Sid Program
 

Larry,
Thank you and the others that are watching out for our interest. I know Cessna would like to treat all 337's in a blanket Sid program to cover their asses with all the lawyers wanting to sue. We need to prove most 337's are low time birds in good shape and maintained. They must look at most crashes are pilot era and not the fault of the aircraft. Good luck, Dale

Larry,

I want to add my thanks to all of you who are involved in this process. I am sure none of us want to be in the sky in unsafe airplanes. On the other hand, it appears that Cessna has mixed motives behind it actions. Neither do I want to spend a bunch on $ needlessly on unnecessary inspections.

Lee Henning

The response concerning the Skymaster SIDs (Supplemental Inspection Documents) has been completed by the SOAPA steering committee and is on the desk of Cessna engineers in Wichita . A lot of work went into the final document and your steering committee pushed to deliver this in a timely manner. The final document is 38 pages of information and comments from all aspects of SOAPA’s concerns. From what the steering committee knows so far, Cessna engineers are re-writing the SIDs based on comments from the first meeting in Wichita and a visit to Commodore Aerospace in Okalahoma City . During the visit at Don Nieser’s facility, Commodore Aerospace, the Cessna engineers were able to see airframes and parts of Skymaster’s first hand. Don had areas set up with different parts of Skymasters that pertained to specific SIDs. This was paramount for these engineers to see, touch and experience. SOAPA and the steering committee is indebted to Don and the time that he and his employees spent before and while Cessna was at his facility. A great big thank you to Don for his hospitality to Cessna. The steering committee is hopeful that this experience and our comments will help minimize the impact of any SIDs which are ultimately promulgated.



The next SID meeting is the first week of December at Cessna’s Wichita offices. SOAPA will be present at the meeting to review the second draft of the Skymaster SIDs. The steering committee is hoping to be able to have a chance to comment on these second drafts but there is no guarantee that we will. Cessna may have the documents in final form and publish them as drafted. As far as the steering committee knows Cessna is trying to have these documents finished by early 2010.



If you would like a copy of the comments that were sent to Cessna please contact webmaster@337skymaster.com

SID Implementation
 

I would like to add my thanks to all who have worked on this and I guess that would have to include the people at Cessna who took the trouble to visit Don Nieser and (I trust) tried to get a realistic assessment of the situation.

At the meeting with Cessna in December I would urge the committee to also discuss the manner in which these SIDs are to be implemented. The cost is one aspect but most of that cost will be labour related and therefore the down time is likely to be considerable. If it is implemented as an immediate directive resulting in the grounding of our 337s the effect would be devastating. I guess a number of other commercial operators will be in the same boat. If on the other hand it is implemented with some flexibility so that we can stage them through the process over a period of a few years, we can probably manage it.

Thank you for the email containing the 38 page report - came within an hour of my request!

It may be premature at this point but I would welcome a request to help pay for the work and expenses being incurred and help Don at Commodore, if he needs it.

Yes Larry,
Thanks for the report.

A great deal of thanks needs to be extended to Don Nieser. He shut down both of his businesses for several days to prepare for the meeting with Cessna.

I would say that if you need prop work, or parts, call Don first.

Your support is welcomed

If you would like to contribute to SOAPA and the recent project that the steering committee has undergone, we would really appreciate your support. All donations (sorry not tax deductable) would be deposited directly into the SOAPA Bank Account currently managed by our Treasurer Beth Fiala. A few years ago many members donated to the website and management of this effort when Kevin McKenzie was at the controls. This was before we had a general fund to help these kinds of projects moving forward. SOAPA does not have a large general fund right now so any support is wonderful.
This last project with Cessna is still on going. We will be incurring more expenses as we attend meetings, have conference calls and Express Mail/postage for copies to be distributed. The steering committee has worked hard on this project and all members of the committee have donated their time. Any donations will go directly into the general fund so that these expenses can be paid when needed. Please send all contributions to:

