Good news and bad news for our 170s

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I'm in the thick of creating a new membership directory. In that process I access the US and Canadian aircraft registries as well as a few other countries.

The good news is we seem to have found about 1000 more 170s in the US than I thought we had in 2013. About 4163 by my calculations. the bad news is we now have two aircraft databases. One for aircraft whose registration is in good known condition. And another for deregistered aircraft. Now as scary as that sounds many of the aircraft in the deregistered database are not deregistered at all. At least not permanently. You see when you sell your 170 to someone else it gets deregistered and then reregistered. So your AC registration change spends some time in this database. But of course there are also aircraft that the owners have not reregistered and those are about to loose their registration.

So as of last week Jan 2015 there are 2365 170s in good registration health. There are 1798 170s in the reregistration data. And the really bad news is 233 170s are about to loose their registration.

What does this mean if your aircraft looses it's registration? Well for one at some point the N# will likely be available to someone else.

[jrenwick]

Might be a good idea for IAs to start checking the FAA Registration database when they annual an aircraft (if they're not already doing that). Without a valid registration with a current owner address, an aircraft is not airworthy in the US.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Arash,

I'm pretty certain the regulations say somewhere that an aircraft is not airworthy unless it is legally registered. And it is an IA's responsibility to insure that it is during an airworthiness inspection. If I was an IA I wouldn't perform an inspection without reviewing the paper first. I would wonder if a person can't keep his plane legally registered will he pay my bill?

As a CFI, before I sign off a flight review for someone, they better be able to present me a certificate with their correct address and a current medical if required. If they can't they probably don't have the knowledge to pass my review. Just part of knowing and doing things the correct way.

And it is not about the $5. It is about knowing who owns these terrorist tools. Because terrorist will always have their aircraft registered correctly.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

What worries me about deregistration is the loss of the registration number. It is just one of those things I think cool when I see a 60 year old plane with it's original number. What can I say, it's original.

Now that might seem funny from a guy who owns N7A. As cool as that registration number is I'd almost prefer it still had N9078A painted on it. It not much but N9078A is just more authentic.

As one who is pouring over columns of registration numbers it is a disturbing trend I think to see original numbers being changed from original at a greater rate than any other time.

[3958v]

Bruce Is there a story behind the N7A registration number?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The more I look and think about about the deregistered data the realization came to me. We really have no idea how many of these aircraft actually exist or how many don't. We might assume if someone has let the aircraft become deregistered it may not exist.

About the only conclusion we can make is if the aircraft is not on this list because someone registered it, it exists.

There are 45 -170s in the data that their registration has been revoked or canceled. There are 240 -170s pending registration cancellation but most of those seem to already have a cancel date. What a mess.

[jrenwick]

...And it is not about the $5. It is about knowing who owns these terrorist tools. Because terrorist will always have their aircraft registered correctly.

Bruce, I know you're being facetious, but I believe the real reason for keeping registration info current is so that the FAA can contact owners about ADs and other airworthiness issues. It really is about airworthiness.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Bruce Is there a story behind the N7A registration number?

We don't know why someone in 1949, two months after purchasing a new aircraft, changed the number to N7A. We do know that N7A or more correctly NC7A was first registered the the Goodyear Blimp "Puritan". And now that I mention it you will notice the Goodyear blimps still have registration N1A, N2A, N4A and N10A.

Did the owner like blimps? Or did he want to curse every owner of the aircraft with ATC yelling at them for not checking in with a full call sign when told N7A?

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

...And it is not about the $5. It is about knowing who owns these terrorist tools. Because terrorist will always have their aircraft registered correctly.

Bruce, I know you're being facetious, but I believe the real reason for keeping registration info current is so that the FAA can contact owners about ADs and other airworthiness issues. It really is about airworthiness.

Actually I'm not being facetious. We've discussed this before. The triannual renewal came about because under the old system the FAA did not know how many aircraft they actually had. They only knew when the triannual post card came back undelivered or if someone actually filled out the card and returned it.

Of course a by product of having an accurate database would be the FAA wouldn't have to waste money sending ADs and such to bad addresses only to have them returned. Somehow I'll bet any money saved has been swallowed up paying for the the management of the more accurate data.

[GAHorn]

The need for federal registration of aircraft is multi-faceted, but in any event an IN-accurate registration serves no purpose whatsoever.

There are survivors of decedents who probably never did anything about the old uncle's junk stored in the barn. (remember that 170 pic posted a few months back with a tree growing up thru it?) There's no reason to keep a registration number reserved for an airplane that is returning to bauxite.

In the days before 1957, aircraft Airworthiness Certificates expired each year and were re-issued at annual inspection. FAA contributed to the current registration problem by revising that procedure and making airworthiness certificates non-expiring...and not tying it to registration.

The tri-ennial report carried no penalty for the aircraft owners lack of response. (I never returned the card myself, I threw it in the trash. See..?? I DO have a T-party cell in my body!)

