Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 81 to 99 of 99

Thread: Fairbanks FAA Seminar Concerning Destroyed Aircraft

  1. #81
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    The registration expires if not renewed every 3 years.
    FAA then "de-registers" the airplane.
    This seems to be the major cause of de-registered airplanes.
    Sometimes due to carelessness, sometimes due to the airplane being wrecked and then who cares.
    Tail number is then put on hold for 5 years,
    I assume to allow the owner to re-register it if he pulls his head out of you-know-where
    and realizes that he allowed registration to lapse.
    After that 5 years, the tail number is up for grabs.
    I never thought about the airworthiness aspect of this.
    My thought would be that the registration & the A/W certificate are two separate issues,
    but from the previous post I guess the FAA doesn't agree.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!

  2. #82

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    405
    Post Thanks / Like
    The problem many of us are finding is when the registration isnít renewed, or is otherwise canceled, FAA assumes the aircraft was scrapped or destroyed, and then it is a royal pain to get the registration back. In several cases Iíve been involved with, they want the TC holder to confirm that the dataplate is the original one issued, even if the current TC holder isnít the same organization that built the aircraft. This is just ridicules!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks mike mcs repair thanked for this post

  3. #83
    Marty57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nipomo, Ca
    Posts
    1,374
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardtailjohn View Post
    The way I see it, I have a Super Cub project that needs new fuselage and wings... 35+ years ago, this wasn't really worth rebuilding, so the registration and all was let expire. I've gone through all the steps and it now has current registration....but it's history says it was scrapped or lapsed in the past. Now it's well worth rebuilding, but it's going to have to go through an inspector, who chances are, has never seen a PA18 naked, and it's his/her choice to make a decision whether I get to rebuild MY airplane? At the least, this is going to cause me to build an inferior aircraft because it sounds like a huge PIA to replace both at the same time, like I had planned. We're allowed to replace ANY part with a PMA'd or STC'd part, but just not all at one time. What a crock!

    John
    So ...... replace fuselage, logbook shows aircraft returned to service. Two months later, wings damaged and replaced, returned to service. If IA is doing this it's legal, right? Does the FAA actually have to witness a flight when "returned to service"? Catch my drift? If a rebuild takes you a year, maybe you did it in three stages, returned to service for two months between each step. You just flew it at night and no one saw it in the air ..... guess it would work if airworthiness cert never expired.
    Marty
    N367PS
    Psalm 36:7 "High and low among men find refuge in the shadow of His wing"
    www.marty2plus2.com
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  4. #84
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,060
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, it seems that the FAA has again moved the goal post. It is up to us as a group to find the loop hole with the work around. Collectively I'm sure that we can achieve the upper hand.
    N1PA

  5. #85

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like

    Experimental?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_Moyle View Post
    I didnít make it to the meeting. Did speak with a guy who did attend. He came away with the idea that the new regulations were designed to eliminate liability for the manufacturer of the aircraft and that it is to promote sales of new aircraft to replace older aircraft. His opinion was that the FAA is attempting to reduce risk of shoddy workmanship, saying that after rebuilding a totaled aircraft it canít be brought back to the same standard met by the manufacturer and that it canít be re-certified. That it can be moved into the experimental category. So...I asked. If I own a $25,000 certified aircraft and only insure the hull for $25k and it gets totaled by the insurance company because itíll cost more to repair due to the insured Hull value? That I canít rebuild it and keep it certified if the damage costs more than $25k? But if I insured that $25k aircraft for $50k and the repair cost is less than that it can be repaired as a certified aircraft.

    So after talking with him....I read the regulation... doesnít lead me to believe my restoration after the insurance company totaled is effected by this regulation. Didnít see anything about taking a certified aircraft into the experimental category.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    What? What category, amateur built, exhibition, research?? I thought this was exactly what the FAA did not want to happen.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    405
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are no new ďregulationsĒ, only policy in the form of Order 8100.19. The problem I see is that FAA is determining aircraft to be destroyed or scrapped where there was no accident, and no parts were sold as salvage, just that the owner didnít renew the registration. Registration should have nothing to do with airworthiness, other than being a prerequisite to legally operating an aircraft.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes I'm finding this out with the Pacer project I posted about on the other site. Reg denied twice. First time because previous owner checked destroyed. It wasn't wrecked at all, just had a runout motor and 35 year old fabric. He sold it to a guy who wanted the wings for a different project. That guy got sick and passed so I bought the Pacer. FAA reg wanted pics of everything including logs to prove it was not destroyed, I sent them that, denied second time because aircraft was in pieces. Well yes the wings and tail are off, so I'm debating what now? Continue down this path and put it together and certainly face further denials and hassles? How much $$ should you put into a plane with no paper work?
    I think everyone can see they want these aircraft off the books for good and will make it increasingly difficult to legally repair/restore them.
    Thanks Airhutch, mike mcs repair thanked for this post

