The King Air panels should have been done in 2008! Good inspection of structures definitely gives a certain peace of mind.
I can’t quite get why there is so much reluctance to do these corrosion inspections on Cessnas, there is a major expense if a problem is found but would you want to fly an aircraft with a problem anyway?
I have become a believer in tube and fabric, at least the airframe gets stripped down every fifteen years or so.
Especially as some tube and fabric aircraft didn’t get any corrosion protection on the inside of the tubes. There have been some really nasty looking corrosion photos passing through the maintenance section of the LAA magazines the last few months.
The Cessna single engine SID program is really an amazing example of transatlantic cultural disconnect… In the US everybody knows that the manufacturers do this kind of thing as guidance, calling it ’mandatory ’ as a strategic action now to protect themselves from future lawsuits associated with aging airframes over the coming decades.
Everybody also knows that Cessna can say whatever they want but law is made by the FAA via Airworthiness Directives. Manufacturers can’t and don’t write law to govern maintenance of private property. Accordingly I’ve yet to hear any conversation about this in the US and literally nobody I know with a Cessna single would have any thought of jumping into action and doing this inspection program as some kind of crisis response. Its more a situation in which they might use it as guidance down the road if they have the plane apart anyway, and make a logbook entry at that time.
I suppose at some point the European authorities are going to have to notice that nobody at all in the aircraft’s country of origin is doing these inspections?
Peter, the Cessna SID is the equivalent of a doctor telling you to remove all your organs for inspection as a preventive maintenance once you turn 40 and repeat it every 5 years.
Executing them step by step with every detail costs a fortune. When Cessnas start showing structual failures, then an AD can take care of it. Until then, the standard inspections done by IAs are just fine. Cessnas are very easy to inspect and the strutted wing design is rock solid. For the cantilever design, there already is an AD addressing structural issues.
Why exactly is the inspection difficult?
These SID inspections are not difficult, they are quite labour intensive though. Especially on the bigger birds suchs as the Cessna 300/400 series.
For the Netherlands on Cessna 100/200 series these must be performed before the end of this month. EASA is not taking a clear stand in this, so NAA are deciding.
This is a short video on SID inspection on a Cessna 100 / 200 series aircraft.
EASA is not taking a clear stand in this
They do. Obviously they won’t say “this is superfluous”. 
In the US everybody knows that the manufacturers do this kind of thing as guidance, calling it ’mandatory
How true. European agencies never understood this (or maybe it was a welcome thing to misunderstand for them 
).
Beyond any airworthiness limitations, an aircraft manufacturer does not directly have a word about what is required in order to keep an aircraft airworthy. The certifying body has.
The manufacturers’ words only affect the relationship between himself and the owner. After a purchase though, the relationship between these two essentially terminates, with two exceptions: waranty and possible lawsuits. So, when a “mandatory SB” comes up, it is mandatory only in the sense that “if you want warranty, you better comply”. No more. Few people understand over here.
As Achim said, the problem lies in the european regulation.
Apparently the LBA are the only authority who insists on them to be taken as compulsory….
CASA is another: Compliance with Cessna Supplemental AWB 02-048 Issue : 1
Inspection Documents
That video doesn’t show anything which is unusual to me on every Annual inspection.
So I guess the real issue is about repairs to stuff that is discovered…? If corrosion is found, the aircraft cannot be returned to service.
So, when a “mandatory SB” comes up, it is mandatory only in the sense that “if you want warranty, you better comply”. No more. Few people understand over here.
Neither is mandatory as far as airworthiness goes, but the difference I have seen is that mandatory SBs are covered under the warranty. So manufacturers tend to issue non-mandatory SBs until all affected airframes are out of warranty and then they start issuing mandatory ones (and get the lucrative parts sales)
The difference I have seen is that mandatory SBs are covered under the warranty
Depends entirely on the manufacturer and the single SB. In my case, Cirrus did many mandatory SBs under warranty, but not all.
