Are you operating in accordance with a maintenance program?

Attached is the FAA's Letter of Interpretation (LOI) on "current" maintenance programs as listed in 91.409. This might help clear up some questions. It's all good.

It is good to know that the FAA Legal team has given the heavy aircraft a outlet to avoid useless SID's. Unfortunately in the FAA world this has not been applied to C337's, C402's, C414's, at this point in time. Is this by accident or neglect? Has Textron/Cessna attempted to clarify this to customers? I believe it's time to heavily publicize Textron/Cessna's ability to foresee fatigue failure of Cessna manufactured aircraft by Using "advanced systems and techniques" as described at length by Doug Oliver Textron/Cessna mouthpiece. What fool would by a Cessna product after examining Cessna's/FAA cozy relationship after this fiasco? I know one individual who was in the market for a nice new Citation. After explaining Cessna's style of doing business and their expertise with "advanced systems and techniques he has chosen a used G3. He looked into Cessna's SID formulation after i explained Cessna's actions. No way would he buy a Cessna. . Owners and Buyers become very attentive when the specter of wing/fuselage de-mateing is spoken. Especially when the trigger for this very expensive endeavor is "advanced system and techniques" along with a phantom plane with no investigatory history as the #1 reason for the very, very, very expensive maintenance or potential scrapping of a a expensive airframe prematurely.. Cessna 's Citation assembly line could loss a few sales very easily. I'm waiting for a Citation X SADASS ( Special Advanced Design Aeroknowledge Symptom Schedule) to be posted for a wing/fuselage removal and replacement. Of course predicated upon "Advanced Systems and Techniques", being used as the justification for the 8 million dollar MX.

Herb, that FAA letter is not applicable to our situation.

It only applies to large and turbine powered aircraft operating under an approved maintenance program. Research 14cfr91.409(f)(3) referenced in the letter for details.

The maintenance manuals for the 336/337 series aircraft are not FAA approved documents, however, mechanics are required to inspect and repair aircraft in accordance with 14CFR43.13.

And some thing to ponder, do you honestly think that The FAA would spend the time and money to write this document (SIDS), and then tell the owners that this is optional to comply with? All that is required to mandate is to place this in the type certificate data sheet to be complied with at XX interval, and voila, its here. The FAA is not our friend.

Is the FAA writting the SIDS ? I thought it was Cessna?

Regarding the last two messages:

1. Cessna, not the FAA, is writing the SIDs, but under a mandate from the FAA, who in turn is responding to Congress after 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. Initially only transport aircraft were considered but that was later expanded to cover smaller aircraft.

2. But, yes, even though it's being done under FAA auspices, the FAA has made it clear that it doesn't apply to Part 91 -- in fact, it doesn't apply to some Part 135 operations, either (see the FAA’s Final Rule on the matter at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/pdf/02-30111.pdf). Also, although the referenced letter may apply to large and turbine powered aircraft, the rationale and underpinning for the opinion make it crystal clear that the policy applies to all Part 91 operators. One other point that has not been mentioned: on the Cessna 400-series SIDs, which have been implemented now for several years, Part 91 operators do not have to comply and few do(except for the single SID that became an AD).

In a 1/27/2010 Message in the thread entitled "How are you going to handle the SID?", Herb's point 5 is short and to the point: "Unless these inspections become AD's we will NOT have to comply". Based on all we know -- principally the FAA’s Final Rule and Notices -- he's right.

Ernie

When you say "We do not have to comply", what you really mean is that Part 91 operators in the USA do not have to comply. That statement, however, ignores the problem that operators in the rest of the world will face.

They will have to comply. They will have no choice.

Saying that we don't have to comply ignores all those people who don't live in the USA and will have to comply.

Larry, most of this thread and all of the last message deals only with Part 91 operators. Herb's point 5 also dealt solely with Part 91.

As you note, most foreign operators, won't be so lucky. And some Part 91 operators may have to comply if their insurance companies require it.

Ernie

It may very well be true that operators in other countries need to comply with rules and regulations that are different than those in the US, but that's the way it is with a lot of things. A perfect example is the ELT change. We can't fight everybody's battles for them.

