Is a Cessna Mandatory Service Bulletin on the Horizon

Cessna has had a 100 series 10,000hr continuous airworthiness inspection program for decades.
 
Mandatory service bulletins are not mandatory.

That Cessna calls them so does not make them so. The same applies to the supplemental inspection directives which came out for the 200 and 300 series airplanes.

The only time they become necessary is if the aircraft is operated for hire, such as in a Part 135 operation.
 
This is just Cessna clarifying what they expect out of an "inspection". Limiting their liability on all these old airframes by putting it all down in writing.

Don't have to do it. And if you don't and the airplane breaks and breaks you or property, the first thing the Cessna lawyers will point out is this published inspection procedure.
 
Even when in compliance with the bulletins, Cessna still won't let their own employees fly in them.
 
DouglasBader said:
Mandatory service bulletins are not mandatory.

That Cessna calls them so does not make them so. The same applies to the supplemental inspection directives which came out for the 200 and 300 series airplanes.

The only time they become necessary is if the aircraft is operated for hire, such as in a Part 135 operation.
Click to expand...
Just "operated for hire" (which includes renting) does not make it so. Only if it's operated under some Part other than 91 which requires compliance with manufacturer's service instructions. However, failure to comply with a "Mandatory Service Bulletin" can still cost you big-time if an accident ensues. There was one outfit which got hosed because they did not do the Lycoming SB388 valve "wobble" check. A worn valve which would have been detected by that check broke, leading to a catastrophic engine failure and a fatal accident. They were sued for not exercising "reasonable care," and the plaintiffs won millions in damages.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just "operated for hire" (which includes renting) does not make it so. Only if it's operated under some Part other than 91 which requires compliance with manufacturer's service instructions. However, failure to comply with a "Mandatory Service Bulletin" can still cost you big-time if an accident ensues. There was one outfit which got hosed because they did not do the Lycoming SB388 valve "wobble" check. A worn valve which would have been detected by that check broke, leading to a catastrophic engine failure and a fatal accident. They were sued for not exercising "reasonable care," and the plaintiffs won millions in damages.
Click to expand...

would you post the case, that should scare the hell out of every A&P
 
Having just 'layed eyes' on a 172L for a board member all I can say about this is "Good thing, the fleet needs a good combing over, there is some very questionable stuff flying.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Having just 'layed eyes' on a 172L for a board member all I can say about this is "Good thing, the fleet needs a good combing over, there is some very questionable stuff flying.
Click to expand...


And the unfortunate thing is there are still a lot of IA's out there that continue to give these questionable planes quickie pencil whip annuals.
 
flyer said:
And the unfortunate thing is there are still a lot of IA's out there that continue to give these questionable planes quickie pencil whip annuals.
Click to expand...

No, the unfortunate thing is there are pilots who will fly them because they are cheap. The IA is just filling a demand, let's place the blame where it belongs, on demand.
 
Henning said:
No, the unfortunate thing is there are pilots who will fly them because they are cheap. The IA is just filling a demand, let's place the blame where it belongs, on demand.
Click to expand...

Thats true. The cheap owners that dont care about the condition of their plane are the ones that go to those drive thru quickie annual shops for a $100 sign off.
 
flyer said:
Thats true. The cheap owners that dont care about the condition of their plane are the ones that go to those drive thru quickie annual shops for a $100 sign off.
Click to expand...

What about the pilots who keep renting them because they're $20hr cheaper? This plane I looked at didn't even pass preflight, none of the aileron hinge pins on the left wing were secured. What about instructors who keep instructing in them?
 
Henning said:
What about the pilots who keep renting them because they're $20hr cheaper? This plane I looked at didn't even pass preflight, none of the aileron hinge pins on the left wing were secured. What about instructors who keep instructing in them?
Click to expand...


Thats scary. It dosnt say much about the renter pilots and instructors if they are flying a plane in that condition, or they are not doing a proper pre flight.
 
I've always been amazed that we don't have phase D inspections on part 23 aircraft....every 10,000 hours or so....it's going to be amazing what people find.
 
bbchien said:
I've always been amazed that we don't have phase D inspections on part 23 aircraft....every 10,000 hours or so....it's going to be amazing what people find.
Click to expand...

