Perhaps Cessna should consider a program to buy back the 337's and destroy them.

Way back in the dark ages when I worked as a quality assurance engineer the team was constantly coming up with ways to perform NDE on new assemblies that were being designed as the plant was being built. It seems that 30 years latter there can be a creative examination designed for this application if it comes to that.

This is exactly where I am on this Cessna proposal - if they want to hide behind the protection they got for legacy planes then they are asking for a reopener on the whole thing if they want to impose new inspections on those planes. That is - if the tests and exams are performed then Cessna steps in and assumes responsibility for those planes.

It sounds like Cessna is assuming liability for these planes...or are they covering something up, such as a way to make $14 million on new parts? Either way, it is my understanding that under the old way of aircraft certification (CARs) the only thing mandatory are AD's. And that the maintenance manual published at the time the aircraft was built is the only other authority for required maintenance (other than the 100hr/annual)...periodic updates to the maintenance manual is informational only, if you chose to ignore them.

Not really. It's up to the person that is signing the inspection to make the determination.

Put yourself in the mechanics position, you sign off an annual inspection and decide to ignore to MM and recommended inspections. The airplane is in an accident and the first thing the attorneys want are the log books. They now find the mechanic ignored "factory recommended" inspections. See where this is going?

I think a lot of shops will be reluctant to sign off these planes without complying with the inspections.

Exactly, and Cessna has said that they consider the inspections mandatory.

They also consider Service Bulletins and Emergency Service Bulletins mandatory, and IAs don't require them for Part 91 operators.

There may be confusion at the outset, and some IAs may require them, but the inspection requirements are determined by the FAA and here the issue is clear: Part 91 and even some Part 135 operations won't be subject to them. Nor will they automatically become ADs.

I covered this in a message on the AV Web SIDS Article 12-24-09 thread. For those of you who haven't read it, here is an excerpt with the requisite link to the FAA's Final Rule:

I have been reading various comments on this Board about the possibility of an IA requiring the SIDs, either out of an abundance of caution or if Cessna issues a revised Service Manual with SIDs. While I can’t rule out a poorly informed IA taken such a stance, I think the record is clear that Part 91 operators will not have to do the SIDs.

My basis is the FAA’s Final Rule and Notices (“FRN”) on the matter, which is essentially the mandate for the SIDs. Later I will provide you a link so you may peruse the document, but here’s a summary.

The genesys of SIDs was the 1988 in-flight failure of a high-time Aloha Airlines Boeing 737, where a section of the upper fuselage ripped away because of fatigue. Congress pushed the FAA into evaluating steps that should be taken to prevent such future failures in high-time (or “aging”) aircraft. Initially only transport aircraft were considered but that was later expanded to cover smaller aircraft.

Both the heading and the first paragraph of the FRN make it clear that only Part 121, Part 129 and Part 135 operations are covered. Moreover, on Page 5 (3rd full paragraph of the 3rd column) Part 135 cargo-only and on-demand operations are excluded.

Concerns that SIDs may become ADs also appear unfounded. On Page 2 (1st full paragraph of the 3rd column) the FAA explicitly states that ADs will be issued only to address “unsafe conditions that have already been identified.” And the Cessna 400-series SIDs supports this, because only one of the SIDs became an AD after cracks were found and a fatal in-flight failure occurred.

Given that SIDs were mandated by the FAA and the FRN’s clear intention to exclude Part 91 and some Part 135 operations, I do not believe Cessna can take actions that would essentially contravene the FAA.

All of this is small consolation to many non-commercial foreign operators who will be subject to the SIDs.

The FRN may be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/pdf/02-30111.pdf.

Ernie

But there is FAA guidance that specifically states SB's are not mandatory for Part 91 operators.

Use of the Approved Aircraft Maintenance Manual is recommended by the FAA. Cessna will incorporate these SB's into their Maintenance Manual. Now the person holding the Inspection Authorization has to make the determination of how far to stick his neck out.

