|
“SIDS compulsory because of CASA Regulatory Structure?”
Interesting article in The Australian newspaper this morning, “Inspection Edict Tearing Light Aircraft Apart” - see article reproduced below - particularly the comment by Jeff Boyd that, “it was not the original deliberate intention to make SIDS compulsory, but it ended up so because of the regulatory structure.”
This seems very strange. Perhaps Cream Puff or someone with expertise in the regulatory system can explain why this was so. Surely CASA can bring in advisory material just like the FAA? Article as follows… Inspection edict ‘tearing light aircraft apart’ In general aviation circles they’re calling it SIDS — and it’s leaving the carcasses of light aircraft, some with their engines gone, some with tails and wings amputated, strewn around regional *airports. SIDS stands for Supplementary Inspection Documents, and according to Tony Brand, who runs light aircraft repair and maintenance company Horsham Aviation Services in western *Victoria, it’s killing the industry. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is enforcing a program initiated by the large US light *aircraft manufacturer Cessna of *special inspections of its older aircraft to check for problems like corrosion, wear, cracks, and other mechanical risks. In Australia, Mr Brand said, that covers 3800 Cessna aircraft, and $285 million in additional compliance work. “There was no industry consultation for this,” he said. For Mr Brand SIDS means boom times, with his 11 aircraft mechanics including two apprentices working flat-out on aircraft flown in from all around the *country. “I could put on another five people tomorrow and still not keep up with the work,” he said. But his concern is that SIDS will financially cripple many of his customers. “It’s driving people out of the general aviation industry one after the other,” Mr Brand said. “They have just got it so wrong you wouldn’t believe.” Flying school operators who spoke with The Australian this week all complained about SIDS. “I had to take one plane *completely apart then put it back together again and it cost me $30,000,” said Ray Clamback, who runs a flying school at Sydney’s Bankstown airport. “It turned out there was nothing wrong with it.” Mr Brand said the cost of SIDS was leading some aircraft owners to sell their planes overseas in countries such as the US where the program initiated by Cessna is not mandatory as it is here, but voluntary. Other older aircraft are just not worth taking abroad, and those are being cannabilised for parts, explaining the carcasses. CASA chairman Jeff Boyd said it was not the original deliberate intention to make SIDS compulsory, but it ended up so because of the regulatory structure. “It just got caught up in the way our regulations are written,” Mr Boyd said. He nonetheless defended the compulsory nature of the *program here, saying it was essential to deal with a real safety issue. Mr Boyd, a licensed aircraft mechanical engineer and former regional airline owner, said he had done the SIDS exercise *himself on the 1977 Cessna 172XP he owns and flies. He used it as an opportunity to fully renovate the aircraft. Mr Brand is scathing of the people he describes as technocrats at CASA who have “not worked a day in general aviation, in the hangar.” But Mr Brand has nothing but praise for Mr Boyd who has worked in the hangar, and still does from time to time as a *consultant, such as oversighting maintenance for the Thai military. Mr Boyd, Mr Brand said, was bringing some much needed real world private sector sense to those technocrats. “He’s been doing an excellent job,” he said. |
Folks,
A further comment on the above, Jeff has certainly got it right. Instead of the sensible approach of graded maintenance in US, our "one size fits all" is about to hit GA for another six with Part 135, which, at this stage, will require all "Air Transport" aircraft be maintained with all the hoopla of an RPT A380. The only reason this cost and complexity disaster hasn't hit us yet is an exemption instrument that temporally limits the "new" maintenance regulations to RPT. Repeal the exemption, and WWAMMO!! I guess "regulating" GA out of the sky is one way of "improving" our lamentable safety record, compared with USA. Do you think this new CASA board will act on the rather obvious, that the "regulations" are the problem, not the answer. Tootle pip!! PS: Mind you, maybe future maintenance costs won't matter "all that much", because Part 135 aerodrome standards are going to eliminate most light aircraft charter, anyway. |
But does Mr Boyd (1) consider the regulatory structure to be wrong, (2) have sufficient influence to change the regulatory structure, and (3) have the inclination and sufficient energy and support to get the regulatory structure changed?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, his views are interesting but irrelevant. |
Omg leadie do you always talk to yourself.
