Welcome to GlobalAir.com | 888-236-4309    Please Register or Login
Aviation Articles
Home Aircraft For Sale  | Aviation Directory  |  Airport Resource  |   Blog  | My Flight Department
Aviation Articles

When Is An Aircraft "Destroyed" Versus "Repairable"?

by Greg Reigel 12. November 2018 15:27
Share on Facebook

Unfortunately, the terms "destroyed" and "repairable" are not defined anywhere in the regulations. But, as you might expect, the FAA has a policy/opinion about what these terms mean. In fact, the FAA has issued Order 8100.19, Destroyed and Scrapped Aircraft which spells out what these terms mean and how they are to be applied by FAA inspectors. If an aircraft is capable of being repaired and returned to service after it was unserviceable due to wear and tear, damage, or corrosion then it is "repairable." But this means that when the repair is complete the aircraft to returned to service in "its original (or properly altered) condition that conforms to its type design."

The FAA clarifies further that an aircraft is only eligible for repair if it has at least one primary structure around which a repair can be performed. According to the FAA, it "considers an aircraft’s primary structure to be the structure that carries flight, ground, or pressurization loads, and whose failure would reduce the structural integrity of the aircraft." If only some, but not all, of the major structures of an aircraft are replaced, then that would still be considered a repair.

However, if all of an aircraft's primary structures must be replaced then the FAA does not consider the aircraft to be "repairable." Rather, in that situation the aircraft is being "replaced" after being "destroyed." And if the identification plate from the original aircraft was then placed on the "destroyed" aircraft that would violate 14 CFR § 45.13(e) ("No person may install an identification plate removed in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section on any aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, propeller blade, or propeller hub other than the one from which it was removed.”)

In order to comply with Section 45.13(e), the primary structure must be identifiable and traceable to the particular aircraft and its identification plate. As an example, if a heavily damaged aircraft is repaired by performing many major repairs on its fuselage and replacing all other primary structures that may be destroyed such as the wings and the empennage, that aircraft would not be considered destroyed because the fuselage is repairable. But if the fuselage of that aircraft also needed to be replaced along with the other primary structures, then the aircraft would be considered destroyed.

The Order also provides the following examples for use in determining if an aircraft is destroyed:

  1. All primary structures of an airplane or glider, including the fuselage, all wings, and empennage are beyond repair.

  2. The fuselage and tail boom of a rotorcraft are beyond repair.

  3. Only the aircraft identification plate is reusable.

How is this determination made by FAA inspectors? Well, according to the Order, "FAA accident investigators will apply their specialized knowledge and expertise and follow the guidelines in this order when evaluating aircraft wreckage to determine whether an aircraft is repairable or should be declared destroyed."

Fortunately an aircraft owner can dispute a determination that an aircraft is destroyed by providing the appropriate FAA FSDO or ACO with a repair process that explains how the damaged aircraft can be repaired provided that at least one primary structure of the aircraft is capable of being repaired rather than requiring replacement. If you are faced with a situation where it is unclear whether an aircraft has been "destroyed" or is still "repairable", you will definitely want to consult the Order, as well as the aircaft's maintenance manual.

Tags: ,

Greg Reigel

Runway Incursions: What's the Big Deal?

by Tori Williams 1. November 2018 14:46
Share on Facebook

A runway incursion is defined by the FAA as, “Any occurrence at an aerodrome involving the incorrect presence of an aircraft, vehicle or person on the protected area of a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft." There are four categories of runway incursions, Categories A-D. Category A being the most severe and Category D being the least severe. Category A is classified as an “incident in which separation decreases and participants take extreme action to narrowly avoid a collision.” An accident can be the result of a runway incursion, and therefore exceeds the categories described.

The FAA estimates that approximately three runway incursions happen every day at towered airports in the United States. Thus, the number of unreported incursions at non towered airports must be much larger. Although a runway incursion is by definition a near miss at the worst, they are often a contributing cause in serious aircraft accidents. An accident that perfectly illustrates the dangers of runway incursions is the 1996 collision of United Express flight 5925 and a Beechcraft King Air 90A in Quincy, Illinois. A miscommunication between the landing Beechcraft, the departing King Air, and a third taxing aircraft turned deadly when the King Air failed to look for traffic and the Beechcraft wrongly assumed a radio transmission confirmed they were okay to land. Although the airport was not towered, the presence of both aircraft on intersecting runways was extremely dangerous and lead to a collision at the intersection. A total of 12 people lost their lives in that accident that could have been easily avoided.