It would seem that operators outside of the US should seek their own clarification or rule changes to be afforded the same protections from these onerous "recommendations" as provided to US operators.

I would imagine that as Cessna continue across all makes and models, they will eventually hit the one model that will cause an uproar casuing a change in how other countries view the implementation of these SIDS. The 337 family is too small to bring about significant change (whihc is mroe than likely why they started here).

I for one can't wait to see the 172 operators reaction

The above message was moved from an unrelated thread. Here are two responses that followed:

1. I wrote: "Cessna 172s are not subject to SIDs unless in Part 121 operations, a point I made on the thread entitled "AV Web SIDS Article 12-24-09", where I pointed out that the FAA's Final Rule on SIDs clearly specifies that they apply only to Part 121 operations and multiengine Part 129 and 135 operations (see http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/pdf/02-30111.pdf)."

2. Tropical wrote that Cessna 172s can't be in Part 121 operations.

Ernie

AvWeb Story
 

AvWeb has a story about the New Jersey Skymaster crash trying to correlate the SID concern with the wing detachment of N12NA. This is not good exposure for our side.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#202067

I don't know about exposure, but on the merits it's good news. If the NTSB preliminary report is correct, it supports what at least one structural expert with Skymaster knowledge told me when I analyzed the SIDs. Here's the gist:

"If fatigue-tested to failure, no one knows where it will fail. Cessna doesn't know and I don't know. But I know that the wing-fuselage attach points are the least likely to fail. If I had to guess it would be just outboard of the strut, or perhaps the strut itself, but not at the strut attach point with the wing but further down."

He dismissed a failure at the wing-fuselage attach points because of the massive over-design and because the front attachment, which carries the heavier load, is in compression in flight, meaning that the wing is pushing down on the top of the fuselage, rather than trying to pull up (i.e., separate) from the fuselage.

Ernie

From a capitalistic point of view
 

Why are we pilots in the USA surprised by this SID? We are living in a DIFFICULT economic time, most companies are struggling to keep the doors open, a lot of them are in bankruptcy. We have seen our government input billions of dollars into the economy. You don't have to be an economist to realize what Cessna is doing with this "mandate." Cash flow is their primary reason. In order to generate CASH-the needed element in a capitalistic society-Cessna has devised this new revenue source, and the FAA is probably in cahoots (blame it on the lobbyist). To be honest I am surprised that they still let us fly our 30+ year airplanes. But the truth is the economy has to be stimulated and cash has to flow or else capitalism does not have a chance.

I recently had to spend $1000 dollars on a new set of golf clubs... with some discussion about square grooves versus rounded grooves, rendering my good old set useless. How much money are the golf club manufacturers going to make in the coming years with new purchases from individuals? I think I am going to invest my retirement in them, or maybe I should invest in Cessna?

Sid
 

who came up with the potential 60k expense? after all to separate both wing and inspect is no more than three or four days work, tops three or four thousand dollars labor! If there is more to it than what I am hearing, guys please elaborate.

Several IA's
 

Nick,
Several people were involved in the review and cost estimates of SID compliance.

Removing both wings from the fuselage is a labor intensive project. Re-assembling them is even more labor intensive. In between, there is the eddy current inspection of each of the attach points, in the fuselage, and the wing. In addition to the wing removal, there are several other items that must be inspected. The cost is real. You may have a lower labor rate, and get eddy current inspection at a lower cost, but the total cost will significant. In addition, there is the very real possibility that the re-assembly will damage the aircraft.

That is why SOAPA has campaigned to have the wing attach inspection removed from the SID inspection.

well i am very worried about my 337 and what im going to have to do. anyone have any news about what needs to be done to make my plane safe:eek:

Chances are that your plane is as safe now as it ever has been.

You don't need to do anything. The SID is optional, if your plane is used flying part 91, and you are not operating under an FAA approved maintenance program.

You just should be vigilant to normal deviations while performing your preflight inspection, such as skin wrinkles that weren't there before, smoking residue originating at rivets, and so forth.