Problem is this aircraft are all getting old. And without making it mandatory people like your self will not do it. Once we done 100 and major inspections. At the major we took controls off had a good look around. Now we don't do these inspectors. As with the aircraft I just done we done croaked and worn fittings. With out sids program we would not have been able to look at these areas. At the end of the day it's not the maintenance org that's the problem. It's the owners problem that don't allow a proper look and complain about their bills. Hence with the with now ADs that we had that made certain things mandatory that now arnt no wonder Casa made SIDS mandatory. At the end of the day yes it expensive but Cessna do not wont these aircraft in the air anymore. They making it as hard as possible not Casa not the maintenance org and certainly not the lame. |
the great CAsA concern is that ageing aluminium aircraft will fall out of the sky.
the reality is that only 3 designs have had structural breakups in the air. the tiger moth predates design standards and is a time honoured design. the other two designs that broke up were caused by the regulator's incompetence. the pzl dromadier was approved for increased weight for water bombing. the aerocommander was approved for increased weight because..., just because. both of those designs have shed wings in flight in turbulence. the old cessna you would think would be a candidate for in flight breakups. ...but I don't know of any. the fluffy headed "we know safety" nutters in CAsA are totally off the planet on this one. they have prevented owners from carrying out maintenance on privately owned cessna's and now the remedial SIDS is the result. CAsA are utter nutters. THEY are the cause of the problem. If CAsA had any intellect at all what should happen are 3 things. 1. introduce Canadian owner maintenance for private owners. 2. allow for the decertification of privately owned commercially built aircraft 3. introduce an experimental - amateur maintenance category of registration for any privately owned aircraft. because of the deeply entrenched nutter mentality of the place I'll bet they won't. If I owned a Cessna I'd be suing the arse off CAsA for preventing effective owner maintenance. |
Tony Brand is a good LAME and a good guy. :ok:
He also did one of those unapproved courses. :ooh: |
Yr Right has some points, valid and invalid.
Cessna have not made SIDS mandatory....from the manufacturer, its HIGHLY reccomended. CASA have made it mandatory. Owners won't pay to have inspections/repairs done...big fooey. I work in the auto industry. Big difference you say....dam right there is, and you have more power than I do, but all you LAME's are the same. I get a service in, I do the work and the inspections. If an owner decides they do not wish needed work done, then I note it on the invoice for the client to acknowledge the item. I also do not release the car until I have been paid. This is where LAME's have a tool that I don't. YOU HAVE TO SIGN for the aeroplane to be returned to flight. Too many of you sign simply so you get paid, and most of you release without being paid...in the hope the cheque is really in the mail. The pay rates for tradies in the AME business are crap, and very disporportinate to the end bills. ____________________________________________ Mr Boyd states that he took the opportunity to completley refurbish his aeroplane. The SIDS is so invasive, that a refurbished aeroplane is what comes out the other side. :ugh: |
Some of you should have seen the cracks in the C172 elevator on the aircraft I had just done 16 hrs in. I was not impressed.
|
D8 is wrong, well nearly so.
SIDS came about because a C402 landed in the US with the pilot complaining that he had run out of aileron trim to keep it level. The aircraft was high time (> 20,000 hrs from memory) and had been used on a short sector low-capacity RPT run (lots of pax & bag weight). On inspection the aircraft was found to have a cracked spar. It was well on its way to an in-flight break-up. It was then that Cessna came to the decision that their aircraft were being used far more than the original design envisaged and that if they were to be kept airworthy then something more than the run-of-the-mill inspections were required. I have seen what SIDS have uncovered by way of unseen corrosion on C310 and C206 aircraft. I have also heard about what has been uncovered on C172 aircraft, a design that was believed would have very few problems. Yes, SIDS is expensive and no, it doesn't had the equivalent value to the aircraft, but if we wish to continue to operate ageing aircraft it would seem to be a responsible decision. |
I accept your point plovett.
