• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Fairbanks FAA Seminar Concerning Destroyed Aircraft

sj

Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
Copied from Facebook

Heads up to all mechanics, shops and backcountry pilots. We recieved word that the FAAST (FAA Safety Team) is hosting a seminar at UAF in Fairbanks on Friday, January 25th. One of the topics that will be covered is concerning a new piece of regulation that has just been released concerning “destroyed aircraft.” The details of these new rules are outlined in FAA order 8100.19, which I have included a link to at the bottom of this. It contains some phraseology and limitations on aircraft repair that could heavily affect operations and general aviation in Alaska. The author of this FAA order will be giving a presentation at the seminar, and I’m hoping this will give a little more clarity to how they plan to make these determinations, who will have final say, how the process will be initiated/followed through with, and who will be in charge of enforcement.

The basic premise is that the FAA is trying to come up with (and essentially has already issued) a method for determining when an aircraft is damaged to a certain degree that the aircraft can no longer be “repaired” and the data tag must be surrendered to the FAA or sent back to the original manufacturer for “rebuild” (which in our case, most of these original manufacturer’s either no longer exist, or no longer support the models in question). In many cases for super-cub type aircraft, this would result in permanent deregistration of the aircraft in question. These permanent casualties to such a small pool of registered aircraft will no doubt have negative implications long-term in Alaska.
The document can be found here:
https://www.faa.gov/documentL…/…/Order/FAA_Order_8100.19.pdf


 
It won’t only impact AK, but the entire antique fleet. It isn’t so much a new rule, but an expanded interpretation of 45.13(b). Typical FAA trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Having the FAA determine when an aircraft is destroyed is a “taking” of ones property. For older aircraft there is little rant can’t be fabricated to repair it. For many designs, there are enough PMA parts, you could replace every part damaged so how could it be considered “destroyed”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Read his bio....thinking...he may be the sort who thinks anyone without a four year degree is an idiot...or may have experience with crapsman...and puts everyone without a BA or BS degree into that category..
I’m one of these people who doesn’t want anyone protecting me from myself...more and more now ah days though....there is an unbelievable number of idiots out there who need that....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
I remember visiting Ezell's in Texas and seeing what they would start with, and what they results would be.

This looks bad.
 
I have sat here tonight and read this whole document. Looks like to me if you have at least one primary structure that is repairable and the rest has to be replaced you are good. They define a primary structure to be a structure that carries flight, ground or pressurization loads. Every wreck I have ever work could be rebuilt using this definition. Problem I see is some self proclaimed expert federal employee will try to interpret this differently.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
Comments should be forwarded via the following Appendix C

10/15/18


8100.19 Appendix C


Appendix C. Directive Feedback Information
Directive Feedback Information


Please submit any written comments or recommendation for improving this directive, or suggest new items or subjects to be added to it. Also, if you find an error, please tell us about it.
Subject: FAA Order 8100.19, Destroyed and Scrapped Aircraft To: 9-AWA-AVS-AIR-DMO@faa.gov or
complete the form online at https://ksn2.faa.gov/avs/dfs/Pages/Home.aspx
Please check all appropriate line items:
An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph _______ on page _______.
Recommend paragraph _______ on page _______ be changed as follows:
In a future change to this AC, please cover the following subject:
(Briefly describe what you want added.)
Other comments:
I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me.
Submitted by: __________________________________ Date: __________________ Telephone Number: __________________ Routing Symbol: _________________

FAA Form 1320-19 (10-98) C-1


 
I think Dave is on the right track. You own that data plate, and they cannot take it from you without notice and a hearing, and just compensation. Do not just give it to them.
 
what's not repairable to one mechanic's view is EASILY repairable in another view... wing ripped of? OK, reattach it with a couple chances of angle iron(for ferry flight).... 4 bent spars = 4.5 hours a wing to swap out + parts(to the point the new spars are installed, more normal work to follow)... its all about if you know what's really hurt...

c. 14 CFR § 47.41(b)(2) does not specify who makes the determination that an aircraft is destroyed or scrapped. Typically, a knowledgeable party makes such a determination with the concurrence of the registered owner. Whether an aircraft is destroyed or scrapped, however, is a function of the actual condition of the aircraft. The determination by an FAA or NTSB accidentinvestigator that an aircraft is “destroyed” is a determination based on that individual’sknowledge, expertise, and judgment. The determination that an aircraft is destroyed may be refuted by evidence submitted by an owner that the aircraft is repairable.
 
what's not repairable to one mechanic's view is EASILY repairable in another view... wing ripped of? OK, reattach it with a couple chances of angle iron(for ferry flight).... 4 bent spars = 4.5 hours a wing to swap out + parts(to the point the new spars are installed, more normal work to follow)... its all about if you know what's really hurt...