Beth Fiala
C/O Glasscages.com, LLC
1500 E Piney Rd
Dickson, TN 37055

Make checks payable to: Skymasters Owners and Pilots Association

Don Nieser has already contributed with the meeting at his facility. Please remember that Don has more Skymaster parts (new and used) than any other facility in the world. If you need something please call Don first and give him the chance to have the business. This is the least we can do to thank him for all he has done. Don can be reached at:

Commodore Aerospace Corp.
6221 Commodore Lane
OKC, OK 73162-6814
Phone: 405.722.4079 Cell: 405.503.4686
nieser.02.337parts@juno.com

Don also has a complete prop shop in his facility
We will try to keep you updated as best we can. Stay tuned and thanks for you support.

Herb Harney
Chair
SOAPA SID STEERING COMMITTEE

I will send Beth a check and I always have Don in mind for anything regarding a C-337, but will be willing to help him as well.

Please note a SID related question and response in the thread entitled "am i stupid or what??".

Ernie

Thanks, Jim!

Back At it Again
 

Cessna is, today, hosting another meeting. We have committe representatives attending. This time it is a two (2) day meeting, starting early this morning.

We are hopeful that there will be a comment period for the new proposals. As I have indicated previously, we sent a substantial stack of paper to them in response to the previous meeting. Hopefully, those comments, as well as those from Don Nieser (who is in attendance) have been taken into consideration as the new SIDs are presented.

As always, we will keep you posted.

Here's What Happened
 

Report from the Cessna 336/337 SID meeting in Wichita December 2 & 3, 2009.

The meeting started with the distribution of a draft proposal for the Corrosion Prevention Program. These consist of 5 drafts called “Inspection Operation” and they are differentiated by calendar requirements. The first inspection is performed every 12 months, the second every 24 months, then 36, 48 and finally 60 months for the 5th inspection. There are 28 inspections contained in these 5 Inspection Operations. All of these inspections are basically visual inspections looking for signs of corrosion. Most of them can be done with or during the annual/100 hour inspection. There are 2 or 3 that will require some additional work that would not be done during the normal annual inspection. One requires removal the rudders to accommodate the removal of the elevator. This is probably the most labor-intensive part of all 25-inspection areas in the CPCP program. This particular inspection is targeted for every 24 months. The corrosion prevention program is voluntary but if implemented it will decrease or eliminate the need to repeat SID inspections based on calendar. The SID inspection would be based only on hours operated if you chose to follow the Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP).

After spending most of the first day on some background information and the CPCP program there was some time at the end of the day to start reviewing the 2nd draft of the Supplemental Inspection Documents (SID). Most of the original SID’s were revised with the correct part numbers and application to the correct model Skymaster.

The second day started with continuing to review the 2nd draft of the SID documents. Just as the 1st group of draft SID’s the wing attach and strut attach point inspections were included in the 2nd group of drafts. These two inspections are the most costly to perform and caused several hours of discussion amongst the group. Cessna engineering based all Skymaster SID’s on Service Difficulty Reports (SDR) that had been submitted to the FAA by maintenance personnel over the last 35 years. There are no SDR’s pertaining to the attach points of the wing or strut on 336/337 aircraft. There have been some cracks in the beam of the struts on some high wing strutted Cessna but none at the attach points. There was no resolution achieved concerning the future of these two inspections but Cessna Customer Service is looking into the concerns that were presented by SOAPA and other operators of Skymasters.

There were 24 SID’s proposed in the 2nd group of drafts. Of those 24, 5 may be eliminated. One was revised and eliminated by combining it to a different SID document. One is for 336 aircraft only, front engine tubular mount. One will reference the wing AD that already exists. This leaves around 18 SID’s so the group made some progress.

Cessna then presented the implementation plan for the SID and CPCP programs for the 336/337 series of aircraft; they will be rolled into a new Service Manual and in a new format called ATA. There was much discussion and question about the implications to operators of this approach, as to whether it would make the inspections mandatory at annual or 100 hour inspection time (even possibly for US Part 91 operators). The answers were unclear and seem to depend on interpretation of the FARs. There is concern that this lack of clarity may mean that many IA’s err on the side of caution and insist on these inspections (for inspection sign off) even though they may not legally be required to do so.