That's because the majority of the fleet falls under CAR3. Standards were set decades ago and the manufacturer never intended upon these airframes seeing this much use.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yea, especially those that specialize in quickie ink pen annuals.
Click to expand...
I have a direct question for you.

I'll have a C-172 open, and all laid out for your inspection, I'll put it back together and repair any discrepancies, and sign the return to service entry.

What would you charge for the Annual inspection, and what tools do you need to do the inspection?
 
Ron Levy said:
Bill Scott at Precision Engine showed it to me. I'll have to ask him for the citation.
Click to expand...

Engine shops use these cases to influence customers to do things they ordinarily would not do and in most cases the case is misrepresented, and there was a lot more than meets the eye to the case long before it ever got to court.
 
Tom-D said:
I have a direct question for you.

I'll have a C-172 open, and all laid out for your inspection, I'll put it back together and repair any discrepancies, and sign the return to service entry.

What would you charge for the Annual inspection, and what tools do you need to do the inspection?
Click to expand...

Is that a $100 inspection? :stirpot:
 
Ron Levy said:
Start with the case of Estate of Rivas.
http://www.leesfield.com/lawyer-attorney-1822172.html
Yes, this was only settled out of court, not the result of a jury finding, but it provides fair warning.
Click to expand...

we all know some one will get sued for almost every thing.

Does that mean we self employed A&P-IAs should run screaming into the wilderness leaving our customers to the unethical FBOs who charge huge prices.
 
Tom-D said:
Engine shops use these cases to influence customers to do things they ordinarily would not do and in most cases the case is misrepresented, and there was a lot more than meets the eye to the case long before it ever got to court.
Click to expand...
:sigh: Whatever, Tom. But if you check the annals, you'll find quite a few stuck valve and valve stem failure accidents where this particular check wasn't done, and where having done the check would have caught the problem before anyone got hurt. And it doesn't change the fact that a jory is likely to say that failing to accomplish a "Mandatory Service Bulletin" constitutes failure to exercise the appropriate level of care. It is a well-established point of law that mere compliance with Federal regulations (like AD's), while necessary for defense in such cases, is not sufficient to prove that reasonable care was exercised -- just ask the old Piper Aircraft.
http://openjurist.org/890/f2d/1540/cleveland-cleveland-v-piper-aircraft-corporation
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
:sigh: Whatever, Tom. But if you check the annals, you'll find quite a few stuck valve and valve stem failure accidents where this particular check wasn't done, and where having done the check would have caught the problem before anyone got hurt. And it doesn't change the fact that a jory is likely to say that failing to accomplish a "Mandatory Service Bulletin" constitutes failure to exercise the appropriate level of care. It is a well-established point of law that mere compliance with Federal regulations (like AD's), while necessary for defense in such cases, is not sufficient to prove that reasonable care was exercised -- just ask the old Piper Aircraft.
http://openjurist.org/890/f2d/1540/cleveland-cleveland-v-piper-aircraft-corporation
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of cases that prove your point, does that mean I should charge the extra 200 bucks for Lycoming owners to do the extra maintenance required for their engines.

Should I insist all my customers comply with all service instructions by the manufacturer, If not, where do I draw the line?

Or Should I simply sign off all my annuals as unairworthy to avoid the liability.?
 
Tom-D said:
I'm sure there are plenty of cases that prove your point, does that mean I should charge the extra 200 bucks for Lycoming owners to do the extra maintenance required for their engines.

Should I insist all my customers comply with all service instructions by the manufacturer, If not, where do I draw the line?

Or Should I simply sign off all my annuals as unairworthy to avoid the liability.?
Click to expand...
Frankly, Tom...
 
Our mechanic bills out 19 hours of labor to inspect a Skylane, and I know they put the hours in. That's the good part.

The frustrating part is sometimes they still cause or miss simple stuff. They busted the ground wire to the aft nav light inspecting the tail.