This is the primary reg that all mechanics perform to:

§ 43.13 Performance rules (general).

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

It is up to the individual as to what or how that is accomplished. Keep in mind, that should anything go awry, he will be answering to the attornies and the local FAA airworthiness inspectors on his actions for that inspection.

Are inspections for continued airworthiness the same as SIDS? That will have to be determined by a judge eventually. Whether its a NTSB or civil court at law remains to be seen. This is a question that begs for resolution.

All good points, but take a look at the specific elements I cite from the FAA's Final Rule (page, column and paragraph is listed for each citation). It's hard to believe that SIDs will be required when the FAA explicitly states that they "will not apply to" certain operations, such as Part 135 cargo-only and on-demand.

Ernie Martin

As an A&P IA, today's part 91 Skymaster could be tomorrows part 135 car parts hauler, and the same annual inspection is still valid in both cases.

No need to. The Part 135 cargo/on-demand is just an example. The Final Rule applies only to Part 121, multi-engine Part 129 and multi-engine Part 135 (with the Part 135 exclusion mentioned earlier). It does not apply to Part 91. Period.

Ernie Martin

What I'm saying is that I could perform an annual inspection on a Skymaster today, the owner sells it tomorrow, with a fresh annual, and the new owner puts the aircraft on a 135 certificate the next day.
The annual that I performed is still in effect, and not due for another 12 months.

True. But in order to put the Skymaster on a Pt 135 Certificate requires a "Conformity Inspection" by the FAA. In order to comply with a conformity inspection all SB's must be complied with.

The real question here is will Cessna incorporate these inspections into the maintenance manual? If so any IA doing an annual inspection will have to think long and hard about ignoring them.

But the SID is not a service bulletin.

Not at this point. But the FAA PMI could require that SID's also be complied with for a Part 135 certificate. Right now all of this is in unknown territory.

Just a point of order. There was a question asked "Are inspections for continued airworthiness the same as SIDS?" The answer is not just no, but what is an "inspection for continued airworthiness?" The answer is: inspection for continued airworthiness is either listed on the aircraft's type certificate or in the maintenance manual (and is referred to by the aircraft's type certificate). For example, a new Cirrus maintenance manual may have a section called "instruction for continued airworthiness." And in that section it might say every 5,000 hours to replace the windshield. In this case, it is mandatory!!!!!

That's why I said the only required maintenance required, other than ADs or FARs, is the maintenance manual on the day the aircraft was produced...at least for part 91. So, if Cessna makes a new maintenance manual for the Skymaster with a section for continued airworthiness then you are not obligated to follow it...at least under part 91.

On a side note, if you have a Supplemental Type Certificate, such as paper oil filters then there may also be an Inspection for Continued Airworthiness listed in the STC instructions. In that case the Inspection (or instruction) for Continued Airworthiness is mandatory since the STC modified the original aircraft's type certificate.

Not necessarily true. Can you provide a reference that a mechanic only has to follow a maintenance manual that was produced when the aircraft was manufactured and that revisions are not mandatory? Also, if Cessna revises the TCDS and places these inspections in the "Limitations" section they now become mandatory irregardless of the type of operation. Notice 43.13 says "current manufacturer's maintenance manual".

43.13 Performance rules (general).

(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

Once again it boils down to the mechanic signing off the inspection.....if the aircraft is later involved in an accident or a certificate action and the mechanic did not follow the MM his liability has now increased dramatically.

43.16 Airworthiness limitations.

Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other maintenance in accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135, or an inspection program approved under §91.409(e).

Also, under the FAR's the owner is responsible to insure all maintenance and inspections are done and properly documented. Do you as the owner want to risk yourself by not following a maintenance manual? Ask an attorney that question.

At last year's IA seminar the head FAA maintenance guy told this to the group, "that the only required maintenance manual is the one at the time of production." This is very applicable to much older airplanes certified under CAR, like the Skymaster was. The key word is "required" that doesn't stop any one from using new data however. I'm sure the reference was in an FAA or NTSB ruling, but since you asked I guess I'll have to search for it.