however I see the other side of the experience. take my mate freddoh and his little vintage cessna 150. it was rebuilt by a victorian LAME out of two aircraft one a crashed fuselage and one a crashed wing. the undamaged bits were married into one aircraft. the aircraft is still the only cessna I've flown that has no need for control trim tabs it is such a straight airframe. lived all its life in a hangar. I don't believe it needs a sids teardown. it is totally uneconomic to do the program and as a result a perfectly serviceable cessna will end up being scrapped. I'd take the aeroplane out and fly it now. I have a pretty good idea what it is like inside. I've done work on it. another cessna 150 I know of is sitting in a hangar somewhere in the eastern states. it has a total of 300 hours on it. the owner has had medical problems for decades evidently. the sids cost will probably see it scrapped eventually. hang your heads in shame CAsA. |
the aerocommander was approved for increased weight because..., just because. The Aero Commander problem was a design/manufacturing flaw (actually several) and not related to the increased gross weight for some AC500 models in Australia. Sadly, Aero Commander shed wings in NZ, US and elsewhere. There is an excellent article of the subject by Steve Swift (ex CAA/CASA) which you will probably find on Google. Since that article, there have been two more in flight breakups in Australia, neither related to the above flaws, but still related to the basic design. In these two referred, the wings failed in downward bending, outboard of the engines, not at the wing root. None of the above are "aging aircraft" problems. Indeed, at least one failure was at quite low hours, don't quote me, but about 3700 hours. What a wonderful thing it would be to have the Canadian system here, there was a move to do so in 1997, the objections of the likes of yr wrong and the CAR 30 Workshop holders plus AWIs ( described at the time as "opposed by industry and CASA safety experts) killed it. yr wrong, You are just a dill, you would not have a clue what my attitude to the Cessna SIDs are, or what my experience on the subject might be. Tootle pip!! |
about the time that allan bond won the america's cup ( so about 1982) the guy opposite me in the office asked what an aeroplane cost.
I didn't know. his reply was that I had a phone beside me, find out. I rang Transwest at jandakot. they were the cessna agents at the time. a Cessna 152 cost $250,000. yes, a quarter of a million dollars for a 2 seat aeroplane that wasn't even corrosion proofed. there in lies the problem. as a private owner you can't amortise the cost against your income. to get this in perspective I built my home in perth about 4 years previous to the phone call. the total cost of a new brick and tile home on a 650 square metre block was under $35,000. the poor bugger with the 300 hour cessna 150 I take my hat off to. he has fought cancer for years I was told. to him that little cessna is an investment approaching a quarter of a million dollars. its current value was probably $25,000 to $30,000 before sids. its value now is probably the weight in scrap aluminium. just consider for a moment what that poor guy has lost. of course the clueless in CAsA have no idea of the tragedies their fckuwitted approach to safety has caused. none of them ever owned aircraft during their working lives. none of them ever put a dollar of their own money toward what they flew. they don't have a bloody clue and my gods does it show. hang your heads in shame CAsA. |
Some of you should have seen the cracks in the C172 elevator on the aircraft I had just done 16 hrs in. I was not impressed. What did the owner say when you returned his aircraft with all those cracks after 16 hours of your botched landings? |
What relevance do cracks in elevators have to SIDS, Sunfish?
|
W8, in 1983 bank rates were 25% for short term loans and similar for 90 day bills and property was moving at record pace. $250K for a C150 seems wrong but believable, however and perhaps Gaunty, who did some time at Rex Aviation, (the Cessna dealers not the airline), could probably tell you what they were worth in 1970. I don't believe they were 10 times the average wage. In which case one new then and still flying probably represents good value. I do recall the Kiwi's buying all the OZ 152's and on-selling them back to the Yanks, but that's another story. Whatever, the SIDS can't be measured as part of the value if it can only be recouped in Australia.
