Cessna C337 SID

hharney · #1 12-14-09, 08:05 PM

Travis, I remember meeting you at OSH. You are from the Ft Worth area and I asked you about landing at Mecham.

At the meeting in Wichita we also discussed the rule that says (paraphrase): for inspection follow the Section in the Service Manual that was delivered with the airplane. This may be another way to qualify our original inspection list rather than adopting the new one.

travis · #2 12-14-09, 08:58 PM

That's me. The plane lives at Spinks though KFWS south of down town.

I really hope that all of this blows over and the aircraft will be proven safe and reliable with out any extrainious inspections. I just had my tail appart last year and while it's a rather small job in a relative sence but, it is a real pain in the ass! Like I said I work for an aircraft manufacturing company and I have seen hundreds of millions of dollars worth of inspections and alterations delt out with little concern for cost to the operator! I love the Skymaster but I can't spend 20k on anything right now! I hope ot doesn't come down to that cause I would have to sell at a loss if that were the case!

_travis

Mark Campbell · #3 01-12-10, 02:56 AM

Twinned Tailed brothers I have looked at this from a few different angles,
One if they want to get rid of us, or better yet said, cull the active fleet number down, what would be the way to do it, while appearing to used the context (Safety) it’s a buzz word fells.
Ok if there is a possible problem, define it, which they are formulating. We comply and live to fly another day! Second though get rid of the problem find the point that no one would bear, Evoke an inspection program that would be so expensive along with intrusive very few could comply with.
I believe to quote a phase, By their Actions you will know them!
My aircraft is now still in pieces and I will not start reassembled until these gentlemen decide which tool they will use, the pencil lead or the Eraser!
At the conclusion of this process,
We Will Know them!

hharney · #4 01-12-10, 03:40 PM

Mark
Put your plane together and enjoy it. We don't have to comply even if this does go through. It's the foreign guys who have the issue to comply with. Here in the USA it's a non-event for now. Only if the FAA rolls them to an AD will we be screwed. I really don't see that happening given the history of the airplane. It's solid and over built, the military proved that.

Now, get out there and fly.

Mark Campbell · #5 01-13-10, 12:11 AM

Herb
I like what you have done taking you bird to a new level, I want to see how far they are going to go. With that said, When this hits the European group, a lot of our tails will be lost to bureaucracy. I am reminded of the old phase when they came after one group, I was not part of them so I did nothing! only after they came for me did I cry out. We need to stay together, and work the solution, not the problem. Birds like yours are part of the answer.

WebMaster · #6 01-13-10, 10:52 AM

CPA had a recent article, which said, in effect, the Part 91 operator is not affected. I take exception with this. Cessna has said, they consider the full inspections to be mandatory. Take your aircraft to a Cessna service center, and they will insist on compliance.

The person who is championing the http://www.conquestowners.org/ program said they sold $14,000,000 in parts in 1 year. Perhaps it's about safety, but perhaps it isn't. The bottom line is that the owners, both here in the US and overseas will pay the bill.

The 400 series guys were behind the ball. The program was implemented without input from the owners. In this case the Skymaster owners have advance warning, and the opportunity to do something to prevent it from affecting them. Perhaps it is a letter writing campaign to the Jack Pelton. Perhaps other action. What I do know that if there is no action, it will be fait accompli.

Roger · #7 01-14-10, 10:08 AM

Do to an AD I had to remove the rudder shaft in my Navajo because of an inspection requirement for possible corrosion. This is a long vertical tube in the tail, that was sealed at the bottom. Over the years they would at times accumulate moisture and potentially corrode at or near the bottom. Had they been made with a hole in the bottom they would have never held moisture and this would probably never have come about. During years of Navajo aircraft maintenance, A&P's around the world had reported this occurance often enough that the inspection AD was eventually put in place. So of course there are issues in the design and manufacture of virtually all things that can possibly fail, and or "go bad" over time, but it isn't "time" alone that creates the problem.

Our questions about the proposed SID with the 336/337 isn't "if" we should be concerned about safety, it is "if" there is a demonstrated real use observation of a failure to a system or component that can be expected to be found in even a small percentage of the fleet. If not, then move on to the next model.

I'm quite sure you can make a fatigue failure computer program do just about anything, if your motivation is to "do something", but that's a far different thing than demonstrating real life components failures in the fleet.

Have there been any Service Difficult reports or have any A&P's reported real life issues with the area in question, or is this entirely a Nerd generated computer simulation?