Cessna SID's Feedback
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna SID's Feedback
Who out in Pprune land has had the SID's checks done on there C152, 172 or 182 ?
What are you finding to be the major issues ?
What are you finding to be the major issues ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIDs - not due yet
A&C
The SID's I have read say you don't have to complete the inspections until June 2014.
I know plenty of Cessna owners that are just putting off the evil day....
The SID's I have read say you don't have to complete the inspections until June 2014.
I know plenty of Cessna owners that are just putting off the evil day....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob
One of the reasons that I am into this now is that I can see this amount of work resulting in a large backlog in the maintenance system and people having aircraft on the ground when we finally hit the buffers in June 2014.
I have heard this date banded about but can't find it in my copy of the 152 SID document as all the items for inspection have a time limit of 10,000 hours or twenty years ( some a third of this) I can't understand why some of this stuff has not been done already as the work can be spread over a number of checks before the end date.
I am guessing that the short sighted attitude of some will result in a lot of aircraft sitting around waiting for maintenance capacity or scrapped as uneconomic to put through the SID's due to years of neglect.
I have heard this date banded about but can't find it in my copy of the 152 SID document as all the items for inspection have a time limit of 10,000 hours or twenty years ( some a third of this) I can't understand why some of this stuff has not been done already as the work can be spread over a number of checks before the end date.
I am guessing that the short sighted attitude of some will result in a lot of aircraft sitting around waiting for maintenance capacity or scrapped as uneconomic to put through the SID's due to years of neglect.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen some cheap 150/152s for sale recently. I am wondering if now could be a good time to buy with all the SIDS fear.
Is there anything a pre purchase inspection could see that could suggest how the inspections would go. What about factory corrosion proofed aircraft, are these likely to have issues? I was thinking if could get a cheapy get it compliant, come June 2014 I could fill the shed with cheap spare parts.
Is there anything a pre purchase inspection could see that could suggest how the inspections would go. What about factory corrosion proofed aircraft, are these likely to have issues? I was thinking if could get a cheapy get it compliant, come June 2014 I could fill the shed with cheap spare parts.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just starting an annual/SID on a 45 year old F150 should be interesting.
Downside the age, upside the French corrosion treated all the interior surfaces at build.
Downside the age, upside the French corrosion treated all the interior surfaces at build.
Last edited by dieseldo; 18th Jun 2013 at 10:46.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a post on the previous large topic about these, whereby EASA viewed them as advisory rather than mandatory (can't find the link currently)?
Does that change at June 2014?
Does that change at June 2014?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slopey
The EASA letter that I have seen is in direct conflict with their own policy, as the SID's is now included in the Maintenance manual it is mandatory.
JXK As I read in the NDT on the wingspar bolt hole area is only required if you find corrosion, the biggest pain is the magnetic partial inspection of the engine frame, this is an engine out job.
JXK As I read in the NDT on the wingspar bolt hole area is only required if you find corrosion, the biggest pain is the magnetic partial inspection of the engine frame, this is an engine out job.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
June 2014
Slopey There was a post on the previous large topic about these, whereby EASA viewed them as advisory rather than mandatory (can't find the link currently)?
Does that change at June 2014?
Does that change at June 2014?
I haven't seen the EASA letter but it was on the basis that the SIDs give until June 2014 to complete the inspections that the inspections are being delayed.
I think owners now work on the basis that an average Cessna 152 would still get a few thousand for scrap value so, if their 152 is considered beyond economic repair, they just sell for scrap and take the hit.
The SIDS do make buying an old Cessna less attractive.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dieseldo
I have just has a look in my copy of the SID's document and have yet to find the nose gear torque link NDT requirement, have in missed it or is it only on other Cessna models ?
If you have the page ref for this it would help !
My 1980 F152 was remarkably free of corrosion.
If you have the page ref for this it would help !
My 1980 F152 was remarkably free of corrosion.
Last edited by A and C; 19th Jun 2013 at 10:30.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supplementary inspection 32-20-01 para 4D.
Nose gear bolt and fork inspection.
Eddy current check of upper torque link
Says n/a to the 152 but looking at the drawing it looks like a 152 link!!!!!!
Interesting in that the only ones I have seen cracked are on 152's.
The design is basically the same across the 150/152 and the cause of the cracking is seized bushings causing the the link to be overloaded as the nose leg extends to full travel and back.
I suspect that Cessna have cocked up, but then what do I know.
Nose gear bolt and fork inspection.
Eddy current check of upper torque link
Says n/a to the 152 but looking at the drawing it looks like a 152 link!!!!!!
Interesting in that the only ones I have seen cracked are on 152's.
The design is basically the same across the 150/152 and the cause of the cracking is seized bushings causing the the link to be overloaded as the nose leg extends to full travel and back.
I suspect that Cessna have cocked up, but then what do I know.