|
Some of you should have seen the cracks in the C172 elevator on the aircraft I had just done 16 hrs in. I was not impressed |
I rang Transwest at jandakot. they were the cessna agents at the time. a Cessna 152 cost $250,000. Manufacturers list price in 1982 was as follows ........ 152 US$24,300 152 II US$30,000 152 Trainer US$31,680 152 Aerobat US$32,400 Corrosion proofing was a US$1,675 option |
Cessna have not made SIDS mandatory....from the manufacturer, its HIGHLY reccomended (sic). CASA have made it mandatory. That is only partially correct, and CASA did nothing "special". The Cessna SID is certainly a requirement (mandatory) for any aircraft used in Part 135 ( roughly charter) in USA. Cessna made the SID part of the Cessna MM for various aircraft, and Australian maintenance rules do not differentiate between categories of operation, so owners/operators of aircraft all are stuck with the requirement. US rules do not take the "one size fits all" approach of Australia, to the long standing relief of private owners in the US. Tootle pip!! |
Cracks in elevator torque tube were not visible until the elevator skin was removed
|
Jeez Sunny,
you mean you have to peel the aircraft during SID,s?? |
Indeed Thorn Bird, there is an amount of "peeling" required.
|
Just like the Mobil fuel disaster which allowed us to go into areas where we normally could not go the amount of things that were found was quite amassing.
Sids has come about for a number of reasons. Its is what maintenance orgs have found and reported back to the manufacturer, what the manufacturer has found themselves and the fact that the manufacturer did not expect that these aircraft would still be in service now. In the mid 70s early 80s GA cessnas and other manufactures was booming here in Aust. Aircraft were relatively cheap and disposable. Much like Beechcraft which had a buy back of the starshio so they could remove its type cert and there fore not have to support it. Some people didn't not return it to beech so they couldn't do it. Cessnas answer was SIDS. This was to remove as many aircraft as they could by making it so hard and expensive to do, that you would walk away. Problem is in many cases there are no alternative aircraft available and what are are extremely expensive and out of reach for most. So some SIDS were you have to remove a rivet that is in a totally incesable position clearly chosen for that very reason to make it as hard as possible to do. Its clearly seen for what it is, to remove the aircraft from service, So what happens we do the inspection find nothing loose money on the service because the owner jumps up and down at the cost. One saving grace is the now availability of relatively low cost of boroscopes that allow you to get into some of the tighter spots with out the need to disassemble de rivet a complete assy. Now someone complained about the cost of doing an inspection and that its 1/10 of his hers wage, im sorry how is that my or anyone else's problem if they cannot afford the cost of ownership. I don't see many LAMES in GA with gold teeth. In fact that the LAME has subsidised the GA industry for ever with little or no reward for what the he or her has to achieve to get to the position of holing a Lic. Not to mention the legal holding which goes along with that. Maintenance in Aust has always been cheap for what has been provided. This can be seen by the way that the average age of Lames is increasing and why the fact not many people are coming and when they do leave the industry. The fact that maintenance orgs are closing down and no new ones are opening up. SIds is just one more thing if you own a Cessna you have to do to managing your aircraft in a serviceable condition. ANd leadie isn't it time that you removed yourself from the chair and go to the crew rest |
The current maintenance system, including Schedule 5, was, introduced around 1991/1992 and removed the 3 year major. This was introduced by the regulator in response to lobbying by certain operators, and owner groups. Those that remember the Major should be able to remember that it was far more "in depth" and if it had continued, the condition of the Australian fleet would be far better.
