New law for older airplanes?

[Jim B]

How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
of planes older than 25 years affect our flying? It seems that having to
tear
them down to that extent and perform those inspections on the spars on
the wings and the tail surfaces is going to be very expensive. Also having
to scrap airframes after 15,000 hours just is a waste. Many airplanes
are still in very good condition at this time. I've heard this is being
pushed
heavily by the new airplane manufactures.

Jim

[Ron Natalie]

"Jim B" > wrote in message ...
> How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> of planes older than 25 years affect our flying?

What law is this?

[Elwood Dowd]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Jim B" > wrote in message ...
>
>>How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
>>of planes older than 25 years affect our flying?
>
> What law is this?


It's the troll law. It says that anytime people start actually agreeing
on anything it must be time to throw a total red herring into the mix.

[AirHead]

I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new planes
aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit the
life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.


"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > "Jim B" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> >>of planes older than 25 years affect our flying?
> >
> > What law is this?
>
>
> It's the troll law. It says that anytime people start actually agreeing
> on anything it must be time to throw a total red herring into the mix.
>

[dutch]

Yeah, I heard that you will have to remove the skin every 5 years and
magnaflux the ribs and spars for cracks. But I heard that you can re-attach
the skin and fly with Clecos to make it easier the next time. Cuts the
speed a little, but what else can you expect from a 25 year old airplane.


"Jim B" > wrote in message
...
> How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> of planes older than 25 years affect our flying? It seems that having to
> tear
> them down to that extent and perform those inspections on the spars on
> the wings and the tail surfaces is going to be very expensive. Also having
> to scrap airframes after 15,000 hours just is a waste. Many airplanes
> are still in very good condition at this time. I've heard this is being
> pushed
> heavily by the new airplane manufactures.
>
> Jim
>
>

[Pepperoni]

"AirHead" > wrote in message
.. .
> I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new planes
> aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit
the
> life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.
>


I think that what you are referring too, is the Limits of Liability of the
original manufacturers. Should Piper or Cessna be liable if a 40 year old
airframe fails? (or mebbe/ coulda/ possibly. failed) If the builder's
liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in litigation
would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)

Pepperoni

[Jim Burns]

Haven't heard anything about it. Sounds ridiculous. (and I have to respond
just so nobody thinks that I actually posted something so bizzare.)
Jim Burns

"Jim B" > wrote in message
...
> How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> of planes older than 25 years affect our flying? It seems that having to
> tear
> them down to that extent and perform those inspections on the spars on
> the wings and the tail surfaces is going to be very expensive. Also having
> to scrap airframes after 15,000 hours just is a waste. Many airplanes
> are still in very good condition at this time. I've heard this is being
> pushed
> heavily by the new airplane manufactures.
>
> Jim
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Pepperoni wrote:
>
> If the builder's
> liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in litigation
> would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)

The current cap is 18 years. Why would increasing it to 25 years save money on
litigation?

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[JimB]

No. This is not liability limits. It's intrusive inspections of older
aircraft
designed to get them off the market to try to bolster the sale of
new aircraft. Not unlike the inspections of older cars designed to get them
off the road that
are promoted and supported by the new car manufacturers.




"Pepperoni" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AirHead" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new
planes
> > aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit
> the
> > life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.
> >
>
>
> I think that what you are referring too, is the Limits of Liability of the
> original manufacturers. Should Piper or Cessna be liable if a 40 year
old
> airframe fails? (or mebbe/ coulda/ possibly. failed) If the builder's
> liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in
litigation
> would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)
>
> Pepperoni
>
>

[Dude]

Jim,

I think you may be overreacting to the FAA's recent messages concerning a
program being developed to deal with safety issues in older planes.

I have not seen anything that leads me to believe they intend to start
rolling out stricter mandatory inspections or other regulations at a faster
pace, or to otherwise chage the existing AD/SB system.

While I may be out of the loop, it sounds to me like they intend to come up
with programs that increase education and awareness of issues concerning the
safe operation of these older aircraft. Things like educational materials
and seminars for pilots, mechanics, FBO's, etc.

I am just as paranoid about the government getting in my pocketbook as the
next guy, but until we see that they intend to do something more draconian,
we might as well wait and see.

As for those who smell an airplane manufacturer conspiracy, they should
realize that the only manufacturer with ANY pull that makes little airplanes
is Cessna. The reason they have pull is because they create a lot of jobs
in Kansas. It is my opinion that they could not care less about the piston
plane business, and use all their lobbying efforts over jet issues.

