How are you going to handle the SID?

[edasmus]

I am interested to hear how owners are going to handle the SID. About the only thing that is clear to me at the moment (not surprisingly) is that the opinions on whether it will be legally required are varied. I do not see this ever changing unless the SID becomes an AD. I personally am not sure what I will do at the moment. I simply want to fly a safe airplane on nice days for a price I am willing to pay. I am most likely not willing to pay the cost of complying with the major portions of the SID.

The way I see it, when the SID goes into effect, I will have two choices. First, if I am convinced the airframe is safe without the SID (which at the moment, I am undecided but leaning towards that it is safe), I will find an IA (which might be my current IA) that I trust who is willing to sign the airplane as airworthy and keep flying.

Option two, would be if I am not convinced the airframe is safe or I cannot find an IA willing to sign the airplane as airworthy without the SID, take the plane to a salvage yard and retire the airplane.

Option one is most likely the case for me simply because I have been flying my airplane the entire time I have known about the SID and I do not feel my airplane is unsafe. The date the SID goes into effect will not magically change the state of my airplane. If my plane is safe today, then it will be safe the date of the SID. I am simply trying to "swim through the mud" and sort out if my belief that my plane is safe, is true or false.

How do the rest of you feel about your Skymaster? Please try to be objective with your statements and not emotional.

Thanks,

Ed

[CO_Skymaster]

After thinking it over, I'm going to approach it in a couple steps:

1. At the current time, the SID does not affect me since I'm a private owner; only seems to affect those in a business type situation. So, other than keeping an eye on it, there will be nothing to do. (Sidenote: I know a co-worker who has a Nothrup Grumman T-34. There was some problem with the wing spare on that aircraft and he had to have eddie current inspections performed every year, which was very expensive. He finally had the spar repair per manufacture specification. It was very expensive. I sent him an e-mail today asking if his issue started as a SID, just for my information)

2. If it becomes mandatory, I will not pay 60,000 dollars for an inspection, even if that is worse case scenario. I hope also for that price, there is a fix so if people decide to do it, they will not be doing it again for a very long time. I would grin and bare it if the price were under about 20,000. What I might take a chance on (if possible) is determining how to dismanle the aircraft myself and have an IA inspect it. I would need an A&P to inspect me if I had to do the work. Hopefully, it will not come to that, but I'll go that option before the 60,000 dollar option.

3. Last option, give up the skymaster, and go back to my original plan to build a kit aircarft. I like the Velocity aircraft. It has 4 seats, room, speed, and good gas milage. A fast build kit take approximately 800 hour to build. I almost had that time invested in my last plan's build aircraft.

There my options,

Karl

[skymstr02]

Originally Posted by edasmus

If my plane is safe today, then it will be safe the date of the SID.

Ed, if you don't perform the inspection, how do you know that your airplane is safe?
Its like saying that you are healthy without having a complete physical examination performed by a physician.

Dave

[Roger]

We know for example that there has never been an incidence where this part has failed, except on one relatively new (low time) aircraft in some country somewhere, sometime , where something happened. We don't even know if the "suspect aircraft" had been in some form of prior accident with some form of bad workmanship on the repair that caused the "alleged failure".

So the thought that our aircraft are not safe before inspecting them for a discrepancy that no-one knows may actually even exist is like saying we as a group should first review each and every SD that has ever been reported on 336/337's and regardless of their "cause" we should inspect and repair/replace the part that failed under said SD. Absurd !

I have contacted Wikipedia about opening a new word catagory called "Feelgineering". We are still working on the description but the basis is it will be a new word that describes a field of study or enterprise that eschews scientific fact and observation, and instead designs and determines outcomes based on "feelings". We will be attempting to use Cessna's handling of this 336/337 issues as the example of good science being thrown out by this new field of study. Likewise we will be gathering the names of the individuals at Cessna who have developed the potential SID to use as examples of the word "Feelgineer".

Pilots are usually smart enough to know when something isn't right. Quite frankly I would have to wonder how one could look at this SID fiasco (as currently presented) as being valid, and at the same time be smart enough to be a pilot.

That being said, this is a great program for the A&P's out there.

[edasmus]

Thanks for your responses gentlemen. I hope to see many more. I would like to address each response individually for a moment.

Karl, thank you. This is the type of response I am looking for. You answered the question I asked. I want to hear many more thoughts like this. I am attempting to gather ideas how to deal with this SID and hopefully keep the airplane flying safely and cost effectively at the same time. By the away, a friend of mine is building a Velocity as we speak.

Dave, thank you but you did not answer my question directly. The implication from your answer is that you will either do the SID at any cost or cease operating your airplane. Is this the case for you?

