New law for older airplanes?

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

"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?

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.

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.

"AirHead" wrote in message
news
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

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.

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
news
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

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


"AirHead" wrote in message
news
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?

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

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
news
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