|
Cessna C337 SID
I have received a request from Cessna for a gathering of a few people to discuss the SID that is upcoming for Cessna 337 aircraft.
The text of the message is this I am looking to locate some experienced 337 owners in Kansas and the surrounding near by states to have a meeting to discuss and get customer feed back for the SID’s program coming up for the aging Cessna 337 aircraft. Could you help me with this? Thank You for your time Cameron Miller We have had a flurry of Email's going back and forth, and the upshot is that Herb Harney, our President, has offered to spearhead the contact with Cessna. Anyone wishing to be involved in this discussion, please contact Herb by email, at hharney@sbcglobal.net |
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the "SID" program?
|
Supplimental Inspection Documents
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/info/CessnaSIDs.pdf The link above is a good description of the program. |
Further to Herb's message above, the Supplemental Inspection Document addresses inspections and modifications required for aging aircraft to remain airworthy. The most infamous is the one for 402 Cessnas, which for aircraft with over 15,000 hours requires the installation of wing-spar straps in a procedure that is so expensive that it threatens grounding much of the fleet. Cessna is now working on other models, including the 337.
But please note: 1. The 402s are low-wing aircraft with wing mounted engines and some have a dry wing with the fuel in tip tanks, so the loads at the root of the wings are quite different than for a 337. 2. Many (most?) of the 400s have spent much of their life in charter operations, accumulating thousands of hours per year, so fatigue cycles are much greater than for the typical 337. It's possible that the difference in loads and designs will result in an SID for the 337 which is considerably less costly and may be applicable even later in life (say, 25,000 hours). Since most 337s have far less hours, few aircraft may be affected over the next decade. But we need to stay on top of this. Ernie Martin |
The SID program calls for inspections. It is no different than the requirement for wing spar x-rays on Beech 18's, or the spar inspection or other mandatory service bulletins for twin commanders. While Ernie is correct that it has been applied to 402's, it has also been applied to 414's, and the 425 and 441 turbo props. On the 441's, they determined that the fleet averaged 8000 hours. The initial requirement for the SID was extremely invasive. It consumed so many hours that the centers that could do the SID were overloaded, and they extended and modified the requirements. Incidentally, the initial SID for 425's was anticipated to cost $150K to $250K, depending on the findings.
Cessna has obviously decided to extend the program to other aircraft. The initial implementation may not be the final outcome. As Ernie says, it's important to stay on top and be aware. Between now and the initial implementation, the input from users should have a major impact on how it is implemented. It behooves everyone to be as involved at this point as possible. If you live in Kansas, or would like to be involved in the discussions, please send Herb an email. |
C337 SID ?
Is there a public database of documented failure/failed inspections of C337 spars? I have the 5000 hr. AD. on my desk and have wondered about the failure rate of this inspection and the incidents which required it. What has caused this at this time? I have checked the NTSB database the best I could and the incidents of Spar problems causing a accident beside repeated aerobatic flight is non existent. It would be good science to be able to compare failure rates with other aircraft in a logical process. God help the GA owner if the FAA Legal Department has chosen this avenue to demonstrate their authority to the lowly taxpayer/owner. |
I really like your avatar.
|
Unfortunately I have been through this dog and pony show before. Please refer to this article from Mike Busch from 2004. Cessna will sit and listen but the course of action is already determined by Cessna with the FAA blessing. The sad part about this is that there is no, nada, zero determination by investigation if aircraft was abused or g limits routinely exceeded. And don't ask Cessna for the Analysis data or you will be hustled out by the TSA,Homeland Security, FBI or Marv Nuss personally.
twin.cessna.org/reference/twnc400nprms2.pdf http://www.avweb.com/news/features/189243-1.html |
- Mr Truman Sparks and his fine flying machine. Best line in the film as he picks up the chicken ...."No flying today Agnes". Then Mr. Sparks does a a little field approved Duct tape repair. Aircraft is now owned by Randy Deluca's son. Still fly's it out in California.
|
Thanks for the info gentlemen. I tell ya, I must be getting old and crabby, but between the FAA (who happens to be my employer incidentally), the TSA, Cessna, and others, flying my Skymaster on a sunny day to play a round of golf is getting to be more and more challenging. It shouldn't be so complicated.
