|
Thanks for your responses gentlemen. I hope to see many more. I would like to address each response individually for a moment.
Karl, thank you. This is the type of response I am looking for. You answered the question I asked. I want to hear many more thoughts like this. I am attempting to gather ideas how to deal with this SID and hopefully keep the airplane flying safely and cost effectively at the same time. By the away, a friend of mine is building a Velocity as we speak.
Dave, thank you but you did not answer my question directly. The implication from your answer is that you will either do the SID at any cost or cease operating your airplane. Is this the case for you?
The answer to your question, Dave, is as follows. In my opinion, I will never know for certain if my airframe structure is sound or not. What I do know is that engineers back in the 1960’s designed and built these airplanes and at that time they were deemed to be of sound design by people who were educated in structural engineering. The service history of these airframes, do not indicate structural failures are occurring for aircraft that are operated within their flight envelope. There are many Skymasters that have many many more hours on the airframe than mine and have lived much harder lives than mine with no apparent structural deficiencies (key word: apparent.) I am not saying Cessna should not publish a SID. What I am saying is that it should not be mandatory. These airplanes were only theoretically equal the day they left the factory and personally I doubt that statement is completely true. Once an airplane is out in the real world, judgment and common sense by experienced maintenance technicians must prevail. I certainly welcome Cessna to revisit their previous designs and make recommendations but they should not be mandated simply because these airplanes have not all lived equal lives. A one size maintenance program does not fit all.
Dave, I am not saying I will not comply with the SID. It depends on how much it costs. If it truly will cost $60,000 as some have guesstimated on this site, I will not pay that. I will have to do something else, which might be, never fly the airplane again or get a second, third, and fourth opinion. Incidentally, I would not pay $60,000 to have my own health checked. There are no guarantees in life. Flying is about managing risk. The risk will always be there. It does not matter how many SID’s get published and complied with, the risk is still there. Some would argue the risk might actually be higher because there is a very real possibility the SID would not be complied with correctly and the aircraft is in worse shape after the SID then before. I personally would need to be convinced with real world evidence of a problem, not “fuzzy math.” If I hear of one airframe failure in the real world, you can bet my opinion would change, especially if it is my airframe that fails. At this point however, I am leaning towards taking that chance if the regulations and legal system permit, and this, is a big “if” at the moment.
And now to Roger. Roger, Roger, Roger. Roger my friend, I feel your pain. I know you are mad. I have seen photos of your airplane and obviously you have put much blood, sweat, and tears into it. Unfortunately, this SID is not going away and we are going to have to deal with it. If you can, try to set your emotions aside and tell me what you think you will do with your airplane as the SID goes into effect. We probably need to start thinking about this. Hang in there!
Thanks Ed
|