|
I am surprised no-one has commented on this as it will surely increase maintenance costs. EASA will want all these inspections added to maintenance programmes and, of course, compliance will be recorded by the engineer each time he carries out each inspection. Good engineers know these airplanes are old so inspect them accordingly. Now he will spend more time pushing pen rather than being an engineer!
How many Cessna landing and taxi light switches were changed for no reason? You only have to look at how EASA is certifying engineers to see where this is all going for light aviation. People with degrees sign off the aircraft The hands-on people don't. So the pen-pushers need it all written down so they can use their degrees to sign off the aircraft. |
Are these really mandatory under EASA rules? In the US, they are not for Part 91 operators.
If this really becomes mandatory, it will be catastrophic. Some of the inspections call for very costly procedures, e.g. the engine mount inspection requires you to remove the engine and most accessories and even recommends doing an engine overhaul while at it (you have until 2015). Others require the application of certain older service bulletins which have always been optional. The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. Same here? |
The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. Same here? It would appear so: article in Flying Mag :( |
I talked to the CAA here (LBA) this morning. They confirmed that in principle, the SIDs are mandatory as they are part of the inspection guidelines and both CAMO and individual maintenance programs are based on the manufacturer's maintenance guidelines.
EASA and the CAAs will look into the SIDs and decide what to do. These inspections are much worse than they appear at first look. If this becomes mandatory, it might be worth going to FAA-reg. |
EASA and the CAAs will look into the SIDs and decide what to do. These inspections are much worse than they appear at first look. If this becomes mandatory, it might be worth going to FAA-reg. |
This is going to hurt !
I have had a brief scan of this document and it is going to ground a large number of aircraft in the UK, if your aircraft has been getting cheap annual checks for the last ten years then you can expect your next annual to cost you about £15K in aditional work.
Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30 % above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull. I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintaned old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft. To put it in UK industry terms anything that CABAIR once owned is likely to be a target for instant grounding!..........if the new owner has not already put a lot of work into the aircraft. |
Removing the engine is not really such a big deal or that expensive.....But I agree, all these bits do add up, plus VAT, so can easily bring an annual to over 5 grand (plus VAT). But at least you know your engine won't fall off !
|
Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30 % above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull. |
I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintained old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft. I bet all maintenance organisations believe they are doing a good job after all they are supervised by their surveyors and their paperwork is controlled by their quality managers. ;) |
Achimha
It is quite simple, most of the SID,s is just defining what is good practice. If your maintenance providor has been inspecting the aircraft properly and addressing the defects that were found the SID,s inspection is likely to result in few nasty surprises. On the other hand if the maintenance providor has just been ticking the boxes and not looking deeply enough to try to achieve a cheap job for the customer then it is likely that the true state of the airframe is unknown and problems that have been lurking for years will be found.
To give you an example, my C152's have been treated with one of the approved corrosion inhibitors for the last eight years, the rudder inspection was mandated by the UK CAA long before EASA came to be and we have continued to make these inspections despite the fact that they were not mandated by EASA, at engine changes we crack checked the engine frame, repaired all defects and re-painted the frame. We have always inspected the airframe in the areas that the SID,s inspection mandates at the annual check. The result of this maintenance is that we know the aircraft very well by now and are unlikely to find any nasty surprises, there are only so many ways to inspect a component so the fact that Cessna have found it necessary to define an inspection dose not necessarily make the last inspection of that component invalid. I see no reason to strip a component that has recently been fully inspected in accordance with the Cessna maintenance manual & AC43 just because Cessna produce a new bit of paper, I will respect the maintenance limits for such a component and will ensure that the aircraft maintenance program reflects this. |
I agree with A & C. The thrust of the SID is detecting corrosion. Good regular maintenance will look out for and catch developing corrosion and stop it from getting a hold. Cheap maintenance will basically eschew any indepth structural inspections allowing corrosion to fester.