It is unfortunate that since this change the standard of aircraft in this country had dropped dramatically. Most GA aircraft in Australia are maintained to Schedule 5 (Sched 5 is a “minimum” standard), and without the “Major Inspection” aircraft standards have decreased dramatically. If we imagined for a moment, that the SID was not “mandated” as it has been through Aviation Ruling 01/2014, how many Registered Operators (Owners) would request that the inspections prescribed in the SID document for their aircraft be carried out, or even taken into account during a 100 Hr or Annual inspection? In fact how many Owners currently request any additional inspections above and beyond the minimum standard required now ? My guess is very few. All we see on here is constant winging and sookin about the cost of aircraft ownership ! Its hard to believe that anyone with that attitude is going to do anything that is not required off their own back. If a SE Cessna is taken into maintenance to have the initial SID compliance carried out, it would be fair to say that All of the defects that that SID will or should uncover in that airframe already exist prior to the inspection, and in most cases probably have existed for considerable time, and those defects would still exist if the SID was mandated or not. From what I have seen physically and in photographs, of dozens of SID inspections the biggest cost is not the actual inspections, but the repairs required because of what is found. The faults being found as a direct result of the lower standard of maintenance that was lobbied for in the early nineties. Extensive corrosion seems to be the biggest finding, which is time consuming to repair, and unfortunately time is money. Stating that the SID has devalued aircraft seems non sensical, it is the fact that it is probably carrying defects that devalues the aircraft. I agree that many owners of aircraft cannot afford the cost of SID compliance, I have seen this, and sometimes the cost of compliance may be equal to or greater than the value of the aircraft, I also see that many owners struggle with the cost of the minimum maintenance standard without SID inspections. surely this argument can't be used to lower standards further, simply put, aircraft are expensive, learn this before you buy one, if you don't you will lean soon after your purchase. It is terrible seeing people buy an old aircraft only to sell it a couple of years later for a fraction of what they paid for it and leave the industry with a bad taste in their mouth, but it is a regular occurrence. There is a solution but who knows what it is ? |
Major inspections became a bore when all aluminium aeroplanes, (sorry airplanes for the spellchecker), became popular in Australia. Austers needed the fabric looked at and wood in the wings problematic. In tube fuselage aeroplanes, (sorry airplanes), rust was a problem also. Today modern fabrics repel even the best testing punches and there are inspection ports everywhere on Cessna's and Piper's. Be this as it may, the modern engineer just isn't up to scratch in inspections and many "modern" aeroplanes have been found with cut and broken cables, corroded brackets, illegal fuel systems and a plethora of other small things like delaminating skins.
The engineer who did a major did the work. Schedule 4-5 just let them off the hook and the lawyers entered the business over duty of care problems. The main point these days is some engineers just can't do anything unless someone tells them to do it or it's written in the reg's. Can't bother doing what needs to be done in the name of common sense and a mindset of demarcation if they do something the reg's don't tell them they don't have to do. The poor bloody owner usually cops it in the neck either way. |
The main point these days is some engineers just can't do anything unless someone tells them to do it or it's written in the reg's. Can't bother doing what needs to be done in the name of common sense and a mindset of demarcation if they do something the reg's don't tell them they don't have to do
That's because that's the way we as lames have to approach it. We are reamed that there is no such thing as common sense. We the ones that get Casa on our backs all the time. We the ones that get charges and fined. Any wonder why we are gun shy. And when you been to court and your friend is done over because he used common sense when there was no maintenance program for that inspection and went beyond aches 5 in positive way and gets changed and looses on that point where are we at |
Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc?
|
Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc? |
Piper have SAIB's
The various Piper aircraft seem to be easier to maintain than some of the equivalents about. The Tomahawk, for example, is very well constructed and laid out, and as a result a breeze to maintain.
There are bulletins and now FAA SAIB's that the LAME's would be referring to during their inspections of these types. Many of the problematic areas revolve around dis-similar metal corrosion issues. An owner of these aircraft would presumably be reading the SAIB's and getting involved in preventative maintenance. A spray of Inox or or other CIC would go a long way to keeping their machine healthy. Piper have a very good free subscription service for owners' also. |
Honestly leadie you need to see a dr and quickly. Your "Q" syndrome is out of control. If anybody here need to see a shrink it is you, with your facade of an illiterate drongo being a bit tiresome, to say the least. And as a matter of interest how many flying hours do you have. Bring on the Canadian owner maintenance program, which would be a huge boost to light GA. Is there a SIDS equivalent for Piper, Beech etc? Tootle pip!! |
one should never attack the man.
