SIDS Inspection on Cessna aircraft

[bob.carlos]

David,

 

Mate no known problems, the initial discussion was with the workshop manager which lasted only 5 minutes, so there are more discussions to be had face to face with the owner of the shop. as stated at the outset the cost could be up to $60K, experience with aviation has taught me if there are two figures quoted, to expect the higher and you could be pleasantly surprised.

 

the things I know for sure are:

 

engine out

 

complete interior removal

 

leading edges and movable control surfaces removed

 

wheels split and cleaned

 

I intend to help with the repairs, which hopefully will result in a lowering of the cost to me, and gaining more knowledge of my aircraft.

 

I suspect there will be a number of things that we will do when the aircraft is stripped down. EG the small rubber fuel hose the connects the fuel line from the wing to the line to the fuel selector. I also guess some of the interior plastic may not survive the removal process as it is a 37 year old aircraft.

 

Hopefully the cost will be a long way short of the 60k but I am not all that confident.

 

What's your experience with the new regs?

 

Bob

 

 

[Ultralights]

initial SIDs can be a financial killer, most of the time consumed is in the paperwork! and if any damage has been found, once the initial is done and all repairs completed, the ongoing SIDS inspections are not much more than would normally be done during a 100hrly. and should add little, if any to the costs of those services.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hi Bob, I am aware of SIDS and that is about all. I own a 1951 Auster J1B, but she had a ground up rebuild in 1998. But that was 15 years ago and she has less than 2000 hrs total time. She was pranged badly in 74 and not rebuilt until 98, hence the low hours.

 

Austers have well documented corrosion spots. She is about to undergo a 100 hourly. Plus a cable AD and I am about to cut some inspection holes in her new Ceconite skin ( new as in 1998). So that will tell me if there are any age related problems.

 

Mate, the C182 is a beautiful and versatile aircraft and I would suggest well worth the investment. Apart from the C180 (my favourite) the C182 has to be the best aircraft Cessna made. But I am slightly biased.

 

 

[bob.carlos]

thanks David and Ultralights,, most helpfull

 

 

[Mr Mal]

Yes it is bad news for us Cessna owners in a way... end of 2016 we need to be "SIDS" compliant or the MR runs out. That being said I cannot see how the 7500 odd 100 series aircraft on the register here in Aus can be done in time be the 3000 odd LAMES in the country.........

 

The expensive part is two fold - if you find corrosion you have to fix it. The other expensive part is all of the mods that you are required to do - tail stiffner, door stiffner, inertia reel on the pilot seat.... Bob - I would get a second opinion as the LAME I use has completed a 210 for just under $60k, a 206 for around $48k and they are far more in depth than a 182 and the 172 is looking like 26-28k so somewhere in the $40k range? Given you still have two or maybe three annuals between now and then the cost can be stretched - although not as far as I was planning.

 

One tip is talk to your LAME or any LAME who is planning to get the crack testing done on the wing roots and attachment points - the cost of flying these NDT guys in is huge, if you can fly them in to do three, four or ten aircraft it makes it a LOT cheaper for you (albeit at a time you may not anticipate) to do wings and leading edge all in one hit. The LAME just needs to have enough room to have a dozen wings sitting around.........

 

 

[turboplanner]

I know of a Cherokee Six which was bought for $65,000.00 with corrosion in one wing. The buyer was taking a small gamble it was fixable and there was none in the other wing, and that's how it worked out. It cost $16,000.00 for a thorough repair.

 

So he had an expectation of quite a few years life for $81,000.00

 

I know thats not SIDS but I'm just trying to look at values.

 

As Facthunter says SIDS should be costed as maintenance, and if you amortize the cost over ten years that's $60.00 per hour on the 182

 

If you then compare that with the $350,000 for a new one, you're getting reasonable flying.

 

In terms of the aircraft value after the SIDS, some resellers tend to value something at market price for age, usually paying nothing more for optional extras, recent engine rebuilds etc and that tends to downgrade prices in the eyes of buyers who are making up spreadsheets from ads.

