Older Jump Planes in FAA’s Sights

[3331 108]

From the USPA Web Site.

The FAA has older airplanes in their sights, and USPA is involved to make sure the right actions are forthcoming. Hosting a conference entitled, “Aging General Aviation Aircraft,” in Kansas City last week, the FAA said it is concerned that the average general aviation aircraft is 35 years old. The agency says it wants to be proactive and prevent accidents due to corrosion and metal fatigue. The FAA is especially concerned with for-hire operations flown for special uses, like skydiving. To make sure the FAA understands skydiving operations, USPA attended the conference with a two-fold message: “First, maintain a high level of safety for skydivers by ensuring continued airworthiness,” said Ed Scott, USPA’s director of government relations. “But also use cost-effective maintenance and reporting strategies that don’t make operations cost-prohibitive and don’t create throw-away airplanes.” USPA has joined the working group that will review for-hire operations.

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[crotalus01 0]

whatever...
the FAA seems to have no problem that the 727s we fly at FedEx were mostly built in the early '60s. i bet one of those puppies going down would cause a hell of a lot more damage than your typical jumpplane.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

the FAA seems to have no problem that the 727s we fly at FedEx were mostly built in the early '60s. i bet one of those puppies going down would cause a hell of a lot more damage than your typical jumpplane.

You kidding? That's exactly what the FAA is thinking. They aren't going after skydiving, they're going after commercially used aging aircraft. Jump planes just happen to fit that category. It's looking like there'll be an alternative for non-commercial planes that the EAA is working on with the FAA, a Vintage registration category.

Aging aircraft is a very real problem that we're facing. Thankfully our aging fleet of jump planes hasn't started falling out of the sky yet, at least no more than over the last 30 years I don't think. But things will be FAR simpler to keep old 182s flying than 727s. Aging wiring in complex aircraft, which basically can't be replaced, is going to cause major problems in the years to come. But 727s have been facing those challenges for a long time already. This is stuff the FAA has been concerned with for a long time.

Dave

[Ron 7]

Quote

whatever...
the FAA seems to have no problem that the 727s we fly at FedEx were mostly built in the early '60s. i bet one of those puppies going down would cause a hell of a lot more damage than your typical jumpplane.

FedEx and other Airlines have a much better MX program than any DZ I have ever been at.

I can see the issue they raise. The fact the mention skydiving by name bothers me a bit.

Still if the MX is done I see no real problem, but MX is something a good number of DZ's lack.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Elisha 1]

TAN: Anyone know when 707s were built (age range) and when they were put out of regular circulation? I remember flying in one sometime in the early to mid 80s.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

TAN: Anyone know when 707s were built (age range) and when they were put out of regular circulation? I remember flying in one sometime in the early to mid 80s

They started flying in the early 50's. I do believe if I remember correctly they stopped production in the late 70's. Not exactly sure when. Just over 1,000 were built. An incrediable airplane for the times. They still built military versions for sometime after that though. Not sure how long. 90's I think.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

FedEx and other Airlines have a much better MX program than any DZ I have ever been at.

I hope so. MX on a A300 is a lot more complicated that an otter. I think what the Fed's are getting concered with is some of the piece of shit planes that some DZ's are operating. The ones who are holdingon by the skin of there teethe and save money by "pencil whipping" MX of having "Jethro repair shop" doing there work for them. Hell are they going after my friends Hawker Sea furry and Corsair also. Thats some WWII stuff there. What exatly are they trying to accomplish here.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[riggerrob 558]

We have already retired two generations of jump planes, now the FAA might be going after a third generation, but don't hold your breath.

The first generation - of jump planes to retire - were 1930s vintage, fabric-covered, single-engine airplanes like Fairchilds, Stintsons, Howards and Norsemen.
The second generation to retire were 1940s vintage twins: Beech 18s, Lodestars and DC-3s. They retired for three reasons. First, the supply of spare parts got short, secondly fewer and fewer mechanics learned how to repair them and thirdly, few DZOs were willing to pay enough to properly maintain them. Maintaining radial engines is a "you can pay me now or you can pay me later" process. DZOs that did not pay crashed Beechs.