Thanks again! Ed |
I couldn't agree with you more Ed. Just be thankful you weren't planning on going to Martha's Vineyard real soon.
|
The two links contained in one of the above messages were very informative.
The one important element that may be pertinent to the upcoming meetings and where we have critical data to contribute is cabin weight. This is somewhat simplified, but in the first of the two links, Mike Busch makes the case that Cessna's analysis seems to have assumed large cabin loads and low fuel loads in the stress analysis, yielding fatigue lifes which are much shorter than if it had assumed low cabin loads and high fuel loads*. I believe that 337s are mostly operated with low cabin loads (often with 1 or 2 occupants) and often on long-endurance surveillance missions (with large fuel loads). I know that I never use my 5th and 6th seats. We must try to get Cessna to consider this, which will result in much longer safe life if the 337 wing structure and stress distribution bears some similarities to the 400 series. Ernie * "The tensile stress on the critical wing main spar elements is a function of cabin load (i.e., zero-fuel weight), not of gross weight. In fact, fuel weight (which is outboard of the “ hot” region) actually reduces the stress. It turns out that fatigue life is exquisitely sensitive to changes in tensile stress—a small reduction in stress can result a big increase in safe life" (abreviated excerpt). Yet Cessna proposed the same safe life for the 401 models (which came with seating for 6) and for the 402 models (which came with higher-density seating of up to 11 passengers). And Cessna did this despite the fact that "there are six known instances of 402s with cracked spars, but no known instances of 401s with cracks." |
I'd like to talk to the Cessna folks about their SID plans. Who is the contact over there at Cessna? Even if I can't visit in person, perhaps teleconference or phone interview. My other question is why does Cessna even care about 337's any more? It must cost them allot of money to worry about old Skymasters...especially since we can't sue them any more since all Skymasters are over 20 years old (Federal law). My point is I smell a rat. Does Cessna have a plan to shake us all down for "Life Extension Kits".
|
For a background on why this is being done, read the first of the two links in the 3rd message from K337A.
Ernie |
Amigos,
AOPA responded thusly to an inquiry about what they knew about the proposed 336/337 SID: Paul, John Collins asked me to respond to your question on the Cessna SID program. The Cessna SID program goes back a few years as you mention below and Cessna is working on developing SID programs for most of their fleet. For the majority of operators complying with Cessna SIDs is not mandatory. The recent issue with the C-425/441 SID surrounded the fact that those aircraft fall under FAR 91.409(e) and (f) and have to be on an approved maintenance plan. Most C-442/441are maintained on the Cessna factory plan, as these plans meet the requirements for 91.409. When Cessna updated their maintenance plan to include the SID these owners asked for clarification of their regulatory responsibility under 91.409, and in some cases the SID is required. Because the Cessna 337 does not meet the requirements of FAR 91.409(e) a Cessna SID would not be mandatory for owners/operators of these aircraft. I've include 91.409(e) and (f) below. I hope this helps. e) Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable), turbojet multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplanes, and turbine-powered rotorcraft. No person may operate a large airplane, turbojet multiengine airplane, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplane, or turbine-powered rotorcraft unless the replacement times for life-limited parts specified in the aircraft specifications, type data sheets, or other documents approved by the Administrator are complied with and the airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft, including the airframe, engines, propellers, rotors, appliances, survival equipment, and emergency equipment, is inspected in accordance with an inspection program selected under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section, except that, the owner or operator of a turbine-powered rotorcraft may elect to use the inspection provisions of §91.409(a), (b), (c), or (d) in lieu of an inspection option of §91.409(f). (f) Selection of inspection program under paragraph (e) of this section. The registered owner or operator of each airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft described in paragraph (e) of this section must select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use one of the following programs for the inspection of the aircraft: Have a good weekend, Leisha Leisha Bell Director, Aircraft and Environment Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Ph: 301-695-2086 Fax: 301-695-2214 Leisha.Bell@aopa.org www.aopa.org Whether the FAA proceeds to require compliance by AD (as occured with the 400 series twin Cessnas), and/or whether insurance companies will attempt to encourage compliance, are different questions. Therofer, it behooves us to pay close attention to this developing saga. |
Cessna Meeting
We have learned that Cessna has scheduled a meeting for Thursday.