What happens from this point is in the hands of Cessna. The Cessna Customer Service side seems sympathetic to our concerns to soften the burden or at least take another good look at the program and how it will affect the fleet. Cessna engineering, on the other hand, is saying the program is rolling out July 2010 starting with the 336 aircraft and moving to the remaining 3 337 models consecutively. They give operators a 15-month window to comply from the release date of the affected model. That gives most operators about a 24-month window from today.

The fact that this Skymaster program will be the foundation for every high wing strutted Cessna aircraft, may constitute a closer look at the common engineering philosophy that Cessna has been taking on these Aging Aircraft Programs. The piston engine, high wing aircraft program may require the Cessna Engineering Department, with their normal jet/turbine philosophy, to change their approach. When they implemented the 425/441 programs, the inspections were in the 10-25% of aircraft value range based on estimated cost to comply versus estimated market value of the aircraft. The Skymaster program does not have the same balance, cost of inspection versus value of the aircraft as the previous programs that Cessna has developed, particularly with inclusion of a few of the more onerous (and arguably unjustified) SID’s. SOAPA is doing it’s best to convey the message to Cessna that consequences of this program may be detrimental for the fleet. These consequences may apply to not just the Skymaster fleet, but rather the entire piston engine Cessna fleet once the programs are extended further to other series of aircraft, as they intend them to be.

Bad News for Foreign Operators
 

As far as whether or not it is mandatory depends on a couple of factors. If you live outside the U.S. it most likely will be mandatory.

Canada , Europe, Australia and New Zealand will mandate it as well as a handful of African and South American countries. As far as the U.S. goes, it would become mandatory after a fatigue related incident has occurred based on the guidance in Advisory Circular 91-82.

Those of you whose aircraft are registered in the above countries can plan on your governments requiring additional inspections.

Thanks Larry, and thanks to all who provided input for this issue.

Re Inspections
 

Are these intended for commercially operated aircraft or are they planning to include personally used aircraft as well?
Thank
Gord

As it stands now
 

It is something that is still not clear. If you read the above, all commercially operated C337's in the US will have to comply with the new service manual, which will include the SIDs. The operators in other countries will have to, as indicated above.

Private operators in the US may find that their IA's will want to follow the new service manual, including the SID's, at the time of the next annual, after they take effect. That part is unclear, but certainly seems likely.

Does that answer your question??

Corrosion Proofed Aircraft Exempted?
 

Has there been any discussion at all of factory corrosion proofed aircraft vs. plain? Mine was originally for export, is 100% zinc chromated.

Also, has anyone contemplated a class action lawsuit based on a theory of fraud? Cessna is attempting to effectively decertify our aircraft by these SID actions, and I don't believe they have the underlying facts to justify what they are doing. I would happily throw $1,000 in the pot along with 250 other owners to fund the action.

Thanks,

Chris Welsh

Corrosion Inspection
 

There is a corrosion program, called CPCP. Regardless of the kind of corrosion your aircraft had from the factory, the SIDs (the CPCP is one of the SIDs) will require an inspection.

Lawyers??
 

I don't know anything about lawsuits, except that they take a long time, and cost a lot of money, and in the end, no one is truly happy with the outcome.

Not true!!

Us lawyers are usually quite happy regardless of the outcome. :)


At least I always required that I be paid up front so the outcome was not terribly important. :D

The corrosion program is voluntary and will only help to decrease the burden to do the SID's based on calendar. You would still have to perform the SID based on flight hours.

The corrosion program (CPCP) is NOT a SID. It is a separate inspection program.

The Cessna 400 series owners tried the litigation avenue and failed. Not that it may be a different case for high wing Cessna's but there is some history already.

[quote=larry bowdish;14836]It is something that is still not clear. If you read the above, all commercially operated C337's in the US will have to comply with the new service manual, which will include the SIDs. The operators in other countries will have to, as indicated above.

