New Cessna Special Inspections Documents (SIDs)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless the SIDs become and AD. I think Cessna will use the data coming from the inspections to make a case that the SID's should be mandatory. It is win win for Cessna.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An AD is always a win/win once all affected airframes are out of warranty 
In fact a "mandatory SB" is a win/win once all affected airframes are out of warranty
It is only within warranty that mandatory SBs (and ADs) have to be applied at the manufacturer's expense.
In fact a "mandatory SB" is a win/win once all affected airframes are out of warranty
It is only within warranty that mandatory SBs (and ADs) have to be applied at the manufacturer's expense.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meldex
As I have said above some of us have been doing most of the SID's work as a matter of good engineering practice for years, it is those who have not that have things to fear when they look inside places that have not seen the light of day since AVGAS was 50p a ltr !
Last edited by A and C; 31st May 2012 at 22:12.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: THE NORTH
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna SB's
Is there a better way of compiling a service bulletin listing for a particular model of Cessna.
I have Avantext and the Cessna SB's are all over the place and take a lot of time to work out.
Piper do a per model listing, even a free one on the Piper web site! which is better than the one I pay for.
Thanks for any information.
I have Avantext and the Cessna SB's are all over the place and take a lot of time to work out.
Piper do a per model listing, even a free one on the Piper web site! which is better than the one I pay for.
Thanks for any information.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,928 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
ATP's programme does a compliance report per aircraft for FAA AD's SB's and EASA AD's, you simply add the aircraft, engine, components such as carling switches, radios etc and it compiles a report. We also have the manuals on it for Cessna, but the Piper maint manuals we have are on Avantext as they do not do them on ATP although the ATP compliances part does do the Pipers.
Also on the ATP when you open an AD off the list if there is a relevant SB it will link you to that too...
I think they have a trial programme.
Profile & Compliance App
https://www.navigator.aero/Login?ReturnUrl=%2f
Though the EASA and FAA parts and the Manuals are all separate subscriptions , the lot updates every night off the web, or when you wish.
Also on the ATP when you open an AD off the list if there is a relevant SB it will link you to that too...
I think they have a trial programme.
Profile & Compliance App
https://www.navigator.aero/Login?ReturnUrl=%2f
Though the EASA and FAA parts and the Manuals are all separate subscriptions , the lot updates every night off the web, or when you wish.
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Jun 2012 at 09:39.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,928 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Also register on cesscom and they email you any new ones. If you use Adams Aviation ask to speak to Richard, he deals with ATP so you might get a trail if not one online
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Jun 2012 at 10:38.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe there are people here that think these SID's aren't mandatory. They aren't an SB they are a directive and form part of the maintenance manaul. They are a manual revision. Therefore, if you maintain your aircraft as per the maintenance manual, the SID's are mandatory.
I don't see how you can get around that? I'd love to hear how these aren't mandatory?
As for the 'a good engineer will have been doing this stuff and it won't be a problem'.
I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's.
Any engineer worth his salt will have to think long and hard before he/she shrugs off this new manual revision during your next annual/100 hourly.
I don't see how you can get around that? I'd love to hear how these aren't mandatory?
As for the 'a good engineer will have been doing this stuff and it won't be a problem'.
I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's.
Any engineer worth his salt will have to think long and hard before he/she shrugs off this new manual revision during your next annual/100 hourly.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that anyone who has seen this modification to the maintenance program will take it lightly but it is a question of the likelihood of nasty suprizes.
Those who have been using best practice and spending a time and effort on the care of the aircraft over the years are unlikely to find problems, those who have been happy with the two day annual check are likely to have big problems.
Those who have been using best practice and spending a time and effort on the care of the aircraft over the years are unlikely to find problems, those who have been happy with the two day annual check are likely to have big problems.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,928 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's.
Have done all the wing struts we had that were due several months ago after a supplier let me know a local company had one fail, we had one fail too out of 4 or 5 aircraft and that was replaced with a Servicable item, I also replaced all the nuts and bolts at the same time, something the SID's do not mention, ours failed because of deep pitting corrosion around the tie down hole when doing the rivet eddy current inspection.. One major problem is Cessna was giving at the time about 4 months plus turnaround on replacement struts.... One just hopes they address their lack of spares.
