Theres an artical in this months AOPA europe e-news…
Which would idicate that the Cessna SID is not mandatory…in europe…
http://www.iaopa.eu/contentServlet/iaopa-europe-enews-november-2013
AOPA Sweden wins on mandatory SBs
After a long campaign by AOPA Sweden, the European Commission has explicitly stated that Service Bulletins, Service Letters, Service Instructions and other similar documents are not mandatory and member states cannot force aircraft owners and pilots to comply with them.
The news is particularly important in Sweden, where aviation authorities had decreed that all SBs and other manufacturers’ notices had to be complied with. This led to a situation where, for example, aircraft had to be flown to qualified engineers every 30 days to have the door seals lubricated, leading to a dangerous swelling of the seals. Other countries imposed similar requirements.
Dan Akerman of AOPA Sweden reports that the EC has confirmed that Swedish authorities have no right to do this. Bizarrely, the Swedish national aviation authority has responded by removing the mandate from its website and claiming it never mandated compliance in the first place. Dan Akerman reports:
“In the Basic Regulation 216/2008, article 20 (1) (j) EASA is given the authority to issue mandatory safety information in response to a safety problem, for example, Airworthiness Directives. This also means that EASA is the only entity allowed to do this. The Swedish NAA, Transportstyrelsen, (TS) however, issued in 2011 an ordinance AIR 3-2011 which stated that all Service Bulletins etc with recurring actions had to be included in the Aircraft Maintenance Program (AMP).
“In other words, TS effectively issued a blanket AD-note making all SBs etc mandatory. By doing this the TS breached the Basic Regulation which is EU law, and when a national authority breaches the EU law, the Commission will step in. AOPA Sweden complained to the Commission in November 2012 and in September 2013 EASA, on behalf of the Commission, visited Transportstyrelsen to find out what was going on.
“What really happened during this visit is unknown to us, but the result is that the ordinance 3-2011 is mysteriously no longer available on the TS homepage, and TS also states to the Commission that it has never, NEVER, demanded that all SBs etc be included in the AMP.
“They are not fooling anybody of course, and the bottom line is that the European Commission now supports the view that SBs etc are only recommendations, to be implemented at the aircraft owner’s discretion. This is apparently valid for all aircraft regardless of size.
“It is also in line with the fact that only Airworthiness Directives, Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements are truly mandatory under the law and that the NAA who ultimately approves the AMP must do so in accordance with EU law and EASA regulations.
“Now we must think of how we can be refunded for unnecessary maintenance carried out and hours spent on searching for SBs etc maybe decades back. The NAAs have forced us to do costly maintenance without any foundation in law. Someone should be held liable.”
opt the retention of the rating, and the CAA has made strong representations to Europe in its favour.
Earlier this year AOPA UK became aware of the proposal for a five-year concession but was asked to refrain from publicising it because it could hamper negotiations. This month, the news leaked out via those who had spoken against the IMC rating at FCL.008. Andrew Haines will continue to make the case for a permanent preservation of the rating for the benefit of future generations of pilots.
[quote put in italics – Peter]
With Pipers (Warrior, Archer, Arrow, Dakota ..) you have to know that Stainless Steel control cables and Corrosion protection (paint) of the whole aircraft coud be ordered.
My 1974 PA-28-151 Cherokee Warrior has both – and except some minor small spots it has almsot zero corrosion.
To my knowledge Cessna did not offer that (back then anyway), and I woud be very careful about buying an airplane with lots of corrosion.
Another variable is that if you apply ACF50 annually, into the airframe/wing cavities, you can prevent corrosion essentially, it would appear, for ever. You still get minor external stuff.
EASA , SID’s & corrosion.
