Cessna C337 SID

[WebMaster]

This provides an update on the 23 draft Cessna Supplemental Inspection Reports (SIDs) being considered for the Skymaster. If you have read prior messages in this thread you know that Cessna presented these draft SIDs to SOAPA at a meeting on Aug. 27, 2009. Also in attendance at this meeting, beyond SOAPA, were other technical specialists and Skymaster experts, representing themselves. Cessna outlined the proposed draft SIDs at this meeting. SOAPA has requested permission to distribute the draft SIDs but Cessna appears reticent, perhaps because they remain in draft form and are under further consideration within Cessna. Our understanding of the SIDs, as proposed, is that they would not be required for Part 91 operators, but will be for Part 135 and international operators.

The proposed SIDs may be lumped into the following broad groups: fuselage, wing, tail, and engine groups. While some of the proposed SIDs are minor and would normally be easily accessible and be part of an annual inspection, many are significantly more comprehensive and invasive to the airframe. The fuselage SIDs call for visual inspection of the rear spar carry-through and upper rear doorpost bulkheads, nose gear torque link, rudder pedal area, and door lock mechanism. As presently proposed, the wing SIDs involve eddy current inspections of the wing attach bolts area which may require substantial disassembly of the aircraft to complete. Other proposed work on the wings involves removal of fixed panels to gain access to high stress areas for eddy current inspection; and loosening and inspection of the flap cables.(eg jack points, wing strut attach points, aileron hinges). The proposed tail section SIDs require removal of the rudders and elevator for eddy current inspection of the hinge attach fittings among other inspections required once disassembled. As proposed the engine mount SID calls for removal of the tubular engine mounts for inspection. Importantly, as proposed the entire SID package would have a compliance time of 20 (twenty) years from date of aircraft manufacture and every 10 (ten) years thereafter, with varying TTAF hour triggers for certain SIDs. The SOAPA sub-committee investigating this matter has looked at preliminary cost estimates for compliance of various of these proposed SIDs. As proposed the compliance cost would be substantial (exceeding $20,000 or more) and take a considerable amount of time. We would caution members that these estimates are early and based on non-final Cessna documents. If the final Cessna SIDs are modified or allow for alternate means of compliance or inspection, or some are eliminated entirely, then these estimated compliance costs could be substantially less.

SOAPA has organized a Steering Committee (the “Committee”) to address this matter with Cessna. The Committee includes engineers and other technical professionals (A&P, IA) highly experienced with Skymasters and other interested owners. In addition, the Committee has called on others outside the Committee with similar experience (including an FAA DER in structures who has owned 4 Skymasters in the last 20 years) for additional advice and assistance as necessary.

Committee members began a comprehensive review of the FAA Service Difficulty Reports (“SDRs”) for over 35 years of problem reports furnished to the FAA by repair shops. The SDRs have been a focus of Committee work because Cessna has used the SDRs as one of the key sources of information in the development of its proposed SIDs for the Skymaster series of aircraft. First, SOAPA filtered to entire SDR database to extract those dealing only with Skymasters. The resulting 1,773 SDRs were further analyzed and those having nothing to do with the SIDs, fatigue, corrosion or aging aircraft were deleted. The remaining SDRs (over 200) were then arranged by aircraft area and further analyzed against the proposed SIDs presented by Cessna. Each SID was also analyzed in terms of the hardware involved, eg. is this likely where failure would occur, could the proposed inspection result in more harm than good to the airframe?

At this point in time the Committee has not fully completed our examination of the SIDs nor have we submitted final comments to Cessna. To date we have identified a number of areas where we believe compelling engineering arguments exist for us to recommend either deletion or a substantial reduction in the scope of the related SID. Cessna has gone out of its way to solicit our views and has stated that their upper management wants this SIDs to be “for the benefit of the fleet”. We are hopeful that our findings will lead to SIDs which are far less burdensome than the draft versions, but this remains to be seen and will depend on future meetings with Cessna.

The Committee is also reviewing the matter of the 20-year from manufacture compliance period, which for Skymasters will mean immediate compliance for certain operators who are required to comply or for those owners wishing to voluntarily comply with the SIDs. This same 20 year time trigger was used in the SIDs issued previously by Cessna for the 400-series aircraft (despite opposition by 400-series owners and operators and the repair corporation they formed and funded to address compliance). However, in our case, the Committee believes that there are grounds for recommending to Cessna that this provision be modified for Skymasters. Work on this matter continues.

At this time we are in the process of finalizing our analysis of the SIDs and formulating a report for Cessna. Cessna engineering staff are scheduled to visit a Skymaster service shop that has aircraft in various states of disassembly for inspection. This will allow Cessna to consider the proposed SIDs and possible alternate inspection approaches to address the areas of concern with the benefit of actual disassembled aircraft to examine. SOAPA will have a representative at this meeting as well. We expect to fold any developments that come out of that meeting into our report and are targeting to have our report provided to Cessna by mid October.

We will keep you informed of any further developments or changes to the above as soon as we are able. Should you have any input that you would like to provide to the SOAPA Committee members working on this matter please provide this directly to SOAPA President, Herb Harney hharney@sbcglobal.net or reply openly to this thread.

