Australia's position on Cessna SIDS

[bnt83]

SID = Supplemental Inspection Document

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/048.pdf <issued on April 7, 2014.

The investigations identified critical areas of principal structural elements (PSEs) on the aircraft that have been proven, through service-life experience, to be susceptible to fatigue or corrosion damage. In many cases these PSEs have not been seen or inspected since the aircraft was manufactured as long as 40 years ago or more.
The SIDs programs, successively developed by Cessna for all 400, 300, 200 and 100 series aircraft, provide an inspection regime to ensure the structural integrity of the airframe is maintained. These supplemental inspections complement those inspections undertaken during existing scheduled maintenance activities, as the failure of such PSEs could result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft.
In addition, the SIDs also introduce fixed retirement lives for each aircraft model series, beyond which the continued airworthiness of the aircraft can no longer be assured (refer to the applicable SIDs for the relevant Cessna aircraft series).

 

[Silvaire]

Ouch What little remains of private aviation down under might cease to exist with this onus laid upon them. The SIDS document for a Cessna 150 is nearly 300 pages and the inspection instructions in it often read as though they had been written by a guy at a computer with a cup of coffee, a doughnut and an exploded IPC diagram who has never actually seen the real airplane. He may also be a guy who is heavily invested in the NDT industry as they want you to disassemble and eddy-current test virtually every part on the airplane.

Just the part of complying with every single service bulletin ever written for every component, device and accessory will probably cause a good number of owners to simply abandon the thing and just walk away.

 

[bnt83]

Ouch What little remains of private aviation down under might cease to exist with this onus laid upon them. The SIDS document for a Cessna 150 is nearly 300 pages and the inspection instructions in it often read as though they had been written by a guy at a computer with a cup of coffee, a doughnut and an exploded IPC diagram who has never actually seen the real airplane. He may also be a guy who is heavily invested in the NDT industry as they want you to disassemble and eddy-current test virtually every part on the airplane.

Just the part of complying with every single service bulletin ever written for every component, device and accessory will probably cause a good number of owners to simply abandon the thing and just walk away.

What folks don't realize is this is a stone's throw away from being mandated all over Europe, Canada and yes, could happen in the USA. I'd be watching this stuff very carefully if I owned ANY older production built aircraft.

 

[airguy]

E-AB.

 

[N747JB]

I believe the SID on Conquests was originated in Australia, or at least in response to the Australian CASA. They seem to be working to get rid of general aviation, this should do it for down under! Might be some good buys next year on Cessnas if you don't mind bringing them halfway around the world.

 

[Silvaire]

E-AB.

Sounds like a solution but really it's just a stepchild. If a government is truly out to kill private aviation I can tell you that E-AB is going to be the first to be eliminated. I know this is America and all but do some research and you'll find examples of third world nations that overnight completely banned it. The bottom line is we better stop this bickering among ourselves and band together to preserve, as much as we can, the private aviation entity that exists here in America. Because we are unique, this whole thing with fly-ins and heritage and Oshkosh. It simply does not exist anywhere else on the planet.

 

[ZK Kiwi]

This has been madatory in New Zealand from the start. 100 series Cessnas have until June this year to complete. Costs seem to be around NZ$15-20000 for aircraft with no major issues, no one will buy a Cessna here without the SID inspections completed. This is the end of the road for low value aircraft here.

 

[Silvaire]

So what exactly happens with others - Pipers, orphaned vintage, Bonanzas, Mooneys...?

 

[JHW]

So what exactly happens with others - Pipers, orphaned vintage, Bonanzas, Mooneys...?

Canberra has already went after bonanzas. Mandatory replacement of all control cables based on calendar time because of corrosion found in all of (2) planes. Faa looked at same and declined to issue an AD in the usa.

You have to understand that this is not an attack on GA specifically. Its just a symptom of the aus/nz preoccupation with regulating all human activity to a halt except for drinking.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Keep in mind aircraft manufacturers never intended on their products to have an unlimited life. I'm sure Piper/Beech/Mooney/Cessna/etc really didn't envision their products being around 20+ years later, never mind the examples that are 50 to 60 years in service.

