Cessna C337 SID

[rschimizze]

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.

[skymstr02]

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.

[Skymaster337B]

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.

[tropical]

Perhaps Cessna should consider a program to buy back the 337's and destroy them.

[John Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Skymaster337B

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.

This is exactly where I am on this Cessna proposal - if they want to hide behind the protection they got for legacy planes then they are asking for a reopener on the whole thing if they want to impose new inspections on those planes. That is - if the tests and exams are performed then Cessna steps in and assumes responsibility for those planes.

[Skymaster337B]

It sounds like Cessna is assuming liability for these planes...or are they covering something up, such as a way to make $14 million on new parts? Either way, it is my understanding that under the old way of aircraft certification (CARs) the only thing mandatory are AD's. And that the maintenance manual published at the time the aircraft was built is the only other authority for required maintenance (other than the 100hr/annual)...periodic updates to the maintenance manual is informational only, if you chose to ignore them.

[tropical]

Originally Posted by Skymaster337B

Either way, it is my understanding that under the old way of aircraft certification (CARs) the only thing mandatory are AD's. And that the maintenance manual published at the time the aircraft was built is the only other authority for required maintenance (other than the 100hr/annual)...periodic updates to the maintenance manual is informational only, if you chose to ignore them.

Not really. It's up to the person that is signing the inspection to make the determination.

Put yourself in the mechanics position, you sign off an annual inspection and decide to ignore to MM and recommended inspections. The airplane is in an accident and the first thing the attorneys want are the log books. They now find the mechanic ignored "factory recommended" inspections. See where this is going?

I think a lot of shops will be reluctant to sign off these planes without complying with the inspections.

[WebMaster]

Originally Posted by tropical

Not really. It's up to the person that is signing the inspection to make the determination.

Put yourself in the mechanics position, you sign off an annual inspection and decide to ignore to MM and recommended inspections. The airplane is in an accident and the first thing the attorneys want are the log books. They now find the mechanic ignored "factory recommended" inspections. See where this is going?

I think a lot of shops will be reluctant to sign off these planes without complying with the inspections.

Exactly, and Cessna has said that they consider the inspections mandatory.

[John Hoffman]

Originally Posted by skymstr02

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.

Way back in the dark ages when I worked as a quality assurance engineer the team was constantly coming up with ways to perform NDE on new assemblies that were being designed as the plant was being built. It seems that 30 years latter there can be a creative examination designed for this application if it comes to that.