If you have not already submitted the survey that was emailed to you, please do so as soon as possible. In some cases, the email address on file is not valid. As a result, you never got it. Please take a minute in the "UserCP" to update your email address. I will post the survey form, and you can either email it to me, fax it to me, or send the data in a Private Message. |
Survey Form
N number _________
Serial number __________ Year and model __________ How long have you owned it __________ Total airframe time __________ Your location ____________ Are you Private, Commercial or an ATP ___________ Is your aircraft used in your business, and if so, what percentage of the time is spent on business. ______ Is your aircraft used, or has it been used for low level terrain following operations (e.g pipeline patrol, cattle management)?______ Average hours you fly annually, over the past 2 years. ____________ Is your airplane kept in a hangar? How long have you kept it hangared? ____________ |
337 Sid
I would hope that if Cessna decides there is a potential SID issue with the 337's they make it a point to exclude any 336/02 data from their data base. It would hardly seem logical to mix the standard catageory historical use and condition of the 337 and non military 336's in with the condition of aircraft that were used in military service.
|
Mike Busch, author of Cessna 400-Series Wing Spar Update, and who had considerable involvement in that situation, has this to say:
Paul, I'm not sure why you're so concerned about this. The Cessna SIDs have no regulatory impact in the US, except possibly for Part 135 operators who have committed to comply with service bulletins in their op specs. (I don't think there are a lot of 337s in Part 135 service.) We've seen absolutely no evidence that the FAA intends to mandate any of the SIDs via Airworthiness Directive, except for the 400-series twins where they've already done so. It looks to me as if Cessna ultimately will issue SIDs on all their piston GA aircraft. The FAA is not involved in this: SIDs are essentially giant service bulletins issued unilaterally by Cessna without FAA involvement or concurrence. Unless the FAA makes some radical course change, Part 91 operators can simply ignore the SIDs. Unless you're aware of some actual safety-related aging-aircraft issues with the 337 that could trigger FAA rulemaking action, I would not lose any sleep over this. The situation is different in some other countries, where the local CAAs require Part 91 operators to comply with the SIDs. The Cessna SIDs program has been a real disaster for owners in Australia, for example. But in the U.S., it has been more or less a non-issue (except for the 401/402/411/414 aircraft affected by the spar-strap AD). I don't think it's worth trying to oppose the SIDs unless the FAA issues an SAIB or NPRM that suggests they are planning to mandate any of them. In the absence of such a signal from the FAA, making a big deal over the SIDs can only be counterproductive by focusing FAA attention on the subject. My thoughts, for what they're worth. Best...Mike We asked Mike about the reasons that the 337 SID may not come back to haunt us as an AD, and he responded: The 400-series spar-strap ADs were triggered by a series of unfortunate events and decisions. There was a fatal accident in a 402C where the wing came off in flight. The airplane had 20,000 hours, and the NTSB investigation revealed that the origin of the spar fatigue failure was a pre-existing flaw in the spar that was there when the aircraft originally rolled out of the Cessna factory. In addition, the aircraft had previously had a hard-landing incident that tore a main gear leg out of the wing and overstressed the spar beyond design limits. Despite both of these problems, the airplane flew 20,000 hours before the wing came off. This was a one-time freak accident, but it put the 402 on the FAA's radar screen anyway -- specifically the aging aircraft folks (notably Marv Nuss) at the FAA Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City. That is never a good thing. Then, the FAA became aware of some spark cap cracks (not failures) in a few old high-time tip-tank 402s that had been in Grand Canyon sightseeing service, and had been operated at an extreme corner of the loading envelope with extremely heavy cabin loads