Many years ago Beech went out and bought back a bunch of high time BE-99's and flew them to Alabama, removed the engines and ran over them with a bulldozer to make sure they were permanently removed from service, thus eliminating any additional support and more importantly, liability.

 

[gismo]

Keep in mind aircraft manufacturers never intended on their products to have an unlimited life. I'm sure Piper/Beech/Mooney/Cessna/etc really didn't envision their products being around 20+ years later, never mind the examples that are 50 to 60 years in service.

There's plenty of truth to that but there's also plenty of history showing that airframe metal fatigue simply isn't a factor in a perceptible portion of accidents involving most piston powered GA airplanes. When's the last time you read a report indicating a wing fell off of a Cessna 152/172 that wasn't caused by the nut behind the wheel?

 

[docmirror]

Keep in mind aircraft manufacturers never intended on their products to have an unlimited life. I'm sure Piper/Beech/Mooney/Cessna/etc really didn't envision their products being around 20+ years later, never mind the examples that are 50 to 60 years in service..

This is the classic case the US feds will be using to go the same as AU/NZ. No one can be allowed to assume risk for themselves, or pax or people under them on the ground: "Your airplane has been deemed aged. Therefore, it will need to be taken apart to it's constituent pieces, each piece will be checked for conformance to the new part, and anything showing wear, or non-conformance will be rejected."

No aircraft properly inspected or maintained will ever be safe enough, the inspection requirements will just get worse, and worse, and worse. The first shot across the bow was the ill conceived and poorly designed aged aircraft BS started a few years back.

Nothing will stop the feds. If they aren't coming for you today, they will be in a few years. Yes, my plane is more than 60 years old. It's inspected and repaired every year. I trust it with my life. I have insurance should I goof up. We might as well all stay in our bed, and eat only green leafy vegetables.

 

[RotorAndWing]

There's plenty of truth to that but there's also plenty of history showing that airframe metal fatigue simply isn't a factor in a perceptible portion of accidents involving most piston powered GA airplanes. When's the last time you read a report indicating a wing fell off of a Cessna 152/172 that wasn't caused by the nut behind the wheel?

This is the classic case the US feds will be using to go the same as AU/NZ. No one can be allowed to assume risk for themselves, or pax or people under them on the ground: "Your airplane has been deemed aged. Therefore, it will need to be taken apart to it's constituent pieces, each piece will be checked for conformance to the new part, and anything showing wear, or non-conformance will be rejected."

No aircraft properly inspected or maintained will ever be safe enough, the inspection requirements will just get worse, and worse, and worse. The first shot across the bow was the ill conceived and poorly designed aged aircraft BS started a few years back.

Nothing will stop the feds. If they aren't coming for you today, they will be in a few years. Yes, my plane is more than 60 years old. It's inspected and repaired every year. I trust it with my life. I have insurance should I goof up. We might as well all stay in our bed, and eat only green leafy vegetables.

It's not about metal fatigue or a vast conspiracy of the government.

It's simple, look at the legal system. Every time these "old" airplanes fly the liability is there for (insert name of manufacture).

Does one actually believe Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc produced these small planes with the expectation they would be flying 50+ years later?

IMO had the manufacturers known these products would still have been flying so long after production, as well as the legal climate, they would have placed life limits on them.

 

[docmirror]

Right, and what we need is a lot of govt wonks who've never built anything, much less a plane deciding that the mfgs were wrong in the first place to not put life limits on their product. That's both actuarially unsound, and revisionist. It will lead to increased inspections on planes, to lower the risks to 'acceptable' levels.

There are no GA accidents in N Korea.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Right, and what we need is a lot of govt wonks who've never built anything, much less a plane deciding that the mfgs were wrong in the first place to not put life limits on their product. That's both actuarially unsound, and revisionist. It will lead to increased inspections on planes, to lower the risks to 'acceptable' levels.

There are no GA accidents in N Korea.

 

[docmirror]

I'd start giving examples but - well, there aren't enough electrons.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Who do you actually believe is behind the SID's, the manufacturer or the government?

Give you a hint, it's not the government.

As I cited previously (If you would have read) the manufacturers want to reduce liability. Short of buying back all of these airframes, the simple way is to use the FAA (or any Air Agency) and issue complex SID's to start "weeding" out the fleet.

