Cessna C337 SID

Mark Campbell · #1 01-25-10, 10:57 PM

I am told to keep replies to just a few lines, But in this case I will expand. I have a T337B that at this time is disassembled. Being renovated, Before I reassemble this craft I will comply with all current information. As stated in previous thread If someone were to bring a similar airframe to my hanger for annual inspection, before we started, this would be explained. Now, I don’t agree with all the inspections listed. But I can complete them with little financial impact. I think this will be to the Sky master community very very expensive. And to some more than the airframe is worth. I am in no way defending the new changes, only covering my certification to work. And to answer your question, my answers is as stated in my last line of my last comment. My attorney is good but not that good!
Also sent with a smile.
Mark

WebMaster · #2 01-25-10, 11:31 PM

Mark, be as verbose as you wish.
Tell it like it is. It isn't words that fill our database, it's 2 MB pictures. I would rather have 2 MB of words.

Skymaster337B · #3 01-26-10, 02:03 AM

The broader context that the legal opinion was talking about is the Constitution. Equal protection of law. The fact is only the FAA can mandate anything, by issuing an AD for example. And Cessna can't make an aircraft owner do anything, because it doesn't have the authority to. So, it doesn't matter if you are reading part 91 or 43, the term "current inspection" means the same thing for all of part 91 and therefore part 43 (not just a single meaning only for 91.409)..."current at the time of manufacture"...words have meaning under the law. In fact, definitions are so important in law there's an entire dictionary just for it: see Black's Law dictionary.

That's why I mentioned this is a catch 22 for an IA. Damned if you don't...with a widow suing you. And damned if you do, if the airplane is using the original inspection/maintenance program, and as an IA you create your own rule for what new inspection program you decide to use.

It is far better for Cessna to make an AD out of this, so the public (that means us) have time to comment on it. And the FAA can either tell Cessna they are wrong, or tell us we are in immediate danger without the inspections.

edasmus · #4 01-26-10, 11:18 AM

Thanks for your reply Mark. I can appreciate your concerns and I agree with your comments about our legal system. I am growing very concerned about the state of my Skymaster. Not in an airworthiness sense but in a legal sense. This has potential to be one giant can of worms.

Thanks again,

Ed

Roger · #5 01-26-10, 12:42 PM

No ill intent to any hard working A&P but the evidence here would clearly indicate that this is not even close to being a requirement. That being said, it is understandable that some mechanics may push for this inspection for a variety of reasons. Likewise we as operators can easily find other mechanics.

All this Arm-Chair lawyering about liability and what constitutes "current" after reading the actual document from the FAA/NTSB brings to mind the quote by Will Rogers: "It ain't what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that ain't true."

Skymaster337B · #6 01-27-10, 11:49 PM

A note about IA's in the court room. Case law favors the IA usually, because the IA only certifies the airworthiness on the day, hour, and minute the annual is signed off. What gets IA's in trouble is non compliance with ADs. However, any one can sue any one else in our country -- and you can counter sue as a matter of your rights. One should always have a lawyer if sued in such an event.