So, Mike, in your spare time you could be an expert witness refuting the less knowledgeable individuals sent out to who knows where. But make sure you get paid in advance if a lawyer is hiring ;).
 
??????????????????????????=If a lawyer is hiring you to argue if his plane is totaled or not with some FAAers get some cash in advance. There will be lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
????????????????

Sorry....
tempdoug has one scenario I was thinking of. Another is simply this: a guy has a treasured airplane that suffered a wreck. Along comes Mr. "FAA or NTSB accident investigator" who, based upon his "knowledge, expertise, and judgment" says this airplane is unrepairable.

But this determination may be refuted by evidence submitted by an owner. Enter expert witness who repairs these things all the time....

The lawyer part was sort of a joke. Whenever I had to hire an expert, they wanted a retainer in advance.
 
Sorry....
tempdoug has one scenario I was thinking of. Another is simply this: a guy has a treasured airplane that suffered a wreck. Along comes Mr. "FAA or NTSB accident investigator" who, based upon his "knowledge, expertise, and judgment" says this airplane is unrepairable.

But this determination may be refuted by evidence submitted by an owner. Enter expert witness who repairs these things all the time....

The lawyer part was sort of a joke. Whenever I had to hire an expert, they wanted a retainer in advance.


still ??????
 
Sooooooo I have seen half of the tubes of a fuselage replaced. Not cost effective but it can be done. Get a tail section and top deck, few other parts, some time in the jig and you can say the fuselage was not replaced. This is one of the things we need APOA and whoever wants to win the next election to get involved with. So start calling, texting, etc now!!
DENNY
 
This is the IA (renewal) Seminar in Fairbanks. The FAA is going after the “logbooks with a data plate” salesman... Some have built up aircraft and sold them to unsuspecting buyers. I don’t see this impacting the legitimate rebuilders. This is aimed at the shysters out there...
 
I'm in mike mcs's camp. Most every plane can be rebuilt. Both he and I have seen and participated in some extensively patched up "ferry" flights. One issue that I see here is that an insurance company usually makes it's decision based on the $$ cost to them of repairing or calling it "totaled". If the Ins. company "totals" it, they pay off the owner and sell the salvage which may be just to a scrap yard. The owner may be a person who is all thumbs when it comes to being at all mechanically inclined so in his mind it is totaled. Somewhere in this process someone "declares" that it is scrapped, informs the FAA, throws away the data plate and log books, leaving a perfectly good rebuildable wreck without a good paper trail. Then along comes mike licking his chops at an easy rebuild project with the exception that some uniformed person or groups of persons have thrown away the vital data plate and paper work. Mike then looses an opportunity to turn a few bucks and the aviation community looses out on a nice airplane. This is particularly important in these times when a new airplane usually starts in the high $200,000 price range.
 
Did any of you actually read the document? It doesn’t look like news to me. Just lots and lots of words that pretty much restate what we already knew. I saw more info about how to challenge a destroyed aircraft determination and return a plane to service than I expected.
 
It seems to be one more step in the process of purging “old airplanes” out of the fleet. FAA started with the re-registration BS back around 2010. Next they come up with AC43-18 trying to make it sound like an A&P can’t fabricate parts for a repair. Various revisions of Order 8130.2 have tightened the reins on data plate replacements. Now this Order giving “guidance” on returning the registration that is not contained in the rule.

All mechanics should be incensed over the words in paragraph 1(e) in that FAA is blatantly stating that we as A&Ps don’t do our jobs correctly!