While I am happy this means they really did remove the tailcone and LOOK, you'd think one of the "button-up" things would be a checklist that included a complete light check. Seriously. I'd pay for the extra five minutes. And they'd find their mistake.

On the flip side, when we went to pick up the aircraft the throttle cable was so tight we almost couldn't move it. They came right over and realized that the wash of the engine compartment must have gotten water into the cable and immediately pressure lubricated the cable.

It now works better than it ever has. We waited about 45 minutes and had lunch and the IA was obviously sorry and made time to fix it. Stuff happens.

Here's a question for y'all... how many of you take your A&P or A&P/IA up in the aircraft to show them things or let them find things they otherwise might not notice? Will they even go up if asked?

Just a side question. Curious.

Our big shops around here typically don't. Not sure if they would. I suspect those at smaller airports or who fly "neater" aircraft probably find their mechanics in the passenger seat more than we would.
 
Thread creep: But speaking of "finding," today while moving much stuff to higher elevations during a "Damn; this two days(thus far) torrential rain that went south on the 2nd International Fly-In at KBXM" flooded basement here at home, I found some pictures of a very fine-looking Piper twin. And standing beside it was Dr. Bruce and Susan(?). That must go back about 10 or 11 years. (Photo was at KLEW Auburn-Lewiston, Maine.)

HR
 
Yup. I had dark hair back then. It's been about 10 years, Jerry.... :(
 
bbchien said:
Yup. I had dark hair back then. It's been about 10 years, Jerry.... :(
Click to expand...

Where is your old parka pic? You had dark hair in it.;) Mine is still blonde what is left. Considering Propecia; any contraindication you know?
 
DouglasBader said:
Mandatory service bulletins are not mandatory.

That Cessna calls them so does not make them so. The same applies to the supplemental inspection directives which came out for the 200 and 300 series airplanes.
Click to expand...

I used to believe the same thing, but I'm not so sure anymore. It may vary based on manufacturer and build date of the airplane... The annual inspection list for a 172S that I'm familiar with mentions that applicable service bulletins must be done. So, in this case, what's normally not mandatory (per FAA, because it's just a "service bulletin") even though it's called "mandatory" *becomes* mandatory because it's a required part of the annual inspection.

Nevermind the whole negligence/liability thing. :-)
 
Nadir said:
I used to believe the same thing, but I'm not so sure anymore. It may vary based on manufacturer and build date of the airplane... The annual inspection list for a 172S that I'm familiar with mentions that applicable service bulletins must be done. So, in this case, what's normally not mandatory (per FAA, because it's just a "service bulletin") even though it's called "mandatory" *becomes* mandatory because it's a required part of the annual inspection.
Click to expand...
This is quoted directly from the type certificate of the 172S

Data Pertinent to Model 172S:
Production Basis
Production Certificate No. PC-4 issued August 27, 1998. Applies to airplane serial numbers 172S8003 and on. Airplane serial numbers not listed were produced under Type Certificate only. Cessna is authorized to issue airworthiness certificates under the delegation provisions of Delegation Option Authorization No. CE-1 in accordance with Part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
 
Nadir said:
I used to believe the same thing, but I'm not so sure anymore. It may vary based on manufacturer and build date of the airplane... The annual inspection list for a 172S that I'm familiar with mentions that applicable service bulletins must be done. So, in this case, what's normally not mandatory (per FAA, because it's just a "service bulletin") even though it's called "mandatory" *becomes* mandatory because it's a required part of the annual inspection.

Nevermind the whole negligence/liability thing. :-)
Click to expand...

http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/Orders/8620_2A.htm

Please read 6.(b)
 
flyingron said:
Even when in compliance with the bulletins, Cessna still won't let their own employees fly in them.
Click to expand...

That's not a Cessna policy, that's a Textron policy.
 
bbchien said:
Yup. I had dark hair back then. It's been about 10 years, Jerry.... :(
Click to expand...
I'd post the photo, but:
(a.) I don't have a scanner for the hard print; (b.) it was from 35mm neg. which I do have; (c.) the occasion was before typical Develop & Print would come with a Photo CD.

HR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top