They were in the continuous airworthiness programme, though the wing spar attachment bolts and holes procedure was incomplete in the said programme
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Jun 2012 at 22:42.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviater - Depends on where you are in the world. Yes, in "nervous" EASA-land and Australia, where the CAA's can be convinced to allow killing small children if it could somehow improve safety by 1%, they will be mandatory (of course). SID = AD's in those countries. But in FAA-land for part 91 operations, they don't. You don't even have to follow SB's if you don't want to.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam, SIDs are not ADs. For the Cessna twins, ADs were issued, making certain elements of the SIDs mandatory. The Cessna 100 series SIDs are an amendment to Section 2 of the service manual, i.e. the maintenance section. Under EASA maintenance rules (CAMO or owner maintenance), maintenance has to be carried out according to the service manual's Section 2.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
achimha - Thankyou.
The 100 SID's are not SB's or AD's or SIL's or AC's. They are PART OF THE MAINTENANCE MANUAL. They are mandatory in the any country that uses the manufacturer as the source for maintenance data for the issue of an airworthiness certificate. Unless you maintain your aircraft under a completely different schedule of maintenance ignoring the maintenance manual then they are mandatory.
Most people think that in the US under the FAA and here in Aus under CASA that there's no obligation to do SB's. However, if you read the Manuals for most aircraft, you will find that the manuals state that the aircraft must be maintained in accordance with 'this manual' and any supporting documentation relating to this aircraft. Or something to that effect.
The point is, if you ignore an applicable SB, as an engineer, your asking for trouble.
There are many cases where litigation has found the A&P liable for not carrying out SB's on an aircraft where the owner proved the A&P should have known better and the owner was ignorant or unaware of implications.
Caution any engineer/A&P who says 'Don't worry about SB's. They're not mandatory in this country.
If any of my clients specifically ask me not to carry out an SB after they or I have found it, I get them to sign a letter stating that they are fully aware of the information and have elected not to have the work done. I also sign it, give a copy to the owner, put a copy in the logbook and keep a copy on file.
The 100 SID's are not SB's or AD's or SIL's or AC's. They are PART OF THE MAINTENANCE MANUAL. They are mandatory in the any country that uses the manufacturer as the source for maintenance data for the issue of an airworthiness certificate. Unless you maintain your aircraft under a completely different schedule of maintenance ignoring the maintenance manual then they are mandatory.
Most people think that in the US under the FAA and here in Aus under CASA that there's no obligation to do SB's. However, if you read the Manuals for most aircraft, you will find that the manuals state that the aircraft must be maintained in accordance with 'this manual' and any supporting documentation relating to this aircraft. Or something to that effect.
The point is, if you ignore an applicable SB, as an engineer, your asking for trouble.
There are many cases where litigation has found the A&P liable for not carrying out SB's on an aircraft where the owner proved the A&P should have known better and the owner was ignorant or unaware of implications.
Caution any engineer/A&P who says 'Don't worry about SB's. They're not mandatory in this country.
If any of my clients specifically ask me not to carry out an SB after they or I have found it, I get them to sign a letter stating that they are fully aware of the information and have elected not to have the work done. I also sign it, give a copy to the owner, put a copy in the logbook and keep a copy on file.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SIDs came early to the 337 Skymasters. At the time they did, I was heavily involved in the Skymaster forum as I was about to buy one and there was a lot of talk about the SID. For part 91 you do not have to perform the teardown to comply, just as you don't have to tear your engine down at 2000hrs or every 12 years to comply with what Lycoming says.
Basically, the airworthiness of an aircraft is an FAA responsibility. No private entity, no matter how many SIDs they produce, can ground an aircraft or force you to do anything. So unless the SID is an AD - for part 91 where you don't service according to manufacturers - then it is only advisory.
Now, that might not be the case anywhere else - notice how in Europe they interpret it as you have to tear down your engine at TBO or 12 years. So depending on how you word it or have the type certificate set up, any compliance would have to be to manufacturers specifications.