Dave

cessna 337 wings
 

thanks for the advice. i bought this plane a year ago have spent alot of money making it airworthy and still need more im not speending any more money on it till this is resolved as i see it this is realy going to hurt the value of my plane. so i guess i will play the waiting game. any ideas from u guys would be great

Here is a interesting fellow with a valid argument. Looks as though the legal community has taken a small interest in the circumvention of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) concerning SID's. With the form of Socialism which is in power in the US today I'm surprised Mr. Furnas and his fellow owners hasn't been herded off to the Gulag by the Fed's Ageing Aircraft leadership and their buddies at Cessna.

http://conquestowners.org/images/lar...esresponse.pdf

http://www.conquestowners.org/images..._DOCUMENTS.pdf

ANSWERS Found Here
 

Ken
The attached documents above are very clear in understanding the SID situation. It is nice to see this in print from a legal perspective. The Skymaster community on this message board has been trying to read between the lines since all the SID proposals started. I think this hits the nail right on the head. Thanks for sharing this, I had spoke with the EO of the Conguest group several months ago. He indicated that there was effort being pushed on interpretation of the rules. This really clears the smoke.

Some key points made in the attachments:

Section 91.415 of the Federal Aviation Regulations establishes the intent to limit the authority of arbitrary changes to an inspection program where it states "(a) Whenever the
Administrator finds that revisions to an approved aircraft inspection program under
91.409(f)(4) or 91.1109 are necessary for the continued adequacy of the program, the
owner or operator must, after notification by the Administrator, make any changes in the
program found to be necessary by the Administrator."

Granted, this particular paragraph addresses "any other inspection program" and not "one
recommended by the manufacturer" which is included under paragraph 91.409(f)(3) but
the intent of the section is just the same and in accordance with the December 5, 2008
Memorandum issued by the FAA which stated in part "An interpretation of the regulation
that would allow manufacturers unilaterally to issue changes to their recommended
maintenance and inspection programs that would have future effect on owners of their
products would not be legally correct. This would run afoul of the APA."

Nothing is said about "new owners" of the aircraft, it states "that would have future effect
on owners". If the FAA allows a SID to be mandated by the manufacturer to any owner,
present or future, the FAA has delegated its rulemaking authority to the manufacturer
which it cannot do.
On December 5, 2008 the FAA issued a legal Memorandum addressing the question
“whether, if a manufacturer amends its maintenance/inspection instructions, an affected
aircraft operator is obliged to comply with the new instructions in order to be in
compliance with subsection 91.409(f)(3)”. The FAA responded, “It is our opinion that the
operator is not so obliged”.

Then, applying their legal conclusions to both current maintenance instructions or
current inspection program the FAA went on to say:
If “current” in subsection 91.409(f)(3) and similarly worded regulations could be
read to mean an ongoing obligation, manufacturers unilaterally could impose
regulatory burdens on individuals through changes to their inspection programs or
maintenance manuals”
“If such compliance were required, this would be tantamount to private entities
issuing “rules” of general applicability without meeting the notice and comment
requirements of the APA, and the public would not have had an opportunity to
comment on these future limitations changes.”

In summary, an owner’s election to comply with the SID is just that, an election. It can be
ignored, or it can be completed if the operator is concerned that his aircraft might have
any of the listed deficiencies. Should the FAA adopt the SID, or even parts of it, the
complying owner might be one-step ahead of the field, but should the FAA require some
different standard, they might have to be re-inspected just the same.

SID's are published
 

Just received the Maintenance Manual revisions, Part #D2500-2TR9, which update the February 1973 current Maintenance Manual, Part #D2500-2-13.

This is the second revision to the current Maintenance Manual indicated above. The first revision is Part#D2500-2TR8 and deals with the Reel Type Seat Stops, Landing Light Switch and Corrosion Inspection of the Main Landing Gear. This new revision released last October are the Supplemental Inspection Documents (SID) and the Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) that have been discussed on this message board for the last 2 1/2 years. See the threads below for more information about SID's:

http://www.337skymaster.com/messages...ead.php?t=2513

This revision, D2500-2TR9, contains 176 double sided pages. This revision covers 1965 -1973 337. The following are the revision numbers for the applicable models.