[skymstr02]

Thanks for the update Larry.

[Alfonso]

Thank you very much for the update. Please remain to the Committee that the Cessna 336s in some areas are better that the C-337s, and that there are very few remaining C-336s.

Thank you for your good work, and best regards,

Alfonso Diazdelcastillo

N695AD - C-336

[Rafful]

I think it's enough for me to say I am grateful, supported and trusted on these people (owners and /or experts) in this type of aircraft, which are operating in this discussion (as a counterpart), and that we are not only at the expense of findings of the Cessna factory. If I am not wrong, the standard owner of this kind of airplane is, at least, solicitous to attend his/her aircraft.
Thank you Larry. I (and I think that a lot of us) will keep in touch.

[WebMaster]

Please understand that there are a LOT of people who have worked diligently over the last few weeks, and who will continue to do so.

[Guy Paris]

Many many thanks to all who have a hand in it.

guy, the old 72 driver....

[Dale Campbell]

Larry,
Thank you and the others that are watching out for our interest. I know Cessna would like to treat all 337's in a blanket Sid program to cover their asses with all the lawyers wanting to sue. We need to prove most 337's are low time birds in good shape and maintained. They must look at most crashes are pilot era and not the fault of the aircraft. Good luck, Dale

[Roger]

First please see: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../info09008.pdf

I had a nice talk today with Rusty Jones at the FAA (listed at the bottom of the attached link). Among other issues I asked him about the previous stated concerns that 14CFR43.19.409(f) might be construed to be applicable to turbin aircraft only, and that 14CFR43.13 (b) may require IA's to comply with inspections as provided by the new service or maintenance manuals as it refers to "structural strenght and deteroration" . Rusty said that in his readings of the points referenced, he can see how the "words" may make it appear that those specific conclusions could be drawn, but he does not beilieve that this is the case. He suggests that SOAPA designate a quesiton or list of quesitons for legal clarification, and submit them through the AFS-300 process for specific clarification.

That being said, we should then perhaps come up with a correctly phrased question or two that the IA' AP's here may help us to clarify, on how they as inspectors and we as owner/operators can best protect our respective intersts going forward so as to not run afoul of regulations.

He likewise made a point of discussing the attached link (which is how I found him) and suggests that we might be well served to take advantage of the answers to these frequestly asked questions. I for one will be making sure that my aircraft maintenance Log clearly states that I am using the maintenance programs for 12 month and/or 100 hour inspections as defined at the time or original manufacture.

Rusty has been around this whole issue for a long time and cut his teeth on Aloha and the 400 series. I might suggest that those who are more knowledgeable about these things contact him direct. That being said, after talking to him about how this has come about with Cessna, and how an AD such as those with the 400 series evolved, I came away with no concern what-so-ever that we will see an AD for the 336/337 on any of these SID issues.

This is essentially a Cessna Protection program, not an Owner/Operator protection program

[hharney]

Good job Roger, the SOAPA steering committee has circulated this document and I was going to call Rusty but hadn't yet. I am glad you talked to him and the steering committee will take some action on your suggestion.

[Skymaster337B]

Ok, so here's the first question that comes to mind.

- Does the term "current" as interpreted for FAR 91.409 that means "current at time of manufacture" apply to all of FAR 91 with respect to "current" maintenance manual and/or inspection programs?

[skymstr02]

Are you operating in accordance with a maintenance program?

[hharney]

Attached is the FAA's Letter of Interpretation (LOI) on "current" maintenance programs as listed in 91.409. This might help clear up some questions. It's all good.

[K337A]

It is good to know that the FAA Legal team has given the heavy aircraft a outlet to avoid useless SID's. Unfortunately in the FAA world this has not been applied to C337's, C402's, C414's, at this point in time. Is this by accident or neglect? Has Textron/Cessna attempted to clarify this to customers? I believe it's time to heavily publicize Textron/Cessna's ability to foresee fatigue failure of Cessna manufactured aircraft by Using "advanced systems and techniques" as described at length by Doug Oliver Textron/Cessna mouthpiece. What fool would by a Cessna product after examining Cessna's/FAA cozy relationship after this fiasco? I know one individual who was in the market for a nice new Citation. After explaining Cessna's style of doing business and their expertise with "advanced systems and techniques he has chosen a used G3. He looked into Cessna's SID formulation after i explained Cessna's actions. No way would he buy a Cessna. . Owners and Buyers become very attentive when the specter of wing/fuselage de-mateing is spoken. Especially when the trigger for this very expensive endeavor is "advanced system and techniques" along with a phantom plane with no investigatory history as the #1 reason for the very, very, very expensive maintenance or potential scrapping of a a expensive airframe prematurely.. Cessna 's Citation assembly line could loss a few sales very easily. I'm waiting for a Citation X SADASS ( Special Advanced Design Aeroknowledge Symptom Schedule) to be posted for a wing/fuselage removal and replacement. Of course predicated upon "Advanced Systems and Techniques", being used as the justification for the 8 million dollar MX.