This has much greater implementations legally than people think. Because if this SID will be grounds for grounding anywhere else, then it will mean that any private entity, now, or in the future, can come up with their own legislation that you need to comply with but without having to inform you about it when you buy the product. Imagine this taken to it's logical conclusion - you buy a dish washer, but 5 years down the road the manufacturer invents a "problem" with the design, forcing you to repair it for more than a new one or replace it at great cost. Would you accept that? What if it was your car? Your house?
Here's a legal clarification from the Conquest owners:
http://www.conquestowners.org/images..._DOCUMENTS.pdf
Basically, the airworthiness of an aircraft is an FAA responsibility. No private entity, no matter how many SIDs they produce, can ground an aircraft or force you to do anything. So unless the SID is an AD - for part 91 where you don't service according to manufacturers - then it is only advisory.
Now, that might not be the case anywhere else - notice how in Europe they interpret it as you have to tear down your engine at TBO or 12 years. So depending on how you word it or have the type certificate set up, any compliance would have to be to manufacturers specifications.
This has much greater implementations legally than people think. Because if this SID will be grounds for grounding anywhere else, then it will mean that any private entity, now, or in the future, can come up with their own legislation that you need to comply with but without having to inform you about it when you buy the product. Imagine this taken to it's logical conclusion - you buy a dish washer, but 5 years down the road the manufacturer invents a "problem" with the design, forcing you to repair it for more than a new one or replace it at great cost. Would you accept that? What if it was your car? Your house?
Here's a legal clarification from the Conquest owners:
http://www.conquestowners.org/images..._DOCUMENTS.pdf
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 18th Jun 2012 at 15:31.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adam
Structual failure of my dishwasher is unlikely to kill me, on the other hand the Structual failure of one of my Cessna's is very likely to result in the death of the crew. Hence the tighter maintenance oversight.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That might be so, and it certainly would be prudent to comply, but it still doesn't make it mandatory.
Airworthiness is the responsibility of the FAA (in the US), and that's why we, and the manufacturers, pay millions and millions to go through the certification process. Once that's completed, FAA is responsible for the continued airworthiness of that particular type certificate, not the manufacturer. One can't have it both ways - either the manufacturer is responsible for the airworthiness (and in that case, why certify it?), or the FAA is.
Therefore, the only things that can make an airframe non airworthy is if the FAA published AD's or the STC's are not complied with or a licensed FAA representative (A&P/IA or FAA inspector) says so.
That might not be the case in EASA land, but I'm pretty sure it's similar.
Airworthiness is the responsibility of the FAA (in the US), and that's why we, and the manufacturers, pay millions and millions to go through the certification process. Once that's completed, FAA is responsible for the continued airworthiness of that particular type certificate, not the manufacturer. One can't have it both ways - either the manufacturer is responsible for the airworthiness (and in that case, why certify it?), or the FAA is.
Therefore, the only things that can make an airframe non airworthy is if the FAA published AD's or the STC's are not complied with or a licensed FAA representative (A&P/IA or FAA inspector) says so.
That might not be the case in EASA land, but I'm pretty sure it's similar.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 18th Jun 2012 at 17:07.
Aviater, agree 100%. Too many engineers bend over for the owners and have no idea of the implications in the event of an accident.
Take a look at Para 1.18.5 of the Willowbank 206 accident as a classic example.
Investigation: 200600001 - Collision with terrain; Willowbank, Qld; 2 January 2006; VH-UYB, Cessna Aircraft Company U206
Even under Schedule 5 you need to follow the MM or have good reason why you did not (Your honour I know more than the manufacturer ...
)
Take a look at Para 1.18.5 of the Willowbank 206 accident as a classic example.
Investigation: 200600001 - Collision with terrain; Willowbank, Qld; 2 January 2006; VH-UYB, Cessna Aircraft Company U206
Even under Schedule 5 you need to follow the MM or have good reason why you did not (Your honour I know more than the manufacturer ...
)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In EASAland the regulator efffectively accepts no responsibility. They insist the manufacturer / owner / operator do a large number of things and will prosecute it they do not happen. But and it is a huge but, the responsiblity for airworthiness is all on the owner/operator. Pretty much like having your cake and eating it.