 

However a direct buyer, unless it was a LAME, or someone looking to fill his spare time up refurbishing, would have to be interested in (a) availability of a SIDS-Completed aircraft with no waiting time for parts and all the teething troubles sorted, so I think it should have a premium. If you sell it immediately, $60.000.00 is a big lump, but if you depreciate it the premium won't be so high, and in a year or two sticker shock may have worn off anyway and a SIDS aircraft may sell at $50,000.00 more.

 

 

[barneyw]

Hi All

 

First post on this forum and only so because I have been researching buying a C180/185 to import into Oz and coming across SIDS and finding this forum.

 

In researching the SIDS I have come across a few anomalies worth exploring but also knowing that I cannot do much about it especially in the Australian case as CASA is forcing this on everybody ie taking the easy way out.

 

To make my position clear on SIDS I think that it is a good thing as an overall comment but I have to say its timing and implementation is questionable.

 

The first thing to point out that SIDS is not compulsory for 100 series aircraft in the US and Canada probably where the largest concentration of aircraft are. This brings all sorts of discussions about valuation and levels of maintenance carried out on aircraft over the past 50 or so years and the varying degrees of structural integrity.

 

The general narrative and to some extent the justification on the SIDS issue is that it was never envisaged that these aircraft would last as long as they did. There is also a definite feeling that maintenance, especially that requiring deeper levels of inspection, has been lax.

 

Furthermore, there is an argument that owners have not wanted to pay for maintenance in particular preventative maintenance, read being tight, and maintenance organisations not doing, even at a rudimentary level, the required maintenance read doing the minimum and being tight - maximise profit.

 

The truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

 

It does bring up some interesting questions in this day and age.

 

Sure Cessna, in this case, did not predict that the aircraft would last this long but why did they not do anything 25 years ago when these aircraft started to exceed their shelf life. I knew about galvanic corrosion back at school all those years ago.

 

Moreover why didn't the regulatory authorities, who have a lot of smart people in them (?), foresee something like this and start the process or discussions a lot sooner.

 

Are LAME's somehow responsible, again being experts in the field, and given sheetmetal work 101 is all about galvanic corrosion, should they of taken the lead in this. A, for example, $5000 preventative maintenance cost 15 years ago might have prevented a $60,000.00 headache now. the industry should have stood tall then and not issued the CofA until the work required was done. I know humans will generally just follow the rules and least path of resistance but I generally would like to think that aviation is one of those vocations where information and information flow is paramount and we are professional in every aspect of the industry. (Please no comments on naivety and commercial pressures I've heard it all before and it is a feeble excuse.)

 

The obvious problem we face in Australia is one of economies of scale, not enough trades people and a regulator run by public servants not aviators.

 

There is a case therefore that suggests that there is enough blame and responsibility to go around and that the manufacturers, maintenance organisations and regulators need to shoulder some of the responsibility and cost.

 

For the conspiracy theorists among us one might say that this a form of corporate welfare forcing people to by new equipment. There is a lot of grey in all of this but I think taking a sledge hammer approach is not going to be helpful and there is a case to bring this in on an incremental basis starting with high usage/cycle aircraft of a certain age and progressing from there. It's just laziness on the part of the authority to make it a blanket AD for all. They have also made it impossible for everyone to comply by the said date because of the capacity, which makes me think if we have the right people in the authority.

 

Again the notion of any inspection that keeps pilots, passengers and the general public safe is something I am all for but this looks like a panic attack or a reaction to someones litigant nightmare.

 

I am sure there are aeroplanes out there that are in serious need of attention and we need to find them but surely the onus should not lie solely with the owners and the approach to fixing this problem should be a measured one.

 

The following two YouTube links give you just a hint of what is out there in Cessna wings.

 

 

Anyhow this is not going to cover all the issues in one post but just thought I'd say my piece. I truly hope there isn't a great deal of problems out there for owners and certainly hope that LAME's don't take advantage of the situation.

 

Cheers

 

BW

 

 

[turboplanner]

Barney the Cessna Supplemental Inspection documents are actually an indication that this manufacturer is prepared to be pro-active in reducing the chances of people falling out of the sky.

