AV Web SIDS Article 12-24-09

[hharney]

http://www.stuckmic.com/news/9461-ce...html#post88278


http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...st5402609.html

[Skymaster337B]

I predict that a couple of years after Cessna releases the SID, they will then announce the production of new Skymasters.

[hharney]

Don't think that will ever happen, Adam already tried. Huge failure and the industry is just not ready for another Skymaster and probably never will be.

[Mark Campbell]

Herb
I am reminded of an old song

Never Say Never!

[hharney]

The problem would be is that no one could afford a new Skymaster. That's why Adam failed. Who would spend that much money given the performance and abilities of the aircraft. We should feel lucky that we have such solid birds for what they cost.

It all depends on the mission required. Most of the time mine is more than I need but I sure love it that way.

[CO_Skymaster]

I do agree to Never say Never (look at the flying wing design from Northrup Grumman),

I think the new aviation environment of fuel cost, insurance, and other factors favor the high performance singles rather than twin engine aircraft. Without a lot of pilots flying twin engine aircraft, they don't encounter the danger of asymetric thrust when an engine fails. It seemed that was a large portion of my training when I flew a C-310. There are a few twin engine aircraft like the Diamond Twin Star, but with their FADEC systems, they shutdown and feather the engine when it stops producing power, reducing the asymetric thrust problem. The Skymaster was created to take care of that problem by a design change.

It would be nice to see, but I don't think the enviorment supports it now. On the bright side, we have very unique aircraft and when I describe it to people, their eye's light up and they say in a positive way "Oh, you have one of those". Now, I just have to keep those pesky SIDs at bay.

Karl

[rschimizze]

Where did the $60,000 cost to perform the SID come from? Is that real or highly exaggerated? I am very seriously pursuing buying a Skymaster at this time. This SID has me stopped in my tracks. I could live with the "risk" of a 10 or 15 grand expense, but 60, whew!! I am trying to decide if I should run. The problem is that I really like the Skymaster and its performance. Nothing else out there comes close to matching it.

[Ernie Martin]

The cost estimates were arrived at by separate parties working independently. I believe they are accurate for the SIDs now under consideration and driven principally by the need to remove and inspect the wing attach bolts. Currently, such removal can be done safely only by separating not only the wings from the fuselage, but also the booms and tail, and derigging the aircraft. Cost won’t be significantly less unless the SIDs are changed or someone comes up with an alternate form of inspection such as X-ray.*

But Rick, if you are a U.S. Part 91 operator, I don’t believe you will be required to perform the SIDs.

I have been reading various comments on this Board about the possibility of an IA requiring the SIDs, either out of an abundance of caution or if Cessna issues a revised Service Manual with SIDs. While I can’t rule out a poorly informed IA taken such a stance, I think the record is clear that Part 91 operators will not have to do the SIDs.

My basis is the FAA’s Final Rule and Notices (“FRN”) on the matter, which is essentially the mandate for the SIDs. Later I will provide you a link so you may peruse the document, but here’s a summary.

The genesys of SIDs was 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. Congress pushed the FAA into evaluating steps that should be taken to prevent such future failures in high-time (or “aging”) aircraft. Initially only transport aircraft were considered but that was later expanded to cover smaller aircraft.

Both the heading and the first paragraph of the FRN make it clear that only Part 121, Part 129 and Part 135 operations are covered**. Moreover, on Page 5 (3rd full paragraph of the 3rd column) Part 135 cargo-only and on-demand operations are excluded.

Concerns that SIDs may become ADs also appear unfounded. On Page 2 (1st full paragraph of the 3rd column) the FAA explicitly states that ADs will be issued only to address “unsafe conditions that have already been identified.” And the Cessna 400-series SIDs supports this, because only one of the SIDs became an AD after cracks were found and a fatal in-flight failure occurred.

Given that SIDs were mandated by the FAA and the FRN’s clear intention to exclude Part 91 and some Part 135 operations, I do not believe Cessna can take actions that would essentially contravene the FAA.

