Australia's position on Cessna SIDS

[bnt83]

SID = Supplemental Inspection Document

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/048.pdf <issued on April 7, 2014.

The investigations identified critical areas of principal structural elements (PSEs) on the aircraft that have been proven, through service-life experience, to be susceptible to fatigue or corrosion damage. In many cases these PSEs have not been seen or inspected since the aircraft was manufactured as long as 40 years ago or more.
The SIDs programs, successively developed by Cessna for all 400, 300, 200 and 100 series aircraft, provide an inspection regime to ensure the structural integrity of the airframe is maintained. These supplemental inspections complement those inspections undertaken during existing scheduled maintenance activities, as the failure of such PSEs could result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft.
In addition, the SIDs also introduce fixed retirement lives for each aircraft model series, beyond which the continued airworthiness of the aircraft can no longer be assured (refer to the applicable SIDs for the relevant Cessna aircraft series).

 

[Jim Logajan]

I'm no legal expert, but it's my understanding that the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 was implemented to fix/heavily limit an aircraft manufacturer's liability on an aircraft older than 18 years. It's also my understand that the act was the primary reason that small ga aircraft manufacturing started again. Your statements seem to directly conflict with that Act. Is the GARA not effective or were you not taking that into account?

There's certainly liability when anyone touches these older aircraft. But what sort of liability exists for Cessna on a 50 year old Cessna 172 at this point? How is that addressed or not addressed by the GARA of 1994?

Australia and New Zealand probably have no equivalent of GARA and, possibly more importantly, never had the aviation or political environment that spawned it in the U.S.

Cessna would presumably be more exposed down under than here in the States, thanks to GARA.

I can't see U.S. lawyers promoting the same thing here because it gains them nothing. I can't see it helping Cessna all that much because they already got GARA. Can't see any group in the U.S. with a strong motivation to push application of this in the States. Pushback from aircraft owners, on the other hand, would be huge (relatively speaking.)

I'm not a lawyer, but it's easy to see how a "creative" lawyer can circumvent GARA.

http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/53m-awarded-in-crash-of-a-cessna-150/

One other reference to this case seems to indicate that the carburetor was relatively new. Probably under the 18 year statute of repose.

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2002/03/11/daily50.html

The accident in question happened pre-GARA.

http://mvgazette.com/news/2012/04/0...ds-abruptly-settlements?k=vg534b460adffb6&r=1

Kind of tricky here - the alleged failure involved seat rails installed in 3 years prior to the crash, so not covered by GARA's 18 year limitation.

http://www.mynews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2014/3/26/plane_parts_in_lawsu.html

I didn't see any dates indicating the age of the airplane or the allegedly faulty autopilot when the crash took place, so it isn't clear whether GARA is applicable.

And many, many more. Just google and you will see the manufacturers are still under attack by the trial lawyers.

As far as I can tell, if a part is "new" but the lawyer can convince the court that it had a design defect that caused an accident, then GARA doesn't seem to help the manufacturer escape liability.