New Cessna Special Inspections Documents (SIDs)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C172 et al Inertial Reel P1 Seat mod..
Any opinions with regard to this mod? Anyone had their seat slide back since fitting it?
Does it get in the way? Mine is fitted just like to know how people think about it.
Does it get in the way? Mine is fitted just like to know how people think about it.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I assume that aircraft owners who don't want many of the items on the manufacturer's schedule carried out also say to their garage 'don't bother with the xyz ... ' when their car service indicator tells them something is due. I somehow think the car DOES get actually serviced to the manufacturer's schedule even something going wrong later has much less chance of a nasty outcome!
I expect that 99% of all UK single engined Cessnas are maintained to the light aircraft maintenance program. CAP766
Section 2
The undersigned (owner/operator) undertakes to ensure that the aircraft will continue to be maintained in accordance with the program section 3 responsibilities and standards.
Non compliance will invalidate the c of a.
Signed for/on behalf of the owner operator
Section 3
Overhaul, Additional inspections and test periods
shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder (Cessna ) or STC holder.
(Note use of the word recommended not the word mandated)
Instructions for continued airworthiness
consist of inservice data published by the type cert holder in maintenance manuals, bulletins, letters e.t.c.
Looks fairly clear to me as this is part of the maintenance manual failure to comply invalidates your C of A.
If you own or operate you signed to say you accept this program and content.
Section 2
The undersigned (owner/operator) undertakes to ensure that the aircraft will continue to be maintained in accordance with the program section 3 responsibilities and standards.
Non compliance will invalidate the c of a.
Signed for/on behalf of the owner operator
Section 3
Overhaul, Additional inspections and test periods
shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder (Cessna ) or STC holder.
(Note use of the word recommended not the word mandated)
Instructions for continued airworthiness
consist of inservice data published by the type cert holder in maintenance manuals, bulletins, letters e.t.c.
Looks fairly clear to me as this is part of the maintenance manual failure to comply invalidates your C of A.
If you own or operate you signed to say you accept this program and content.
Last edited by ericferret; 5th Jul 2012 at 21:44.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owning an aircraft in EASA land exposes the owner to the risk of unmonitored manufacturer directed costs in order to maintain the Airworthiness Certificate. This reduces government costs, but creates a situation in which the manufacturer can write law directing owners money its own way. And when that manufacturer goes out of business, the C of A effectively expires unless another private company picks it up.
This situation has happened in the UK and aircraft that have no manufacturers support are transferred to permit to fly. No problem really unless you wish to operate commercially.
As for legality in europe EASA is a legal entity and its rulings are European law.
I understand that the current UK light aircraft maintenance program is being replaced so the wording of the new document will be interesting.
The CAA began a consultative process on 6 feb 2012 lasting six weeks
A taste would be
"industry feedback revealed that the use of manufacturers instructions was something to be promoted"
So I think you can read between the lines a little there.
You can see the new format on the CAA website and basically the threat re c of a invalidation as described in my post above remains.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2263/20120...20Aircraft.pdf
The main change to LAMPS is this new program mandates the use of the manufacturers
maintenance program with additions.
So back to our Cessna issue you will need to comply with the structural inspections.
I suspect that realistically as Part M are required to evaluate all new documentation and time is allowed for them to do this the inspections will hit home in the early part of next year. I suggest that this will align with the next annual.
As for legality in europe EASA is a legal entity and its rulings are European law.
I understand that the current UK light aircraft maintenance program is being replaced so the wording of the new document will be interesting.
The CAA began a consultative process on 6 feb 2012 lasting six weeks
A taste would be
"industry feedback revealed that the use of manufacturers instructions was something to be promoted"
So I think you can read between the lines a little there.
You can see the new format on the CAA website and basically the threat re c of a invalidation as described in my post above remains.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2263/20120...20Aircraft.pdf
The main change to LAMPS is this new program mandates the use of the manufacturers
maintenance program with additions.
So back to our Cessna issue you will need to comply with the structural inspections.
