1984 Cessna 172p Poh Pdf Reader

On By In Home

MANUAL FREE CESSNA 182 OPERATORS MANUAL. Pdf, Cessna 182 Training Manual. Book Excerpt Great as. 1984 Cessna 172P Skyhawk Information Manual - POH Cessna Service. Manual 100 - Series. Previous, I/R. If you do not already have.pdf reader, you can download. (for free) Adobe's at:.

1984 Cessna 172p Poh Pdf Reader

Check out the! Rules • Read the before posting. Certain questions, such as 'how do I become a pilot' and the like have been asked repeatedly in the past. • Refrain from posting anything that does not pertain to pilots, students, instructors or other aviation professionals. • Post something that you would like to discuss! If posting a photo, video or link, you must include a relevant comment to start conversation.

For example, a story from your checkride. Blogspam isn't welcome here. • PLEASE no memes.

Is a meme-free zone. • Cite sources when appropriate. • Posts about the non-aviating aspects of airlines (planespotting, passenger experience, frequent flyer programs) do not belong here. • Be nice to each other.

Is intended to be a friendly and accepting place; check your ego at the door and take your snark and attitude elsewhere. • We strive to keep as commercial-free as possible. If you are about to post something that involves the exchange of goods or services for money, run it by the mods first. This includes requests for donations. If you want to sell an aviation-related item or aircraft, post it in. • The moderators have the final say in disputes.

Info and FAQs • • Updated daily from flair; see for requests/issues. • You will find many answers to questions you may have, such as how to become a pilot.

Pilot Certificate Badges • SIM - Simulators only, or pre-student interest • ST - Student • SPT - Sport Pilot • UPL - Ultralight Pilot (EASA) • RPL - Recreational Pilot • LAPL - Light Aircraft Pilot (EASA) • PPL - Private Pilot • CPL - Commercial Pilot • ATP - Airline Transport Pilot • CFI - FAA Certified Flight Instructor • FI - Flight Instructor (non-FAA Country) • MIL - AF,N,A - Military pilot, AF, N, A, etc. As a reference, it's good for pretty much everything exept weight and balance calculations. Free Indian Happy Birthday Song Download. You should use the numbers that are in the AFM that stays with the plane, because they're the most accurate.

They take into account recent measurements for that specific plane, while a POH will just give you factory standard numbers. You can use the POH for rough calculations as long as your plane doesn't have some weird modifications that throw the empty CG off, but for accuracy and legality you need to use the tail-number-specific numbers from the AFM. For older aircraft that don't have an AFM, you should still look into its records and find the latest W&B numbers and use those.

Don't just use the POH numbers on good faith. I believe my plane currently weighs 50-75 pounds more than the factory POH numbers. Just make sure you're using an official AFM when you do this for your checkride. It's a recipe for a failure if you can't show that your W&B calculations are spot-on legit.

I had to show the DPE exactly where I got every figure. You can learn to do W&B with unofficial stuff like a standard POH for your model, but every single plane (literally every single individual plane) has a slightly different weight and CG because they all have slightly different equipment that weighs slightly different amounts. The MX crews are required to keep a running log of every single modification made to the plane (along with other maintenance logs), and you need to be using those official weight logs. It might seem silly & pedantic, but there have been in the past where people were 'close' on their W&B calculations, only to find that 'close' doesn't help you when you discover that you don't have enough elevator authority to get back to level after takeoff due to your CG being too far aft, especially if you're unlucky and your elevator rigging is slightly out of specification.

Cessna finally released the Special Inspection Documents (SIDs) for its 100 series aircraft. These call out for numerous additional inspections depending on hours and service and age. The 400/300 series twins were the first to get SIDs and their market value collapsed since then. The 100 series inspections appear to be less intrusive but they are numerous and time consuming. I wonder what effect this will have.

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. 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. I see this as a move by Cessna to drive the under maintained 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.No, I believe it was the various CAAs that pushed Cessna into making SIDs. I bet all maintenance organisations believe they are doing a good job after all they are supervised by their surveyors and their paperwork is controlled by their quality managers.;).

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. No Pen Patch Bedeutung Vornamen. 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.