Curent means "current at the time of manufacture" as pertaining to part 91. Period .

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...aintenance.pdf

Roger, this is precisely the reference we needed. It's required reading for all Part 91 users curious about SIDs. This won't happen, but this discussion on SID applicability to Part 91 operators could end right here.

Ernie

Cessna is re-writing the service/maintenance manual to include the SIDs.

It is up to the owner/operator to convince the IA that the new manual can be ignored. Personally, I think that if you take your aircraft to any shop, as opposed to an independent contractor, they will want compliance with the new manual.

After you show the IA or shop the FAA document referenced by Roger? I don't think so.

Read it carefully. There is zero room for interpretation, zero ambiguity: for Part 91 the Manual at time of manufacture governs. What is even more empowering is the reasoning expressed in the document.

That's not to say a greedy or dinosauric mechanic may push for doing the SIDs, but a) that should be the exception, and b) most will come around when they read the FAA paper.

Ernie

We live in a legal world of Tort Law. Any IA would have to think long and hard before signing off an inspection that does not comply with the manufacturers instructions. The liability that will follow them is staggering. And a good attorney can argue that the manufacturer placed these extra inspection measures from a safety standpoint. Just imagine how this would look in front of a jury.

I don't think it's necessarily a "greedy or dinosauric" mechanic that would push for accomplishing the SIDs but one that is using CYA.

Thanks for the reference.

I can see the law suits already. If an IA says he wants to use a newer inspection program then he is creating his own rules....a catch 22 for a larger maintenance facility that hold itself open to the public.

The problem lies in that the letter references only large or turbine powered aircraft, which are not applicable. Ref 14CFR91.409(f). The letter speaks of the current inspection program, not maintenance manuals.

14CFR43.13 is still applicable in that para (b) specifically addresses structural strength and deterioration.

You don't have to convince me, you have to convince the guy making the release for service entry in your maintenance records.

If for some un God reason that you happen to crash a month after I perform an inspection on your airplane, and do not comply with the SIDS, and a wing or boom is not attached to the wreckage, your heirs attorney is going to have a field day explaining to the jury that I did not comply with the manufacturers recommendations on keeping up with airworthiness standards on an airplane that they designed and built.

Good catch. I went and read 91.409 (f)(3) and you are correct, it only applies to turbine aircraft.

I am an IA, before I would release the aircraft, I would need to comply with the new standards. I have a very good attorney, but he is not that good with grieving widow, along with clear instructions on continued airworthiness staring at him. In my humble opinion I would comply.

Hi Mark,

I ask this question with a smile. I certainly believe that any IA has the right to decide what he/she puts their signature on and I respect that. I am wondering however if you have ever signed off an annual on an aircraft that had an engine that was beyond the manufacturer's calendar or hour time limit for overhaul? You may not have but I know many people have. (My airplane being one example. My engines were remanufactured in 1988 and currently have 1150 hours.) I guess what I am trying to wrap my head around is, what is the difference between this example and the SID? Isn't a SID simply a recommendation just like a TBO?

Thanks,

Ed Asmus

Keeping it short
 

I am told to keep replies to just a few lines, But in this case I will expand. I have a T337B that at this time is disassembled. Being renovated, Before I reassemble this craft I will comply with all current information. As stated in previous thread If someone were to bring a similar airframe to my hanger for annual inspection, before we started, this would be explained. Now, I don’t agree with all the inspections listed. But I can complete them with little financial impact. I think this will be to the Sky master community very very expensive. And to some more than the airframe is worth. I am in no way defending the new changes, only covering my certification to work. And to answer your question, my answers is as stated in my last line of my last comment. My attorney is good but not that good!
Also sent with a smile.
Mark

Be Verbose
 

Mark, be as verbose as you wish.
Tell it like it is. It isn't words that fill our database, it's 2 MB pictures. I would rather have 2 MB of words.

