How are you going to handle the SID?

[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

[Roger]

Everybody should stop thinking of this as an AD. It is not and AD, and as I mentioned before after talking to the FAA, it will more than likely never become an AD, and nobody is even talking about making it into an AD. I suppose it could become "something else". Like now that Cessna has started this program, they may push to try and change the rules or governening law on how these SID's are handled, but it will never be aa AD.

[N5ZX]

I completely agree with Roger. The SID is not an AD.

Regrettably, I am among many who are having a "Chicken Little" reaction, thinking the sky is falling merely because somone wants to give SOME of us another hoop to jump through in order to get our treat (flying).

Since the jury is still out on the true validity of the concerns addressed in the SID, it is only fair that the judgement also be witheld on the veracity of the measure.

I am certainly NOT anti-government nor am I anti-regulation....heck, I am a former regulatOR.

I believe that a majority of their intent is to make things safe. But I am reluctant to participate in being governed by the protections of the lowest common denominator.....in essence, most laws and regulations exist to protect idiots and deprive them of the responcibility of good decision making and the consequences of bad decision making. The result is a theoretically safer populace that has been relieved of much of its decision making ability.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.....and many of those intentions can be marketed (both genuinely or deceptively) as "safety".
I am a complete and thorough supporter of ANYTHING rationally improving safety. But if safety were my ONLY concern, I'd stay in bed.

I am confident that none of the regulators anticipate the SID becomeing an AD...nor do they anticipate the insurance underwriters using it as a criteria for coverage...and the NTSB will certainly never imply that failing to comply with a SID might have possibly contributed in some way to an accident (in the future) there-by casting a doubt on the responcibility and liability of the operator...and the under-informed community at-large would never use the existance of a SID to globally doubt (and thus devalue) an entire fleet of aircraft.......all without having even a single example of the "problem" actually existing.

Again, I am truely and genuinely concerned with safety. I love flying my SkyMaster. But I also want to go home at the end of the day...with my family...and not harm anyone else in the process either. I'd just really like to see some support to justify their sudden concern. You do that through a representative sampling of the fleet. Cessna should cover the burden of testing 10 ships with a history of being heavy-haulers or aerobatic ships (those most likely to have strained their spars). If they find PROOF of cause for concern...I'm on board! Not just on board; I'll put on the hat, pick up the puncher and become the conductor: "Tickets please."

Until then, it just kinda sounds like some engineer has a new toy and says: "Hey guys, you know we can use this to check for that and might find something someday."

If Cessna were to have approached it with a "Yall might wanna..." attitude, instead of "You must..." the reception would have been much different.
I'm a firm believer that the best place to stop encroachment....is at the curb....with a strong fence. Dont let them get a foot-hold.
No, I dont have a stock-pile of anything in a basement. No I dont wrap myself in a flag and claim violation of my rights or freedoms. But I would like it if those who CAN interfere in my life would just leave me the (heck) alone until they can substantiate their claims.

I know....I'm way too much of an FNG to be saying so much....especially with so much determination. But I feel quite strongly about allowing people to make decisions for themselves.

I do agree though that we should not propogate the idea that the SID will become an AD or anything else other than what we see on the horizon. Rampant speculation, and jumping at shadows accomplishes nothing but excited hysteria.

Wait and see....hope for the best...prepare for the worst....all that stuff.

Last rant (for a while)....I promise.

Cole

[Roger]

Cole - Some nerd or marketing exec at Cessna (the same group that can't design a Skycatcher to stay in the air, 60 years after their predecessors built 150's) are not the people who are going to bring you home safely. You're Skymaster will, provided that you maintain it to reasonable limits and spend your spare time becoming a great pilot

I do however think that we as a group should consider sending something to AOPA to see if they want to get on the SID crusher bandwagon. I however have my doubts that they would fight one of their largest advertisers. Especially when all they have to say is "we're just trying to keep you safe".

We could instead all be driving Toyota's if we want to be safe. Wait that won't work.

Speaking of which, I notice that it doesn't matter how old your Toyota is, they are fixing them for free. Is Cessna planning on doing the same thing? It's the same issue, worn out parts.

[stackj]

I can pretty much assure you that Cessna is not going to do anything for free... Try buying a fuel selector valve to understand true extortion.

[WebMaster]

I got an interesting email, not so long ago, from a person in the Navy. He was in El Salvador, and attempting to help the El Salvador Air Force repair a recently crashed 0-2. Yes, they still use them.
He was looking for an airframe repair manual. The P-3's that he works on have an airframe repair manual, and he wanted to find the equivalent, from Cessna. It turns out that there isn't one.
This becomes meaningful in light of the SID's. If there is no manual on how to repair something, what happens when the disassembly, or re-assembly, damages something.
Probably, there are IA's out there that can answer that question, but the repair techs in the El Salvador Air Force didn't know how to repair this 0-2. Neither did a US Navy tech.
The 0-2 had the right main gear give way on landing, causing the right wing to be deformed, pushed back.
Here's some pictures.

http://picasaweb.google.com/11786150...eat=directlink

If anyone has any ideas, I'll pass them along.
Thanks.
Larry