336 - D238-2TR6
1965-1973 337 D2500-2TR9
1974-1980 337/T337 D2506-8TR9
1973-1980 P337 D2516-9TR8

These revisions were all released 4th Qtr 2010. I ordered mine through Yingling http://www.cessnadirect.com and it was $8.11 online order. These are available in paper only, no electronic format unless you subscribe to a service.

I have not reviewed the document yet as it just arrived by courier. I will start to review today and update soon. If anyone has any questions you are welcome to post here or use private message feature.

FAA speaks out on Aging Aircraft
 

Nothing really new here with this podcast but it may be helpful to understand the role that the FAA has with this program. Check out the podcast below:

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast...1.html?kw=self

I found this website while googleing the revised maintenance manuals. Marv Nuss suggests that owners of aging aircraft visit this website for information on the program. On the surface there is really very little about Skymaster's. The site does not even mention the SID's.

http://www.aginggeneralaviation.org/

This is incorrect. Airworthiness is defined by two parallel standards, or prongs. The first is legality, which means that the aircraft is in compliance with it's type certificate and any amendments thereto (supplemental type certificates, etc). The second prong is a requirement that the aircraft be safe for it's certified operations.

After reading over the thread, I see a lot of good information, and a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding. This is particularly true where issues regarding the requirement for compliance have come up.

When an aircraft is inspected, the aircraft must be found to be in compliance with the airworthiness requirements applicable to to the type certificate issued to that aircraft, and other specific amendments (STCs and so on). For Part 91 operations, an owner/operator is not responsible for compliance with manufacturer-mandated inspections or procedures. As others have noted, the FAA does not and cannot delegate authority to aircraft manufacturers which mandate specific maintenance or compliance practices. If an aircraft manufacturer wishes to have specific maintenance practices, inspections, and other actions legally mandated, the manufacturer must petition the FAA and submit those actions to the approval process (which allows for public input and comment, publication in the Federal Register, and scrutiny, among other things). A manufacturer cannot simply invent an inspection or practice, label it "mandatory" or state that it's required, and make it so.

If I perform an inspection on an aircraft intended for use under Part 91, I am not beholden to ensure that every service bulletin, for example, shows compliance. The aircraft may be declared airworthy and approved for return to service without compliance with service letters, service bulletins, and inspection documents. I am only required to ensure the inspection has been performed if the inspection is mandated by an Airworthiness Directive (AD).

If I perform an inspection and find discrepancies, I am required to provide a list of those discrepancies to the owner/operator. The inspection may be signed off, and the owner/operator becomes responsible for those discrepancies. If an inspection is performed and outstanding SB's, SID items, or other "mandatory" or "recommended" inspections have not been performed, these should be listed, where known, and provided to the aircraft owner. Compliance is at his or her discretion, not mine.

When manufacturer dictated maintenance is performed, unquestionably it increases the resale value of the aircraft, although by how much is subjective and highly variable. The economic value of performing some of these inspections must be considered carefully when deciding whether to perform or defer them. In some cases such inspections may be deferred indefinitely, while in others they may be performed at a later date when other maintenance that needs to be performed in the same area will make the older inspection more cost effective.

For the past couple of months, I've been performing inspections and maintenance on several large aging aircraft. Some of the inspections that are being done are unnecessary but repeats of previous work, only because the owners paperwork was destroyed in a fire. In other cases, the owner has elected to have inspections done because the area was already opened up for other work; he thus combined the inspections to save money.

I don't presently own a Skymaster, although I have flown them professionally (and maintained them). I'm considering purchase of a 336 at the moment, and while I've followed discussion of the SID problem since it became known, I'm taking some time to examine it again. One may rest assured that while I can work on and inspect my own aircraft, and while I have the tools and means and equipment to do so, I won't rush to tear the airplane apart and perform all the SID inspections.