Private operators in the US may find that their IA's will want to follow the new service manual, including the SID's, at the time of the next annual, after they take effect. That part is unclear, but certainly seems likely.

Does that answer your question??

Hi, Thanks for the reply and yes it does.. hopefully. My AME (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer) in Canada seems to think I will be ok as I only fly my aircraft for personal enjoyment. No commercial use. Frankly I don't mine doing some of the more non-invasive inspections if it will make my plane safer for me and my family. My engineer allows me assist at annual for educational purposes and we usually go well above what is required as far as inspections.
Thanks for all your time and engagement. Cessna needs guidance from those who know. It's good that they have solicited your help.

I hate to say it guys but if it's in the manual and you don't comply your aircraft isnot airworthy!!! There are no rules in the regs about this specifickly so the manual is controling! Cessna is out for blood on this one!

_Travis

Not True
Part 43 of the Regs allows alternatives to the OEM Service Manual. Part D of 43 is allowed to use for 100 hour inspections / Annuals.

Your SOAPA SID Steering committee has researched this and this is still working with Cessna on some clarification of these concerns.

Ultimately the inspection has to be signed off by the IA and it is up to his discretion based on Part 43 of the regs. If the IA need clarification on this then the local FISDO is involved. The FAA rep from the FISDO can require all or any inspections based on their interpretation of the OEM SM and the regs in Part 43.

That's my understanding and maybe their are others out there that can chime in.

Look Below at Section 43.5 (C)



§ 43.5 Approval for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

top
No person may approve for return to service any aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(a) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as appropriate, has been made;

(b) The repair or alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator has been executed in a manner prescribed by the Administrator; and

(c) If a repair or an alteration results in any change in the aircraft operating limitations or flight data contained in the approved aircraft flight manual, those operating limitations or flight data are appropriately revised and set forth as prescribed in §91.9 of this chapter.

[Doc. No. 1993, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 43–23, 47 FR 41084, Sept. 16, 1982; Amdt. 43–31, 54 FR 34330, Aug. 18, 1989]

Hi Herb,

we met at Airventure this year my parents and I stop and checked your plane out while you were unpacking! Love what you have done by the way!

I guess I agree with you that the procedure can be altered or an alternate procdure can be approved by the FAA but I don't know a mechanic or IA that will stray from the factory procedures without guidance! I work for an OEM and can say that our legal department is kept buisy fighing cases where maintinance was (or was not) conducted in an approved manor! Ultametly one must comply! Either the factory methed or an approved alternate but, still compliance. Unfortunitally I don't know anyone who's got the cash to do the engineering to come up with an alternate means of compliance! It's like saying I'm not gonna do an annual caus my IA doesn't want to. There are several ways to do an annual but they must be approved ways and they will all referance the aircraft service manual or at the berry least specific literature for minimum requirements in the FAR's. But agin the FAR's are silent on this detailed of a procedure so the ASM will be controlling! Agin Cessna must have some kind of motivation for gowing through all this for an out of production type.

For all our sakes I hope I'm wrong! Or maby Cessna will note that the procedures are optional in the book and we can for get about it till they decide to change there verbage!

Travis

Travis, I remember meeting you at OSH. You are from the Ft Worth area and I asked you about landing at Mecham.

At the meeting in Wichita we also discussed the rule that says (paraphrase): for inspection follow the Section in the Service Manual that was delivered with the airplane. This may be another way to qualify our original inspection list rather than adopting the new one.

That's me. The plane lives at Spinks though KFWS south of down town.

I really hope that all of this blows over and the aircraft will be proven safe and reliable with out any extrainious inspections. I just had my tail appart last year and while it's a rather small job in a relative sence but, it is a real pain in the ass! Like I said I work for an aircraft manufacturing company and I have seen hundreds of millions of dollars worth of inspections and alterations delt out with little concern for cost to the operator! I love the Skymaster but I can't spend 20k on anything right now! I hope ot doesn't come down to that cause I would have to sell at a loss if that were the case!

