Cessna C337 SID

[Don Hickman]

Not true!!

Us lawyers are usually quite happy regardless of the outcome.


At least I always required that I be paid up front so the outcome was not terribly important.

[hharney]

Originally Posted by larry bowdish

There is a corrosion program, called CPCP. Regardless of the kind of corrosion your aircraft had from the factory, the SIDs (the CPCP is one of the SIDs) will require an inspection.

The corrosion program is voluntary and will only help to decrease the burden to do the SID's based on calendar. You would still have to perform the SID based on flight hours.

The corrosion program (CPCP) is NOT a SID. It is a separate inspection program.

The Cessna 400 series owners tried the litigation avenue and failed. Not that it may be a different case for high wing Cessna's but there is some history already.

[Gord Tessier]

[quote=larry bowdish;14836]It is something that is still not clear. If you read the above, all commercially operated C337's in the US will have to comply with the new service manual, which will include the SIDs. The operators in other countries will have to, as indicated above.

Private operators in the US may find that their IA's will want to follow the new service manual, including the SID's, at the time of the next annual, after they take effect. That part is unclear, but certainly seems likely.

Does that answer your question??

Hi, Thanks for the reply and yes it does.. hopefully. My AME (Aircraft Maintenance Engineer) in Canada seems to think I will be ok as I only fly my aircraft for personal enjoyment. No commercial use. Frankly I don't mine doing some of the more non-invasive inspections if it will make my plane safer for me and my family. My engineer allows me assist at annual for educational purposes and we usually go well above what is required as far as inspections.
Thanks for all your time and engagement. Cessna needs guidance from those who know. It's good that they have solicited your help.

[travis]

I hate to say it guys but if it's in the manual and you don't comply your aircraft isnot airworthy!!! There are no rules in the regs about this specifickly so the manual is controling! Cessna is out for blood on this one!

_Travis

[hharney]

Not True
Part 43 of the Regs allows alternatives to the OEM Service Manual. Part D of 43 is allowed to use for 100 hour inspections / Annuals.

Your SOAPA SID Steering committee has researched this and this is still working with Cessna on some clarification of these concerns.

Ultimately the inspection has to be signed off by the IA and it is up to his discretion based on Part 43 of the regs. If the IA need clarification on this then the local FISDO is involved. The FAA rep from the FISDO can require all or any inspections based on their interpretation of the OEM SM and the regs in Part 43.

That's my understanding and maybe their are others out there that can chime in.

Look Below at Section 43.5 (C)



§ 43.5 Approval for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

top
No person may approve for return to service any aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance, that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(a) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as appropriate, has been made;

(b) The repair or alteration form authorized by or furnished by the Administrator has been executed in a manner prescribed by the Administrator; and

(c) If a repair or an alteration results in any change in the aircraft operating limitations or flight data contained in the approved aircraft flight manual, those operating limitations or flight data are appropriately revised and set forth as prescribed in §91.9 of this chapter.

[Doc. No. 1993, 29 FR 5451, Apr. 23, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 43–23, 47 FR 41084, Sept. 16, 1982; Amdt. 43–31, 54 FR 34330, Aug. 18, 1989]

[travis]

Hi Herb,

we met at Airventure this year my parents and I stop and checked your plane out while you were unpacking! Love what you have done by the way!

I guess I agree with you that the procedure can be altered or an alternate procdure can be approved by the FAA but I don't know a mechanic or IA that will stray from the factory procedures without guidance! I work for an OEM and can say that our legal department is kept buisy fighing cases where maintinance was (or was not) conducted in an approved manor! Ultametly one must comply! Either the factory methed or an approved alternate but, still compliance. Unfortunitally I don't know anyone who's got the cash to do the engineering to come up with an alternate means of compliance! It's like saying I'm not gonna do an annual caus my IA doesn't want to. There are several ways to do an annual but they must be approved ways and they will all referance the aircraft service manual or at the berry least specific literature for minimum requirements in the FAR's. But agin the FAR's are silent on this detailed of a procedure so the ASM will be controlling! Agin Cessna must have some kind of motivation for gowing through all this for an out of production type.

For all our sakes I hope I'm wrong! Or maby Cessna will note that the procedures are optional in the book and we can for get about it till they decide to change there verbage!

Travis

[hharney]

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]

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

[Shalimar]

I recommend that ipassgas take and underline Roger's final point, "Life is what happens when you let other people decide your fate". This is an on going issue with all aging aircraft. SOAPA is doing a superb job representing us all and the issue should sort itself out. That said, since the concern seems to be for the higher time airframes, i would suggest finding one with 3000 hours or less (this becomes academic if they base it on calendar years which seems even more senseless).
A bigger issue facing all of us is the possible future demise of 100LL but we can't let that stop us either.
Recommendation: Find a lower time 337 that has been well taken care of, has good logs and a knowledgeable owner. Find an A&P/IA that knows and loves Skymasters and pay him/her for a complete pre-buy (suggest not the same shop that performed the last annual).
Since you are experienced with the type you probably already know many of the foibles and should have an idea what to look for. if not this website has many knowledgeble and experienced pilots, mechanics and owners. That can offer some suggestions.
But don't wait on this issue.
Good Luck

[Mark Campbell]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jchronic]

Being involved in marine mammal survey flying in 336/337s, I'm paying close attention to this. Before I retired from management at a Part 121 operator in 2006, also had some dealings with aging aircraft issues at that level. Obviously, there are several agendas and a lot of moving parts involved here, i.e. airplane usage, any valid failure history, failure modes, liabilities, the FAA's sometimes (many times?) unclear aim, etc. etc.

SOAPA's diligence and hard work in this situation is much appreciated. Like everyone here, I'd hate to see these useful and utilitarian airplanes needlessly put out of business by a financially unviable AD, SD, or other. And I completely understand the desire of owners and operators to avoid any financial hit.

However, as we sort through this haystack for 'truth,' I'd offer one observation, illustrated by what I said to an A&P inspecting a homebuilt I wanted to buy: "Give the airframe special attention. I can deal with an engine quitting, but not with a wing coming off."

Capt Ahab

[Roger]

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?