All of this is small consolation to many non-commercial foreign operators who will be subject to the SIDs.

The FRN may be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/pdf/02-30111.pdf.

Ernie

__________________
* I did some of the initial SID work for SOAPA and coordinated extensively with Don Nieser and others outside SOAPA regarding the effect of the SIDs. I have a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Caltech, 30 years of experience in aerospace and aviation, and have owned 2 Skymasters over the past 10 years.

** Although not pertinent to Skymasters, SIDs apply only to multiengine Part 129 and 135 operations, so single-engine airplanes are not subject to SIDs unless in Part 121 operations. I mention this because I have seen some arguments that the Skymaster SIDs are precursors to Cessna trying to extend them to its single-engine models.

[rschimizze]

Thanks Ernie. That was a very thorough reply to my concerns. I talked to Don Nieser on the phone yesterday. He gave me some good technical insite into the SID specifics and the lack of substantial evidence that any real problem exists. I would hope that the FAA would require something concrete before they would take any action in the AD direction.
Thanks again

PS By the way, this is a great group of folks on this forum.

[Skymaster337B]

Perhaps Cessna should just "buy back" the remaining Skymasters still out there....just like Beachcraft did with the Starship. Or perhaps the wing mounts are just fine...until they start falling out of the sky. As I remember, the entire 337 lacks zinc-chromate, except the wing mounts. So, why would Cessna all of a sudden be worried about corrosion?

[WebMaster]

Larry, I maintain a website called www.conquestowners.org and one of our primary goals is stopping Cessna SIDS. On the 441's they cost around $100,000 per plane. It did not make the airplane any safer, they did not find any "smoking gun" hiding in the airframe, it did nothing for owners of the aircraft but cost money, devalue the airplanes, and take away 6 weeks of down time. There are a few legal groups kicking around the idea of a class action lawsuit against Cessna for creating SIDs, but from what we learned through the FAA is SID's are not mandatory. They carry no more weight of enforcement than a Service Bulletin.

I would like to discuss the SID issue more, so that owners of 337's are not taken advantage of by Cessna service centers and having to buy loads of Cessna parts. The 441 SID program caused a one year sales spike of $14,000,000 dollars of part sales for Cessna that otherwise would not have taken place. They love SIDs, it's thier way of making money off old airplanes. And it is thier hope that they can remove some old airplanes off the market so that you buy new airplanes. Or they want to make old airplanes so expensive to own, future buyers opt for the factory new model.

Rumor has it that the early Citation 500's are in line for it next, as are 421s.

-Jason

[hharney]

Originally Posted by Skymaster337B

Perhaps Cessna should just "buy back" the remaining Skymasters still out there....just like Beachcraft did with the Starship. Or perhaps the wing mounts are just fine...until they start falling out of the sky. As I remember, the entire 337 lacks zinc-chromate, except the wing mounts. So, why would Cessna all of a sudden be worried about corrosion?

Only the military aircraft were zinc chromate'd (I think Reims did theirs also), Cessna was cheap.

Detected corrosion could, in most cases, indicate potential metal fatigue. The typical corrosion program is initiated to visually detect the possibility of future issues. That is why the CPCP program, if initiated, will eliminate the need to perform the SIDs on an calendar time frame and only require the SIDs on a hourly time frame.

But it's really a non-issue for Part 91 operators because we won't be required to comply in the USA unless further action is taken by the FAA.

[CO_Skymaster]

Herb,

Since I'm a part 91 operator, I should not have a problem. I tend to be cautious; can any type of inspection be done with out the wing removal? Just to see if there is a potential problem.

Karl

[hharney]

This is where the CPCP (corrosion program) comes to play. These CPCP inspections are visual and are designed to detect a potential issue before it happens. Again, these inspections will not affect you but may give us some useful tools to perform on our own as a PM program.

[Skymaster337B]

So I was looking thru AC 43.13-1B "Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices. It states that Eddy current inspections can be used to find corrosion. So I wonder why the big wing removal?