 

The automotive industry in Australia only has a legal requirement to supply parts for a model for eleven years after the model production ceases, so it's a bit unreasonable to expect an aircraft manufacturer to be doing people's Unscheduled Maintenance for them.

 

This is a little like sinking the boot into Ford over corrosion in the 1965 Cortina, and it's the first time I've heard complaints about a product lasting too long.

 

There is an element of rebuilding in the Transport Industry, where Total Cost of life is calculated, but the figures will at some point reach a level where it is better to scrap the unit and buy a new one.

 

While I haven't done the figures, it looks as if a new Cessna 172 will cost the same as, or less that an LSA on its second or third engine, depending on the lifetime you choose.

 

Those who have not been practising preventative maintenance, or who have just taken advantage of low prices for cheap flying certainly face an increase in their flying budget if they want to step to new aircraft or do the same as historic car owners and rebuild their aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

Getting at parts of aircraft where corrosion may be, is not easy for anyone but those airframe people who have the experience and knowledge to check it carefully. Something that is deadly dangerous appears OK to the untrained eye. IF you have an aircraft that has corrosion, I suggest you fully asses the WHOLE aircraft. There is no way to half do a job on an airframe regarding CORROSION. IF it is in a few places, it is likely widespread especially if the plane has been in a salt environment. Some aircraft have virtually no corrosion proofing done during manufacture. Aircraft that have it done are heavier and cost more. To access place like the underfloor area on a highwing Cessna where all the strut carry through structure is, was being done 20 or more years ago and plenty of cause for concern was being found there, then. I am surprised they have gone this far without some catastrophe happening. It is not just Cessna. Pipers built after the flood at the original factory were not corrosion proofed till many years later so there are some troublesome models out there with that marque too.

 

Corrosion in Al skinned airframes is not just with GA planes. It will be a worse problem with a lot of RAAus types as they age as there is not the strength margins in them that the aircraft we are talking about had. Everything is thinner and more stressed and there is less to corrode before it is critical. Nev

 

 

[metalman]

Was talking the other day about this, piper and beech may not have a SIDS type of problem as both companies have been bought out by others and as the new owners aren't responsible for what has been built in the past , whereas Cessna has been a continuos ownership since day one , maybe wrong but it makes sense

 

Matty

 

 

[facthunter]

The Beechcraft are very well put together, but cost more to buy and repair..The EARLIER Pipers were quite well assembled as to corrosion treatment I am not sure that a purchaser of a company would not have to assume some responsibility for the operations of the company prior to purchase. On the basis of not being able to contract out of a liability, as a means of avoiding it. Certainly disclosure would be part of a contract or duty of care addressed . Similar to contamination/pollution obligations or known structural faults.Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I'm sure a knowledgeable lawyer will jump in, but I understood that if you purchased a company outright so that, at least in Australia, it had the same ABN, then you purchased the liabilities as well. In other words you get the good, the bad and the ugly and the price you pay should absolutely reflect that.

 

If however you purchased select Assets of a business such as all or some of, designs, patents, stock, machinery, processes and perhaps trade names and offered employment to previous employees of the original business on a new employment basis so that you are all day 1 employees come the change (if scroogey) or perhaps with uninterrupted maintenance of tenure (if the employees are fundamental to the new business succeeding) ...then what is left in the old business, such as liability, remains in the old business...and is up to the continuing owner how he manages the liabilities that remain.

 

So as I understand it what you get as a new owner is a function of how you purchased the business in entirety, or merely certain parts.

 

As an analogy if Cessna were to sell off a bigass metal working guillotine then the liability for metal that has passed through the machine while Cessna owned it (simplistically assuming that the raw material only had a guillotine activity carried out on it before being sold as a spare part) obviously doesn't transfer to the new owner but remains with Cessna, the new owner is just buying the machine nothing else, unless the contract calls for something else to be included and both parties agree to be bound to the obligations.