To lobby the government takes money, and no one in the piston plane biz is
making that much money.


"Jim B" > wrote in message
...
> How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> of planes older than 25 years affect our flying? It seems that having to
> tear
> them down to that extent and perform those inspections on the spars on
> the wings and the tail surfaces is going to be very expensive. Also having
> to scrap airframes after 15,000 hours just is a waste. Many airplanes
> are still in very good condition at this time. I've heard this is being
> pushed
> heavily by the new airplane manufactures.
>
> Jim
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Jim B" > wrote in message >...
> How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> of planes older than 25 years affect our flying? It seems that having to
> tear
> them down to that extent and perform those inspections on the spars on
> the wings and the tail surfaces is going to be very expensive. Also having
> to scrap airframes after 15,000 hours just is a waste. Many airplanes
> are still in very good condition at this time. I've heard this is being
> pushed
> heavily by the new airplane manufactures.

The only thing that changes after 25 years is the ability to sue the
manufactor. It doesn't effect the
operation/flying/inspecting/maintenance of the aircraft in anyway.

-Robert

[Otis Winslow]

It's interesting how y'all stick your heads in the sand. Right now the FAA
is in the
process of grounding all firefighting planes that are more than 30yrs old
and what
makes you think GA is far behind. The hightened interest in maintenance of
older planes is a flag going up. Then someone comes on here and makes a
comment
and you eat them alive. Ya better start doing your homework.



"dutch" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Yeah, I heard that you will have to remove the skin every 5 years and
> magnaflux the ribs and spars for cracks. But I heard that you can
re-attach
> the skin and fly with Clecos to make it easier the next time. Cuts the
> speed a little, but what else can you expect from a 25 year old airplane.
>
>
> "Jim B" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
> > of planes older than 25 years affect our flying? It seems that having to
> > tear
> > them down to that extent and perform those inspections on the spars on
> > the wings and the tail surfaces is going to be very expensive. Also
having
> > to scrap airframes after 15,000 hours just is a waste. Many airplanes
> > are still in very good condition at this time. I've heard this is being
> > pushed
> > heavily by the new airplane manufactures.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
>
>

[David Megginson]

Otis Winslow wrote:

> It's interesting how y'all stick your heads in the sand. Right now the
> FAA is in the process of grounding all firefighting planes that are more
> than 30yrs old and what makes you think GA is far behind. The hightened
> interest in maintenance of older planes is a flag going up. Then someone
> comes on here and makes a comment and you eat them alive. Ya better start
> doing your homework.

I get the impression that this whole thread consists of a couple of people
trolling and not catching much. Sorry, guys.


All the best,


David

[Greg Copeland]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 00:18:02 -0400, Pepperoni wrote:

>
> "AirHead" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> I heard about something like this a while back. Apparently the new planes
>> aren't selling all that good and there's some lobbying going on to limit
> the
>> life of the old ones. Maybe that's what it's about.
>>
>
>
> I think that what you are referring too, is the Limits of Liability of the
> original manufacturers. Should Piper or Cessna be liable if a 40 year old
> airframe fails? (or mebbe/ coulda/ possibly. failed) If the builder's
> liability could be capped by statute at 25 years, the savings in litigation
> would be reflected in lower costs for new GA aircraft. (in theory)
>
> Pepperoni

What's the limit on liability for buildings and bridges? What about cars?
Do such parallels even make sense? One expects buildings and bridges to
be around for some time. Are car manufacturers free of liability on
clasic cars?

[JDupre5762]

>As for those who smell an airplane manufacturer conspiracy, they should
>realize that the only manufacturer with ANY pull that makes little airplanes
>is Cessna. The reason they have pull is because they create a lot of jobs

>in Kansas. It is my opinion that they could not care less about the piston
>plane business, and use all their lobbying efforts over jet issues.
>
>To lobby the government takes money, and no one in the piston plane biz is
>making that much money.

Cessna is currently using their ability to write Service Bulletins and to
request a companion Airworthiness Directive to essentially ground all the 400
series Cessna twin engine aircraft due to supposed flaws in the wing spars.
This is similar to the Bulletin and AD route that Beechcraft used to attempt to
put the T-34 Mentor out of the sky. They don't have to lobby anyone.

Cessna cares very much about the piston aircraft business or they wouldn't have
restarted production of a number of the single engine types. However they don't
care to be burdened with 25+ year old aircraft that they have no intention of
building again. I think that they fear that if too many older aircraft are
seen crashing in part due to age then the 18 year liabilitly limit might go
away and they are in trouble everytime a 1970 310 goes belly up.

