|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating: 
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 
|
|
#2
12-14-09, 08:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years Last edited by hharney : 12-14-09 at 08:07 PM.
|
|
#3
12-14-09, 08:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#4
01-12-10, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
They Know
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!
|
|
#5
01-12-10, 03:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years
|
|
#6
01-13-10, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Im just waiting
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. Last edited by Mark Campbell : 01-13-10 at 12:13 AM. Reason: spelling
|
|
#7
01-13-10, 10:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Compliance
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.
|
Hybrid Mode