and extremely light fuel loads in turbulent conditions, thereby placing tension stresses on the lower spar cap far in excess of what is ever experienced in airplanes operated with more normal cabin and fuel loads. (I strongly suspect that these aircraft were operating over-gross, but of course can't prove it.) Under the circumstances, an AD mandating lower spark cap reinforcement for the 402 was inevitable. We tried very very had to persuade the FAA to limit the scope of the AD to the 402, because no other 400-series twin has ever exhibited any spar cracking and no other 400-series twin operates in the extreme corner of the loading envelope that these 402s did. Despite our best efforts, the FAA rejected our arguments and issued a spar-strap AD that affected 401s, 411s and 414s, none of which had ever exhibited any problems because they're never operated in the extreme loadings that the problem 402s used. Owners of those models were unfortunately caught in the crossfire over the 402 spar issues, and I feel bad that we were not able to prevent this (and heaven knows we tried). Unless and until actual cracks or other clear safety-of-flight issues appear in other Cessna models (and I sincerely doubt that they will), I see no reason for the FAA to consider ADs against 300-series Wallace twins, Skymasters, or Centurions.. I don't have a crystal ball, so I could be wrong. I hope not. Best...Mike Thanks for the input, Mike! |
Quote:
For instance, if you own a 1966 model, and you bought the airplane in 2002, you have a history of who the airplane was registered to, but you don't how it was operated up to the point that you became familiar with it. |
Quote:
The requirement to go to digital tactical radios was already a big financial hit. Any program with an impact like the one for the 401 and 402 fleets would be devastating. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fatigue is cumulative on aluminum and it doesn't matter if Lt. Hamfist or commercial pilot Hamhand is at the controls. O-2A wings are different from 337 wings, as there is additional structure on the rear spar to absorb the firing loads from the hard points. The wing spars and center carry thru spars are also physically larger than its civillian cousins. Even the wing attach bolts are two sizes larger than its 337 counterpart. An O-2 wing will not mate up to a civil fuselage. There's no way that a prudent engineer could simply dismiss a portion of the population just because if was never in military service. |
Quote:
Take for example someone doing fire spotting, where they are making tight turns, maneuvering at low altitudes, with lots of thermals. At the other end of the spectrum, some one who is doing polar bear tracking, where, they are flying over a non-thermal environment, basically straight and level, though at a low altitude. You can't simply say 0-2's had higher stresses. I would argue that the fire spotter gets more stresses, on a continuing basis, than most of the 0-2's in civilian service. Remember that the 0-2's that were beat up pretty badly were simply scrapped. When you buy a plane, and you look at the log books, you can't tell what kind of use the aircraft had. My former aircraft had lots of hours, but it was a all used as a corp plane for a collection of companies, and for a number of years, was flying every day. |
Quote:
You are relying on the benevolence of the FAA. Look at it this way, this is a negotiation. You don't go in with what you feel is adequate. Go in with a lot more conditions because I will guarantee you they will cut them down to get right to the point. Unless you guys want to wind up with a cost prohibitive AD on these planes you better be careful. Cessna would love to get rid of all these old planes and the corresponding liability and the FAA would be all to willing to help them. |
Please note that I've added a 6th poll to determine how often you fly with a cabin load which is roughly half the maximum. Sorry we didn't post this with the earlier polls.
Ernie |
My original post was meant to discuss the possibility that the extreme use (and possible operations outside of the normal envelope due to military use) of 02's could perhaps cause harm to the data set used by the FAA. This has then brought up the question of operations of 336/337's in environments that are also outside of "normal".