We have a Cessna maintenance manual paper updat subscription and the SID,s data arrived in the post Last Friday so I would expect most CAMO,s in the UK to be taking a long hard look at all of this in the coming week. JXK I think that you make a good point, I too think that we have not yet seen an accident with a small Cessna due to corrosion and other old airframe issues however if left uncorrected I don't think that such an accident is far away. This was made clear to me a year or so back when a proud new owner of a C172 turned up for an annual check, it was quite clear from the start that this aircraft had seen very little maintenance in a long time and had issues with a lot of the items that the SID,s checks address, I have no doubt that had the aircraft continued to be maintained by the previous maintenance company there was a very strong chance of a fatal accident, of course the owner was of the opinion that we were overdoing things when the maintenance bill was more than he had paid for the aircraft. This check will hit the C150 fleet very hard, the value of the a lot of the aircraft will be far below the cost of the check, let alone rectifying the defects that the check finds. I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable flying a C152 due to their age. Most of my clubs C152 fly daily and fly from 8am to 9pm on days with brilliant weather. And even on rubbish days, they get flown, blown and hammered.

I think our maintenance engineers are great and whilst there are much older planes in use (spitfires for example) I still think they should be retired. We have a lot of C152s at our club and most have some form of dents in the wings.

No idea how they got there. Pungent fuel smells in a couple of them make me worry too. Engineers says its safe and I know the 152 is a robust ol' girl, but still. Having read through the SID for a Cessna 177RG I was scared sh.less! I realize that the work involved is only intended to address problems that one can only expect to find on an aging aircraft and that a normal annual inspection should deal with a large majority of them anyway, but when you see the list in its entirety it is most scary.

Scary mainly from a 'Bloody hell how much is this going to cost' point of view. The corrosion map of the UK denote that it is either severe or moderately rated so encurring a higher level of inspection. I am Sooo glad I am out of the certificated regime and in the warm busom of the LAA.

(Never thought I would say that!) The thought of being the owner of a 150/2 or an older 172 would fill me with dread as the cost of an annual inspection could easily cost more than the value of the aircraft. Piper and other manufacturers will probably read the Cessna SID's and come up with their own lists as well so for me being a single owner operator of limited income it is a case of certificated aircraft RIP. I have enjoyed the experience over the years but now it is LAA all the way.

Also is there a date when it becomes mandatory? It says 2014 in some I have read with I think 2015 for the engine out, oddly enough I do most of the inspections already, I have pulled most engine mounts over the last couple of years and inspected them when I have done engine changes etc as I was concerned that some of the mounting bolts could have been in since the year dot, so I renewed them for my piece of mind, there are a few more I will need to address, but it is with EASA at them moment to see how much or how little they will adopt, so I am awaiting their decision before going fwd. A lot of them are simply the contents of the continious Airworthiness programme transfered over to the maint manual. I read about the pilots who are indignant that they might be offered a worn out old plane to fly, and how it should be maintained to a very high standard. And, I read about how scary the prospect of subjecting these old aircraft to additional inspections.

And then finally, the panacea of the non certified aircraft as the economical escape route to fly without the regulatory or inspection burden. Let's remind ourselves that it costs money to be airborne, some ways more than others. Cessna are expert in knowing how to provide a safe means of being airborne, if you do it their way (or equivalently well). Aircraft of other manufacture, and particularly non certified, can be very much more variable and less certain. Some people think that older planes should be retired. Those people are very welcome to pay the cost to fly in very new aircraft only, those planes are available too.

They just have higher cost of use due to their higher value. If that's your choice, no problem, pay the cost, fly in an aircraft whose 'bugs' may yet to be found, and don't complain! Cessna has now defined a retirement 'age' for their aircraft - 30,000 hours (for what I have briefly read). Sounds very fair and appropriate to me. I have 24,000 hours to go on my 150, and that'll keep me fine! A Cessna 207 I used to fly had 19,700 hours, and seemed very airworthy, I oversaw a comprehensive inspection, and nothing was really wrong with the structure or systems (Paint and furnishings were ratty). It had been well maintained.

The 1977 C152 I did my fist solo in, had 33 hours when I did that (in 1977). It was retired from the flying club decades later with more than 14,500 hours, and still flies privately today.

