"No future" for the Cessna Skycatcher

Peter, by US law it is illegal for the FAA (or manufacturer) to prevent any individual from designing and gaining approval for a repair scheme for any repair to an FAA certified aircraft. People I know just successfully completed a 'battle' to prove just that to the FAA, who due to improper management had allowed a European manufacturer to write illegal requirements into the aircraft Type Certificate and FAA approved maintenance manual.

In retaliation for their efforts, during the period of negotiations the aircraft manufacturer 'blacklisted' the aircraft for spare parts... but now having lost they've changed their tune :-) The European aircraft manufacturer was not Socata - perhaps they still need their lesson on US law.

After the smoke cleared, one of the more enlightened FAA guys suggested with a smile that my friends apply for FAA repair station status to do the repair that the manufacturer and incorrect TC "forbid" them to do :-)))))

I think your thinking on PMA parts on spot on.

you have to get the repair scheme approved by the manufacturer

That is still the case in the USA with Socata TB aircraft but (as I say below) it may not be the exclusive option.

For example when you get/got the infamous spar corrosion problem, you email photos to Socata and for about €10k they draw up an approved repair scheme - basically bits of aluminium which you fabricate and rivet in place.

That is an "approved repair" and I think the fact that it comes from the TC holder means that you can "just do it" - no need to submit a 337 and a field approval to the FAA, etc. Or maybe you do send in a 337 with the approved repair docs as Approved Data, like it was an STC... I don't know. Major Alterations which are approved by the TC holder can be done with just a logbook entry and that is the case under the FAA too - the 2xGNSx30 installation being a classic one with the TBs.

This has come up a few times on the Socata owners' site but open talk of major issues like that is not encouraged there, and is normally passed over as quickly as possible. So I have no more details. I think the GT models rarely if ever get that problem.

The bigger thing I don't know is whether there isn't an AC43-13 procedure for doing such a repair. Maybe it is too big a structural job?

Certainly, not having the PMA parts option would be an operating cost disaster, and a total disaster if the original manufacturer went bust. I was in that position with the D3000 magneto a while ago but managed to find an overhauled one in the USA and instantly bought it ($2500). Non-PMA would be a disaster in Europe too, as GA would grind to a halt without PMA parts. I heard EASA was trying to ban the use of PMA parts on non-AOC EASA-reg planes but I don't know how far that got. I am sure most savvy maintenance firms would just ignore such a rule... what about the simplest items like air filters?? One of the biggest cost reducers to a fleet operator is the ability to bulk buy bits, from PMA sources. Only a complete idiot would buy say the air filter from Socata. You buy a Brackett BA7112 or whatever, for a tenner...

Cessna might have done better to revamp the 150/2 aircraft with later avionics and fuel injected engine; probably could have avoided certification issues.

BTW I have often wondered why Cessna could not simply restart the C150/152. Despite them being clapped out heaps of crap (I did my PPL in them so I am an expert...) they remain the best machines for dirt cheap (a relative term, I know) PPL training. The traditional answer is that certification would cost $100M or some such figure but that's surely bollox because the TC is already granted so if they just made it as it was, avoiding large POH changes, they could restart production. I think there are two reasons:

• No corporate ladder climber wants to be seen to be going 30-40 years back in time - a huge admission of a lot of present stuff being a cockup

• A C15x would be over MTOW with two present-day burger-eaters even with almost empty tanks... but then isn't that the case for the 162 also?

Yes, there is an EASA LSA schedule expected, but apparently it would be just as prohibitively expensive as a "proper" PPL-plane such as a C172 or PA28, doing away with any desire to switch to it.

Today's microlight regulations in most European countries allow one to do maintenance and even repairs oneself, and that is the one grand reason for going this way - with proper training/schooling, of course.

I didn't realise LSA prevented PMA parts, etc.

The only way I learned it was by association with a guy in the PMA and certified parts business. He also explained that if you damage an LSA aircraft, you have to get the repair scheme approved by the manufacturer. I'm sure there are work arounds but its not the straightforward direct FAA-to-Owner maintenance situation that comes with traditional FAA certification.

LSA as an FAA aircraft certification regime has significant problems associated with maintenance: parts and repair approvals must be sourced from the manufacturer, meaning ties with the airframe OEM are never broken, that OEM has a monopoly, and the buyer must forever be concerned with their business practice. I think the smarter buyers figured this out and bought normally certified used aircraft instead. They can be maintained more easily, with PMA parts, with FAA Field Approved repairs and by reference to AC 41.13.

I didn't realise LSA prevented PMA parts, etc.

In the US market that would kill the demand.

In the European market that would kill the demand from anybody savvy.

"Cessna might have done better to revamp the 150/2 aircraft"

The part count is about the same as a 172 so in this day and age the price would be about the same

"And that's an aircraft that is useless outside of the primary training scenario"

Which is a massive market if someone could get it right. And it was obvious from the off that Cessna didn't. You need to make the running cost 20% less than the old metal and as soon as someone does this they will make a mint.

Cessna might have done better to revamp the 150/2 aircraft with later avionics and fuel injected engine; probably could have avoided certification issues.

A guy I know slightly works for Cessna in Wichita. FWIW his comments prior to release of the Skycatcher led me to believe it was released on the basis of hope. The hope was that current day manufacturing cost could compete with the depreciated manufacturing costs associated with thousands of durable, existing aircraft that Cessna and other manufacturers supplied postwar, and which still fly fine. Right now those used aircraft dominate the market.

LSA as an FAA aircraft certification regime has significant problems associated with maintenance: parts and repair approvals must be sourced from the manufacturer, meaning ties with the airframe OEM are never broken, that OEM has a monopoly, and the buyer must forever be concerned with their business practice. I think the smarter buyers figured this out and bought normally certified used aircraft instead. They can be maintained more easily, with PMA parts, with FAA Field Approved repairs and by reference to AC 41.13. Some of them can be also flown by Light Sport pilots with no medical etc.

I think if and when the FAA eliminates the Class 3 medical requirement for private pilots flying light aircraft, combined with potentially simplified 'real' Part 23 certification, the Light Sport concept will wither to non-existence.

I think when we last discussed this, the Big Q (for me, anyway) was: How did the normally very smart Cessna screw up so badly?