The CAA appears to be quite pragmatic on the SID, and I can’t imagine EASA going to the trouble of legislating to change the CAA’s approach.
It’s EASA that is pragmatic and the CAA that follows EASA’s interpretation. The other countries stick to the letter of the law which (as I have to agree) currently makes the SIDs mandatory due to Cessna’s unfortunate decision to put them in the maintenance manual instead of an external SIB.
The danger I see is that when there is a corrosion related accident of a Cessna on G-reg, the CAA might get so much heat that they could revise their position. The FAA never do anything before at least a handful of airplanes crash — which is a very sensible approach.
I’m currently planning to go N-reg but G-reg is also a possibility. My preferred option would be to remain D-reg, maybe they will fix this dreaded Part M in time (only half of one phrase!).
The other countries stick to the letter of the law which (as I have to agree) currently makes the SIDs mandatory due to Cessna’s unfortunate decision to put them in the maintenance manual instead of an external SIB.
But as you know, only the “Limitations” section needs to be followed by law. And the SID it’s not a limitation, otherwise even under the FAA it wouldn’t be optional.
The FAA never do anything before at least a handful of airplanes crash
…but I don’t believe any of the strut wing Cessna 100 series, have had an airframe in flight failure (150/152 had some control interference issues in spin recovery which required an AD). Corrosion issues have surfaced, and some uncovered by the SID, but not failures.
Edit following a search – in 2003 a 172S broke up in a dive which exceeded Vne, it was only a couple of years old so not subject to the SID.
But as you know, only the “Limitations” section needs to be followed by law. And the SID it’s not a limitation, otherwise even under the FAA it wouldn’t be optional.
That is not how Part M works which brought us this whole mess. I believe it’s M.A.302.
Then how can the UK CAA make it optional?
The UK CAA ignore the law. It’s plain and simple. EASA have created a mess, pretend they never wanted it (their statement on the SIDs) but the law is as it stands. I am not exactly sure whether the UK require you to have the SIDs excluded in your maintenance program and will always grant that or whether they just say it’s not mandatory. The firmer would be a much cleaner way, the latter a violation of EU law (a good one though).
Germany ignored the law on the cost sharing until it was fixed by the EU. Germany will never ignore a safety related law, that will not help us. LBA hate the SIDs, all the Part M people I talked to think they should not be mandatory but they can’t do anything. Of course it is also their fault that we have this crappy Part M.
The UK CAA ignore the law. It’s plain and simple
Does Part M say simply that all of the MM has to be done?
If so, can you post the reference which actually says that?
The AMCs give each State leeway, in certain areas, and this is one of them.
in 2003 a 172S broke up in a dive which exceeded Vne, it was only a couple of years old so not subject to the SID
You can break any plane if you go past Vne and pull back hard enough. The great majority will break well before Vne with enough elevator deflection 
In theory anything above Va is entitled to pull the wings off with maximum pitch control surface deflection.
Does Part M say simply that all of the MM has to be done? If so, can you post the reference which actually says that?
No. I mentioned the reference Part M, M.A.302 several times I think. It’s the applicable law. It says that for the aircraft maintenance program, the manufacturer’s instructions have to be taken into account (which is not the same as “directly applied”). However it means that they cannot be ignored. AMC M.A.302 specifically talks about corrosion prevention programs as part of what has to be incorporated into an approved maintenance program:
1.1.12 If applicable details of ageing aircraft system requirements together with any
specified sampling programmes.
1.1.13 If applicable details of specific structural maintenance programmes where issued by
the type certificate holder including but not limited to:
…
c. Corrosion prevention and control. ”
A statement like “you don’t have to do the SIDs” as issued by CAA is in violation of European law. This is not what is meant by “incorporate in the maintenance program”. It’s the right thing to do and the CAA apparently can get away with it but in other countries, there is no such flexibility on interpreting the law (unless it is deemed important like the cost sharing thing in Germany). I do see a considerable risk that the CAA might eventually revise their position because of liability. Let one Cessna crash and corrosion be a factor…
However it means that they cannot be ignored
The english words “taken into account” give you a huge leeway. It means you can do just about anything.
The biggest aviation community in the known universe, by far, doesn’t enforce the MM, and their safety record is just as good and mostly better than Europe’s, and any lawyer with a brain would point this out.
Last week I went to a presentation by the chief of the UK CAA an was left in no doubt that they do consult lawyers before doing anything, and most definitely before doing anything like this.
Achimha,
“Let one Cessna crash and corrosion be a factor….” and you can bet your bottom dollar that the SID will instantly become an AD; all of this stems for Cessna, who are keen to distance themselves from liabilities arising from their ‘legacy’ fleet, as they haven’t had the luxury of several chapter 11 bankruptcies to provide some distance from them and the product liabilities arising therein.
As for the implications of “taken into account”, I can tell you that from the perspective of a native English speaker who spends a fair amount of time dealing with rather boring legal contracts in English, that does not mean that you have to do something, merely that you have to have considered the possibility may exist and acted accordingly. This is yet another instance where, because of opaque regulation, entire national aviation bodies are compelling aircraft owners to enter into damaging and ill conceived maintenance practices; remember the door seals on PA28’s that the Swedish CAA decided needed lubricating every 50hrs, because of a misinterpretation of maintenance guidelines?
Every night before I go to bed, I make sure that I have “taken into account” the possibility that Britney Spears might be singing in my kitchen; that doesn’t mean that I am reckless for failing to actually look to see if she is there…
