Cessna SID's Feedback
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,830 Likes
on
1,208 Posts
Yes the no longer have to do it cop out is just that, passing the buck down the line to keep themselves clear of possible litigation and passing that little turkey into your lap... you would be a fool to ignore them, I do wonder what your insurance company would say if you ignore them, considering how they can be touchy about MOT advisories that haven't been carried out..
Indeed I know of 4 cracked wing struts discovered since the SID's came out, I was told that you no longer even have to do any of the limitations in Cessna's manuals if not in a section 4.. i.e. seat belt lives etc, but again some of those listed lives you would be foolish to ignore. It's part of their more relaxed approach to GA... It's a shame that on one hand they tell you LAMP's must be tailored to take account of any limitations in the maint manual, but now they tell you they are no longer legally binding.
The frightning development in my eyes is the previous stance that the Manufacturers maintenance was the defining and legally binding document as to what was required and when... Now they are saying you can ignore large parts of it.. And that is a dangerous precedent, because in one swoop they have kicked safety straight out of the window, one mans interpretation of what parts are needed to be adhered to or not differ from another mans.
You will in effect end up with every aircraft in the UK being maintained to different standards and limitations, and those may well end up as cost related to the detriment of safety...
It does also set double standards as the 300 and 400 series aircraft SID's were mandatory.
Indeed I know of 4 cracked wing struts discovered since the SID's came out, I was told that you no longer even have to do any of the limitations in Cessna's manuals if not in a section 4.. i.e. seat belt lives etc, but again some of those listed lives you would be foolish to ignore. It's part of their more relaxed approach to GA... It's a shame that on one hand they tell you LAMP's must be tailored to take account of any limitations in the maint manual, but now they tell you they are no longer legally binding.
The frightning development in my eyes is the previous stance that the Manufacturers maintenance was the defining and legally binding document as to what was required and when... Now they are saying you can ignore large parts of it.. And that is a dangerous precedent, because in one swoop they have kicked safety straight out of the window, one mans interpretation of what parts are needed to be adhered to or not differ from another mans.
You will in effect end up with every aircraft in the UK being maintained to different standards and limitations, and those may well end up as cost related to the detriment of safety...
It does also set double standards as the 300 and 400 series aircraft SID's were mandatory.
Last edited by NutLoose; 19th Oct 2013 at 23:19.
Every privately operated (Part 91) light aircraft in the US operates without any preordained or documented maintenance plan, and without mandatory compliance to service bulletins. Yes, every one is maintained differently. It has no statistical affect on safety.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chickenhouse
It would seem that if you are correct I will be the owner of the last two C152's flying in the UK !
On a much more serious note the SID's may be advisory in the UK but those who fail to at least read the document and draw guidance from it when carrying out maintenance are being grossly negligent, there is a lot of good advice to be had from the SID's document once the CYA is filtered out.
On a much more serious note the SID's may be advisory in the UK but those who fail to at least read the document and draw guidance from it when carrying out maintenance are being grossly negligent, there is a lot of good advice to be had from the SID's document once the CYA is filtered out.