It was with much joy that most Cessna owners in the OK greeted the CAA letter stating that the SID’s checks were not mandatory but there is a sting in the tail, the LAMP program that the CAA uses as the maintenance basis for UK registered aircraft is non compliant with EASA and will sooner or later need replacing. When this happens you will have to use the manufactures maintenance program or your own. Getting your own program approved will be troublesome and expensive. If using the Cessna program it will be very hard to explain to EASA why you are ignoring large chunks of the maintenance manual if it is your choice not to do the SID’s inspection. One only has to think what the fallout from a fatal accident were an item on the SID’s check had not been inspected and had subsequently failed resulting in the accident.
For me the SID’s on my two CI52’s has been a long and financially painfull experience but most of the stuff did require looking at, the structural issues proved to be a bit of a non event. It was the flying controls that were the biggest issue with all the pulleys being changed along with about five cables. Most of the electrical cables in the engine area had to be changed.
I had expected corrosion to be an issue with the aircraft but it was not so with little difference between the Reims and Cessna built aircraft this I largely put down to the use of an anti corrosion fluid from the start of my ownership ten or so years back, this fluid ( corrosionx) is now one of the fluids that Cessna approve in the corrosion management part of the SID’s.
My view is that if you want your Cessna to continue to fly safely you need to take a very hard look at the SID’s and what you think is appropriate for your aircraft and get the inspections that you think are appropriate to the way your aircraft is used and stored done now, the rest you can take your own view on, this will keep you within the spirit of LAMP and the CAA letter about the SID’s checks and will soften the blow if sometime in the future under the EASA system you find yourself having to do all of the SID’s program, but most importantly it will keep you’re aircraft safe and protect its financal value.
That sounds like good news although from what you say there really is a good reason for doing these checks.
Can they be done more cheaply with an endoscope? Socata had a similar issue very recently, with inspections of the horizontal stabiliser as per an SB which came out following the discovery of massive HS corrosion on a (or a number of) US based TB9. That had the potential of ground the entire worldwide TB fleet but fortunately inspections which people I know have done came out all clean (including mine). It appears that that TB9 had been parked with the yoke tied back all the way with the usual supermarket elastic band (a practice widespread in the UK) which prevented water draining via the drain holes. However to do the inspections properly one needs to drill holes in the end caps (the tip ribs) and the Socata SB doesn’t authorise that (it gives more inboard locations which are IMHO inadequate).
Do Cessna approve ACF-50 also? That is much more available than C-X which used to be imported by some bloke in Jersey (IIRC) who never answered communications. IMHO, a plane done annually with ACF-50 will never corrode significantly.
Peter
Cessna approve a number of corrosion inhibiting fluids that the in common use I decided on CorrosionX after reading the report from the US Army that stated the average saving in airframe overhaul costs following a deployment were half the helicopters were treated with corrosionX and the other half were not. The savings were in the order of tens of thousands of $ on the corrosionX treated aircraft, that is as close as you are going to get in this business to a controlled experiment !
I am sure that all the fluids recommended by Cessna would prove to save their cost by a factor of at lease one hundred, at the moment I am separated from my manuals by the Atlantic so I can’t give you the Cessna approved list right now.
Assuming a metal aircraft for sale is currently getting the ARC and thus all inspection panels are removed, I’d be interested in how to spot corrosion on the airframe and, using a boroscope, the engine.
I found some pre buy reports showing horrible findings on planes labeled „top condition“, with engines showing rust and water and some obvious damage and cracks to the airframe, but then there are subtle cues not so obvious.
Example pictures would be terrific.
It’s a simple airplane (late model C150, Reims with Zinc Chromate corrosion proofing) and I found a lot of resources and knowledgeable people that supplied very good insider info (eg main spar top cap is sensitive to corrosion). Currently reading Mike Arman’s excellent book.
The point of my thread is not to skip a pre buy, I just want to learn about these things in the process as well.
Advisory Circular AC 43-4B
This provides lots of useful insights into this, not the best pictures but certainly gives an idea what and where to look.
Thank you!
Any personal recollections or pictures appreciated!
It depends, Aluminium in the airframe can corrode in a number of different ways.
So there is no one answer.