[Kyler Laird]

"Otis Winslow" > writes:

>> > How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
>> > of planes older than 25 years [...]

>Then someone comes on here and makes a
>comment
>and you eat them alive. Ya better start doing your homework.

I'd like to do my homework. Please post the URL for this "newly
proposed law" of which you're so confident.

Thank you.

--kyler

[Bart D. Hull]

I don't know the specifics but here in Arizona they just grounded all
firefighting planes. What a joke! Just before prime fire season.

News said something about recent accidents but I don't know of any.

Could be the beginning of some real interesting precedents.

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.



Gene Kearns wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:34:05 GMT, Kyler Laird >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Otis Winslow" > writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>How will the newly proposed law regarding the very detailed inspections
>>>>>of planes older than 25 years [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Then someone comes on here and makes a
>>>comment
>>>and you eat them alive. Ya better start doing your homework.
>>>
>>>
>>I'd like to do my homework. Please post the URL for this "newly
>>proposed law" of which you're so confident.
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>--kyler
>>
>>
>
>Methinks thou dost protest too much.....
>
>This is primarily about commercial (135) aircraft:
>Google up: Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee
>(ATSRAC)
>or try http://www.faa.gov/apa/PR/pr.cfm?id=555
>
>Though there is some guidance with respect to GA aircraft:
>http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/aceAgingBooklet.pdf
>
>I know of no "law" that will affect anything germane..... other than
>those seeking STC approval.....
>
>
>

[OtisWinslow]

It affects them if the manufacturer is successful in getting the FAA to
implement ADs that effectively ground them. And there's a pretty
good pattern of that starting. I'm beginning to think that
homebuilts are looking better and better.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message > The only thing that
changes after 25 years is the ability to sue the
> manufactor. It doesn't effect the
> operation/flying/inspecting/maintenance of the aircraft in anyway.
>
> -Robert

[fuji]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
> Otis Winslow wrote:
>
> > It's interesting how y'all stick your heads in the sand. Right now the
> > FAA is in the process of grounding all firefighting planes that are more
> > than 30yrs old and what makes you think GA is far behind. The hightened
> > interest in maintenance of older planes is a flag going up. Then someone
> > comes on here and makes a comment and you eat them alive. Ya better
start
> > doing your homework.
>
> I get the impression that this whole thread consists of a couple of people
> trolling and not catching much. Sorry, guys.
>
> All the best,
>
> David

It's funny how with Canada's stricter maintenance requirements (everything
is like part 135), their way of dealing with older, simple, private aircraft
is to allow them in the owner-maintenance category. Yet the US would ground
them?

[Dude]

> >As for those who smell an airplane manufacturer conspiracy, they should
> >realize that the only manufacturer with ANY pull that makes little
airplanes
> >is Cessna. The reason they have pull is because they create a lot of
jobs
>
> >in Kansas. It is my opinion that they could not care less about the
piston
> >plane business, and use all their lobbying efforts over jet issues.
> >
> >To lobby the government takes money, and no one in the piston plane biz
is
> >making that much money.
>
> Cessna is currently using their ability to write Service Bulletins and to
> request a companion Airworthiness Directive to essentially ground all the
400
> series Cessna twin engine aircraft due to supposed flaws in the wing
spars.
> This is similar to the Bulletin and AD route that Beechcraft used to
attempt to
> put the T-34 Mentor out of the sky. They don't have to lobby anyone.

I have heard this theory, but I don't understand Cessna's motives for
wanting an unnecessary AD. After all, if the planes go away, then no one
will pay for parts anymore. At any rate, this seems a far cry from trying
to make it uneconomical to keep flying older airplanes by getting the FAA to
push extreme regulations. Furthermore, if airplanes get an effective 25
year life limit, the amount people will be willing to pay for them up front
will be diminished. This kind of gov't interference could kill the new
piston plane biz.

>
> Cessna cares very much about the piston aircraft business or they wouldn't
have
> restarted production of a number of the single engine types.

There were extenuating circumstances involving promises to politicians and
bureaucrats that were made in connection with business on the jet side of
the house. As I understand it, they were more or less brow beaten into it.


> care to be burdened with 25+ year old aircraft that they have no intention
of
> building again. I think that they fear that if too many older aircraft
are
> seen crashing in part due to age then the 18 year liabilitly limit might
go
> away and they are in trouble everytime a 1970 310 goes belly up.

I think its a bit hard to believe that they would try and get all the older
planes grounded just to avoid a potential change in a law. As much as I
think Cessna has let us all down by not producing anything truly new in the
piston plane dept. I think they are a more responsible group of folks than
you are suggesting. I do not believe they are making stuff up to ground the
twins. They may be overreacting, but not just making stuff up out of whole
cloth.

[John Galban]

(JDupre5762) wrote in message >...
>
> Cessna is currently using their ability to write Service Bulletins and to
> request a companion Airworthiness Directive to essentially ground all the 400
> series Cessna twin engine aircraft due to supposed flaws in the wing spars.
> This is similar to the Bulletin and AD route that Beechcraft used to attempt to
> put the T-34 Mentor out of the sky. They don't have to lobby anyone.
>

If this was truly Cessna and Beech's intention, wouldn't it have
been easier to just quit making parts? The amount of work to PMA
every part on the aircraft makes it unlikely anyone else would step up
to support them.

In the case of the T-34, I think the spar AD was warranted. They
were actually snapping in aerobatic flight.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[MT]

"Bart D. Hull" > wrote in message >...
> I don't know the specifics but here in Arizona they just grounded all
> firefighting planes. What a joke! Just before prime fire season.
>
> News said something about recent accidents but I don't know of any.
>
> Could be the beginning of some real interesting precedents.
>
> Bart D. Hull
>
> Tempe, Arizona

I don't get the "joke", other than Ariz Gov. Napolitano trying to make
political hay out of this.

The cancellation of the firefighting contracts by the Forest Service
was due to recommendations by the NTSB, released April 23, 2004:

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/040423.htm

These recommendations come after finding of air tanker crashes in
2002.

In summary, there are genuine safety risks in air tanker operation
under the current inspection guidelines. Until an M&I program can be
established to address the rigors of air-drops, I think it is a good
idea to ground the aircraft. As seen in horrific videos from the
2002 crashes, lives are at risk.

Mike

[Dave Stadt]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
m...
> (JDupre5762) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Cessna is currently using their ability to write Service Bulletins and
to
> > request a companion Airworthiness Directive to essentially ground all
the 400
> > series Cessna twin engine aircraft due to supposed flaws in the wing
spars.
> > This is similar to the Bulletin and AD route that Beechcraft used to
attempt to
> > put the T-34 Mentor out of the sky. They don't have to lobby anyone.
> >
>
> If this was truly Cessna and Beech's intention, wouldn't it have
> been easier to just quit making parts? The amount of work to PMA
> every part on the aircraft makes it unlikely anyone else would step up
> to support them.

Cessna hasn't made parts for my airplane in decades yet there are 4,000 of
them still flying. If the demand is there someone will make the parts.


> In the case of the T-34, I think the spar AD was warranted. They
> were actually snapping in aerobatic flight.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Frank Stutzman]

John Galban > wrote:

> If this was truly Cessna and Beech's intention, wouldn't it have
> been easier to just quit making parts?

Obviously you've never pulled out your wallet to buy parts from Raytheon
(Beech). On one of the Bonanza lists recently was someones tale of buying
a rear engine baffle. Had to pay something like $6000 for it, and then
wait 3 months for them to make it. In my mind this is pretty close to
stop making parts.

How doe Raytheon price their parts? They put a dollar sign in front of
the part number.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[fuji]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> Obviously you've never pulled out your wallet to buy parts from Raytheon
> (Beech). On one of the Bonanza lists recently was someones tale of buying
> a rear engine baffle. Had to pay something like $6000 for it, and then
> wait 3 months for them to make it. In my mind this is pretty close to
> stop making parts.
>
> How doe Raytheon price their parts? They put a dollar sign in front of
> the part number.
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR
>

Well *that* explains the new part numbers being longer than the superceded
part numbers.

At least they do free shipping...

fuji
'63 Musketeer owner

[Michael]

(John Galban) wrote
> In the case of the T-34, I think the spar AD was warranted. They
> were actually snapping in aerobatic flight.

The first spar AD may have been warranted - or not. The only planes
that ever snapped a wing in flight were being used by those 'fighter
pilot for a day' operations. No privately owned T-34 ever had a
problem. There is every reason to believe that the planes that lost
wings were being operated well outside the design envelope - rolling
gee has been implicated in every one of the failures.

Also, the second AD is clearly bull****. No T-34 that had the first
AD done has ever had a problem, even in the weekend warrior
operations. The T-34 that crashed in Houston and precipitated the
imposition of the second AD didn't have the first AD done.

Michael