Last edited by dieseldo; 19th Jun 2013 at 11:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dieseldo
Thank you for that ! You had me thinking I had missed something on my C152 checks for a moment.
As none on my 152's have had sleazed bushes I don't think it will be a problem.
I think that the nose leg is the same for both the 152 & 172 ( I don't have much to do with 172's) so may be Cessna have done the numbers and come up with a bigger risk of failure on the 172 ?
As none on my 152's have had sleazed bushes I don't think it will be a problem.
I think that the nose leg is the same for both the 152 & 172 ( I don't have much to do with 172's) so may be Cessna have done the numbers and come up with a bigger risk of failure on the 172 ?
Last edited by A and C; 19th Jun 2013 at 22:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Upandown
The end date on the SID's is just that, but the checks are divided into calendar and flying hour requirements, some due each annual check and others only at hourly intervals.
If you reach 10,000 hours or twenty years all of them are due now, if your aircraft is younger or has very few hours only a few of the checks may me due.
Those who are reading the end date as the time these checks are due are likely to get a big shock if the EASA inspectors get a look at the engineering records, releasing aircraft without doing these checks could well cost the engineer his licence or the CAMO their approval.
If you reach 10,000 hours or twenty years all of them are due now, if your aircraft is younger or has very few hours only a few of the checks may me due.
Those who are reading the end date as the time these checks are due are likely to get a big shock if the EASA inspectors get a look at the engineering records, releasing aircraft without doing these checks could well cost the engineer his licence or the CAMO their approval.
Any further thoughts on this subject following CAA publication of IN 2013/138?
IN - 2013/138: The Cessna Aircraft Company Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) ? 100/200 Series Aircraft | Publications | About the CAA
IN - 2013/138: The Cessna Aircraft Company Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) ? 100/200 Series Aircraft | Publications | About the CAA
Just goes to show how far off the pace the CAA are. This should have been decided very quickly after Cessna issued the document. The disconnect between the CAA and working engineers grows ever bigger. That this document only appears because of pressure from owners and maintenace organisations is a small scandal. The CAA no longer leads it just reacts.
Last edited by ericferret; 3rd Sep 2013 at 09:29.
My flying school just permanently grounded a C 152 due to severe wing attachment fitting corrosion. Ironically at around 4500 hrs TT it had almost 10,000 hours less time then the next youngest airframe in the fleet.
The clubs short to medium plan is to transistion to a common fleet of early 2000 vintage C 172 SP's
The clubs short to medium plan is to transistion to a common fleet of early 2000 vintage C 172 SP's
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA cop out !
This is the worst case of the CAA ducking their responsability's that I have ever seen they are pushing the issue into the long grass untill LAMP is withdrawn by EASA.
When EASA finally gets rid of LAMP all Cessna's will have to be maintained IAW the manufacturers maintenance program, so by default the SID's will have to be done or you can get your own maintenance program approved.
So much for the administrative issues owning two 1980 C152's I have found that the SID's have been a worthwhile excersise and gives me confidence that the aircraft are safe for my customers to fly.
When EASA finally gets rid of LAMP all Cessna's will have to be maintained IAW the manufacturers maintenance program, so by default the SID's will have to be done or you can get your own maintenance program approved.
So much for the administrative issues owning two 1980 C152's I have found that the SID's have been a worthwhile excersise and gives me confidence that the aircraft are safe for my customers to fly.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Germany
Age: 57
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question for the SID is a tricky one. A good friend of mine just had his 46 year old French Reims 172 being SIDed. Thanks to the good corrosion protection of the Reims production the machine had no major issue.
There was some minor corrosion starting at some of the hidden connections and beginning area corrosion at the cell surfaces under the plastic covers. They said they did not expect this for an always hangared Reims one and it is not a big issue NOW, can be fixed easily with protective coating and is not very costly, but it is about time to start fight the beginnings. Wing bolts and attachments are good to check, as well as hidden corners, where condensing water could have done something. All over, my friend said it was a good decision - especially for sell capability - and now it is for sure ready for the next 10 years.
In short: yes, it is an ADVISABLE thing to do, BUT wether the results justify a "mandatory" label, like the german LBA interprets, is more then questionable.
There was some minor corrosion starting at some of the hidden connections and beginning area corrosion at the cell surfaces under the plastic covers. They said they did not expect this for an always hangared Reims one and it is not a big issue NOW, can be fixed easily with protective coating and is not very costly, but it is about time to start fight the beginnings. Wing bolts and attachments are good to check, as well as hidden corners, where condensing water could have done something. All over, my friend said it was a good decision - especially for sell capability - and now it is for sure ready for the next 10 years.
In short: yes, it is an ADVISABLE thing to do, BUT wether the results justify a "mandatory" label, like the german LBA interprets, is more then questionable.