Editorial

Cessna Aircraft has launched a noteworthy "safety enhancement" program aimed at the vast fleet of single-engine Cessnas and the pilots who fly them. Details of the program already have been reported, but by way of a brief review, Cessna has developed a curriculum for pilot proficiency training that is being offered through Cessna Pilot Centers. The manufacturer also has identified several modifications for Cessna singles that, in its view, would help to reduce accidents and injuries. Cessna even goes so far as to say that, if the safety record for the Cessna single-engine fleet improves as a result of the program, it will be incentive for the company to restart production of its lightplane line. Service bulletins (SBs) explaining the modifications already are being sent to owners.

The pilot-training side of Cessna's safety program takes the form of an enhanced biennial flight review for VFR pilots and an instrument competency check for IFR-rated pilots. (An IFR pilot can accomplish both, if desired.) The review is a full court press on measuring and polishing skills and proficiency. A pilot needing a BFR, for example, would begin with a so-called diagnostic test covering eight subject areas. Then it's on to watching a 30-minute videotape review of VFR safety topics. A pilot needing an instrument competency check also would watch a 20-minute tape covering IFR-specific information.

Next, an instructor would provide the student with Cessna Pilot Center instructional materials that address areas where the pilot tested weak. The final step in the proficiency review is a flight review in an airplane or simulator.

Obviously, Cessna's pilot safety reviews sound thorough and rigorous. Much more so, in fact, than the enhanced biennial proposed by the FAA as an alternative to an annual review for non-instrument-rated pilots with fewer than 400 hours.

The second part of the safety enhancement program has to do with mechanical modifications to Cessna singles. Cessna believes that the number of accidents and injuries can be reduced by preventing fuel contamination, making sure that seats don't slip on their tracks, and that occupants have shoulder harnesses to wear. The company has begun to issue SBs addressing those items and will provide kits to perform the modifications. This is no small effort: In the first round of mods, Cessna will issue 87 SB kits, each at less than the manufacturer's cost.

The bulk of the effort is directed at preventing fuel contamination. Cessna is taking a three-pronged approach:

First, the company is urging that flush fuel tank caps be replaced with raised umbrella caps that do a better job of preventing rainwater and other moisture from getting into the tanks through the fuel filler ports.

Second, Cessna owners are asked to install restrictor devices in filler ports to prevent misfueling of piston-powered airplanes with turbine fuel. The restrictors make it difficult to insert a jet fuel nozzle in the filler port.

Third and most significant, Cessna wants airplanes retrofitted with additional quick drains to enable pilots to detect and eliminate water and other contaminants in fuel tanks. In terms of cost, this is the most onerous of the modifications covered in the safety enhancement program. Cessna would like to see quick drains at every corner of each fuel tank. For example, in a 1977 172N, each 27-gallon wing tank has five corners. That means five quick drains per wing, or 10 drains total — wow! Why so many? Modest wing dihedral in combination with a sloping ramp and improperly inflated tires and nosewheel strut may mean that the low spot in the tank where the standard quick drain is located may in fact not be the actual low spot. Water could accumulate in a corner of the tank that can't be checked. The additional quick drains called for in Cessna's SBs address that problem.

Aside from fuel concerns, Cessna wants owners to install secondary stops on pilot seat tracks to prevent the seats from sliding back on takeoff and the pilot losing control of the airplane. One of the most publicized product liability cases in general aviation was a fatal accident in an older 172 in which the pilot's seat suddenly moved back as the airplane rotated and climbed on takeoff.

Finally, Cessna is calling for installation of shoulder harness kits for every seat in the airplane.

Each of the SBs calls for mandatory compliance. But owners of aircraft operated under FAR Part 91 are not legally required to comply with manufacturers' SBs; only airworthiness directives, which the FAA issues, are legally binding. Cessna knows this. The mandatory label on the SBs is simply intended to get the owners' attention.

The SBs mailed to owners in September are just the first of many that could emerge as part of the Cessna safety enhancement program. All Cessna piston singles and twins are fair game.

The program is good in that it identifies potentially vulnerable safety areas. Cost of compliance, however, is an issue, even with Cessna making the modification kits available at below cost. The owner of a 172N will spend about $510 for rear-seat shoulder harnesses and eight additional quick drains, plus the cost of an estimated 31 hours of labor to install them.

It is important to remember that compliance with the SBs is not mandatory. Too many drains can be as bad as too few — it's a daunting task to check 10 drains. On the other hand, a conscientious pilot can effectively check for fuel contamination in a 172N with two drains by making sure the airplane is indeed level. There are problems with some aspects of Cessna's safety enhancement program, but overall, it's a positive step to recognizing easily correctable deficiencies and offering fixes to owners and pilots.