Many owners aren't aware that annuals aren't the only means of accomplishing maintenance requirements. In fact, while many owners and mechanics take their playbook page for their inspection right out of the manufacturer maintenance manual, there exists NO requirement to do so. One can invent any number of means of compliance and gain FAA approval if that inspection program meets the requirements of 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix D. Progressive inspections, phase inspections, annual inspections, and other means can be used to assure compliance. It doesn't all need to be done at once, and it doesn't need to come out of the manufacturer maintenance manual. Work performed, that is to say specific operations performed, should be drawn from and comply with manufacturer ongoing maintenance instructions, but one is not beholden to perform non-mandated (read: non AD) inspections or practices that are established by the manufacturer.

If the aircraft is maintained in accordance with the Type Certificate and it's supplements or amendments, and is safe for it's intended operations, it may be signed off annually as airworthy, even if the service bulletins or other manufacturer inventions are not in compliance. Those are generally listed separately, and it's the discretion of the owner/operator to seek or forestall compliance.

Someone entered into a discussion about signing off an aircraft at an annual inspection, with the possibility that the Part 91 airplane be subsequently sold into or placed into commercial service. This is a non-issue.

An aircraft which is inspected annually is declared airworthy at the time of the inspection, and the mechanic/inspector (IA) assumes liability with that declaration for the moment the signature is entered in the maintenance records, working backward. It's often said that he or she "buys" the history of the aircraft with that signature. If prior improper maintenance has been done, the inspector signing the aircraft off must either repair it (or set it right), or note it as a discrepancy before completing and signing the inspection.

A mechanic/inspector who signs off an aircraft, airframe, powerplant, appliance, or accessory does not "buy" the future. If a Skymaster is signed off without SID inspections done, he or she has signed off an airworthy airplane. The inspections aren't required under Part 91. If the owner subsequently elects to put the Skymaster into commercial service, the owner/operator is responsible for seeking compliance; the mechanic/inspector who performed the prior inspection is NOT responsible for that.

14 CFR 91.409(a) dictates the 12 month inspection term for the "annual" inspection.

91.409(c)(2) provides that the provision of 91.409(a) doesn't apply to aircraft operated under a maintenance program for Part 135. In other words, if you inspect a Skymaster for Mr. Bob, who operates the airplane under Part 91, you aren't obligated to perform that the SID inspections have been performed. You're not obligated to perform them, either. If you do the work following the inspection that's necessary to bring the airplane into compliance with the regulation, and you sign off the aircraft as airworthy, you're done when you sign the logbook. If Mr. Bob then puts the airplane into commercial service with a Part 135 operator, the aircraft is no longer airworthy until it's brought into compliance with the Part 135 maintenance program under which it's operated. Furthermore it must continuously be operated under that program, in full compliance with that program, so long as it's in Part 135 service. That's not your responsibility. It's the responsibility of the owner/operator.

The owner/operator is substantively responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft and it's records. This is firmly established by 91.403(a), which clearly states "The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter." Part 39 encompasses AD's.

Each foreign operator must take up the legal requirements of operating his or her aircraft in accordance with the respective airworthiness authority. It's beyond the scope of most, if not all, to attempt to dictate this or address this. It's certainly beyond my intent to address, consider, concern, or comment on such a vast and variable topic.

A couple of other points, as many owners aren't aware: by it's nature, an inspection does not include maintenance. Many seem to view an annual inspection as inclusive of all the things necessary to fix the airplane or bring it into compliance. This isn't the case. An inspection is just as it sounds: it's an examination of the aircraft and it's records. An owner may elect to have the inspector perform the maintenance to bring it into compliance, or may elect to have the work done elsewhere. The owner may also elect to seek determination that not all the work is necessary.

The other point is that while a mechanic holding an Inspection Authorization can declare an aircraft airworthy as part of an annual inspection, he or she cannot return the aircraft to service. The same applies when work has been performed on an aircraft; the person performing the work declares that work acceptable for return to service, but doesn't return the aircraft to service. Only the pilot does that, by flying the aircraft.

There are really only two times that a mechanic declares an aircraft airworthy (generally a mechanic only approves an aircraft for return to service; this is a significant distinction from declaring the aircraft airworthy): one is when signing a special flight permit ("ferry permit"), and the other is upon completion of an annual inspection.