Another infamous accident involving a runway incursion is the Russian Aeroflot Flight 3352 that took place in 1984. In short, the ground Air Traffic Controller fell asleep after he authorized several maintenance vehicles to enter the runway. A commercial aircraft carrying 170 passengers came to land at the airport, and the approach controller, oblivious to the maintenance crew on the runway, cleared them to land. To make matters worse, visibility was extremely low and the maintenance trucks did not have their rotating beacons illuminated. The commercial aircraft collided with the vehicles, resulting in 178 fatalities. In this example, the accident investigators placed the majority of the blame on the Air Traffic Controller, but there were mistakes made by all parties involved.

The airport environment is a complex operation with hundreds of moving parts. Pilots, air traffic controllers, and airport designers have to understand the hazards that come with miscommunications and poorly designed airport layouts. It only takes one moment of confusion for a runway incursion to happen, which could be deadly.

The FAA has a record of 1747 total runway incursions happening in the Fiscal Year 2017. There are several reasons that runway incursions occur. One of the most prevalent ones is miscommunication or a total lack of any communication. Many times, pilots and air traffic controllers get “stepped on” or, talked over on the radio frequency. It is highly critical that pilots repeat back their instructions to confirm with the controllers that they heard them correctly and that the directions were for their aircraft and not another. As in the above case study, although there was not a tower at the airport, the landing aircraft assumed that the aircraft announcing they would be holding short was the only one holding short. There was a misunderstanding in this case because one pilot’s radio transmission got covered up by the other aircraft holding short making the pilot of the landing aircraft assume that there was only one aircraft and they were holding short. Other common types of runway incursions include incorrect entry or vacating of an aircraft or vehicle onto the runway protection area, incorrect runway/taxiway crossing, incorrect spacing between departing and arriving aircraft, and landing or taking off without air traffic control clearance.

According the the FAA, approximately 65 percent of all runway incursions are caused by pilots. Detailed investigations of runway incursions over the past 10 years have identified three major areas contributing to these events including failure to comply with air traffic control instructions, lack of airport familiarity, nonconformance with standard operating procedures. Clear, concise, and effective pilot/controller communication is paramount to safe airport surface operations. This is something that is often stressed during initial and recurrent pilot training, but evidently the information does not always stick in the pilots’ minds.

Air traffic control instructions must be fully understood and complied with. Air traffic controllers are in place to assist pilots and want to help when there is confusion but many pilots don’t ask for the help. They are caught up in other tasks such as checklists, taxi directions, and non-essential chatter with the copilot. Pilots are to taxi with their heads-up and eyes outside to ensure they are aware of all aircraft and airport vehicles.

Major factors that increase the risk of runway confusion and can lead to a wrong runway departure include airport complexity, close proximity of runway thresholds, joint use of a runway as a taxiway (FAA, 2017). During the summer construction time, many airports will close runways or taxiways to resurface them or replace them. If a taxiway is closed, this can force aircraft to use runways as a means of getting to another open taxiway. It can also force the aircraft to back taxi on the runway they are departing from.

Thorough planning is essential for safe taxi operations. Aircraft accidents are more likely to happen on the ground than in the air because there are so many moving parts on the airfield. Pilots need to utilize the following services/tools in order to ensure safe airport surface movement: Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS), Automated Terminal Information Service (ATIS), Airport/Facility Directory (A/FD), and recognizing Hot Spots. Although using these pilot tools will not end all runway incursions, they will lower the risks if all pilots are equipped with the proper and current information.

Tags:

Aircraft Accidents | Airlines | Aviation Safety | Tori Williams

Misconceptions about Aircraft Costing

by David Wyndham 12. October 2018 09:01
Share on Facebook

Over the years I have written a number of articles discussing aircraft operating costs and methodologies for analyzing them. This month, I’d like to review some common misconceptions about costs that I run into on a regular basis. Most of these result from connecting something that we are familiar with, like the cost of running an automobile or building a house, and using those as an analogy for the unfamiliar cost of owning and operating an aircraft. 

Misconceptions about Aircraft Costing

The biggest misconception is focusing on the acquisition cost to the detriment of operating costs and asset value over time. I have a client whose maximum acquisition budget is $20 million. This is a real limit and not one to exceed. Where the misconception arises is that if we are looking at Aircraft A with a selling price of $20 million and Aircraft B which sells for $17 million, the former aircraft is the less costly option. But is it?

Assume that both aircraft have similar capabilities in terms of range and cabin.

