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.

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

"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

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

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

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