Maybe now the FAA is considering "tightening maintenance reporting" for airplanes as old as me (1950s vintage Cessnas). By requiring better reporting methods, the FAA is quietly pushing "shade tree mechanics" out of business, because mechanics who are too lazy to keep paperwork up to date are the same mechanics who are too lazy to clean out dark corners of the airframe to inspect for corrosion.
Frankly, I do not mind if the FAA forces - 1950s vintage - narrow-body Cessnas out of the skydiving business. They have "had their day" but now are too narrow for comfortable tandems. I much prefer the comfort and ease of exit from (1960s vintage) wide-body Cessnas.
Retiring generations of airplanes is a progressive process. Remember that most of the popular turbine-powered jump planes (Porters, Twin Otters, King Airs, Skyvans, etc.) were built in the 1960s. The last Twin Otter was made in the late 1980s, but King Airs are still in production.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

whatever...
the FAA seems to have no problem that the 727s we fly at FedEx were mostly built in the early '60s. i bet one of those puppies going down would cause a hell of a lot more damage than your typical jumpplane.

FedEx and other Airlines have a much better MX program than any DZ I have ever been at.

I can see the issue they raise. The fact the mention skydiving by name bothers me a bit.

Still if the MX is done I see no real problem, but MX is something a good number of DZ's lack.

But at least we wear parachutes...

My Mooney is "older", but it's very well maintained, no maintenance deferred, all wiring can be inspected, modern avionics, relatively new engine and prop (1999), and I expect it to last a whole lot longer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I hope so. MX on a A300 is a lot more complicated that an otter. I think what the Fed's are getting concered with is some of the piece of shit planes that some DZ's are operating. The ones who are holdingon by the skin of there teethe and save money by "pencil whipping" MX of having "Jethro repair shop" doing there work for them.

I agree.

I don't have a problem with getting rid of bad MX'ed planes. I DO have a problem if it is just a blanket "After this date, these year planes are done".

As long as they are taken care of a plane can last a long time.

I even agree that older planes need more care.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[TomSpoon 2]

Quote

whatever...
the FAA seems to have no problem that the 727s we fly at FedEx were mostly built in the early '60s. i bet one of those puppies going down would cause a hell of a lot more damage than your typical jumpplane.

Why do you say that? The FAA specifically requires a special maintenance program for older A/C flown under part 121.(older would be 45000 cycles for a 727]

Ref; FAR 121.370

[Praetorian 1]

Look at the B-52, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that most DZs can afford the kind of up keep a super old plan needs, nor nocking how hard the airforce guys(and gals) work to keep those old buzzards dropping bombs... just saying with proper care a well built plane can fly A LONG LONG time

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[Eule 0]

A couple of ideas...

"Follow the money." I bet all the manufacturers, from Cessna and Piper right up to Boeing and Airbus,
would cry for exactly zero seconds if it became illegal to fly an aircraft older than X years. They might
cry for one second if it can at least be made economically impossible to fly an aircraft older than X years
(like requiring a complete teardown and inspection every 100 hours).

I agree that with regular maintenance and inspection, most anything mechanical can be made to last as
long as you want it to. I've owned, driven, or ridden in 15-year-old cars that I wouldn't hesitate to
drive from New York to LA, and I've driven and ridden in 3-year-old cars that I wouldn't trust to get
me down to the hamburger stand and back. Cars built since about 1980 or 1985 that are operated
where the roads aren't salted in the winter basically don't rust. I think that most US states that salt
the roads extensively also have required vehicle inspections where the condition of the body and/or
frame is one of the things they are looking at. I know rust in structural members is part of the UK
vehicle inspection (MoT) and I think it's part of the German vehicle inspection (TUeV).

As far as I know, a lot of corrosion on small planes is still detected by the Mk1 eyeball. But I also think
fancier non-destructive testing techniques have gotten more prevalent and a bit cheaper in the past
several years. If some of the inspections can be turned into "wave the probe down the rivet line"
instead of "tear apart and inspect", they might get done more often.

riggerrob made an interesting point about retiring different generations of jump planes. I guess this
is a ways off, but wasn't there a period of time when legal costs basically stopped the production of
small single-engine aircraft? I am under the impression that Cessna didn't make any piston singles for
much of the 1980s, for example. Sometime in the future, will there be a "hole" in the supply of jump
planes?