Presuming up to date maintenance, I would not be the least 'uncomfortable' to fly that plane. Yes, some poorly maintained Cessnas are going to be 'found out' by these inspections - that's the whole point! Such aircraft are probably headed toward a very justified retirement. If the owner has maintained the aircraft well throughout, there is little to be worried about here. And, when renters are presented with 'old' Cessnas, which are right up to date with all of these new inspections, will they relax, have confidence in the quality of the aircraft, and become less 'uncomfortable'? Some of this reminds me of the people who complain about the poor condition of the road, then complain about the cost and traffic delays to repair it! Then, we have the non certified proponents, whose subtle message is that it costs less to correctly maintain a non certified aircraft.

Well, perhaps this could appear to be, simply because of the much lower utilization compared to the Cessnas, and lack of the cost of OEM support. If these non certified aircraft were operating in a commercial role, getting flown, blown and hammered, I dare say that it would rapidly become more expensive to maintain to the non 'old' standard of quality expected by the renter.

And, when that non certified aircraft needs replacement parts 50 years after it was manufactured, will the manufacturer still make parts available for it? We either want to fly well maintained aircraft, and are prepared to pay the cost, or, we will fly unknown quality aircraft, and not complain. Cessna has now defined a retirement 'age' for their aircraft - 30,000 hours I wonder if that figure is actually relevant in the UK. How many C15x aircraft reach 30k hrs, in Europe?

Do schools really fly 1000hrs/year? No school I have ever seen even remotely approaches that. In Arizona, possibly:) On the one hand it does amaze me that Cessna have not replaced these old workhorses. They blame certification costs, which I am sure is bogus. But Cessna are not stupid.

They are the most clever company in the GA business, and have huge resources. They must have a reason. I wonder what it is? Could it be that the payload of a 'new' C15x is not enough to make the average training flight legal? The 162 is a totally stripped down carcass, to improve the payload. Could it be that those planes look so agricultural that most people with more than 2$ to rub together walk away shortly after walking into a flying school and see what they will be flying in? Also its made in China and I suspect the paerwork trail won't be robust enough.

I buy PCBs from China in my business and apart from wads of documentation which are massive enough to warm the heart of the most anally retarded UK ISO9000 quality manager, the boards are 100% perfect. Not a single defective circuit out of some (never counted them) few hundred k circuits. When I used to make these in the UK, we used to get 1-2% duff ones - largely because they used to skip the electronic test when the end of the month was coming up;) The Chinese will deliver whatever you ask them for, and pay them for. ATP's programme does a compliance report per aircraft for FAA AD's SB's and EASA AD's, you simply add the aircraft, engine, components such as carling switches, radios etc and it compiles a report. We also have the manuals on it for Cessna, but the Piper maint manuals we have are on Avantext as they do not do them on ATP although the ATP compliances part does do the Pipers. Also on the ATP when you open an AD off the list if there is a relevant SB it will link you to that too. I think they have a trial programme.

Profile & Compliance App (Though the EASA and FAA parts and the Manuals are all separate subscriptions, the lot updates every night off the web, or when you wish. I can't believe there are people here that think these SID's aren't mandatory. They aren't an SB they are a directive and form part of the maintenance manaul.

They are a manual revision. Therefore, if you maintain your aircraft as per the maintenance manual, the SID's are mandatory. I don't see how you can get around that? I'd love to hear how these aren't mandatory?

As for the 'a good engineer will have been doing this stuff and it won't be a problem'. I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's.

Any engineer worth his salt will have to think long and hard before he/she shrugs off this new manual revision during your next annual/100 hourly. I don't know too many engineers that have been removing wing struts to do eddy current inspections on bolts holes just to name 1 page of 200 in the 100 series SID's. Have done all the wing struts we had that were due several months ago after a supplier let me know a local company had one fail, we had one fail too out of 4 or 5 aircraft and that was replaced with a Servicable item, I also replaced all the nuts and bolts at the same time, something the SID's do not mention, ours failed because of deep pitting corrosion around the tie down hole when doing the rivet eddy current inspection. One major problem is Cessna was giving at the time about 4 months plus turnaround on replacement struts.

One just hopes they address their lack of spares. They were in the continuous airworthiness programme, though the wing spar attachment bolts and holes procedure was incomplete in the said programme. Achimha - Thankyou. The 100 SID's are not SB's or AD's or SIL's or AC's. They are PART OF THE MAINTENANCE MANUAL.