_travis

Don't wait on a 337 purchase
 

I recommend that ipassgas take and underline Roger's final point, "Life is what happens when you let other people decide your fate". This is an on going issue with all aging aircraft. SOAPA is doing a superb job representing us all and the issue should sort itself out. That said, since the concern seems to be for the higher time airframes, i would suggest finding one with 3000 hours or less (this becomes academic if they base it on calendar years which seems even more senseless).
A bigger issue facing all of us is the possible future demise of 100LL but we can't let that stop us either.
Recommendation: Find a lower time 337 that has been well taken care of, has good logs and a knowledgeable owner. Find an A&P/IA that knows and loves Skymasters and pay him/her for a complete pre-buy (suggest not the same shop that performed the last annual).
Since you are experienced with the type you probably already know many of the foibles and should have an idea what to look for. if not this website has many knowledgeble and experienced pilots, mechanics and owners. That can offer some suggestions.
But don't wait on this issue.
Good Luck

They Know
 

Twinned Tailed brothers I have looked at this from a few different angles,
One if they want to get rid of us, or better yet said, cull the active fleet number down, what would be the way to do it, while appearing to used the context (Safety) it’s a buzz word fells.
Ok if there is a possible problem, define it, which they are formulating. We comply and live to fly another day! Second though get rid of the problem find the point that no one would bear, Evoke an inspection program that would be so expensive along with intrusive very few could comply with.
I believe to quote a phase, By their Actions you will know them!
My aircraft is now still in pieces and I will not start reassembled until these gentlemen decide which tool they will use, the pencil lead or the Eraser!
At the conclusion of this process,
We Will Know them!

Mark
Put your plane together and enjoy it. We don't have to comply even if this does go through. It's the foreign guys who have the issue to comply with. Here in the USA it's a non-event for now. Only if the FAA rolls them to an AD will we be screwed. I really don't see that happening given the history of the airplane. It's solid and over built, the military proved that.

Now, get out there and fly.

Im just waiting
 

Herb
I like what you have done taking you bird to a new level, I want to see how far they are going to go. With that said, When this hits the European group, a lot of our tails will be lost to bureaucracy. I am reminded of the old phase when they came after one group, I was not part of them so I did nothing! only after they came for me did I cry out. We need to stay together, and work the solution, not the problem. Birds like yours are part of the answer.

Compliance
 

CPA had a recent article, which said, in effect, the Part 91 operator is not affected. I take exception with this. Cessna has said, they consider the full inspections to be mandatory. Take your aircraft to a Cessna service center, and they will insist on compliance.

The person who is championing the http://www.conquestowners.org/ program said they sold $14,000,000 in parts in 1 year. Perhaps it's about safety, but perhaps it isn't. The bottom line is that the owners, both here in the US and overseas will pay the bill.

The 400 series guys were behind the ball. The program was implemented without input from the owners. In this case the Skymaster owners have advance warning, and the opportunity to do something to prevent it from affecting them. Perhaps it is a letter writing campaign to the Jack Pelton. Perhaps other action. What I do know that if there is no action, it will be fait accompli.

Being involved in marine mammal survey flying in 336/337s, I'm paying close attention to this. Before I retired from management at a Part 121 operator in 2006, also had some dealings with aging aircraft issues at that level. Obviously, there are several agendas and a lot of moving parts involved here, i.e. airplane usage, any valid failure history, failure modes, liabilities, the FAA's sometimes (many times?) unclear aim, etc. etc.

SOAPA's diligence and hard work in this situation is much appreciated. Like everyone here, I'd hate to see these useful and utilitarian airplanes needlessly put out of business by a financially unviable AD, SD, or other. And I completely understand the desire of owners and operators to avoid any financial hit.

However, as we sort through this haystack for 'truth,' I'd offer one observation, illustrated by what I said to an A&P inspecting a homebuilt I wanted to buy: "Give the airframe special attention. I can deal with an engine quitting, but not with a wing coming off."

