Latest revision to maintenance manual

[Skymaster337B]

If Cessna is driving this train, then it seems to me, based on the magnitude of the inspections, they are admitting gross negligence.

[Gord Tessier]

It's simple. Cessna should pay for the inspections.

[tropical]

Originally Posted by Gord Tessier

It's simple. Cessna should pay for the inspections.

On a product they built 30 to 50 years ago??

If you had a '65 Ford Mustang with 250,000 miles on it would you expect Ford to still warranty it???

[Gord Tessier]

If it was a design flaw then yes. If it was because of a worn out part then no. I don't mind paying for the part and the labour to install said part but the cost of the inspections could exceed the value of the ac. It's as if they are trying to ground the entire fleet in one fell swoop.

[tropical]

Originally Posted by Gord Tessier

If it was a design flaw then yes. If it was because of a worn out part then no. I don't mind paying for the part and the labour to install said part but the cost of the inspections could exceed the value of the ac. It's as if they are trying to ground the entire fleet in one fell swoop.

Design flaw?? Do you even understand what corrosion is? We're talking aluminum products being built up to 50 years ago, stored and cared for in who knows what ways.

Sorry, I just don't buy your reasoning. While I don't agree with Cessna and the SID, I do understand what's driving it. And it's not the FAA, it's Cessna attorneys playing CYA. With a country full of rogue lawyers looking for big payouts I don't blame them.

[Skymaster337B]

Yes gross negligence. Because they should have built and sold the airplane with a service life limit...as new airplanes are built and sold today. Sorry they couldn't envision the airplane flying for 50 years, but what did they reasonably expect?

Corrosion! They had the knowledge and technology to zinc chromate all internal surfaces...but out of gross negligence and profit motive the airframes insides are bare metal...a crime against aviation in my opinion.

[tropical]

Originally Posted by Skymaster337B

Yes gross negligence. Because they should have built and sold the airplane with a service life limit...as new airplanes are built and sold today. Sorry they couldn't envision the airplane flying for 50 years, but what did they reasonably expect?

Corrosion! They had the knowledge and technology to zinc chromate all internal surfaces...but out of gross negligence and profit motive the airframes insides are bare metal...a crime against aviation in my opinion.

So you knew of this "gross negligence" and you purchased, and flew the airplane anyway??

Who's negligent?

[Hank Biesbroek]

Following the conversation - Interesting!

Just curious, if the revision is dated Oct 2010, why are we just talking about it now?

Was it just released by Cessna, or has it been out since October 2010?

Hank

[Gord Tessier]

I don't get that either. The revision was dated July, but the effective date was last October. I would never have even known about it until next June 15th which is when my annual is and that's when I check to make sure I have the latest revision. I am in Canada and have gotten conflicting information as to whether they are mandatory so I have asked Ottawa directly (Transport Canada Headquarters). A fellow pilot did ask earlier in the year and was told he did NOT have to do them so the answer should be the same. I hope

[tropical]

Originally Posted by Skymaster337B

If Cessna is driving this train, then it seems to me, based on the magnitude of the inspections, they are admitting gross negligence.

Nope. Cessna never envisioned these planes flying for 30-40 and even 50+ years.