They are mandatory in the any country that uses the manufacturer as the source for maintenance data for the issue of an airworthiness certificate. Unless you maintain your aircraft under a completely different schedule of maintenance ignoring the maintenance manual then they are mandatory. Most people think that in the US under the FAA and here in Aus under CASA that there's no obligation to do SB's. However, if you read the Manuals for most aircraft, you will find that the manuals state that the aircraft must be maintained in accordance with 'this manual' and any supporting documentation relating to this aircraft. Or something to that effect.

The point is, if you ignore an applicable SB, as an engineer, your asking for trouble. There are many cases where litigation has found the A&P liable for not carrying out SB's on an aircraft where the owner proved the A&P should have known better and the owner was ignorant or unaware of implications. Caution any engineer/A&P who says 'Don't worry about SB's. They're not mandatory in this country.

If any of my clients specifically ask me not to carry out an SB after they or I have found it, I get them to sign a letter stating that they are fully aware of the information and have elected not to have the work done. I also sign it, give a copy to the owner, put a copy in the logbook and keep a copy on file.

The SIDs came early to the 337 Skymasters. At the time they did, I was heavily involved in the Skymaster forum as I was about to buy one and there was a lot of talk about the SID.

For part 91 you do not have to perform the teardown to comply, just as you don't have to tear your engine down at 2000hrs or every 12 years to comply with what Lycoming says. Basically, the airworthiness of an aircraft is an FAA responsibility. No private entity, no matter how many SIDs they produce, can ground an aircraft or force you to do anything. So unless the SID is an AD - for part 91 where you don't service according to manufacturers - then it is only advisory. Now, that might not be the case anywhere else - notice how in Europe they interpret it as you have to tear down your engine at TBO or 12 years.

So depending on how you word it or have the type certificate set up, any compliance would have to be to manufacturers specifications. This has much greater implementations legally than people think. Because if this SID will be grounds for grounding anywhere else, then it will mean that any private entity, now, or in the future, can come up with their own legislation that you need to comply with but without having to inform you about it when you buy the product. Imagine this taken to it's logical conclusion - you buy a dish washer, but 5 years down the road the manufacturer invents a 'problem' with the design, forcing you to repair it for more than a new one or replace it at great cost. Would you accept that?

What if it was your car? Here's a legal clarification from the Conquest owners: http://www.conquestowners.org/images/SUPPLEMENTAL_INSPECTION_DOCUMENTS.pdf. That might be so, and it certainly would be prudent to comply, but it still doesn't make it mandatory. Airworthiness is the responsibility of the FAA (in the US), and that's why we, and the manufacturers, pay millions and millions to go through the certification process. Once that's completed, FAA is responsible for the continued airworthiness of that particular type certificate, not the manufacturer. One can't have it both ways - either the manufacturer is responsible for the airworthiness (and in that case, why certify it?), or the FAA is.

Therefore, the only things that can make an airframe non airworthy is if the FAA published AD's or the STC's are not complied with or a licensed FAA representative (A&P/IA or FAA inspector) says so. That might not be the case in EASA land, but I'm pretty sure it's similar. Aviater, agree 100%. Too many engineers bend over for the owners and have no idea of the implications in the event of an accident. Take a look at Para 1.18.5 of the Willowbank 206 accident as a classic example. Investigation: 200600001 - Collision with terrain; Willowbank, Qld; 2 January 2006; VH-UYB, Cessna Aircraft Company U206 (Even under Schedule 5 you need to follow the MM or have good reason why you did not (Your honour I know more than the manufacturer.:ugh:). I expect that 99% of all UK single engined Cessnas are maintained to the light aircraft maintenance program.

CAP766 Section 2 The undersigned (owner/operator) undertakes to ensure that the aircraft will continue to be maintained in accordance with the program section 3 responsibilities and standards. Non compliance will invalidate the c of a. Signed for/on behalf of the owner operator Section 3 Overhaul, Additional inspections and test periods shall be those recommended by the type certificate holder (Cessna ) or STC holder. (Note use of the word recommended not the word mandated) Instructions for continued airworthiness consist of inservice data published by the type cert holder in maintenance manuals, bulletins, letters e.t.c. Looks fairly clear to me as this is part of the maintenance manual failure to comply invalidates your C of A. If you own or operate you signed to say you accept this program and content. Owning an aircraft in EASA land exposes the owner to the risk of unmonitored manufacturer directed costs in order to maintain the Airworthiness Certificate.

This reduces government costs, but creates a situation in which the manufacturer can write law directing owners money its own way. And when that manufacturer goes out of business, the C of A effectively expires unless another private company picks it up. But this can't be legal.