Now that there's an actual penalty... I'll respond. And FAA and U.S. gov't will know how many airplanes are using the U.S. registry.... just like a registry is supposed to work.

[juredd1]

Of course a by product of having an accurate database would be the FAA wouldn't have to waste money sending ADs and such to bad addresses only to have them returned. Somehow I'll bet any money saved has been swallowed up paying for the the management of the more accurate data.

Well that extra money spent for the management of the more accurate data should be offset by all the $5 re-registration fee, just for the 2365 good registered 170's that's $11,875.

The triannual renewal came about because under the old system the FAA did not know how many aircraft they actually had. They only knew when the triannual post card came back undelivered or if someone actually filled out the card and returned it.

What's different about the new system? They are still sending out cards that get returned, couldn't they just have easily changed the rules that did the same thing they are doing now without the $5 dollar charge? Are they really re-registering my tail number or just not un-registering them. They will always still be airplanes out there they don't know about even if they give the N number to someone else. My friend has lived at the same location, with the same airplane, with the same N number for 40+ years, it will still be his N number until he does and then it's someone elses problem. He sent in his $5 dollars but I know for a fact it wouldn't matter to him if the N number he has owned for all those years was gone. He's still going to fly his 30 minute scenic circle of his script that's located on his 300 acres because that is all he does. He loves to fly not be seen flying, is it really going to matter that their N number isn't valid anymore. We all know planes fly just as well with or without an annual. To me it's just a way to bring a little more money in because it sounds like they were doing the same thing before to figure out where the planes were. I would venture to say some of those 233 170's about to loose their registration number don't even know about this new rule and tossed that piece of paper in the trash like everything else from the FAA. It might happen tomorrow but I don't recall that many terrorist events where GA aircraft were used.

I will apologize in advance if this steps on toes but this is a sore subject for me. I don't like stuff being shoved down my throat and I don't like being penny picked to death.

Justin

[lowNslow]

The main reason to for the registration renewal was not due to terrorist concerns but rather to keep the FAA aircraft database up to date. Makes since to me that they should know what aircraft are still active or where to send AD information, etc. As long as it stays at $5/3years I think I can live with that.

[DaveF]

The systems are not the same. In the old system the airplane was presumed to exist with no change in data unless the card was returned. It was a system made to fail. The new system requires that we confirm the data periodically. It's not unreasonable for the FAA to keep a registry of airplanes. Their job is to manage the airspace system and they can't do that without knowing how many and whom they serve. $5 is not a large fee to pay for that.

In 25 years I have never had an annual inspection that didn't turn up something I was glad to have found, even if it did cost me money. And even if you don't care about your own safety, an airplane that's gone years without an annual will eventually become worthless. That's not smart from a financial point of view, and anyway, I consider myself to be the caretaker of my airplane and feel a responsibility to preserve it for the next owner.

[MoonlightVFR]

Bruce


N7A Since. 1949

Have you given thought. To an update

You could do 007

I think it would work on a classic C170. Taildragger


Regards

[juredd1]

So the only difference is they now presume the aircraft don't exist when an owner don't respond when in fact some likely do and some likely are still flying. It's not like the $1.66 a year is going to break me I just don't see the point as some of you do. Other than the FAA saying these are now confirmed valid airplanes, what has changed? I don't know the FAA system like some of you do I'm just a dumb Arkansas hick so educate me if ya like. Ok so you took some off the list that really don't exist or the owner don't care if the FAA has updated info. We've all see airplanes setting in hangers that have been there for many years. The plane still exists just because it has not been recently registered. That is the planes N number, some guy may buy it and rebuild it and want to keep his grandfathers old N number on the plane. Are well really going to run out of number and letter combinations that the N number needs to be recycled? I understand that is not the real purpose but that is a by-product.

I personally don't see a point in the FAA keeping track of my airplane. They are keeping track of me already and they know I'm a pilot. If it's for an AD list let me subscribe to get that info not force me to fill out some form so they can keep track of my plane. Is the FAA held legally responsible for providing me with an AD list? More people are killed in car accidents by far, the last time I received a recall notice it was from the car manufacturer not the government. Would it be unreasonable for ATF to send you a notice to your home every 3 years saying you must fill out this card stating if you still have this firearm or it will be illegal to use it? I know airplanes are different but any less dangers to the public. I provided all of my info when I filled out the original forms that I sent in to them in the first place to register it. They know about me and my 170 already. Are they going to change their system every 3 years based up what they receive?

My point was not to say planes don't need to be safe but just because it does not have an annual doesn't mean it's not being taken care of. I am also not saying don't annual your airplane. The point is just because the FAA says you don't have a valid registration now doesn't mean the planes are going to stop flying.

I know maybe I sound like I'm going off the deep end. I just don't like the government prying into my life. The US Agriculture sent me something in the mail last year, this was mandatory to fill out about my land. If they want to know how much land I own go the land office in Jasper, AR and find out for yourself, it's public knowledge.

Justin