The better question would perhaps be: If a 336/337 or 02 was used in a category other than "normal" and or was used under 91.323 in Alaska allowing for heavier gross weight, should it be used in the data set? For precedent, the FAA should be asked if the 400 series data that was used to predicate the AD included aircraft that were "known" to have exceded their "normal civilian" operating parameters. If the answer is no, then clearly the FAA should not use 336/337-02 aricraft that were knowingly operated outside of the aircrafts civilian standard operating envelope and weight limitations. Of course there are aircraft that have been operated outside of their normal envelope on "occasion or by accident" but that is something that would be virtually impossible to know. However if the non-standard operations are known, those aircraft should be excluded with out question. |
Thanks for the info Ernie. Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea if the FAA is looking into SID's for aircraft manufactured by someone other than Cessna or are they singling out Cessna for some reason?
|
No idea, but my guess is that all the manufacturers have been tasked and funded to do the same.
Ernie |
Wichita Meeting
We had a productive meeting with Cessna yesterday. There were 9 people from Cessna and these 7 guests/users: 3 owners (Steve Keller, Steve Walz and me, all very familiar with the aircraft), 2 from Commodore Aerospace (Don Nieser and his structures person, Larry Good) and 2 from AirScan (which operates 23 late-model Skymasters).
For context let me mention that this SID exercise is FAA driven and is expected to be followed by similar exercises for other Cessna aircraft models. Here, in brief, are my impressions: 1. Cessna has been working on this for roughly 6 months or more. Some of the documents date to March and some of the Cessna people at the meeting visited Steve Keller about 6 months ago to get a first-hand look at his airplane (most of these people were unfamiliar with Skymasters because they were not around when they were designed, built and tested, and Cessna does not have a significant database of experience with the aircraft). 2. Unlike the 400-series SID program, this is an experience-based, not analytically-based program. No finite-element structural analysis of the aircraft is planned. Instead, the Cessna people went to the FAA's Service Difficulty Reports (SDRS) database and used that as the basis for the proposed SIDs. At the time of the meeting, Cessna had written draft SIDs and the meeting was in part intended to get the users’ inputs on these proposed SIDs. 3. Approximately 23 proposed SIDs were reviewed, some in more detail than others. 4. For some, the guests were surprised by, and expressed disagreement with, the area in question and/or the initial compliance requirement (for instance, 7,500 hrs or 20 years). a) As an example, one may call for an inspection for cracks in a wing area where none of the users have ever seen a crack, either on very-high-time aircraft or aircraft that have seen high-load accidents, yet there were no SIDs for other areas of the wing which are susceptible to damage due to fatigue or excessive loads. b) Or one may call for inspection at 20 years (from manufacture) when it’s a fatigue (not corrosion) issue, so that an aircraft which has sat in a hangar since manufacture and never flown would be subject to this SID looking for fatigue cracks. Or the SID may call for an inspection requiring massive aircraft disassembly even if there is no corrosion evident in easy-to-inspect adjacent/comparable areas. 5. As a result of these user comments, Cessna agreed to look more closely at the SDRS data (some of which are 15 – 20 years old) to try to determine whether they may have come from questionable aircraft or sources (e.g., an aircraft which may have had an earlier accident and/or improper repair) or misidentified the aircraft or part. Inquiries I performed after the meeting suggest that FAA SDRS data is generally considered suspect in the aircraft maintenance business. If true, then Cessna’s re-examination may bear fruit. 6. Moreover, Don (a retired Air Force Lt. Col. who has over 20 yrs experience with our aircraft, worked for years on aging aircraft and corrosion research for the Air Force, has disassembled and restored dozens of Skymasters, and has many Skymaster aircraft and parts which Cessna can examine) invited Cessna to visit him and see first-hand why he believes that some of the proposed SIDs need re-examination. Roughly, his words were “When you see this item, especially one removed from a high-load, high-fatigue aircraft, you’ll see right away that this item can’t fail that way, that other parts will fail first, that the SDRS data must be from a suspect aircraft or refer to a different part”. 7. Cessna also agreed to re-examine the initial compliance requirements, including the possible removal of years-since-manufacture requirement. 8. We were asked to estimate the manpower requirement for each SID. 9. I don’t have at this point a schedule of future activities. There wasn't enough time to review all of the proposed SIDs, so we are continuing their review. We talked about the next meeting of this group perhaps held both in person and as a WebEx Internet meeting. With the caveat that all of these points are my impressions, I believe that such a meeting will likely come after we have submitted our views on the unreviewed SIDs and after points 4 – 6 above are addressed. I’m hoping that Cessna goes to Don’s shop (it’s a 3 hour drive) and that Don (and perhaps AirScan and others) can furnish point 7 after that. I expect to contact Cessna and hope to get a better feel for future activities. In summary, there are some issues that we’re all working through, but I found the Cessna people competent, professional and receptive to considering our points. The attendance of Don and Larry was crucial and I hope that they can continue contributing. Ernie |
One of the concerns is that while these may not be applicable to part 91 aircraft here in this country, in some countries these may be treated as if they were AD's. In fact, there are 400 series aircraft, in other countries, where they advertise that "SIDS are complete".