 

It has been my experience in IT that a contract for a complex sale will probably spend little number of paragraph on the exact sale and a great deal of paragraphs dealing with things such as liability and future responsibility's for actions of the past. In my area of expertise, take licensing of software, if you are buying a going concern then the software that makes the concern go should transfer, however licenses are not rights to ownership they are merely rights to use and ownership remains with the IP owner (the software company) and it is usual to need the IP owner to approve the transfers, some will do this for nothing because that way they continue to get their yearly maintenance annuities, others will see such an event as a way to milk money from the situation and will want to be paid, sometimes extortionate amounts of money. In the event that the business was under licensed at Sale time but neither the buyer or seller knew this then who would the responsibility sit with? the new or the old, especially as an IP Owner might look to recover the costs of the unlicensed software and historic maintenance which might go way back before the business was sold, who would be responsible for the payment? Sale of business agreements for large businesses will generally contemplate such questions and provide guidance in advance. For a new owner, if the costs and responsibilities go back to the original owner it might be in his best interest to ask IP owners to come in and audit as soon as possible past day 1, anything found can then be apportioned almost 100% to the old owner, generally an old owner wont want that and as such there is usually clauses around proactive advice to the previous owner in the event of an audit action and words that say the new owner can support an audit initiated by the IP owners request but will not allow the new owner to actively solicit an audit....... Complex hey!

 

Andy

 

 

[barneyw]

Turboplanner I take your point and as I said I am all for the SIDS

 

However, making a comparison between aircraft scheduled maintenance and that of a car is a bit of a stretch. Roadworthy cannot be compared to airworthy, however, I would hasten to say that the automotive industry for many years, well ever since I can remember, were all over the problems with corrosion in cars and the impact of such corrosion hence the term "rust bucket". This is one of the first things I was told before buying a car.

 

It would be fair to say that the bits and pieces that keep an aircraft flying ie the airframe - in terms of corrosion - is a bit more critical than some rust discovered in the mudguard of a car. So I still think that Cessna have left it too late but I suppose better late than never.

 

The only other point I would add is when we do a preflight we tend to pay particular attention to the integrity of the airframe because we know that its the one thing that is doing the heavy lifting and subjected to high loads and stresses. Even if the engine fails the machine still flies. We rely on the manufacturer, the regulator and the highly trained engineers to ensure the bits and pieces we cannot see as pilots are in good working order. Moreover, this is comprehensively legislated for.

 

I am not hard over on my opinion on this as there are too many variables. Yes owners are responsible and have to pay the bills but there was also an element of (legal) expectation that the rest of the system would do its job as well.

 

Cheers

 

BW

 

 

[turboplanner]

I haven't seen any legislation making the original manufacturer responsible for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, except where the manufacturer and client have signed a contract maintenance agreement, but those agreements are usually 2 to 5 years maximum, especially any stretching to 60 years after production, but I'm interested if there is any legislation.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Only if you buy an A380, then the manufacturer can cover up the problems .........

 

 

[barneyw]

Turboplanner no they are not directly but they do have to provide the schedule called the maintenance and repair manual which would spell it all out. The regulatory authority would, through legislation, require the aircraft to be maintained in accordance with this manual within a framework it spells out. The manufacturer also has the responsibility to issue anything in the form of an AD that would affect the continuing airworthiness of the aircraft.

 

The fact there was no time limit on the airframe and, moreover, if Cessna didn't get the hint after 20 years that there aircraft were still going strong well that was just short sightedness on their part. Manufacturers from Apple to Airbus are not really interested in supporting old products because they are only interested in selling new ones, but I don't care about how my Apple product performs in the future because it isn't going to kill me but I might If I'm flying a 20 year old Airbus which is why the manufacturer still bears some of the responsibility for continuous support.

 

I give you that I am not fully across the legislation pertaining to airworthiness and who is responsible for what, but will rectify that in the coming days. Most of what I have said is from experience of 40 years in aviation plus a healthy dose of common sense.

 

Cheers

 

BW

 

 

[David Isaac]

Remember the days when we used to have a three yearly 'major' inspection on GA aircraft and that was subsequently changed to include a component of the 'major' overhaul in each annual?