I suspect that realistically as Part M are required to evaluate all new documentation and time is allowed for them to do this the inspections will hit home in the early part of next year. I suggest that this will align with the next annual.
Last edited by ericferret; 5th Jul 2012 at 23:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news from the EASA! The following statement was sent by EASA to AOPA Germany on Aug 16 (published in their current newsletter):
Our below response addresses the case of non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport.
We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated "mandatory" in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation. The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf. in particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) "Content of the Maintenance Programme", item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision.
We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated "mandatory" in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation. The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf. in particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) "Content of the Maintenance Programme", item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So put simply if you don't do the checks and the aircraft has an accident some Lawyer will blame you in court and it will be up to you to prove you are not guilty rather than for him to prove you are guilty if you don't do the SID's
Perhaps some one would like to publish a copy of the EASA letter to AOPA Germany on the internet, the UK CAA reaction will be most interesting.
Perhaps some one would like to publish a copy of the EASA letter to AOPA Germany on the internet, the UK CAA reaction will be most interesting.
Last edited by A and C; 18th Aug 2012 at 11:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silvaire,
there is a similar bulletin, the Cessna secondary seat stop modification. For pretty much every piston plane ever built (starting 1948), Cessna will pay for time and material to install a secondary inertia reel to prevent the pilot seat from sliding back should the seat stop system fail. They have been offering this for several years but most planes still don't have it. There is no AD.
If I rent out my plane and the primary seat stop fails during takeoff, the seat slides back with the pilot holding the yoke, plane stalls and everybody dies -- what is going to happen? Wouldn't some contingency lawyer go after me because I haven't installed the secondary seat stop modification?
The same danger probably also exists with the SID. As long as you don't let others fly your aircraft, there probably isn't much danger but as soon as you do (even for no charge), you might be at risk.
there is a similar bulletin, the Cessna secondary seat stop modification. For pretty much every piston plane ever built (starting 1948), Cessna will pay for time and material to install a secondary inertia reel to prevent the pilot seat from sliding back should the seat stop system fail. They have been offering this for several years but most planes still don't have it. There is no AD.
If I rent out my plane and the primary seat stop fails during takeoff, the seat slides back with the pilot holding the yoke, plane stalls and everybody dies -- what is going to happen? Wouldn't some contingency lawyer go after me because I haven't installed the secondary seat stop modification?
The same danger probably also exists with the SID. As long as you don't let others fly your aircraft, there probably isn't much danger but as soon as you do (even for no charge), you might be at risk.
The fact that Cessna is doing the mod for free speaks to how important they think it is. Frankly anybody who does not fit this kit is IMHO, foolish.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: THE NORTH
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEL-05-01
Last edited by JUST-local; 19th Nov 2012 at 21:02.
BPF,
The Cessnas that I used to fly in Alberta in the 70s and 80s always had a split-pin through one of the seat-track holes to prevent the seat going too far back. Inconvenient when getting in and out but much safer.
The Cessnas that I used to fly in Alberta in the 70s and 80s always had a split-pin through one of the seat-track holes to prevent the seat going too far back. Inconvenient when getting in and out but much safer.
The latest mod uses a fabric strap and an inertial reel. This allows full for and aft travel of the seat under normal operation but will instantly lock under sudden movement ensuring that no appreciable uncommanded seat movement can occur.
It is IMO the only acceptable mod to address the long standing issue of unwanted seat movement and since Cessna will give you the parts for free and pay for the labour to install it any owner that does not fit it is IMO stupid.
I was doing some instruction as a bit of a favor for a small FTU. The aircraft were rough but seemed OK, except no reel seat stop was fitted. The owner was not aware of the mod but had it fitted as soon as I told him.
One week after it was fitted the seat latch let go on my 5 foot nothing female student. The seat slide back maybe an inch untill the reel latched....
One week after it was fitted the seat latch let go on my 5 foot nothing female student. The seat slide back maybe an inch untill the reel latched....