So, we have a duty to all Skymaster Owners, both here and in other countries. |
At least our input is valued by Cessna. I don't think that the 400 series owners had that luxury.
We, as a collective unit, need to be smart and educate the OEM as anyone there that was on the 337 program has long retired or gone west. |
Our partnership 337 has been sold and I was looking at getting my own but I am now thinking I should hold off until this is all sorted out so I don't end up getting an aircraft that becomes too expensive to maintain???? How long do they feel this process will take before we know what the new recommendations / requirements are going to be?
|
Well assuming you are at least 16 years old, it will probably happen in your lifetime, but I wouldn't count on it. I certianly wouldn't delay a purchase based on waiting for a governtment ok, or a "Cash for Airplane" program.
Life is what happens while you let other people decide your fate. |
Cessna SID Update
This provides an update on the 23 draft Cessna Supplemental Inspection Reports (SIDs) being considered for the Skymaster. If you have read prior messages in this thread you know that Cessna presented these draft SIDs to SOAPA at a meeting on Aug. 27, 2009. Also in attendance at this meeting, beyond SOAPA, were other technical specialists and Skymaster experts, representing themselves. Cessna outlined the proposed draft SIDs at this meeting. SOAPA has requested permission to distribute the draft SIDs but Cessna appears reticent, perhaps because they remain in draft form and are under further consideration within Cessna. Our understanding of the SIDs, as proposed, is that they would not be required for Part 91 operators, but will be for Part 135 and international operators.
The proposed SIDs may be lumped into the following broad groups: fuselage, wing, tail, and engine groups. While some of the proposed SIDs are minor and would normally be easily accessible and be part of an annual inspection, many are significantly more comprehensive and invasive to the airframe. The fuselage SIDs call for visual inspection of the rear spar carry-through and upper rear doorpost bulkheads, nose gear torque link, rudder pedal area, and door lock mechanism. As presently proposed, the wing SIDs involve eddy current inspections of the wing attach bolts area which may require substantial disassembly of the aircraft to complete. Other proposed work on the wings involves removal of fixed panels to gain access to high stress areas for eddy current inspection; and loosening and inspection of the flap cables.(eg jack points, wing strut attach points, aileron hinges). The proposed tail section SIDs require removal of the rudders and elevator for eddy current inspection of the hinge attach fittings among other inspections required once disassembled. As proposed the engine mount SID calls for removal of the tubular engine mounts for inspection. Importantly, as proposed the entire SID package would have a compliance time of 20 (twenty) years from date of aircraft manufacture and every 10 (ten) years thereafter, with varying TTAF hour triggers for certain SIDs. The SOAPA sub-committee investigating this matter has looked at preliminary cost estimates for compliance of various of these proposed SIDs. As proposed the compliance cost would be substantial (exceeding $20,000 or more) and take a considerable amount of time. We would caution members that these estimates are early and based on non-final Cessna documents. If the final Cessna SIDs are modified or allow for alternate means of compliance or inspection, or some are eliminated entirely, then these estimated compliance costs could be substantially less. SOAPA has organized a Steering Committee (the “Committee”) to address this matter with Cessna. The Committee includes engineers and other technical professionals (A&P, IA) highly experienced with Skymasters and other interested owners. In addition, the Committee has called on others outside the Committee with similar experience (including an FAA DER in structures who has owned 4 Skymasters in the last 20 years) for additional advice and assistance as necessary. Committee members began a comprehensive review of the FAA Service Difficulty