  8. #88

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    405
    Post Thanks / Like
    At some point it will take a class action suit against FAA to fix it. This all got started back in 2010 when registrations expired.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Thanks windy thanked for this post
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Elizabeth, WV
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Sometimes we create the problem. Case 1, C170 cartwheeled on takeoff. Owner Flubb sold the wreck to 170 Expert who took 4 years repairing the airframe and engine but ignored the paperwork. After 3 1/2 years Flubb happened to look up his old airplane on the web and found it still registered to him. Fearing something wonky was going on and he might get dragged into a lawsuit, he wrote the FAA a letter and deregistered the aircraft as destroyed. If Flubb would have filled out the back of the registration and mailed it in like he was supposed to when he sold the plane or if the Expert would have taken care of the registration when he bought it there wouldn't have been a problem. Case 2, Freezerburn sold his experimental to Gotrocks who kept it in his garage for two years and didn't register it. Why he would have had to pay a few dollars personal property tax to his home state if he registered it. And he lost the bill of sale. But the chance came to make a few dollars so he sold it to Cheapo who put it in his garage for two more years. He didn't want to pay Personal Property tax either. In the meantime Freezerburn passed away so there won't be another bill of sale unless it's forged in a dead man's name. Now Cheapo wants to drag this thing out, get a condition inspection, pay his taxes, and fly. Cheap bastard, I'm not gonna help fix this mess. I got better things to do.
    You can't get there from here. You have to go over yonder and start from there.

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    That's funny! I think I agree with you!

    Still, there ought to be some enlightenment back at 800 Independence. Those guys need to come fly Cubs and slow down a bit on the ACs and Orders.
    Thanks mike mcs repair thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  11. #91

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    405
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by N86250 View Post
    Sometimes we create the problem. Case 1, C170 cartwheeled on takeoff. Owner Flubb sold the wreck to 170 Expert who took 4 years repairing the airframe and engine but ignored the paperwork. After 3 1/2 years Flubb happened to look up his old airplane on the web and found it still registered to him. Fearing something wonky was going on and he might get dragged into a lawsuit, he wrote the FAA a letter and deregistered the aircraft as destroyed. If Flubb would have filled out the back of the registration and mailed it in like he was supposed to when he sold the plane or if the Expert would have taken care of the registration when he bought it there wouldn't have been a problem. Case 2, Freezerburn sold his experimental to Gotrocks who kept it in his garage for two years and didn't register it. Why he would have had to pay a few dollars personal property tax to his home state if he registered it. And he lost the bill of sale. But the chance came to make a few dollars so he sold it to Cheapo who put it in his garage for two more years. He didn't want to pay Personal Property tax either. In the meantime Freezerburn passed away so there won't be another bill of sale unless it's forged in a dead man's name. Now Cheapo wants to drag this thing out, get a condition inspection, pay his taxes, and fly. Cheap bastard, I'm not gonna help fix this mess. I got better things to do.
    And that was the way aircraft transactions took place prior to 2010. Since the time limit on registrations was put in place, theyíve come up with all these new policies that donít make a lot of sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Likes mike mcs repair, Hardtailjohn liked this post

  12. #92
    wireweinie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    2,398
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dgapilot View Post
    At some point it will take a class action suit against FAA to fix it. This all got started back in 2010 when registrations expired.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    How about a class action suite to force them to abide by the FAR's.

    Web
    Life's tough . . . wear a cup.

  13. #93
    BC12D-4-85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK.
    Posts
    1,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Note these earlier concerns from the FAA about destroyed aircraft and Data Plates.

    https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cer...nt_seminar.pdf See page 21 on.