I bet if you took this to the European court you'd have a pretty good chance of winning. A car manufacturer who tried the same trick, would be sued beyond oblivion if they tried the same ploy. Voiding your legal right of driving, making it uninsurable the day after your warranty expired unless you paid exorbitant sums to 'comply' or bought a new one? This situation has happened in the UK and aircraft that have no manufacturers support are transferred to permit to fly. No problem really unless you wish to operate commercially.

As for legality in europe EASA is a legal entity and its rulings are European law. I understand that the current UK light aircraft maintenance program is being replaced so the wording of the new document will be interesting. The CAA began a consultative process on 6 feb 2012 lasting six weeks A taste would be 'industry feedback revealed that the use of manufacturers instructions was something to be promoted' So I think you can read between the lines a little there.

You can see the new format on the CAA website and basically the threat re c of a invalidation as described in my post above remains. Www.caa.co.uk/docs/223TemplateGMPforLight%20Aircraft.pdf The main change to LAMPS is this new program mandates the use of the manufacturers maintenance program with additions. So back to our Cessna issue you will need to comply with the structural inspections. I suspect that realistically as Part M are required to evaluate all new documentation and time is allowed for them to do this the inspections will hit home in the early part of next year. I suggest that this will align with the next annual. Good news from the EASA! The following statement was sent by EASA to AOPA Germany on Aug 16 (published in their current newsletter): Our below response addresses the case of non-large aircraft not used in commercial air transport.

We can confirm that the Cessna Supplemental Inspection Documents (SIDs) for 100/200 series are not included in the airworthiness limitations sections of the Cessna instructions for continuing airworthiness (ICA), and at this point they are also not covered by an AD. Hence, the Cessna SIDs for 100/200 series qualify as non-mandatory inspections in terms of ICA, even if they are designated 'mandatory' in the revisions to the Cessna maintenance documentation. The position of the Agency is that compliance with SID for Cessna series aircraft should generally be recommended to aircraft owners/operators in line with the principles set out in M.A.302 and the related AMCs (cf.

In particular Appendix I to AMC M.A.302 and AMC M.B.301(b) 'Content of the Maintenance Programme', item 1.1.13a). If the owner/operator then decides not to include the optional modification/ inspections in the maintenance programme, he/she takes full responsibility for this decision. Silvaire, there is a similar bulletin, the Cessna secondary seat stop (modification. For pretty much every piston plane ever built (starting 1948), Cessna will pay for time and material to install a secondary inertia reel to prevent the pilot seat from sliding back should the seat stop system fail. They have been offering this for several years but most planes still don't have it. There is no AD. If I rent out my plane and the primary seat stop fails during takeoff, the seat slides back with the pilot holding the yoke, plane stalls and everybody dies -- what is going to happen?

Wouldn't some contingency lawyer go after me because I haven't installed the secondary seat stop modification? The same danger probably also exists with the SID. As long as you don't let others fly your aircraft, there probably isn't much danger but as soon as you do (even for no charge), you might be at risk. Any opinions with regard to this mod? Anyone had their seat slide back since fitting it?

Does it get in the way? Mine is fitted just like to know how people think about it. Re the initial seat stop mod. I would personally not fly a Cessna that did not have this mod. There have been numerous fatal accidents over many years after the seat let go, usually right at rotation, resulting in a loss of control and a crash.

The fact that Cessna is doing the mod for free speaks to how important they think it is. Frankly anybody who does not fit this kit is IMHO, foolish. BPF, The Cessna's that I used to fly in Alberta in the 70s and 80s always had a split-pin through one of the seat-track holes to prevent the seat going too far back.

Inconvenient when getting in and out but much safer. The mechanical stop still has to allow the seat to go far enough back so you can actually physically get into the seat which works OK if you are 6 feet or taller. If you are a 5 foot 2 women then the stop will allow the seat to go far enough back you can't reach any of the flight controls. The latest mod uses a fabric strap and an inertial reel. This allows full for and aft travel of the seat under normal operation but will instantly lock under sudden movement ensuring that no appreciable uncommanded seat movement can occur.

It is IMO the only acceptable mod to address the long standing issue of unwanted seat movement and since Cessna will give you the parts for free and pay for the labour to install it any owner that does not fit it is IMO stupid.