https://support.cessna.com/custsupt/con ... s_id=52364

Now the Cessna guys can have their sphincter pucker in turbulence like this Piper driver.

My $0.02:
1) Predictable knee-jerk reaction to the recent crash in Australia, viewtopic.php?f=41&t=168318

2) Textron seems to love eddy current inspection. Not sure why a detailed visual and dye-penetrant inspection isn’t adequate, but they seem to default to eddy current lately.

3) The FAA can now follow with an emergency AD, which will be totally unnecessary for 210s operated normally.

4) This subject airplane was abused to failure. There have certainly been 210s ripped apart by thunderstorms, and structural failures (shedding wings) from overspeeding. Yet this is probably the first failure of the wing spar carry through in a Centurion or Cardinal.

5) The geniuses running this operation in Australia were totally abusing that airframe, six thousand hours of bumping around at wide-open-throttle and 200' AGL with a wing-over at every course reversal does not reflect the normal use conops for a 210. Plus they added tip extensions (more span, higher bending load) and the tail stinger. Maybe a DC-3 can take such abuse. Certainly ag spray airplanes are built for that, dunno if they have life-limited airframes as a result.

End of rant. My $0.02, worth what you paid for it... or maybe even less. (no part of this rant is directed at Steve Frost, the OP)

I think your "rant" is spot on. The accident aircraft was an outlier due to how it was used/flown.

Some good info and discussion about it over at cessna-pilots.net/forums.

Not really an issue for the 177, which is my interest.

For an aircraft not subject to severe use it doesn’t apply until 15,000 hours. I have 10,500 up my sleeve. Doubt many cardinals used privately would be anywhere near 15000tt.

More of a concern for 210’s as it applies after 4000tt

For the 177, Cessna says under "typical" use the inspection is due at 15,000 hours. My plane has 5,000 hours and 40+ years so the inspection will be due in about 80 more years. For "severe" usage they recommend inspection at 2,500 hours, which in my opinion is quite generous. I haven't look at the 210 SEL.

Vince

From the Mandatory Service Letter SEL-57-06 Page 4:

Item 6. (RefertoFigure1,Sheets1-3.) Use a 10X magnification lens to do a detailed visual inspection of the carry-thru spar for corrosion with particular attention to the locations as follows:
-Where support wires in the air duct contact the structure.
-Where upholstery pads contact the spar.

I think I read a post recently on BT about corrosion in Bonanzas or Barons possibly occurring near air vents. Does anyone remember that?

Any word from any STC holders on if there is a different hour requirement to inspect the 210. I wonder how they could calculate if VG’s made a difference in bending load. The extended tips and tip fuel will but at different times and different rates depending on use of the fuel.
Also missions with heavy cabin light fuel vs light cabin and heavy fuel makes for different stresses. Similar to the 402 vs 421 typical use.

I think corrosion would be a bigger factor in the Cardinal. The old CAT hose material and wires in the ducts can rub against the spar or corrode against it.

I heard there may be an update on this SB coming from Textron, does anyone have any details?

If anyone has technical questions about this issue, call Paul New at Tennessee Aircraft. He has more experience with this model than anyone.
I've been getting a lot of calls lately about this, but I'm short on experience. Call Paul. He is to Cessna 210s what Biggs is to Bonanzas.

Paul posted on another site that of the 100+ 210 spars inspected with eddy current, 11 have failed. That's a pretty high percentage.

Vince

What was the history of the planes that he tested? My guess is high time planes with high turbulence history.

Those spars that was rejected after inspection, was due to corrosion.
On the earlier 210's, Cessna and interior re-fitters glued the bumping pad underneath the spar with some special glue.
That glue+humidity didn't go too well.

So when owners are now removing this pad, scraping off the old glue, they find a pitted spar.
After sanding it clean, the corrosion pits are measured and sent to Cessna for a technical evaluation. Some are approved, some not.

The later N&R models had a treated spar from the factory, and the pad were normally just taped to the spar. No glue.
Very few issues with these aircrafts.

I see the spar issue as two fold:
- Corrosion leading to pits that can lead to spar destruction
- Aircraft use outside off normal envelope (Australian miss-use)

Either way, its good to have these Spars checked, but the Cessna/FAA dramatic emergency AD stuff is a bit overkill.
I think the ones that should consider this an Emergency notice is the Australian 210 operator.
Cant be long before the next one goes in with the abuse these spars are subjected to (longer wing+heavy turbulence at high speed)

Data point: none of the 177 series had foam attached to the spar. We have had some problems with the black CAT tubing (used for cabin air) causing corrosion to the spar where it went through the lightning holes of the spar. The paper of the CAT tubing absorbing moisture from outside air.

Vince

New owner brought a high time 177 to the shop on the field for inspection. It failed due to corrosion. 15K+ hours traffic patrol for radio stations. Corrosion from the CAT hoses against the spar and not through the lightening holes caused deep pitting. It was not a coastal airplane.

I had not seen a 177 with total time this high. But most of the hours would be loiter slow speed I believe.

Too bad because the corrosion from CAT hose is very preventable. There is quite a mix of carry throughs with some painted, some left bare from the factory, 210 with the foam pad glued on or without and 177 with CAT hoses remaining or changed to SCAT with some padding. Plus some with Corrosion X or ACF-50 applied during their life. I don’t see any other way than at least a visual inspection with the headliner down to take a look to verify what you have regardless of total time, year, locations, use.

Actually, Paul said that 11 had corrosion pitting beyond the limit but none of them had any cracks.