 

Did that change reduce in any way the thoroughness of what was the old 'major' overhaul regime? I thought the obligation of inspection and airworthiness was always on the operator. Why would anyone think the airframe can last forever?

 

 

[greybeard]

It's all pretty academic, the airframes are old, they appear to need to be inspected, it's impossible to retrospectively inspect them and whoever's rear end intends to aviate in the airframe would probably appreciate knowing that it wasn't likely to fall apart underneath them.

 

Given the average age of the Cessna fleet that this applies to, the biggest lesson to me would be how are RAA type airframes going to be managed as the fleet ages. Some of those airframes are starting to get on a bit.

 

 

[barneyw]

Remember the days when we used to have a three yearly 'major' inspection on GA aircraft and that was subsequently changed to include a component of the 'major' overhaul in each annual?Did that change reduce in any way the thoroughness of what was the old 'major' overhaul regime? I thought the obligation of inspection and airworthiness was always on the operator. Why would anyone think the airframe can last forever?

David

 

In some instances the operator was the maintenance organisation.

 

I do remember reading something about this a while ago while I was doing some research and it may have something to do with the fact that maintenance management eg recording of hours and component history, was required to be done by qualified people, and these qualified people became the operator who had responsibility of the maintenance.

 

Ergo operator and owner were not necessarily the same entity.

 

Happy to be corrected.

 

Cheers

 

BW

 

 

[barneyw]

Don't want to keep labouring the point but here is a good example of what I am talking about.

 

Instead of the word "vigilant" I would use slack, incompetent or even negligent.

 

Cheers

 

BW

 

An extract from an article by Ralph Holland

 

"I very nearly bought a lemon; I placed a deposit on an aircraft (TB10) via the sales broker's escrow account and had the foresight to make the sale conditional on a satisfactory logbook audit and pre-sales inspection, and a test flight. I then commissioned a local LAME, who had not worked on the aircraft, to perform the logbook audit and the pre-sale s report and I gave him very specific instructions to perform some AD checks for the type and a corrosion report. This was all done remotely because it would have cost me several thousand dollars of my time and expenses to go up and physically see this plane. I basically worked off photos and the reports. Just as well I did this because both wing spars, which are machined from a solid peice of metal, were found to be exfoliating. This means the aluminium alloy's skin was flaking and peeling, and as a direct consequence the aircraft was grounded on the spot. I have reports that both the vendor and owner were suprised, It seems that the original maintenance organisation was not vigilant enough to remove the wing inspection covers and double-check on corrosion, despite this aircraft being located near the coast. You can even remove the wing tips and easily peer into these wings and it isn't too difficult to see the wing roots. It is incredible that it had recently been through a 100 hourly signoff. A current maintenance release does not prove that the aircraft is sound and you should be wary of any aircraft kept or maintained near the coast."

 

 

[crazy diamond]

Anybody got rough figures on SIDS compliance for mid 1970's model C150's? There are a few floating around in half decent condition for a song, yes SIDS will be an issue but from the few I have seen lately I think the economy is forcing some of these owners more so than the SIDS issue.

 

 

[crazy diamond]

Anybody got rough figures on SIDS compliance for mid 1970's model C150's? There are a few floating around in half decent condition for a song, yes SIDS will be an issue but from the few I have seen lately I think the economy is forcing some of these owners more so than the SIDS issue.

 

 

[pylon500]

Interesting story in the latest EAA magazine about Cessna circumventing the FAA AD system and getting caught.....

 

Cant find a link, but it's out there somewhere.

 

Look for stuff on Cessna 210 lower wing spars.

 

 

[pylon500]

Interesting story in the latest EAA magazine about Cessna circumventing the FAA AD system and getting caught.....

 

Cant find a link, but it's out there somewhere.

 

Look for stuff on Cessna 210 lower wing spars.

 

 

[Yenn]

Pylon. that sounds like Mike Busch, who looks after maintenance of several aircraft. Not by actually doing it but by co ordinating and advising. Cessna tried to bring in their own AD and Mike got FAA to jump on Cessna for trying to make work for themselves atowners expense.