Cessna C337 SID

[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.

[Ernie Martin]

They also consider Service Bulletins and Emergency Service Bulletins mandatory, and IAs don't require them for Part 91 operators.

There may be confusion at the outset, and some IAs may require them, but the inspection requirements are determined by the FAA and here the issue is clear: Part 91 and even some Part 135 operations won't be subject to them. Nor will they automatically become ADs.

I covered this in a message on the AV Web SIDS Article 12-24-09 thread. For those of you who haven't read it, here is an excerpt with the requisite link to the FAA's Final Rule:

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 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.

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 Cessna 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

[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.