New law for older airplanes?

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

"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?

"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

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

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

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.

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.

(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)

"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)

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