The SID will be a killer for these aircraft because when the dark corners are opened repairs are going to be required. Since all of the SID inspections are for major structural members, repairs are going to be uneconomic for a lot of marginally maintained aircraft. The other issue is there is both calendar and hour limits. At 20 years of airframe age, which is every legacy Cessna single, all the big inspections kick in regardless of airframe hours. This is going to be a big all once hit even for good aircraft. Finally this is not a one time deal. There are continuing inspections required and for aircraft over 12,000 hours the inspection interval is dramatically shortened. So far in Canada the SIDs are not mandatory for private aircraft and most flying schools have written their Maintenence Control Manuals (whuch are approved by Transport Canada) so they are not obligated to perform the SID,s. However there are indications that TC may mandate them anyway. If these are inspections are made mandatory for private aircraft my SWAG is that half the fleet of the privately owned single engine Cessna,s will never fly again.... |
A and C: the issue is not potential problems that get discovered during the inspections and require costly repairs. Who wants to continue flying with a corroded airframe? The issue is that performing the SIDs will cost a lot of money.
With Part M, these SIDs are generally considered to be mandatory service instructions in EASA land. The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory here, although they were stripped down a bit through alternate methods of compliance. This can really bite us... |
I agree about this bite in this but it is not the inspection that is likely to bite the hardest, it is the defects that are found. The rectification of these defects could well cost more the aircraft is worth.
This inspection will show up the aircraft that have been neglected for years, not the aircraft that have been properly maintained. |
A and C: I've gone through the SIDs for my TR182 and a first estimate is between 6,000-8,000 €.
What I don't know is how much it costs to remove the engine and accessories to inspect the engine mount. The SID states: This is a complex and involved inspection. It is recommended that the inspection be coordinated with an engine overhaul, even if the time does not exactly agree with inspection hours. Recurring inspections will be satisfied by inspections at engine overhaul. The initial inspection must be completed by June 30, 2015. How much effort is that? A day? More than that? |
How could your reputable maintenance company execute inspections in the past that were not defined yet? As I read through the requirements for my 150, I realized that Cessna has documented many of those extra things I have been inspecting for years. They are written into my maintenance schedule with only my name as a reference, as the maintenance manual never described them ('till now!). Every aircraft type has its peculiarities, which come to be well known by maintainers experienced with that type. As Cessna has written, these requirements were drafted in consultation with owners and operators. That is evident in the content. I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs. The aging aircraft initiative instigated by the FAA has some relevance to this, though it is aimed at larger aircraft, and generally did not target aircraft less than 12,500 pounds. At an FAA seminar I attended, the FAA presenter did say that what was appropriate for larger aircraft, was also necessary for the smaller ones, just appropriately more simple. These SID's, to me, are evidence of that. As has been said, if you have been maintaining your aircraft well, you have little to fear - you're use to paying for proper maintenance, and it has been done in a preventive sense, so the plane will be okay. I sure would be weary of poorly maintained aircraft though. This will open a whole new vista of critical importance to a very through pre purchase inspection! People are going to be dumping out dogs now, and you sure don't want to be stuck with one now (if ever)! |
What about Rheims models?
The only one shown is the FR172. Does that mean the original Rheims built machines (that had better corrosion proofing anyway) are not covered? So if your marque starts with an F, are you outside USA Cessna's admin? :confused:
|
Reims built Cessnas are just Cessnas with the exception of the Reims Rocket that is a separate model. The document for the 172 contains the French built models as well. Corrosion protection was a factory option for the US built models.
|
Being Devil's Advocate:
Are there any known cases of Cessna 100 series aircraft 'crashing' as a result of corrosion/ex-foliation (not engine failure) or poor maintenance? Also, I would be interested to know if the SIDs are statistically related or intuitive. And another: has a seat belt failure occurred causing an injury or worse. |
In the maintenance of our aeroplanes (not Cessnas) we always went above and beyond what was *required*. We even removed the engine and mount to inspect for corrosion and repaint. The reason was that the rest of the aeroplane was in superb condition and this brought the front end up to a known similar condition and made it look nice. I don't remember the cost now, it was a few years ago, but it was by no means horrific for that portion of the work.