One doesn't need to cite the airplane as airworthy at the conclusion of an annual inspection. One can also state that the aircraft isn't airworthy, and that a list of discrepancies has been provided to the owner.

Sometimes owners feel hostage to the shop or mechanic/inspector who does the inspection, as though they're stuck paying for all the work to be done. This isn't necessary and it's incorrect.

Years ago I served as the Director of Maintenance for a Part 135 operation that flew King Airs in medical service. Upon taking that position, I elected to do a records inspection, and found numerous discrepancies. Among them was an AD that was 20 years out of date, and missing phase inspections. I gave the operator an ultimatum: I'd begin providing service after an independent Beech center had performed two major inspections (a "C" and a "D" inspection) to bring the airplane into compliance, as well as addressing the AD.

Following the inspection, the owner received the estimate for the work that needed to be done: it came to over nine hundred thousand dollars. He came unglued. He ordered me to go to the service center and see that half that bill was "removed." I traveled to the service center, reviewed the records, and found a lot of items that didn't need doing. Some could be deferred, some weren't necessary. One that I recall was an oil line which had a slight dent. The line cost about nine hundred dollars. I inspected the line, and found that it wasn't out of tolerance, as the center suggested it was. Although the center insisted on all their items being done if they were going to sign off the phase inspections, I was still able to knock several hundred thousands of dollars off the cost by finding unnecessary work or work that could be deferred. Simply because an inspector or shop tells you they want this or that done to sign something off, doesn't make it so...any more than Cessna saying the SID inspections are mandatory makes them mandatory. Say it ain't so...because it ain't.

--Sorry for the length. Larry Bowdish did say it's okay to be verbose, and I felt it had to be said. I also divided the reply into two parts, because it's too long for one post.

Boy that clears up a lot of confusion. Obviously from your comments you have thorough understanding of the position the owners are in. To help validate your comments can you tell us a little more about yourself? expertise etc.
Well done.

Gord,

I'm afraid that my own resume won't change the validity of what's been said, although I believe I provided adequate information to enable anyone to establish the information for themselves.

I fly internationally, and work as both a pilot and mechanic and inspector. I'm also a flight and ground instructor (and flight engineer, if that makes any difference). Presently I'm abroad, operating a large aircraft, primarily in hostile areas. I would prefer to say no more than that.

Thank You
 

Be as verbose as you please.
The software has limits of how big a post can be, but I don't.

Canada
 

SIDS not mandatory...

SID inspections are NOT mandatory for Canadian registered, small, privately owned aircraft.

From Transport Canada

"For non-commercial owner/operators of small piston aircraft who are operating under Standard 625 Appendix B however the ability to operate to the general annual inspection requirements of this appendix removes the requirement to perform the SID inspections.The Regulations state only the minimum requirements in order to comply however Transport Canada encourages all owners to assess manufacturer’s recommendations for their aircraft".

So now we know.

That is great news Gord

SID's for all high wing Cessna
 

The rest of fleet is joining the fun.

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...WT.mc_sect=gan

I would assume this is good news for the 337? Hopefully, they would not just convert the SID into an AD on just the 337 if all the high wings have the same SID? It seems, barring any other related 337 incidents, that this has run its course?

Watch the video on YouTube. I always check what it said to check without an SID. I wish that Cessna would just admit to a service life for its old airplanes. How long can a C-172 wing last, forever? Or is there an hour limit to its life? Cessna knows the answer to this question, but for some reason won't tell us. The same is true for the 337 too, the only difference is that Skymasters are built more beefer.

You Tube Video mentioned above
 

SID's - Front & Rear Spar Eddy Current (bolt hole)
 

Hi Everyone

I need some thoughts on this matter from other members of the forum, last week all SID's were completed on my plane with the exception of the front and rear spar bolts / screws.

Aircraft is 33701575 (1974)

In my aircraft these two bolts / screws do not exist, they are rivits and are factory. The SID's which my aircraft S/N falls into still specifies the removal of the bolts /screws to complete the stated eddy current inspection of the bolt hole. They even show the photograph of the bolts / screws.

