That video doesn’t show anything which is unusual to me on every Annual inspection.
The video is complete BS. In reality the inspections are extremely labor intensive and intrusive, if done as spelled out in the book which is what you have to do if you want to be in compliance. I give you one example: the engine mount inspection requires you to remove the complete engine and accessories, put it on a hook next to the airplane, remove the engine mount (which is a hell of a job because it is mounted behind the cockpit) and then inspect it. Why would I ever agree to removing my engine for this? You also have to remove the rudder, the ailerons, the retractable gears etc. Chances are very high there will be mistakes in assembling it back.
Achimha.
You are totally correct about the engine frame and flying controls having to be removed but I disagree about the level of difficulty to do these jobs and as always it was a lot easier on the second aircraft.
The chances of incorrect re-assembly is exactly the same as with any aircraft job.
As the owner of two UK registered C152’s I have done the SIDS and was glad that I did, it picked up a lot of things that would have gone unnoticed until they would have cost a lot more to fix.
The end result is that I now have two airframes that I am confident will be good for the next 10,000 hours as long as the SIDS recurrent items are done.
In my view to blindly dismiss the SIDS on grounds of difficulty or expense is not wise both in terms of safety and future maintenance expense, this is a conclusion based on two better than average airframes in the 10-13000 hour age range, the bottom line is that the average unloved club trainer or group aircraft that have spent their lives out in the open and maintained at minimum cost are likely to be uneconomic to repair, the SIDS need to be applied in an appropriate way based on the age and operating conditions of the individual aircraft, in some ways Cessna have tried to do this but it needs refining.
I can see why Cessna have gone down this road, it is an attempt to stop the worst of the fleet flying by forcing them out of service while assuring the better aircraft have some sort of ageing aircraft maintenance program, the problem is that the SIDS are a bit of a blunt instrument to do this with…………but ignoring them is not a wise option.
To give you another reason why the SIDs are a terrible idea (for an aircraft where you have a good idea about): one of my hangar neighbors had a bolt break during removal of a control required by the SIDs as this bolt was never removed since the aircraft was built (why should it). The bolt was out of supply (like so many things on Cessna aircraft) and he ended up having his aircraft in pieces in the shop for 3 months while the shop was going crazy to get Cessna to have a batch of the bolt produced. Now I would not be so sure about the quality and strength of that 2014 produced bolt…
If you think your C152 are in bad shape, go ahead and disassemble them. A good mechanic will not need the SIDs for that especially since their level of technical competence is rather low. Large parts of them do not make much sense. Judging the level of corrosion and structural integrity and deciding what signs mandate a more intrusive inspection is core knowledge of A&P/IAs. We do not see any accidents connected to the SIDs and only if it did, there would be evidence that A&Ps/IAs need additional help in making these determinations.
Just the fact that Piper etc. have not responded to the FAA “ageing aircraft” mandate yet makes the Piper a better aircraft because it does not have SIDs?
PS: The SIDs make a dozen or so optional SBs/SEBs and SKs (service kits) suddenly a mandatory requirement. That is a major blow that in my experience 99% of the aircraft owners do not understand. Some of the now mandatory SKs are out of supply of course which means in theory your aircraft will remain unairworthy. In reality they all cheat and decide to overlook certain things.
Achimha
I would be interested to be able to follow your thinking on the issue of the bolt that failed on removal.
If a bolt fails during removal there is usually a good reason for this such as corrosion, lack of lubrication, fatigue crack to give a few examples. All of these are good enough reasons to take the bolt out and inspect the bolt and aircraft structure in the area. If this bolt had failed during removal on my aircraft it would have been a wake up call that something was wrong especially if it was due to a fatigue crack.
I am having trouble understanding the logic that you are putting forward as you seem to be saying that the SIDS check caused the problem with the bolt, I would offer the opinion that the SIDS check found a previously undetected fault with the bolt or structure local to that bolt and so the SIDS did exactly what Cessna intended and found a problem before it became an accident.
I am also supprized that you could not get hold of a new bolt, almost all bolts on Cessna aircraft are standard aircraft parts and easily available.
