Cessna Expensive SID # 47-11-01, Wing Fuselage Attach Fitting?
 

Will someone please post or direct to where to find the SID for the Wing Fuselage Attach Fitting? I believe it is SID #47-11-01. The SID list was posted on the web a few weeks ago then it was removed. Does anyone know where it is located now? I believe it would be educational for prospective Cessna owners to study the Corporate Cessna SID process from the start when the SID's were to be formulated via SDR's and it's present form of "Advanced studies and Techniques" as S. Oliver Cessna spokesman stated . The entire story would be interesting and educational for future Cessna owners. I will gladly establish a website and post all the SID's information once I have the complete list.

Sent you a PM (private message)

big cheese
 

As my wings are already off, as the airplane is being repaired and repainted, I could use the details of the wing inspection as now it would be easy to do. Please advise. Thanks

My email bigcheese@potomac-airfield.com

D

Hello Mr. Wartofsky- I respect your desire to rebuild your plane and do it right. The thread above this one adresses the latest revision to the C337 Mx Manual. I dont have this revision presently. This latest Mx Manual revision should address Cessna Corp's latest directives. The SId discussion which SOAPA members and independent engineers had with Cessna at lenght are described. At this point in time I believe the SIDs are not Planned to become AD's. As all are aware this can change at a moments notice. SOAPA, D.Niser and many others refuted Cessna's inspection and process's at every turn useing common sense and actual real world operations. Evidentlly Cessna choose to ignore this and proceed as directed by the FAA Small Aircraft Directive with the directives ignoreing evidence to the contrary. The one question which remains is which FSDO will decide along with insurance underwriters and IA's that these SiD's are required per part 91 operation? It could be worse. The Sid's could have originated as AD's. What the future actions by Cessna/FAA and "proprietory process's" use anything is possible.

Such decision making authority does not lie with the FSDO. The FSDO level does not have latitutde to interpret regulation, and certainly not to invent it.

If that is true please have the same regulation guru define the definition of "public use" aircraft in every DoD/Nasa/USDA and etc contract. While retreiving the knowledge from the reg guru ask about the req. Inspections req. When a/c is placed back part 91 and part 135? Also if the reg. Guru has time ask him/her to publish req. Mx inspections which preclude SID Conformity per operator/FSDO approved mx manual part 135? If the reg. Guru would please publish these requirements which ALL FSDO 's follow it would be a nice addition to the knowledge base.

Fuselage/wing SID Costly; Part 91 Operators Exempted
 

Both matters being discussed here -- the scope of the wing/fuselage SID and whether an IA may require that the SIDs be complied with at annual -- were addressed in one of my prior posts. It is in the "AV Web SIDS Article 12-24-09" thread (see http://www.337skymaster.com/messages...2598&page=2#23) and elements of that message were later posted in the much longer "Cessna C337 SID" thread. For those of you who have not seen it, here again are excerpts (the material in square brackets are current additions for clarity and context):

The [large]cost estimates were arrived at by separate parties working independently. I believe they are accurate for the SIDs now under consideration and driven principally by the need to remove and inspect the wing attach bolts. Currently, such removal can be done safely only by separating not only the wings from the fuselage, but also the booms and tail, and derigging the aircraft. Cost won’t be significantly less unless the SIDs are changed or someone comes up with an alternate form of inspection such as X-ray.

But if you are a U.S. Part 91 operator, I don’t believe you will be required to perform the SIDs.

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

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

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

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

Concerns that SIDs may become ADs also appear unfounded. On Page 2 (1st full paragraph of the 3rd column) the FAA explicitly states that ADs will be issued only to address “unsafe conditions that have already been identified.” And the [7 years of experience with] the Cessna 400-series SIDs supports this, because only one of the SIDs became an AD after cracks were found and a fatal in-flight failure occurred, [and Cessna 400-series aircraft in Part-91-only service have not been required to comply with the SIDs].

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

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

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

Ernie Martin

To whom are you referring?