I'm glad you don't service wheelbarrows because I wouldn't borrow one you'd worked on. |
I agree with yr write;
Experience is of paramount importance in the aviation industry and it would seem his 70,000 hours as an engineer puts him/her in a category. By my sums 70,000 hours is 7.99 years. Less the learning / apprentice period of 4 years still leaves him/her with 3.99 years of real world experience. Beat that LeadSled! |
Actually Frank, to be charitable, I think he meant working hours. @40 hrs a week, that actually 33 years I think......:confused:
|
Oh, I see now. The 40 hour week. Didn't think of that.
Would that be 16.5 years on tools and 16.5 years filling out CAsA paperwork less the aforementioned student/ apprentice period, (when he learned "the reg's"), still leaves a very credible 12.5 years in the real world. What say you, LeadSled? Huh! |
Folks,
Obviously, in yr wrong's way of thinking, without the extraordinary skill, daring, dexterity, dedication to duty and altogether humble virtuousness of the sainted LAME, the paramount goal of "air safety" would not be possible, as all those irresponsible and generally incompetent threats to air safety, known collectively as "pilots" and "owners", would have destroyed themselves. yeh bring it on with some of the stuff ive seen in my 70000 hours of working on aircraft give our take a bit. the worst was done by an airline pilot. In fact the worst people to deal with are people of your stature. The success of the Canadian system is now well proven over 20 or so years, but let's uses a local example. The most common category of aircraft to turn up new on the VH-register (or RAOz 19-) are Experimental Amateur built, with performance that puts "factory built" aircraft in the shade. As most of the builders and maintainers are NOT LAMEs, I assume yr wrong would advocate they all be grounded immediately. In fact the worst people to deal with are people of your stature. Tootle pip!! PS: Speaking of law, I will give you a tip, it can be very expensive publishing the statement that somebody is a liar. |
I ask this genuinely as I want to own an aircraft in the hopefully not so distant future (yes I know, insane etc etc I've heard it all before), do most LAMES in Australia share the attitude of yr right towards aircraft owners and operators, or is he not typical of your average LAME?
|
LAMEs come in all flavours - good, bad, competent, incompetent, safe, dangerous, expensive, cheap, rich, not-so-rich. Never met one who was really poor, though some claimed to be. No different to pilots, really.
When you do buy an aeroplane just remember that if you are selective you can pick any two of fast, cheap and reliable. You will never have all three. |
Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30.
|
Just don't expect them to work on your plane before 8AM, between 09:30 and 10:00, 12:00 and 13:00, or after 16:30. |
Lead sled is right LAMES come in ally shapes and sizes.
For the most part they are just trying to do a job made difficult by an obnoxious regulator. Yr Wrong seems to be one of those LAMES that see us owners as cash cows, irrespective what our circumstances are. My philosophy has always been if the work needs doing then do it, but don't come to me with a load of bull**** and tell me you know what right and me as the owner just take it. In a previous life I had a reasonably large transport aircraft that needed some structural repairs. The engineer gave me the spiel of what had to be done in his view and refused to listen to my point of view. It ended when he stated "What would you know, I am the engineer you are just the pilot ands owner" My reply, left him in no doubt "Yes you are a LAME but I have the bit of paper ( degree) that says I'm a structural engineer who actually has the qualifications to design these structures" Needless to say I eventually went elsewhere. Perhaps we all need to take a step back and realise we are all in the same lifeboat. |
Very interesting replies, thank you.
Also appreciate I didn't get any lectures on the idiocy of aircraft ownership.. that has to be a first! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.