 

The only way to know which one costs “less” is to evaluate the total costs to acquire, operate and dispose of the aircraft. Two major costs are the operating costs, to include maintenance, and the estimated residual value after a set length of time. Looking at our current scenario, Aircraft A has a lower fuel consumption than Aircraft B. Aircraft A also has engine and airframe maintenance costs similar to Aircraft B. Looking at the costs per hour:

Variable cost.                        Aircraft A.                  Aircraft B. 

Fuel                                        $1,376                        $1,521

Engines                                  $ 580                          $560

Maintenance                         $ 784                          $677

Per Hour                                $2,740                        $2,758

There is more:

Aircraft A flies faster than Aircraft by 8%. Remembering the aircraft fly from origin to destination, the faster aircraft uses fewer hours to fly the same trips. If Aircraft A flies 400 annual hours, this requires Aircraft B to fly 432 hours. The annual variable cost is

Variable cost.                        Aircraft A.                  Aircraft B. 

Per Year                                $1,096,000                $1,191,456

Aircraft A costs almost 10% less in variable cost per year than Aircraft B. If both have about $650,000 per year in fixed costs, the annual operating budget favors Aircraft A slightly. While not enough to make up the $3 million price difference, it does account for about $1 million over 10 years. There is still more.

Aircraft A is a popular model and is currently selling better than Aircraft B. Current market values are being maintained better than for Aircraft B. After 10 years the estimated residual (resale)  value in dollars and percent is higher for Aircraft A. Now our 10-year life Cycle Cost is:

10 YEAR COST.                               Aircraft A                               Aircraft B

Acquisition                                        $20,000,000                         $17,000,000

Variable costs                                   $ 10,960,000                         $11,914,560

Fixed Costs                                       $ 6,500,000                           $ 6,500,000

Resale value                                     ($10,000,000)                       ($ 7,500,000)

10-Year TOTAL                                $27,460,000                          $27,914,560

Aircraft A costs about the same to own and operate as Aircraft B. Making the purchase decision just on acquisition price doesn’t tell the entire story. In the above example, we need to evaluate of parameters in addition to just costs to determine which aircraft is the best value. 

There could be other considerations like product support. Not only the perceived quality but where are the service centers located? If Aircraft A has a service center on your home field while Aircraft B’s nearest service center is 300 miles away, Aircraft A will be easier to maintain and, if AOG at home, might be repairable in less time.

Consider the equipment? What if Aircraft B has a more advanced SVS than Aircraft A? But what if you prefer the usability and displays in the avionics system on Aircraft A?

Never let a spreadsheet make a decision for you.  Never just look at a single cost item when evaluating aircraft costs. Aircraft are not commodities sharing essential the same characteristics. That is why I stress to my clients to look for a best value when making the aircraft decision. Costs are a very important part, but even the total costs do not tell the total story. 

If you are currently in the market for an aircraft please review Globalair.com and their Aircraft Exchange.

(This is a 2nd edition of this article and may be found on other websites)

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

David Wyndham | Flight Department

America’s Largest Fly-in Communities

by Tori Williams 1. October 2018 20:00
Share on Facebook

Last weekend my husband and I flew to an EAA chapter meeting that was held at a beautiful private grass strip called Timberhouse. We quickly discovered that this was no ordinary grass strip. Each side of the runway was flanked by houses in various stages of construction, with a couple fully built houses scattered amongst them. This beautiful place was clearly becoming more inhabited every day. The owner of the field shared that they have had lots of sale on this flying community for 15 years, but in the last couple years has interest in buying lots increased exponentially.

The idea of being able to walk outside your house and get into your airplane, no driving to the airport required, seems like a total dream. Although this may seem like something out of a Bond movie, residential airports are all over the U.S. and some of the plots of land are just as affordable as buying off-airport land for your home.

According to the website Living With Your Plane, the three states with the most residential airports are Florida (71), Texas (67), and Washington (58). Even smaller states like Illinois and Ohio have 18 and 13 residential airports, respectively. When you take into account the amount of small public-use airports each state has, it’s no wonder the U.S. has the best General Aviation environment in the world.

Today I would like to inspect some of the biggest residential airports in the U.S. to help paint a picture of what living at an airport looks like. Most of these are exclusive, gated community type locations, but that’s not to say there’s not a more affordable option in the state as well.

Spruce Creek

Spruce Creek Airpark in Port Orange, Florida (seven miles south of Daytona Beach) is the perfect example of a thriving airport living community. The 4000 ft runway is surrounded by over 1,300 houses and 700 hangars. A large majority of the residents of this gated community have the luxury of private hangars in or beside their homes that are attached to over 14 miles of paved taxiways.