Reports (“SDRs”) for over 35 years of problem reports furnished to the FAA by repair shops. The SDRs have been a focus of Committee work because Cessna has used the SDRs as one of the key sources of information in the development of its proposed SIDs for the Skymaster series of aircraft. First, SOAPA filtered to entire SDR database to extract those dealing only with Skymasters. The resulting 1,773 SDRs were further analyzed and those having nothing to do with the SIDs, fatigue, corrosion or aging aircraft were deleted. The remaining SDRs (over 200) were then arranged by aircraft area and further analyzed against the proposed SIDs presented by Cessna. Each SID was also analyzed in terms of the hardware involved, eg. is this likely where failure would occur, could the proposed inspection result in more harm than good to the airframe? At this point in time the Committee has not fully completed our examination of the SIDs nor have we submitted final comments to Cessna. To date we have identified a number of areas where we believe compelling engineering arguments exist for us to recommend either deletion or a substantial reduction in the scope of the related SID. Cessna has gone out of its way to solicit our views and has stated that their upper management wants this SIDs to be “for the benefit of the fleet”. We are hopeful that our findings will lead to SIDs which are far less burdensome than the draft versions, but this remains to be seen and will depend on future meetings with Cessna. The Committee is also reviewing the matter of the 20-year from manufacture compliance period, which for Skymasters will mean immediate compliance for certain operators who are required to comply or for those owners wishing to voluntarily comply with the SIDs. This same 20 year time trigger was used in the SIDs issued previously by Cessna for the 400-series aircraft (despite opposition by 400-series owners and operators and the repair corporation they formed and funded to address compliance). However, in our case, the Committee believes that there are grounds for recommending to Cessna that this provision be modified for Skymasters. Work on this matter continues. At this time we are in the process of finalizing our analysis of the SIDs and formulating a report for Cessna. Cessna engineering staff are scheduled to visit a Skymaster service shop that has aircraft in various states of disassembly for inspection. This will allow Cessna to consider the proposed SIDs and possible alternate inspection approaches to address the areas of concern with the benefit of actual disassembled aircraft to examine. SOAPA will have a representative at this meeting as well. We expect to fold any developments that come out of that meeting into our report and are targeting to have our report provided to Cessna by mid October. We will keep you informed of any further developments or changes to the above as soon as we are able. Should you have any input that you would like to provide to the SOAPA Committee members working on this matter please provide this directly to SOAPA President, Herb Harney hharney@sbcglobal.net or reply openly to this thread. |
Thanks for the update Larry.
|
Cessna Sid Update
Thank you very much for the update. Please remain to the Committee that the Cessna 336s in some areas are better that the C-337s, and that there are very few remaining C-336s.
Thank you for your good work, and best regards, Alfonso Diazdelcastillo N695AD - C-336 |
Our Skynaster user/owner voice.
I think it's enough for me to say I am grateful, supported and trusted on these people (owners and /or experts) in this type of aircraft, which are operating in this discussion (as a counterpart), and that we are not only at the expense of findings of the Cessna factory. If I am not wrong, the standard owner of this kind of airplane is, at least, solicitous to attend his/her aircraft.
Thank you Larry. I (and I think that a lot of us) will keep in touch. |
Please understand that there are a LOT of people who have worked diligently over the last few weeks, and who will continue to do so.
|
Sid
Many many thanks to all who have a hand in it.
guy, the old 72 driver.... |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.