Capt Ahab

Do to an AD I had to remove the rudder shaft in my Navajo because of an inspection requirement for possible corrosion. This is a long vertical tube in the tail, that was sealed at the bottom. Over the years they would at times accumulate moisture and potentially corrode at or near the bottom. Had they been made with a hole in the bottom they would have never held moisture and this would probably never have come about. During years of Navajo aircraft maintenance, A&P's around the world had reported this occurance often enough that the inspection AD was eventually put in place. So of course there are issues in the design and manufacture of virtually all things that can possibly fail, and or "go bad" over time, but it isn't "time" alone that creates the problem.

Our questions about the proposed SID with the 336/337 isn't "if" we should be concerned about safety, it is "if" there is a demonstrated real use observation of a failure to a system or component that can be expected to be found in even a small percentage of the fleet. If not, then move on to the next model.

I'm quite sure you can make a fatigue failure computer program do just about anything, if your motivation is to "do something", but that's a far different thing than demonstrating real life components failures in the fleet.

Have there been any Service Difficult reports or have any A&P's reported real life issues with the area in question, or is this entirely a Nerd generated computer simulation?

It's worse, Roger. There are no Service Difficulty reports, and there is no computer simulation. It's an engineer saying, "we ought to do this".

Think about it, and we have, all 0-2's were based on 337's, and in all the time in SE Asia, and other activities, the only time a wing failed at the fuselage attach point was when it was hit with a large caliber shell, or a missile.

Cal Fire used them a lot, and there was never a failure at the fuselage attach point, or the wing strut attach point.

Cessna did not use any computer based analogy to provide any rational to the proposed SIDs. Cessna says that all proposed documents are based on SDR information. There are NO SDR's that relate to the wing/strut attach points. This is the main issue with these specific proposed inspections. Cessna's opinion is that because the aircraft are over 20 years old, they need a routine checkup in these areas to determine if there is a potential problem. The red herring is that the process they require will necessitate removal of the tail, then the booms and finally the wings to perform an eddy current inspection on the attach points. Unless someone comes up with some kind of device that can safely allow the bolts to be removed without removal of the tail and booms, the cost of this inspection is huge. Then you have to take into account the damage that will be subdued to aircraft when non-qualified shops try to perform this inspection. There may be no damage to any Skymasters out there right now but there will be once shops start to perform this inspection.

Don Nieser has even gone as far to search all the military SDR's for the aircraft and I understand that there is nothing in that data base also that would point to a problem. The aircraft is just overbuilt in that area and there are other related components that would fail first before these attach points would be a problem. We addressed this with Cessna but the engineers just think that it's a good idea to inspect these locations. No basis, just a good idea.

I suggested several times at the meeting in Wichita that Cessna should soften these inspections to some type of visual without removal of the bolts. All reports of these inspections could be sent in as information to determine if there is a problem. I don't know if that was the best alternative or not for us because there is still no rational for the inspection.

Rick
 

I have a 6mm diameter articulating borescope, 3 meters in length that I use for failure analysis work. I am sure it could be wriggled to the area in question and get a very good look (photos and all) at the fittings. If those joints appear pristine then I would be very surprised to find anything more seriously wrong, given the lack of documented historical problems. This seems to me to be a more practical method for performing field examinations of otherwise good aircraft, but as others have stated Cessna has no motivation to be practical to the benefit of the Skymaster community.

With some minor disassembly of the wing fairings, the attach points are visually accessable, so the borescope is not necessary.

What you won't see are potential cracks emenating from the bolt holes, or corrosion that may be hiding in the bolt holes, or the laminated layers where the outer wing spar mates with the center section carry thru.

I have a good idea too -- since Cessna can just come up with good ideas. It seems to me that Cessna is admitting to gross negligence in the way they designed and built the Skymaster. I know that aircraft manufactures are protected from suits on airplanes older than 20 years old, in the U.S. But I don't think they are protected in a case of knowingly producing a faulty product at the time and only now admit it today. Perhaps a motion for discovery is in order to determine what they knew and when they knew it...i.e., engineering data. I'm sure Cessna wouldn't like that one bit.