Cessna Fr172e Manual
Ge 24944 Universal Remote Manual on this page. I am surprised no-one has commented on this as it will surely increase maintenance costs. EASA will want all these inspections added to maintenance programmes and, of course, compliance will be recorded by the engineer each time he carries out each inspection. Good engineers know these airplanes are old so inspect them accordingly. Now he will spend more time pushing pen rather than being an engineer!
How many Cessna landing and taxi light switches were changed for no reason? You only have to look at how EASA is certifying engineers to see where this is all going for light aviation. People with degrees sign off the aircraft The hands-on people don't. So the pen-pushers need it all written down so they can use their degrees to sign off the aircraft.
Download and Read Cessna Fr172e Manual Cessna Fr172e Manual Spend your few moment to read a book even only few pages. Reading book is not obligation and force for.
Are these really mandatory under EASA rules? In the US, they are not for Part 91 operators. If this really becomes mandatory, it will be catastrophic. Some of the inspections call for very costly procedures, e.g. The engine mount inspection requires you to remove the engine and most accessories and even recommends doing an engine overhaul while at it (you have until 2015). Others require the application of certain older service bulletins which have always been optional.
The Cessna twin SIDs became mandatory via ADs in the US. I have had a brief scan of this document and it is going to ground a large number of aircraft in the UK, if your aircraft has been getting cheap annual checks for the last ten years then you can expect your next annual to cost you about £15K in aditional work. Those of you who have taken your aircraft to reputable maintenance companys who have been charging you 20-30% above the cheapest rates that could be found for an annual check will find that this SID's is unlikely to be too painfull. I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintaned old dogs from the sky but not so unreasonable that it will result in big problems for those who have over the years have taken the time, money and effort to look after their aircraft.
To put it in UK industry terms anything that CABAIR once owned is likely to be a target for instant grounding!.if the new owner has not already put a lot of work into the aircraft. It is quite simple, most of the SID,s is just defining what is good practice. If your maintenance providor has been inspecting the aircraft properly and addressing the defects that were found the SID,s inspection is likely to result in few nasty surprises. On the other hand if the maintenance providor has just been ticking the boxes and not looking deeply enough to try to achieve a cheap job for the customer then it is likely that the true state of the airframe is unknown and problems that have been lurking for years will be found. To give you an example, my C152's have been treated with one of the approved corrosion inhibitors for the last eight years, the rudder inspection was mandated by the UK CAA long before EASA came to be and we have continued to make these inspections despite the fact that they were not mandated by EASA, at engine changes we crack checked the engine frame, repaired all defects and re-painted the frame. We have always inspected the airframe in the areas that the SID,s inspection mandates at the annual check.
The result of this maintenance is that we know the aircraft very well by now and are unlikely to find any nasty surprises, there are only so many ways to inspect a component so the fact that Cessna have found it necessary to define an inspection dose not necessarily make the last inspection of that component invalid. I see no reason to strip a component that has recently been fully inspected in accordance with the Cessna maintenance manual & AC43 just because Cessna produce a new bit of paper, I will respect the maintenance limits for such a component and will ensure that the aircraft maintenance program reflects this. I agree with A & C. The thrust of the SID is detecting corrosion. Good regular maintenance will look out for and catch developing corrosion and stop it from getting a hold. Cheap maintenance will basically eschew any indepth structural inspections allowing corrosion to fester. The SID will be a killer for these aircraft because when the dark corners are opened repairs are going to be required.
Since all of the SID inspections are for major structural members, repairs are going to be uneconomic for a lot of marginally maintained aircraft. The other issue is there is both calendar and hour limits. At 20 years of airframe age, which is every legacy Cessna single, all the big inspections kick in regardless of airframe hours. This is going to be a big all once hit even for good aircraft. Finally this is not a one time deal. There are continuing inspections required and for aircraft over 12,000 hours the inspection interval is dramatically shortened.
So far in Canada the SIDs are not mandatory for private aircraft and most flying schools have written their Maintenence Control Manuals (whuch are approved by Transport Canada) so they are not obligated to perform the SID,s. However there are indications that TC may mandate them anyway. If these are inspections are made mandatory for private aircraft my SWAG is that half the fleet of the privately owned single engine Cessna,s will never fly again.
A and C: I've gone through the SIDs for my TR182 and a first estimate is between 6,000-8,000 €. What I don't know is how much it costs to remove the engine and accessories to inspect the engine mount. The SID states: This is a complex and involved inspection. It is recommended that the inspection be coordinated with an engine overhaul, even if the time does not exactly agree with inspection hours.
Recurring inspections will be satisﬁed by inspections at engine overhaul. The initial inspection must be completed by June 30, 2015. How much effort is that? More than that? How could your reputable maintenance company execute inspections in the past that were not defined yet? Just doing a through job of it.
As I read through the requirements for my 150, I realized that Cessna has documented many of those extra things I have been inspecting for years. They are written into my maintenance schedule with only my name as a reference, as the maintenance manual never described them ('till now!). Every aircraft type has its peculiarities, which come to be well known by maintainers experienced with that type. As Cessna has written, these requirements were drafted in consultation with owners and operators.
That is evident in the content. I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs. Maybe a bit, but not wholly. I attended a seminar at Cessna years ago when this was emerging for the twins. Cessna presented and described it well. Cessna, in partnership with the University of Kansas had initiated inspections of long use Cessna 400 series twins. They bought two back from operators, and took them all apart, documenting every defect they found.
It would be this experience which is the basis for their SID's. Interestingly, they said that the structures were better than they expected, but in both cases, the wiring was in terrible condition. The aging aircraft initiative instigated by the FAA has some relevance to this, though it is aimed at larger aircraft, and generally did not target aircraft less than 12,500 pounds. At an FAA seminar I attended, the FAA presenter did say that what was appropriate for larger aircraft, was also necessary for the smaller ones, just appropriately more simple. These SID's, to me, are evidence of that.
As has been said, if you have been maintaining your aircraft well, you have little to fear - you're use to paying for proper maintenance, and it has been done in a preventive sense, so the plane will be okay. I sure would be weary of poorly maintained aircraft though. This will open a whole new vista of critical importance to a very through pre purchase inspection! People are going to be dumping out dogs now, and you sure don't want to be stuck with one now (if ever)! In the maintenance of our aeroplanes (not Cessnas) we always went above and beyond what was *required*. We even removed the engine and mount to inspect for corrosion and repaint.
The reason was that the rest of the aeroplane was in superb condition and this brought the front end up to a known similar condition and made it look nice. I don't remember the cost now, it was a few years ago, but it was by no means horrific for that portion of the work. Actually you can remove the engine yourself.on our current aeroplane, when rebuilding the thing, me and the co-owner assisted with removing the engine, and then took the mount off ourselves, shot blasted it ourselves, had it inspected and then re-painted. We put the bolts back in but got the maintenance organisation to torque the bolts and and re-fit the engine and inspect. I'd rather have a known quantity in the aeroplane that an unknown quantity, and doing this type of thing rests the mind.