The answer to your question, Dave, is as follows. In my opinion, I will never know for certain if my airframe structure is sound or not. What I do know is that engineers back in the 1960’s designed and built these airplanes and at that time they were deemed to be of sound design by people who were educated in structural engineering. The service history of these airframes, do not indicate structural failures are occurring for aircraft that are operated within their flight envelope. There are many Skymasters that have many many more hours on the airframe than mine and have lived much harder lives than mine with no apparent structural deficiencies (key word: apparent.) I am not saying Cessna should not publish a SID. What I am saying is that it should not be mandatory. These airplanes were only theoretically equal the day they left the factory and personally I doubt that statement is completely true. Once an airplane is out in the real world, judgment and common sense by experienced maintenance technicians must prevail. I certainly welcome Cessna to revisit their previous designs and make recommendations but they should not be mandated simply because these airplanes have not all lived equal lives. A one size maintenance program does not fit all.

Dave, I am not saying I will not comply with the SID. It depends on how much it costs. If it truly will cost $60,000 as some have guesstimated on this site, I will not pay that. I will have to do something else, which might be, never fly the airplane again or get a second, third, and fourth opinion. Incidentally, I would not pay $60,000 to have my own health checked. There are no guarantees in life. Flying is about managing risk. The risk will always be there. It does not matter how many SID’s get published and complied with, the risk is still there. Some would argue the risk might actually be higher because there is a very real possibility the SID would not be complied with correctly and the aircraft is in worse shape after the SID then before. I personally would need to be convinced with real world evidence of a problem, not “fuzzy math.” If I hear of one airframe failure in the real world, you can bet my opinion would change, especially if it is my airframe that fails. At this point however, I am leaning towards taking that chance if the regulations and legal system permit, and this, is a big “if” at the moment.

And now to Roger. Roger, Roger, Roger. Roger my friend, I feel your pain. I know you are mad. I have seen photos of your airplane and obviously you have put much blood, sweat, and tears into it. Unfortunately, this SID is not going away and we are going to have to deal with it. If you can, try to set your emotions aside and tell me what you think you will do with your airplane as the SID goes into effect. We probably need to start thinking about this. Hang in there!

Thanks Ed

[Roger]

Ed

Seriously I really don't care that much at all. If it costs $60g's and I have to do it, then I will decide at that time if I want to do it. Likewise If I sell the plane in parts or as a whole, honestly it would not affect my life my finances or my income by virtually any measure. Actually it would probably save me money if I sold it, and give me more free time to do other things I enjoy as well.

My input is more as related to the issue as an exercise in bad business practice with even worse arm chair lawyering as it affects people who may have more at stake than I do.

But let me make one thing perfectly clear, if the SID is not in some way mandatory (not to be confused with an AD), then I would not even consider having my plane tested. If through time someone who may have their plane inspected finds a credible reason for concern (be it this issue or another) then of course I would have that issue checked. But to consider having this checked now given the lack of evidence presented to date would be nothing but an exercise in futility.

That being said, anyone who is now flying a 336/337 and believes that this is even marginally credible as a safety issue, should probably stop flying their plane immediately and have this checked. Because all of the back and forth on this board has nothing to do with the safety issue (if it exists) we are instead talking about laws and policies and intent. None of thsoe issues should in any way cahnge your mind about having your plane inspected as related to the alleged problem if you feel that there is a legitimate concern.

Likewise if you don't feel there is any credibility to this proposed SID, then find an A&P who understands the issues with this particular SID.

However I can certainly see how this SID and it's implementation and interpretation may affect some individuals decision to buy a 336/337. It's much like our home on the ocean. Some people are experiencing beach errosion, so now everybody thinks all beaches are erroding, and ocean front homes have decreased in value (as if they didn't already decrease enough) based on the perception that the homes are not safe. It's not the the homes aren't safe, it's that people perceive them to not be safe. So I understand how this may cause a drop in 336/337 prices. But the reverse of that is many 336/337's may soon be able to be bought at great prices, so there is some upside.

As for all of this, I'm going to go work in my hanger on my 71- IIa - 88" diesel, which has no SID's or AD's

[skymstr02]

Ed,
I'm an A&P with an IA, so my labor is virtually free. My therapy is working on the plane, so I will most likely comply with the SID. I also have access to an eddy current tester and am a Level 1 NDI in several disciplines.
When I bought my plane, it was a project, and I actually dye penned the wing and strut attach points before I mated the wings and booms on. I was being pro-active as the airplane was approaching 3,000 hours on it and all of it was in Southeast Asia area of operations. I also replaced all of the attach hardware, wing and strut bolts, and boom attach structural hardware.

[edasmus]

Thanks Roger. This is a much more constructive response. Hang in there! )

Thanks as well Dave. You definitely have an advantage that I do not have. This whole thing, as most things in life, all comes down to money. My next question to you is what did you find as you “dye penned the wing and strut attach points?” How did all the structural hardware look that you replaced? This is exactly the type of info that a mere mortal like me needs to know when trying to decide whether to retire my airplane or not. By the way, I can supply you with plenty of therapy if you want to come work on my plane. ;o)

Ed

[Mark Campbell]

Sky master02 You are right on, I like you style!