Actually you can remove the engine yourself....on our current aeroplane, when rebuilding the thing, me and the co-owner assisted with removing the engine, and then took the mount off ourselves, shot blasted it ourselves, had it inspected and then re-painted. We put the bolts back in but got the maintenance organisation to torque the bolts and and re-fit the engine and inspect. I'd rather have a known quantity in the aeroplane that an unknown quantity, and doing this type of thing rests the mind. |
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. How does information like this get disseminated out?
Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory? My 182 is offline now due to engine getting shockload test so one saving grace is we should be able to address the engine mount inspection. |
JXK
Good points and I very much expect the answer to be no |
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. How does information like this get disseminated out? In my experience, most shops don't care much about service bulletins, they focus on the mandatory stuff only, i.e. ADs. |
140KTS
We have a Cessna maintenance manual paper updat subscription and the SID,s data arrived in the post Last Friday so I would expect most CAMO,s in the UK to be taking a long hard look at all of this in the coming week.
JXK I think that you make a good point, I too think that we have not yet seen an accident with a small Cessna due to corrosion and other old airframe issues however if left uncorrected I don't think that such an accident is far away. This was made clear to me a year or so back when a proud new owner of a C172 turned up for an annual check, it was quite clear from the start that this aircraft had seen very little maintenance in a long time and had issues with a lot of the items that the SID,s checks address, I have no doubt that had the aircraft continued to be maintained by the previous maintenance company there was a very strong chance of a fatal accident, of course the owner was of the opinion that we were overdoing things when the maintenance bill was more than he had paid for the aircraft. This check will hit the C150 fleet very hard, the value of the a lot of the aircraft will be far below the cost of the check, let alone rectifying the defects that the check finds. |
I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable flying a C152 due to their age. Most of my clubs C152 fly daily and fly from 8am to 9pm on days with brilliant weather. And even on rubbish days, they get flown, blown and hammered.
I think our maintenance engineers are great and whilst there are much older planes in use (spitfires for example) I still think they should be retired. We have a lot of C152s at our club and most have some form of dents in the wings. No idea how they got there. Pungent fuel smells in a couple of them make me worry too. Engineers says its safe and I know the 152 is a robust ol' girl, but still. |
Pudoc
You have nothing to fear from a well maintained C152, however if you reported a "pungent fuel smell" on one of my aircraft it would be investigated and corrected before the aircraft was flown.
|
A and C
That's reassuring to hear. The smell was investigated and was nothing serious, it still reoccurs every now and then but goes away once airborne.
|
SID's Cessna RIP
Having read through the SID for a Cessna 177RG I was scared sh....less!
I realize that the work involved is only intended to address problems that one can only expect to find on an aging aircraft and that a normal annual inspection should deal with a large majority of them anyway, but when you see the list in its entirety it is most scary. Scary mainly from a "Bloody hell how much is this going to cost" point of view. The corrosion map of the UK denote that it is either severe or moderately rated so encurring a higher level of inspection. I am Sooo glad I am out of the certificated regime and in the warm busom of the LAA. (Never thought I would say that!) The thought of being the owner of a 150/2 or an older 172 would fill me with dread as the cost of an annual inspection could easily cost more than the value of the aircraft. Piper and other manufacturers will probably read the Cessna SID's and come up with their own lists as well so for me being a single owner operator of limited income it is a case of certificated aircraft RIP. I have enjoyed the experience over the years but now it is LAA all the way. |
Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory? |
Spoke with my CAMO yesterday and he was unaware of this. Seriously, the CAMO should be keeping up to date and advising you, not the other way around. What are you paying him for otherwise? |
It's just a few days since Cessna put the SIDs online and I suppose most CAMOs are subscribed to the paper or microfiche version. Give them some time to catch up...
|
I read about the pilots who are indignant that they might be offered a worn out old plane to fly, and how it should be maintained to a very high standard. And, I read about how scary the prospect of subjecting these old aircraft to additional inspections. And then finally, the panacea of the non certified aircraft as the economical escape route to fly without the regulatory or inspection burden.