Paragraph 1(g) tasks FAA with “reviewing details of repair data to ensure that it produces a structurally and operational safe aircraft”. While I’ve known a number of very good, knowledgeable, and competent Inspectors, I’ve unfortunately seen many others that have no idea about general aviation aircraft. This has some serious implications.

All that said, I think this has come about due to a few bad actors, combined with the proliferation of “replacement data plates” on eBay and other outlets. I’ve seen more than one fraudulent data plate on an airplane or engine, and we, as an industry need to police ourselves when it comes to the “bad actors”. FAA has caused much of this with their policies on replacement data plates, and I’ve made multiple suggestions via directive feedback to 8130.2, but it has constantly fallen on deaf ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Are we talking about Cubs? A model with a choice of approved STC-PMA replacement airframes and other essential parts? In reading the document all I see is opportunity and definitions of how to play the game. If you ‘re thinking metal airplanes? The rules may apply differently.

Yep... loving the experimental category!
 
Are we talking about Cubs? A model with a choice of approved STC-PMA replacement airframes and other essential parts? In reading the document all I see is opportunity and definitions of how to play the game. If you ‘re thinking metal airplanes? The rules may apply differently.

Yep... loving the experimental category!

They are talking all airplanes.

Be careful with your “Experimental” airplanes. There are different “Purposes” for Experimental airplanes and you are limited to operating that airplane ONLY for the purpose on the certificate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The clip in the original post-
In many cases for super-cub type aircraft, this would result in permanent deregistration of the aircraft in question. These permanent casualties to such a small pool of registered aircraft will no doubt have negative implications long-term in Alaska.

Now read the document. As long as the data tag wasn't destroyed by the FAA? The plane can be resurrected. The document tells us how. And that's only if the registration was officially classified as "destroyed". Not many of us would get to that point

I'm pretty comfy with what my experimental's limitations are. I need to work on the pilot's limitations or the plane will get bored! ;)
 
….. Typical FAA trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.....

I think that is their new mandate.
I see this every time we see another phase of the plans for the big runway project the FAA is pushing for my airport.
A total reconstruction, to the tune of over $4M...when everyone who uses it thinks it's just fine, at least for now.
The latest BS is that the midfield connector leading right onto the one-way "in" taxiway to the ramp doesn't meet the new FAA standard--
"somebody might accidently taxi right out onto the runway and cause an accident".
Options include simply off-setting the connector a bit, or leaving the connector as is and tearing up part of the in taxiway & rebuilding it with an offset, or leaving the connector and relocating the entire in taxiway.
All are solutions in search of a problem, which actually cause bigger problems--
they're all disasters waiting to happen with regards to negotiating your way on a dark night on these unlighted taxiways.
We just sat through a big 2 hour meeting last night with the Port & their consultant,
my tongue is just about bit clean through from trying to keep myself from calling them all a bunch of idiots.
OK, sorry for the thread-jacking, back to your normal programming....
 
The clip in the original post-

Now read the document. As long as the data tag wasn't destroyed by the FAA? The plane can be resurrected. The document tells us how. And that's only if the registration was officially classified as "destroyed". Not many of us would get to that point

I'm pretty comfy with what my experimental's limitations are. I need to work on the pilot's limitations or the plane will get bored! ;)

I’ve already seen a couple cases where the data plate is original and intact, but the registration expired and a new owner has the airplane. Before FAA would issue a registration, the owner had to prove that an actual “airworthy” airplane exists, not just the parts to restore the airplane, but the complete ready to fly airplane!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jim Richmond went around buying paperwork and data plates for years. Then he discovered the Spares and Surplus reg. Now the Feds shut that down. Airplanes are falling out of the skies because of any of this. Someone wants to justify their job? I have no idea. There are plenty of regs to hand someone on for a POS rebuild. The good thing is that this shows me a work around on this witch Hunt.
 
there is a positive though, hopefully it keeps alot of the citations, kingairs, lears, boeings etc from ever returning.
 
Half as many of us and five times as many of them - they have to do something . . .

Don't get me started on runway widths and taxiway realignments. Truly stupid stuff.

We are spraying herbicide this week. Airport officials said it was FAA mandated, but the biologist told me it was to eradicate the invasive Gazanias.
 
Back
Top