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."

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

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

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

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