    Gary

  14. #94

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yeah, what about data plates? About half the J3s lose their baggage doors during restoration - dad dies, mama and the kids throw out the rotten wood and sell what is left.

    An engine case goes to a rebuilder, who blasts the data plate beyond recognition - or, Divco says case is no good; get another. Data plate in the trash; logs all the way back to Mobile.

    Twice in my short life I have gotten FSDO letters to reproduce data plates. I understand I have been very lucky; now no data plate means no aircraft.
    Thanks TCE thanked for this post
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  15. #95
    Hardtailjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Marion, MT
    Posts
    681
    Post Thanks / Like
    What a crock......

  16. #96
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,060
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by bob turner View Post
    Yeah, what about data plates? About half the J3s lose their baggage doors during restoration - dad dies, mama and the kids throw out the rotten wood and sell what is left.

    Twice in my short life I have gotten FSDO letters to reproduce data plates. I understand I have been very lucky; now no data plate means no aircraft.
    Mums the word!
    https://www.wagaero.com/data-placard...for-piper.html
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	h-812-200.png 
Views:	41 
Size:	156.0 KB 
ID:	43117
    N1PA

  17. #97

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    That same tag can be had from Walmart for $19.95.

    Found a gorgeous brass Continental repro for $75. Noel Allard's Cub tags are $75, but you need a letter from the FSDO for even a blank.

    Interesting.

  18. #98

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    67
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder if the ACO office or DER will want engineering data with a repair plan? That could get really expensive.
    How about I submit>
    1) replace wing with serviceable wing.
    2) Sandblast and inspect airframe, replace any corroded tubes, prime/paint.
    3) Recover complete aircraft with ceconite process.
    4) Replace engine/prop with serviceable.
    5) weigh aircraft.
    6) inspect IAW annual inspection procedure.
    That's my plan.


    https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/news-and-...ircraft-Policy

    Clarification on FAA Destroyed Aircraft Policy

    December 20, 2018 - EAA sought and received clarification on a recent FAA order that caused concern for some aviators, particularly in Alaska, that restorations of salvage airplanes and similar aircraft would be nearly impossible under the new agency policy.
    EAA government advocacy team members talked directly with the authors of Order 8100.19, Destroyed and Scrapped Aircraft, which was issued without a public comment period this fall. The order was written because of FAA findings that some restorations of salvaged or destroyed aircraft did not meet type certification specifications and, as such, could not be registered as type-certificated aircraft. This caused concern that certain restorations that involve significant rebuilding of the aircraft would be impossible.
    “True ‘data-plate restoration,’ where no part of the original aircraft is incorporated in a rebuilding project, has always run afoul of FAR 45.13, which states that a data plate may only be placed on the original aircraft, and FAR 47.41 states that registration is terminated when an aircraft is ‘completely destroyed,’” said Tom Charpentier, EAA government relations director. “However, the order’s authors do give a generous berth to the definition of completely destroyed, as any part of the primary structure — such as fuselage, wings, and tail — that is still salvageable can be defined as an aircraft that can be rebuilt. The intent is to prevent restoration only when there is truly nothing left of the original airframe other than the data plate.”
    The FAA order potentially adds paperwork to the restoration/repair process, but prevents only those restorations that were already against FAR 45.13.
    “We asked whether a restoration of a decades-old derelict aircraft, as is common in the vintage and warbird communities, would be allowed under the new order,” Charpentier said. “We were assured that these types of projects could be approved under this new policy, as long as some repairable parts of the previously airworthy structure survive.”
    While EAA expressed disappointment that the order was issued without a public comment period, FAA officials noted that an advisory circular as a companion to the order will be open for public comment in the coming months.

    EAA advocacy staff will continue to monitor this issue for any changes or necessary actions by EAA members.
    Thanks mike mcs repair thanked for this post
    Likes Hardtailjohn liked this post

  19. #99

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    6,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder how one would prove that, say, the tailfeathers are actually from that specific aircraft? I bought a trio of fuselages with paperwork in the early 1970s, and two of those fuselages are close to flying under one data plate. I have no idea which paperwork the tail feathers belong to.

Similar Threads

  1. The Almost Annual Supercub Seminar, Fairbanks Jan 24!
    By tamarack in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-29-2015, 03:40 AM
  2. Fairbanks Supercub Seminar 2/23
    By tamarack in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-25-2013, 10:20 AM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •