Cessna 336 337 SID

If I read it correct, it will affect a lot of Cessna units...

There has to be more to this...
 
OUCH!!!! A $60k inspection?? What are they doing?? Besides basically destroying the value of a lot of aircraft, that is??
 
Kelvin said:
If I read it correct, it will affect a lot of Cessna units...

There has to be more to this...
Click to expand...

If it's not an AD, what real force does it have? I've heard of mandatory service bulletins, but not an SID...


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
If it's not an AD, what real force does it have? I've heard of mandatory service bulletins, but not an SID...


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Typical American....:D:D...this would be binding overseas...

Harney said that in other countries, however, recommendations by the manufacturer must be met and Skymasters are scattered all over the world.
Click to expand...
 
The quoted price of "the inspection" has been blown out of proportion. Herb Harney is not the best source to be discussing the proposed SID because he himself doesn't quite understand the process and procedures involved.

What's actually involved is a long series of inspections depending upon total airframe time, not to all be accomplished at once. And for part 91 operators it will be optional.

However, I can see some shops taking advantage of this and not signing off inspections without doing the SID.

Also bear in mind that Cessna is planning on implementing this SID system wide over all it's airframes in service. The 336/337 is just the beginning of the process for the 100/200 and 300 series Cessnas.
 
So, my 30 year old 172, which gets opened up every 2.5 to 3 months, is in excellent condition and has almost 17K of avionics upgrades this year, is now gonna be going into the toilet? Just this 'announcement' coming out on the net has had to have depreciated the value of my plane instantly.

Cmon You've gotta be kidding me..what kind of insanity is this?
 
DutchessFlier said:
So, my 30 year old 172, which gets opened up every 2.5 to 3 months, is in excellent condition and has almost 17K of avionics upgrades this year, is now gonna be going into the toilet? Just this 'announcement' coming out on the net has had to have depreciated the value of my plane instantly.

Cmon You've gotta be kidding me..what kind of insanity is this?
Click to expand...

It's Cessna's way of getting rid of a lot of liability. Standby for other manufacturers to follow suit.
 
IIRC, Australia adopted the SID requirement for the 340 series and it is quite a cavity search. Expensive and time consuming bug hunt, in essence.

True, it would appeal to corporate lawyers, who don't have to pay the bill.

No word if FAA is inclined to require it for part 91, but others may be facing an ugly bill.

Gee, thanks for throwing us under the bus, Cessna. You make the product, you should be standing behind it.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Gee, thanks for throwing us under the bus, Cessna. You make the product, you should be standing behind it.
Click to expand...

I don't see Ford, Mercedes, or Toyota doing much to stand behind their 30-year-old products.

Unfortunately, inspections like that will end up making things even more difficult for GA. We'll see where it goes... hopefully nowhere.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't see Ford, Mercedes, or Toyota doing much to stand behind their 30-year-old products.

Unfortunately, inspections like that will end up making things even more difficult for GA. We'll see where it goes... hopefully nowhere.
Click to expand...

It's going somewhere for sure. This started with the 400 series Cessnas.

Look for other manufacturers to follow suit. These aircraft companies never envisioned their products to still be around and flying 30+ years later.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
It's going somewhere for sure. This started with the 400 series Cessnas.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and this is probably something we can expect to see to try to get the old planes out of the sky. Old planes don't help the manufacturers sell new planes.

Look for other manufacturers to follow suit. These aircraft companies never envisioned their products to still be around and flying 30+ years later.
Click to expand...

Nor did the auto manufacturers expect their cars to be driving around 30+ years later. The difference is that a large population of the GA fleet is still around and working, whereas the automotive fleet that old is primarily relegated to show cars or other low-time use.

The problem is that these sorts of inspections being mandatory results in grounding a significant portion of the fleet needlessly. Would be much better if it was instead stated that past a certain year, manufacturers are no longer liable for their airplanes, and any problems that come up are the problem of the owner/operator. It would be an intelligent move, although not likely in our highly letigious society. I'd think AOPA would be up in arms over this.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The problem is that these sorts of inspections being mandatory results in grounding a significant portion of the fleet needlessly. Would be much better if it was instead stated that past a certain year, manufacturers are no longer liable for their airplanes, and any problems that come up are the problem of the owner/operator. It would be an intelligent move, although not likely in our highly letigious society.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Ted DuPuis said:
I'd think AOPA would be up in arms over this.
Click to expand...

They're too busy planning their next "sweepstakes" airplane giveaway.:rolleyes:
 
Actually the same thing is happening in the glider world. DG Flugzeugbau just announced that they would "require" a service contract to cover all the money they have been spending on product support and EASA fees. No service contract no parts, and approved documents etc. Needless to say a lot of folks are pretty mad at having to fork over 245 euros for the privilege of being able to continue to fly their planes.

I can see the manufacturer's position though. No other industry that I can think of requires the manufacturer to continue engineering support for their products. Imagine if Ford were required to continue to provide safety improvements to the Edsel.

I just hope that the current aircraft companies can come up with an approach that doesn't ground most of the fleet.
 
vontresc said:
I just hope that the current aircraft companies can come up with an approach that doesn't ground most of the fleet.
Click to expand...

Or bankrupt the GA flying public by these proposals. It amazes me how many people think that because one owns an aircraft, they are made of money and have thousands to spend out of pocket at the drop of a hat. Its costly enough just to keep up with the required MX schedule on an aircraft..which we all fully recognize when we become owners.

I bought my 30 year old plane because I am a point in time of my life that I could do it and the market was such that the value was there. How many regular folks who fly and wish to own aircraft will never be able to, or will now have to lose their investments.
 
Last edited:
vontresc said:
I can see the manufacturer's position though. No other industry that I can think of requires the manufacturer to continue engineering support for their products. Imagine if Ford were required to continue to provide safety improvements to the Edsel.
Click to expand...

Well, my question is why is it that people are requiring the aircraft manufacturers to continue providing engineering support? Parts support is helpful, but there are a lot of PMA suppliers out there. I don't think there's a whole lot I actually need to buy from Piper for my plane, mostly junkyards and PMAers.

Hence my suggestion that we just say manufacturers after a certain point aren't liable for support of their aircraft.
 
I'm not familiar, John. More info?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm not familiar, John. More info?
Click to expand...

General Aviation Revitilazition Act. This bill limits a GA manufacturer's liability to 18 years from the date of manufacturer with some fine print. Cessna got back into piston production as a result.
 
Tom Turner from ABS posted this which gives more insight:

Best,

Dave
=======================================================

The General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) of 1994 limits aircraft manufacturer liability to 18 years after manufacturer. Any new parts installed restarts the 18-year timer for that part.

We're 15 years into GARA and it prompted Cessna's resumption of lightplane manufacturing--Cessna publicly tied building "1000 airplanes a year" to passage of the bill and the perceived jobs that would come helped sway Congress to pass the law.

But Cessna never hit 1000 C172/182/206s a year, and has scaled back tremendously from its mid-1990s production. That we still have piston airplane manufacturing in very small numbers (even including Cirrus' peak years) tells us that GARA may have helped, but lawsuits and liability insurance premiums are not the only drivers of small airplane production numbers.

tt
 
Interesting, that happened well before I was into aviation. Thanks for the info.

So if they're free from liability after 18 years, shouldn't there also be some stipulation limiting their actions on service requirements?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't see Ford, Mercedes, or Toyota doing much to stand behind their 30-year-old products.

Unfortunately, inspections like that will end up making things even more difficult for GA. We'll see where it goes... hopefully nowhere.
Click to expand...

In what way? Are they supporting government-required tear-downs of entire cars in the name of safety. Paid for entirely by the owner? I think not. It might be hard to find an ashtray lightbulb for a Galaxie 500, but that pales in comparison to this SID process.
 
flyersfan31 said:
In what way? Are they supporting government-required tear-downs of entire cars in the name of safety. Paid for entirely by the owner? I think not. It might be hard to find an ashtray lightbulb for a Galaxie 500, but that pales in comparison to this SID process.
Click to expand...

We may be looking at different definitions of "standing behind." The '79 Ford LTD that my grandfather had is probably impossible to buy parts for now from Ford, whereas Piper will still sell parts for my '69 Aztec (and I'm having to buy ones for the baggage door AD that came out. Yay...).

I suppose I think it's a good thing that these guys are still making parts for our old airplanes, and to me that shows some level of standing behind. But there needs to be some logic behind these regulations.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Old planes don't help the manufacturers sell new planes.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do. If the old airplanes weren't around, many or even most of us would never have been able to afford to become pilots and aviation advocates to convince the rich folks who CAN afford to buy a new airplane to learn how to fly.

Cirrus gets this - That's why they'll give a free demo flight to darn near anyone. They know that even though YOU may never be able to afford to buy one of their airplanes new, you'll certainly talk about the experience to your friends, some of whom may be able to buy a shiny new SR22. The demo ride costs them a few bucks, and gives them a virtual unpaid sales force. That's smart marketing. :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top