Have you read anywhere where the manufacturer has come out and said these SID's are unnecessary and not needed? Of course not.

 

[bnt83]

Now that Beech is owned by Textron, I predict the process of SIDS issued for them as well.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Now that Beech is owned by Textron, I predict the process of SIDS issued for them as well.

Yep...

 

[jesse]

It's not about metal fatigue or a vast conspiracy of the government.

It's simple, look at the legal system. Every time these "old" airplanes fly the liability is there for (insert name of manufacture).

Does one actually believe Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc produced these small planes with the expectation they would be flying 50+ years later?

IMO had the manufacturers known these products would still have been flying so long after production, as well as the legal climate, they would have placed life limits on them.

I'm no legal expert, but it's my understanding that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 was implemented to fix/heavily limit an aircraft manufacturer's liability on an aircraft older than 18 years. It's also my understand that the act was the primary reason that small ga aircraft manufacturing started again. Your statements seem to directly conflict with that Act. Is the GARA not effective or were you not taking that into account?

There's certainly liability when anyone touches these older aircraft. But what sort of liability exists for Cessna on a 50 year old Cessna 172 at this point? How is that addressed or not addressed by the GARA of 1994?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm no legal expert, but it's my understanding that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 was implemented to fix/heavily limit an aircraft manufacturer's liability on an aircraft older than 18 years. It's also my understand that the act was the primary reason that small ga aircraft manufacturing started again. Your statements seem to directly conflict with that Act. Is the GARA not effective or were you not taking that into account?

There's certainly liability when anyone touches these older aircraft. But what sort of liability exists for Cessna on a 50 year old Cessna 172 at this point? How is that addressed or not addressed by the GARA of 1994?

I'm not a lawyer, but it's easy to see how a "creative" lawyer can circumvent GARA.

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/53m-awarded-in-crash-of-a-cessna-150/

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/03/11/daily50.html

http://mvgazette.com/news/2012/04/0...ds-abruptly-settlements?k=vg534b460adffb6&r=1

http://www.mynews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2014/3/26/plane_parts_in_lawsu.html


And many, many more. Just google and you will see the manufacturers are still under attack by the trial lawyers.

 

[Silvaire]

If you read through one of the Cessna SID's you'll find it to be a well worded CYA document. It is stated very clearly that this is Mandatory. Of course we see that term all the time in service letters and bulletins, not just from Cessna but all manufacturers, and we've never considered them as mandatory for Part 91 operations unless they are referenced by an AD. Manufacturers however will tell you that they are, upon creation, a supplement to the maintenance manual and therefore are mandatory. This is traditionally looked at as a "Hey, we told you so" type of thing but now with the SID's the very first paragraph in the table states the following:

Inspect aircraft records to verify that all applicable
Cessna Service Information Letters, Cessna Service
Bulletins and Supplier Service Bulletins are complied with.

Three short lines with a huge implication and it doesn't stop there. Much of the document appears to be written purely from a legal standpoint with statements that are clearly meant to cover every base out there and with no regards to the reality of the situation or the expense incurred by complance. As noted earlier it is not the government that wrote these documents and Cessna did not write them because the government made them do it. If the government does indeed make this a requirement it will be at Cessna's insistence. Cessna makes money building and servicing Citations and selling half million dollar 182's. They don't make any money off of 50 year old aircraft and frankly would probably like to see all of them removed from service and destroyed.

These documents go a long way towards achieving that.

 

[wsuffa]

If the government does indeed make this a requirement it will be at Cessna's insistence. Cessna makes money building and servicing Citations and selling half million dollar 182's. They don't make any money off of 50 year old aircraft and frankly would probably like to see all of them removed from service and destroyed.

These documents go a long way towards achieving that.

Well, maybe. If it's added to the Type Certificate (as Hartzell has done with ICW requirements on certain props), then yes, it will come from the manufacturer. If it's done as an AD, it may come just from the FAA using the data in the Cessna document. THe FAA certainly can mandate it if they want.

They do make money off 50 year old aircraft. Ever buy a Cessna part? That certainly would go away if the planes are scrapped (or replaced by a new owner-maintained category) - and frankly, I don't see most of the current owners buying half-million dollar 182's (or Cirrus, or Columbias).

I think if this sort of thing is widely implemented it will kill off large segments of the GA industry. Heck, even without it small GA is hurting (not helped by higher income tax rates & the need to save for retirement).

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'm no legal expert, but it's my understanding that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 was implemented to fix/heavily limit an aircraft manufacturer's liability on an aircraft older than 18 years. It's also my understand that the act was the primary reason that small ga aircraft manufacturing started again. Your statements seem to directly conflict with that Act. Is the GARA not effective or were you not taking that into account?

There's certainly liability when anyone touches these older aircraft. But what sort of liability exists for Cessna on a 50 year old Cessna 172 at this point? How is that addressed or not addressed by the GARA of 1994?

Australia and New Zealand probably have no equivalent of GARA and, possibly more importantly, never had the aviation or political environment that spawned it in the U.S.

Cessna would presumably be more exposed down under than here in the States, thanks to GARA.

I can't see U.S. lawyers promoting the same thing here because it gains them nothing. I can't see it helping Cessna all that much because they already got GARA. Can't see any group in the U.S. with a strong motivation to push application of this in the States. Pushback from aircraft owners, on the other hand, would be huge (relatively speaking.)

I'm not a lawyer, but it's easy to see how a "creative" lawyer can circumvent GARA.

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/53m-awarded-in-crash-of-a-cessna-150/

One other reference to this case seems to indicate that the carburetor was relatively new. Probably under the 18 year statute of repose.

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/03/11/daily50.html

The accident in question happened pre-GARA.

http://mvgazette.com/news/2012/04/0...ds-abruptly-settlements?k=vg534b460adffb6&r=1

Kind of tricky here - the alleged failure involved seat rails installed in 3 years prior to the crash, so not covered by GARA's 18 year limitation.

http://www.mynews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2014/3/26/plane_parts_in_lawsu.html

I didn't see any dates indicating the age of the airplane or the allegedly faulty autopilot when the crash took place, so it isn't clear whether GARA is applicable.

And many, many more. Just google and you will see the manufacturers are still under attack by the trial lawyers.

As far as I can tell, if a part is "new" but the lawyer can convince the court that it had a design defect that caused an accident, then GARA doesn't seem to help the manufacturer escape liability.

 

[Scott Brown]

How much does a Supplemental Inspection Document from Cessna (SID_ cost for a 1980 cessna 210

 

[Dan Thomas]

There's plenty of truth to that but there's also plenty of history showing that airframe metal fatigue simply isn't a factor in a perceptible portion of accidents involving most piston powered GA airplanes. When's the last time you read a report indicating a wing fell off of a Cessna 152/172 that wasn't caused by the nut behind the wheel?

SIDs arise out of Service Difficulty Reports. Mechanics are supposed to submit reports of unusual wear or failure or incipient failure, and the governments forward those to the manufacturers involved. When they see reports of swollen spar doublers caused by corrosion hidden between the sheets, they get concerned. When they see reports of cracks found in wing struts, through the holes where the end fittings are riveted to the strut, they get concerned. I found one of those. They see reports of cracks in the wing attach fittings and bulkheads. They see reports of broken spring steel main gear legs, caused by corrosion.

One report, maybe an outlier. When they start seeing several reports of the same thing that they didn't see ten years ago, they want some action. Sure, 172s aren't in the habit of shedding wings. Not yet. But they will someday as the fleet ages and as owners cheap out on maintenance, and then the aviation community, and especially the media, will start pointing fingers and asking who knew what and how long ago. Nobody wants to get caught up in that except lawyers.

 

[Getonit]

I dont know why cessnatexeech wouldn't spin off the small airplane division to a separate legal entity and let the lawyers try to sue an organization with no assets and no insurance. Done all the time other organizations.

 

[Bell206]

I dont know why cessnatexeech wouldn't spin off the small airplane division to a separate legal entity and let the lawyers try to sue an organization with no assets and no insurance. Done all the time other organizations.

The issue with the aircraft industry is the addition of the FAA type certificates and production certificates that must follow that "separate legal entity" if they wish to continue manufacturing aircraft/parts. The only way to break the liability chain, in some cases, is to shutdown production as most GA OEMs did in the 80s or sell the TC/PC.