[skymstr02]

Ed, The dye pen results were negative. I do not know what the removed hardware looked like, as I never saw them. The airplane was disassembled in Thailand in 1974, and I bought it in 1989, so the airplane was in storage for 15 years. I purchased the plane in a disassembled condition. I purchased all new hardware when I re-assembled the airplane.

The O-2A wing structure is slightly different from its civillian counterpart, to the point that the wing will not mate up with a civil fuselage.

[hharney]

As some of you know, I have invested a large chunk of change into my aircraft last year. I'll cut to the chase, I am not looking back. I am going to fly my airplane like I always planned to fly it. It will be on display at Sun N' Fun and many more events after that. My family will fly with me and I will have faith in it's abilities. I will continue to do inspections as outlined in the SM but with a new awareness.

Enough said, I think you get my drift. I don't want to sound arrogant by any means, I hope to sound optimistic and passionate.

I think this is what we have learned:

1. Our aircraft, as many others, are an aging fleet.
2. Other aircraft manufacturers will follow the path that Cessna is taking.
3. Don't feel like Skymasters are getting picked on, other models are following.
4. There is no stopping this action, maybe we can hopefully influence it in our direction.
5. Unless these inspections become AD's we will NOT have to comply
6. Some of the 33 or more SID's are reasonable and have accurate rational
6. Going through this exercise has created a completely new focus on many aspects of our aircraft. Even Don Nieser said that he and his shop has started looking at the aircraft with a better and more concise program. I think we all can learn more about our aircraft because of this SID program.

That's my course and I'm sticking to it.
See ya'll in Florida

[edasmus]

Thanks for the info Dave. Herb, I expected nothing less from you. I do not think you are arrogant. Passionate, yes, but not arrogant. Keep the responses coming people. I want to hear what owners are going to do when the SID is implemented.

Ed

[N5ZX]

My plan for when the SID hits:
Safety is my first and foremost consideration....always.
That being said, I rarely respond well to coercion, and I am yet to be convinced that this maneuver is anything more than an attempt to ground older aircraft to generate sales for newer models.
However...I struggle to keep an open mind and force myself to be objective.
I'm a private operator, so I will not be required (at first) to comply. But I will be very eager to hear what others find when they do their inspections.

If there is evidence of this being a rational concern, I will have the inspection performed.

If the SID is expanded to include Private operators, I will likely NOT do the inspection unless others start reporting that they are finding problems.

If the SID evolves into a regulatory requirement (AD, etc) then I will comply and perform the inspection.....and keep tracking others findings.

If the SID evolves into a RECURRING regulatory Requirement, then I will comply and perform the inspection ONCE and then investigate whether changing the registrtation to an "Experimental" catagory would circumvent the recurrency. And keep tracking others findings.

In the far more likely event that the insurance company chooses to join the frey and require SID compliance as a criteria for coverage, then I will self-insure...and keep tracking other findings.

I imagine most pilots are like me. We love aviation largely because of the sense of independance....that means we dont like getting pushed. I think if Cessna had approached this whole subject differently, the fleet would be more receptive. Regrettably, they chose a less participatory approach which has polarized the matter into "us vs them" and planted a vigorously growing seed of distrust.

In short. I did a lot of research before choosing the 337 type. I like the plane on paper. I like it in the hangar. I like it in the air. I dont think there is a "better" plane out there. I wont give up on it just because of the SID. I will comply if I must. I will comply if I should. But I wont comply merely on the conjecture that something MIGHT be wrong.

Thats my decision-making tree....for now. As I have said so often, I'm still new...still learning. I will watch others, listen to their input, and will quite likely adjust my approach along the way.
Cole

[John Hoffman]

Not to steal your post but your decision tree is where I am except I might drop out a few of the lower branches, that is I dont plan on doing it unless absolutely forced to. At that point I am optimistic that operators with experience will have found ways to perform it for less than the estimates you hear now. Another consideration is that if you take the wings/booms off you have it ready for shipping and at that point I think you have a value added proposition where it is marketable to the world as a desirable recently certified aircraft.

[skymstr02]

Originally Posted by N5ZX

investigate whether changing the registrtation to an "Experimental" catagory would circumvent the recurrency.

Cole,
Aircraft are not registered Experimental, they are certified into the experimental category. There are many sub categories in the experimental category, (amateur built, exhibition, R & D, etc.) and you would have a difficult time convincing the friendlies that you wish to change your category from standard to experimental to circumvent a regulation (FAR 39).
Also, depending on how the AD is written, they may also include aircraft certified in any category, to include experimental.
There are also many restrictions placed on experimental aircraft that are not on standard category airplanes.
Dave