Jumbolair

Another Floridian airport of note is the Jumbolair Airport in Ocala, Florida. This one is different from Spruce Creek in that it has far less houses, but the runway is nearly twice as long at 7,550 ft. This airport is typically what people imagine when they think of flying communities, because actor John Travolta was one of the first people to purchase land and build a house. Travolta was drawn to this particular airport because the length of the runway allowed him to takeoff in his personal Boeing 707.

Poplar Grove

Located near the northern border of Illinois, Poplar Grove has made quite a name for themselves as being an extremely well maintained and fun airport. They are open to the public for flight training, but also have a prestigious residential community attached to the runway. 100 of the total 140 houses in their residential community are connected via taxiway to the runways. With one large asphalt runway and two grass strips, this airport is a heaven for pilots that enjoy antique and vintage aircraft flying.

RJW Airpark

Last but not least, RJW Airpark in Baytown, Texas claims to be the largest airpark in the state. Featuring a 5111 ft asphalt runway and a 3532 grass runway, this classic airpark has something for every pilot. The houses on this particular Airpark are in a realm of their own, because of course everything is bigger in Texas!

I hope this article has opened your eyes to some of the incredible flying communities that are out there! If you search online you might be surprised by how many are in your state. More flying communities are being created every year, so this type of lifestyle is also becoming more obtainable. If your dream is to someday taxi your plane away from your home towards a runway, never give up because that dream could very well become a reality.

Tags:

Aviation History | Tori Williams

Operation Safe Pilot All Over Again

by Greg Reigel 1. October 2018 10:29
Share on Facebook

As some of you may know, the Department of Justice recently issued a Press Release announcing that it had indicted four pilots for lying on their medical applications. In each case, the airman failed to disclose that he was receiving Veterans Administration ("VA") benefits for a medical condition that would likely have either disqualified the airman from receiving a medical certificate, or would have certainly subjected the airman to additional scrutiny and/or testing requirements by the FAA's Office of Aerospace Medicine.

The airmen were "caught" when the FAA cross-checked its database of airmen holding medical certificates with the VA's disability benefits database. This is reminiscent of the FAA's 2002 Operation Safe Pilot in which it performed a similar cross-check, but with the Social Security Administration's ("SSA") disability database. Operation Safe Pilot resulted in prosecution of forty pilots who were receiving SSA disability benefits for conditions that would have either disqualified the airmen from receiving a medical or would have triggered further inquiry by the FAA.

After Operation Safe Pilot, the FAA revised the application for medical certificate to include language that specifically authorizes it to conduct this type of cross-check with SSA and VA. When an airman signs the medical application, he or she is agreeing that the FAA can perform this type of search.

Since the DOJ Press Release was issued, I have received multiple calls from airmen who believe they may be in a similar situation, but have not yet been "discovered" or received any notice from the FAA. In each call the airman is, perhaps justifiably, concerned regarding his or her liability exposure for criminal prosecution. Fortunately, options, albeit not great options, are available provided the airman is not yet in the FAA's cross-hairs.

Depending upon the circumstances, airmen have at least two options for dealing with the situation:

  1. An airman can contact the FAA via letter and disclose the previously omitted information regarding both the medical condition and the receipt of disability benefits. It is also helpful to provide an explanation for the non-disclosure, to the extent that the airman has a reasonable explanation for failing to disclose the information. This may persuade the FAA that the failure to disclose was not intentional, but merely a misunderstanding etc.; or

  2. The airman can apply for a new medical certificate and disclose the medical condition and receipt of benefits on the application. Then when the airman goes to his or her aviation medical examiner ("AME") for the medical examination the airman can explain the situation to the AME.

In either instance, the airman will want to have all of his or her VA medical/disability records available to provide to the FAA. However, an airman should keep in mind that any information he or she provides to the FAA could be used against the airman in a criminal prosecution. So it is important for the airman to be very careful about what he or she says to the FAA or AME.

Although pursuing one of these two options does not guarantee that the FAA will not prosecute the airman, coming clean and correcting the record before the airman is "caught" may convince the FAA that prosecution is unnecessary. However, even if an airman is not prosecuted, it is quite likely that the FAA will follow its standard playbook and revoke all of the airman's certificates as a sanction for falsifying the airman's medical application(s).

If you find yourself in this situation, please call and I will be happy to help you through the process.

Tags: ,

Greg Reigel



Archive



GlobalAir.com on Twitter