New law for older airplanes?

"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

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

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

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?

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.

"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

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/air...ingBooklet.pdf

I know of no "law" that will affect anything germane..... other than
those seeking STC approval.....

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

"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?

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.