Eule

PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

[riggerrob 558]

Yes, back in 1986, Cessna tired of paying 60 percent of the cost of a new Cessna single straight to liability insurance companies.
So Cessna didn't build any piston singles from 1986 to 1998 (or was it 1999?).
Piper, Mooney, etc. narrowly avoided bankruptsy during the same period.

Will that create a "hole" in the supply of jump planes 20 years from now 2036-2048?

[i97426 0]

I own three straight tail 182's and am worried about the FAA's older airplane stance. While I don't think you can maintain a 182 forever, with proper maint they can go for quite a while. It all comes down to having an A&P/IA that won't accept the cheap fix and an operator that is willing to spend the money to keep things right. It is way cheaper to fix a problem with a new part than to fix it several times with worn out parts. If an operator can't afford to spend the money, he needs to find something else to do.

[riggerrob 558]

Which raises the larger question of how many hours the plane has, what type of hours those were and how well the plane was maintained.
For example, a private pilot who flies 50 hours per year and only does long cross-country flights puts the minimum wear and tear on an airplane.
Jump planes are the exact opposite, with three or four landings per hour.
How is the FAA going to draw a line when most jump Cessnas started life as lightly-used, privately-owned airplanes, but (at some point) converted to high-wear jump planes?

[masterrigger1 2]

Quote

How is the FAA going to draw a line when most jump Cessnas started life as lightly-used, privately-owned airplanes, but (at some point) converted to high-wear jump planes?

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/volume3/media/3_010_00.pdf


http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/volume3/media/3_010_00.pdf


MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Which raises the larger question of how many hours the plane has, what type of hours those were and how well the plane was maintained.
For example, a private pilot who flies 50 hours per year and only does long cross-country flights puts the minimum wear and tear on an airplane.
Jump planes are the exact opposite, with three or four landings per hour.
How is the FAA going to draw a line when most jump Cessnas started life as lightly-used, privately-owned airplanes, but (at some point) converted to high-wear jump planes?

Does landing an empty plane put as much wear on a plane as landing a loaded plane?

For Great Deals on Gear

[riggerrob 558]

Does landing an empty plane put as much wear on a plane as landing a loaded plane?[/reply

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It al depends upon how gentle the pilot is ....

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Does landing an empty plane put as much wear on a plane as landing a loaded plane?

It doesnt matter in some terms. It's still considered a cycle. Cycles are bad. Starts landing gear retract all that stuff counts as a cycle.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Does landing an empty plane put as much wear on a plane as landing a loaded plane?

It doesnt matter in some terms. It's still considered a cycle. Cycles are bad. Starts landing gear retract all that stuff counts as a cycle.

The question related to wear, not to arbitrarily counted cycles.

Mechanical wear and tear most certainly depends on load and how often it's applied (among other things). Landing load depends on how heavy the plane is, and how hard it hits. So some landings definitely put more wear and tear on a plane than others. However, for regulatory purposes of life-limited parts the actual damage is not always readily determined, which is why cycles or hours (both of which are easy to determine) are often used instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riggerrob 558]

If you are counting cycles, then a plane - flown by a competent pilot, lightly-loaded, onto a smooth runway, etc. - will be dis-assembled, inspected, lubricated and put back together.
A similar airplane - flown by a rough pilot, heavily loaded, on to a bumpy gravel strip, etc. - will need expensive replacements for cracked and bent landing gear components.

The inspection schedule will not change, just the cost of repairs.

[TomSpoon 2]

Quote

Which raises the larger question of how many hours the plane has, what type of hours those were and how well the plane was maintained.
For example, a private pilot who flies 50 hours per year and only does long cross-country flights puts the minimum wear and tear on an airplane.
Jump planes are the exact opposite, with three or four landings per hour.
How is the FAA going to draw a line when most jump Cessnas started life as lightly-used, privately-owned airplanes, but (at some point) converted to high-wear jump planes?

Presently the FAA's aging aircraft rules only apply to A/C operated under part 135 or 121.

Their is no requirement to track aircraft CYCLES or to comply with life limits of parts on aircraft operated under part 91

If the FAA forces parachute jump operations to be conducted under FAR 135 like they did to the air tour operators all life limited parts that you could not establish the number of cycles on would have to be zero timed.