N numbers for crashed aircraft

[JJ]

Is there anyplace on the web where one can find the N numbers of
commercial airliners that have crashed over the past several years? I
have looked over the FAA site but either I don't know where to look or
it isn't there.
Also, does the FAA reissue N numbers for aircraft that have crashed or
are those numbers retired?

Thanks in advance.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
JJ > wrote:

> Is there anyplace on the web where one can find the N numbers of
> commercial airliners that have crashed over the past several years? I
> have looked over the FAA site but either I don't know where to look or
> it isn't there.

That would be difficult.


> Also, does the FAA reissue N numbers for aircraft that have crashed or
> are those numbers retired?


Yes -- a number that existed on, say, a Swift in 1950 may now reside on
a B747.

[Stephen McNaught]

On a side note; there are some tail numbers that I would insist on never
having, if you look at the history of the various airplanes that have had
them. I think some numbers just might be jinxed.

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

>
>
> Yes -- a number that existed on, say, a Swift in 1950 may now reside on
> a B747.

[TGM]

Do a search on the NTSB's website - http://www.ntsb.gov

Tom

[Stephen McNaught]

No, I mean some numbers that seem to have a history that go through multiple
airplanes. When each airplane is assigned that number, it has several
accidents that eventually end up with a totaled airplane. I think that in
many cases, it might be that usage of a particular model of aircraft is more
"likely" to have an incident or accident, and may be part of the reason. For
example training aircraft may have more accidents/incidents. If they keep
assigning the number to airplanes (say a 172) that end up being used for
training, then they "may" have more accidents. However, I think some seem
like they are jinxed, as having multiple incidents/accidents not related to
any training activity, with different airplanes and owners that end up with
the same tail number over time.

Having said all that, I'm not really all that superstitious. It was mainly
an observation of some tail numbers.

- Steve

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen McNaught" > wrote
>
> > On a side note; there are some tail numbers that I would insist on
never
> >having, if you look at the history of the various airplanes that have had
> >them. I think some numbers just might be jinxed.
>
> You mean ones with "13" in them?
>