The broader context that the legal opinion was talking about is the Constitution. Equal protection of law. The fact is only the FAA can mandate anything, by issuing an AD for example. And Cessna can't make an aircraft owner do anything, because it doesn't have the authority to. So, it doesn't matter if you are reading part 91 or 43, the term "current inspection" means the same thing for all of part 91 and therefore part 43 (not just a single meaning only for 91.409)..."current at the time of manufacture"...words have meaning under the law. In fact, definitions are so important in law there's an entire dictionary just for it: see Black's Law dictionary.

That's why I mentioned this is a catch 22 for an IA. Damned if you don't...with a widow suing you. And damned if you do, if the airplane is using the original inspection/maintenance program, and as an IA you create your own rule for what new inspection program you decide to use.

It is far better for Cessna to make an AD out of this, so the public (that means us) have time to comment on it. And the FAA can either tell Cessna they are wrong, or tell us we are in immediate danger without the inspections.

Thanks for your reply Mark. I can appreciate your concerns and I agree with your comments about our legal system. I am growing very concerned about the state of my Skymaster. Not in an airworthiness sense but in a legal sense. This has potential to be one giant can of worms.

Thanks again,

Ed

No ill intent to any hard working A&P but the evidence here would clearly indicate that this is not even close to being a requirement. That being said, it is understandable that some mechanics may push for this inspection for a variety of reasons. Likewise we as operators can easily find other mechanics.

All this Arm-Chair lawyering about liability and what constitutes "current" after reading the actual document from the FAA/NTSB brings to mind the quote by Will Rogers: "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that ain't true."

SId Clarification
 

First please see: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info09008.pdf

I had a nice talk today with Rusty Jones at the FAA (listed at the bottom of the attached link). Among other issues I asked him about the previous stated concerns that 14CFR43.19.409(f) might be construed to be applicable to turbin aircraft only, and that 14CFR43.13 (b) may require IA's to comply with inspections as provided by the new service or maintenance manuals as it refers to "structural strenght and deteroration" . Rusty said that in his readings of the points referenced, he can see how the "words" may make it appear that those specific conclusions could be drawn, but he does not beilieve that this is the case. He suggests that SOAPA designate a quesiton or list of quesitons for legal clarification, and submit them through the AFS-300 process for specific clarification.

That being said, we should then perhaps come up with a correctly phrased question or two that the IA' AP's here may help us to clarify, on how they as inspectors and we as owner/operators can best protect our respective intersts going forward so as to not run afoul of regulations.

He likewise made a point of discussing the attached link (which is how I found him) and suggests that we might be well served to take advantage of the answers to these frequestly asked questions. I for one will be making sure that my aircraft maintenance Log clearly states that I am using the maintenance programs for 12 month and/or 100 hour inspections as defined at the time or original manufacture.

Rusty has been around this whole issue for a long time and cut his teeth on Aloha and the 400 series. I might suggest that those who are more knowledgeable about these things contact him direct. That being said, after talking to him about how this has come about with Cessna, and how an AD such as those with the 400 series evolved, I came away with no concern what-so-ever that we will see an AD for the 336/337 on any of these SID issues.

This is essentially a Cessna Protection program, not an Owner/Operator protection program

Good job Roger, the SOAPA steering committee has circulated this document and I was going to call Rusty but hadn't yet. I am glad you talked to him and the steering committee will take some action on your suggestion.

Ok, so here's the first question that comes to mind.

- Does the term "current" as interpreted for FAR 91.409 that means "current at time of manufacture" apply to all of FAR 91 with respect to "current" maintenance manual and/or inspection programs?

A note about IA's in the court room. Case law favors the IA usually, because the IA only certifies the airworthiness on the day, hour, and minute the annual is signed off. What gets IA's in trouble is non compliance with ADs. However, any one can sue any one else in our country -- and you can counter sue as a matter of your rights. One should always have a lawyer if sued in such an event.