Cessna C337 SID

[K337A]

It is good to know that the FAA Legal team has given the heavy aircraft a outlet to avoid useless SID's. Unfortunately in the FAA world this has not been applied to C337's, C402's, C414's, at this point in time. Is this by accident or neglect? Has Textron/Cessna attempted to clarify this to customers? I believe it's time to heavily publicize Textron/Cessna's ability to foresee fatigue failure of Cessna manufactured aircraft by Using "advanced systems and techniques" as described at length by Doug Oliver Textron/Cessna mouthpiece. What fool would by a Cessna product after examining Cessna's/FAA cozy relationship after this fiasco? I know one individual who was in the market for a nice new Citation. After explaining Cessna's style of doing business and their expertise with "advanced systems and techniques he has chosen a used G3. He looked into Cessna's SID formulation after i explained Cessna's actions. No way would he buy a Cessna. . Owners and Buyers become very attentive when the specter of wing/fuselage de-mateing is spoken. Especially when the trigger for this very expensive endeavor is "advanced system and techniques" along with a phantom plane with no investigatory history as the #1 reason for the very, very, very expensive maintenance or potential scrapping of a a expensive airframe prematurely.. Cessna 's Citation assembly line could loss a few sales very easily. I'm waiting for a Citation X SADASS ( Special Advanced Design Aeroknowledge Symptom Schedule) to be posted for a wing/fuselage removal and replacement. Of course predicated upon "Advanced Systems and Techniques", being used as the justification for the 8 million dollar MX.

[skymstr02]

Herb, that FAA letter is not applicable to our situation.

It only applies to large and turbine powered aircraft operating under an approved maintenance program. Research 14cfr91.409(f)(3) referenced in the letter for details.

The maintenance manuals for the 336/337 series aircraft are not FAA approved documents, however, mechanics are required to inspect and repair aircraft in accordance with 14CFR43.13.

And some thing to ponder, do you honestly think that The FAA would spend the time and money to write this document (SIDS), and then tell the owners that this is optional to comply with? All that is required to mandate is to place this in the type certificate data sheet to be complied with at XX interval, and voila, its here. The FAA is not our friend.

[Roger]

Is the FAA writting the SIDS ? I thought it was Cessna?

[Ernie Martin]

Regarding the last two messages:

1. Cessna, not the FAA, is writing the SIDs, but under a mandate from the FAA, who in turn is responding to Congress after the 1988 in-flight failure of a high-time Aloha Airlines Boeing 737, where a section of the upper fuselage ripped away because of fatigue. Initially only transport aircraft were considered but that was later expanded to cover smaller aircraft.

2. But, yes, even though it's being done under FAA auspices, the FAA has made it clear that it doesn't apply to Part 91 -- in fact, it doesn't apply to some Part 135 operations, either (see the FAA’s Final Rule on the matter at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/pdf/02-30111.pdf). Also, although the referenced letter may apply to large and turbine powered aircraft, the rationale and underpinning for the opinion make it crystal clear that the policy applies to all Part 91 operators. One other point that has not been mentioned: on the Cessna 400-series SIDs, which have been implemented now for several years, Part 91 operators do not have to comply and few do(except for the single SID that became an AD).

In a 1/27/2010 Message in the thread entitled "How are you going to handle the SID?", Herb's point 5 is short and to the point: "Unless these inspections become AD's we will NOT have to comply". Based on all we know -- principally the FAA’s Final Rule and Notices -- he's right.

Ernie

[WebMaster]

When you say "We do not have to comply", what you really mean is that Part 91 operators in the USA do not have to comply. That statement, however, ignores the problem that operators in the rest of the world will face.

They will have to comply. They will have no choice.

Saying that we don't have to comply ignores all those people who don't live in the USA and will have to comply.

[Ernie Martin]

Larry, most of this thread and all of the last message deals only with Part 91 operators. Herb's point 5 also dealt solely with Part 91.

As you note, most foreign operators, won't be so lucky. And some Part 91 operators may have to comply if their insurance companies require it.

Ernie

[Roger]

It may very well be true that operators in other countries need to comply with rules and regulations that are different than those in the US, but that's the way it is with a lot of things. A perfect example is the ELT change. We can't fight everybody's battles for them.

It would seem that operators outside of the US should seek their own clarification or rule changes to be afforded the same protections from these onerous "recommendations" as provided to US operators.

I would imagine that as Cessna continue across all makes and models, they will eventually hit the one model that will cause an uproar casuing a change in how other countries view the implementation of these SIDS. The 337 family is too small to bring about significant change (whihc is mroe than likely why they started here).

I for one can't wait to see the 172 operators reaction