1. Does anyone have information or documentation from Cessna regarding this?

2. Has anyone completed the SID's on their aircraft which has rivits, and what did you do?

A previou post mentioned a discussion with Cessna had taken place regarding this particular issue - the response was remove the rivits and replace with bolts / screws.

I have a window of opportunity to finalise this last remaining SID tomorrow, do I remove the rivits?

Appreciate and assistance with this.

Dave

Dave

Are you referring to the bolts that attach the wing, to the fuselage? These points would be the spar attachments

The parts book does not refer to anything other than the bolts.

I am thinking that your airplane already has the wings removed (based on photos I have seen) so you must be referring to some other area?

From Don Nieser
 

Herb and Dave, my recommendation is ..,. DO NOT REMOVE THE RIVETS IN THE BOTTOM FRONT SPAR TO DO THE SID INSPECTION!
The problem is Cessna made a mistake when they wrote the SID. The way the SID is written it tells to do a wing spar Eddy Current inspection of the holes in the bottom front spar at the area just outboard of the strut attachment and they made it applicable to all 337 and 0-2 Skymaster serial numbers. This SID inspection is exactly the same as the original Wing Spar AD put out by the FAA, AD 78-09-05. The mistake by Cessna is that they should not have included all serial numbers in the SID!

If one reads the 337 Wing Spar AD 78-09-05, one will find out that it correctly does not include all serial numbers because the 337 aircraft with serial numbers higher than 1852 wings were beefed up (made stronger) and did not have the screw/bolt holes in the bottom front spar. The late model wings had rivets in the location that The AD 78-09-05 and the SID say to Eddy Current the screw/bolt holes. It is absolutely ridiculous for people at Cessna to tell him to drill out the rivets. This is not the first time this issue has come up. I tried to get Cessna to make a correction to the SID, but they don’t listen to me.

My recommendation is to make a note in the log book stating that the AD 78-09-05 has been accomplished on the wings and the SID inspections have been accomplished up to the but not including the Eddy Current inspection of the screw/bolt holes in the bottom front spar because Cessna made an error when they wrote the SID.

Herb, what is Dave’s aircraft serial number? What is his last name? I think Cessna should put out a letter to all 337 owners of aircraft with serial numbers greater than 1852 stating that the SID is not correct.

You can post this on the SOPA web site message board or I will when I get time.
Don Nieser
Commodore Aerospace Corp
405-503-4686

Hi Guys

Don & Herb, many thanks for the quick responses to my dilemma. Based on your feedback Don we have now completed all SID's with the exception of the front and rear spar screw holes. Given mine are rivets and the current SID does not detail any information regarding aircraft with rivets.

We also took the opportunity to do further eddy current work on boom attachments to the wings and tail attachment regardless of the visual inspections. As mentioned all but one SID have been completed, so what am I going to do about what we decided not to do?

I have asked the person we used for the eddy current work to look at ways to complete an inspection in this area using other means, one that we can suggest to Mr Cessna for those aircraft that have rivets not screws. I am not saying we will find the answer, but I want to see what some very experienced and knowledgable people in non destructive testing and inspections can come up with.

This Friday I will discuss the way forward on this task with my engineers and the NDI team, the cost associated to complete the proposal and the next steps once we feel there is a workable solution.

My aircraft is a 74G normally aspirated SN 1575, we'll below the SN number Don mentioned.

I will keep you informed.

Dave :D

Cessna - Friend or Foe?
 

After reading this article about the Cessna Centurion, it brings back some unsettled memories of sitting around a table with Skymaster advocates, Cessna Engineers and management several years ago in Wichita. Cessna does not want aging aircraft in the sky. Even though they have been given a congressional write off of all these older airplanes they are still trying to control the fleet. I am glad to hear the results of this situation and my hat is off to those that partnered with Mike Busch to challenge this attempt to control the pilots and owners. There is always two sides of the story but our side is being beat down by a heavy hand.....be careful out there


http://blog.aopa.org/opinionleaders/...T.mc_sect=blog