Let's remind ourselves that it costs money to be airborne, some ways more than others. Cessna are expert in knowing how to provide a safe means of being airborne, if you do it their way (or equivalently well). Aircraft of other manufacture, and particularly non certified, can be very much more variable and less certain. Some people think that older planes should be retired. Those people are very welcome to pay the cost to fly in very new aircraft only, those planes are available too. They just have higher cost of use due to their higher value. If that's your choice, no problem, pay the cost, fly in an aircraft whose "bugs" may yet to be found, and don't complain! Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours (for what I have briefly read). Sounds very fair and appropriate to me. I have 24,000 hours to go on my 150, and that'll keep me fine! A Cessna 207 I used to fly had 19,700 hours, and seemed very airworthy, I oversaw a comprehensive inspection, and nothing was really wrong with the structure or systems (Paint and furnishings were ratty). It had been well maintained. The 1977 C152 I did my fist solo in, had 33 hours when I did that (in 1977). It was retired from the flying club decades later with more than 14,500 hours, and still flies privately today. Presuming up to date maintenance, I would not be the least "uncomfortable" to fly that plane. Yes, some poorly maintained Cessnas are going to be "found out" by these inspections - that's the whole point! Such aircraft are probably headed toward a very justified retirement. If the owner has maintained the aircraft well throughout, there is little to be worried about here. And, when renters are presented with "old" Cessnas, which are right up to date with all of these new inspections, will they relax, have confidence in the quality of the aircraft, and become less "uncomfortable"? Some of this reminds me of the people who complain about the poor condition of the road, then complain about the cost and traffic delays to repair it! Then, we have the non certified proponents, whose subtle message is that it costs less to correctly maintain a non certified aircraft. Well, perhaps this could appear to be, simply because of the much lower utilization compared to the Cessnas, and lack of the cost of OEM support. If these non certified aircraft were operating in a commercial role, getting flown, blown and hammered, I dare say that it would rapidly become more expensive to maintain to the non "old" standard of quality expected by the renter. And, when that non certified aircraft needs replacement parts 50 years after it was manufactured, will the manufacturer still make parts available for it? Cessna does! We either want to fly well maintained aircraft, and are prepared to pay the cost, or, we will fly unknown quality aircraft, and not complain.... |
DAR, the only issue with new aircraft is that there aren't any for flight training! What can really replace a Cessna 152? DA20 is a lot more fragile. Aquila have tried to enter that market and produced a ruggedized version called SXT (with a funny double nose tire) but nothing beats a Cessna 152 when it comes to flight training.
|
Apart from a tommy :p
|
Cessna has now defined a retirement "age" for their aircraft - 30,000 hours On the one hand it does amaze me that Cessna have not replaced these old workhorses. They blame certification costs, which I am sure is bogus. But Cessna are not stupid. They are the most clever company in the GA business, and have huge resources. They must have a reason. I wonder what it is? Could it be that the payload of a "new" C15x is not enough to make the average training flight legal? The 162 is a totally stripped down carcass, to improve the payload. Could it be that those planes look so agricultural that most people with more than 2$ to rub together walk away shortly after walking into a flying school and see what they will be flying in? |
What is wrong with the 162?
It is priced ~ $140k so presumably the price was not thought to be a problem - for enough schools to be interested. |
OK; I forgot the 162 doesn't have an ICAO CofA.
In fact Cessna stopped taking orders for it from Europe (according to a recent news release) allegedly because EASA is dragging its heels on approving it. So.... why doesn't Cessna make a new 152? |
I am not suprised its dragging
Its got some funny spin characteristics which apparently have not solved properly because of the certifying standards they are using. Its up to the parachute to save you. Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough. Looking at it though that nose wheel won't do the job for training. |
Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough. When I used to make these in the UK, we used to get 1-2% duff ones - largely because they used to skip the electronic test when the end of the month was coming up ;) The Chinese will deliver whatever you ask them for, and pay them for. |
I don't doud't that is the case with massed produced electronics. With german hardware production lines. Same with the car production.
And it doesn't matter where they make it, that nose gear won't cut the mustard. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.