckon some operators may be thinking that because they are maintaining their machines on Sched 5, this means they dont have to comply with the manufacturers maint manual which is incorrect.
The SIDS are quite comprehensive so the maint org won't be able to complete them overnight.
Add to this the fact that a lot of these aircraft have been operating in harsh environments, you can expect to find and have to repair corroded or worn parts.
Expect then long lead times on parts from Cessna..
CASA will mandate the SIDS in my opinion just as they did with the 300/400 series.

G-BUZN
 

At the moment the UK maintenance industry is doing its level best to ignore the SID's checks, the problem being that as one Chief Engineer said to me "if I do this check I will loose a five aircraft contract to xxxxx who won't do he SID's unless forced to do so by the CAA".

As far as most operators in the UK are concerned they will spend as little money on they aircraft as they can and won't do anything that is not mandatory.

As far as I am concerned the SID's are mandatory in the UK and must be done, having just done one of my aircraft and half way into the second I warn you that some of the parts prices from Cessna are eye watering, however the corrosion issues are not as bad as predicted, there is about 90 hours labour in the inspection alone with rectification extra to that.

It is high time the UK CAA got its head out of the sand and started making sure that these checks are done, so far they are proving to be a toothless tiger who are putting those operators who set high standards at a big financial disadvantage to those who are skimping on maintenance by not insisting these checks are done.

Rnuts,
Could you pm an idea of cost for the 210, and where you got it done?
Cheers,
185