FAA PROPOSES LIMITS ON AIRLINER LIFE [Archive]

forget

27th Apr 2006, 11:09

A new rule proposed by the FAA would begin a process to set what are essentially life limits for transport-category aircraft. The new rule would require manufacturers to develop an operational limit and substantiate that widespread fatigue damage will not occur prior to airplanes' reaching that limit. Once the operational limit is set, airplanes cannot be flown beyond that point unless an extension is approved. The FAA says the program would have a total cost over 20 years of $360 million, of which about 10 percent will be faced by manufacturers and the rest by operators. The rule has no affect on GA aircraft, and AOPA would like to keep it that way. "A review by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation shows that the problem of mechanical or maintenance failure due to age is actually declining," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs, last week. Avflash.

alexban

27th Apr 2006, 18:46

green granite

27th Apr 2006, 19:22

Is the limit going to be one of time or, as in the military, one of fatigue life?
The former would be devastating for smaller low cost air lines, but very good
for the plane makers.. The second might have some validity.

Chocks_Away

27th Apr 2006, 20:29

And then what are we supposed to do with all the aircraft once they are retired? Park them in the desert I guess, until there’s no more desert left!

Genius!!

Dani

27th Apr 2006, 21:13

Brilliant idea (no smiley's required). FAA finally realized that there are quit a few airframes around that thread the life of their load, crew and the general public. Should I say water bomber? Aloha? All these 737 in the "third world", causing crashes last summer?

The FAA regulation doesn't mean that FAA says when you have to retire, but the manufacturer. So they give the limit, and the limit shall not be stepped over.

Dani

Desert Diner

27th Apr 2006, 22:21

And then what are we supposed to do with all the aircraft once they are retired? Park them in the desert I guess, until there’s no more desert left!

Genius!!

Turn them into beer cans

glhcarl

28th Apr 2006, 00:04

So,another rule meant to eliminate from the market the small players,and also to help the big manufacturers.What will the time line be:10 yrs,15?...after that ,scrap the plane....What about the 707 still flown by some military ,or even civil comp?..or the MD,the DC-10,the.....
All transport aircraft over 75,000 lbs have to have a design life goal established by the manfacture.This life goal is expressed in cycles (one takeoff and one landing = one cycle). Cycles range from 20,000 cycles to 100,000 cycles.
Examples:
Aircraft Design Life
A320 48,000
A340 20,000
B707 20,000
B737 75,000
DC-9 100,000
DC-10 42,000

Oshkosh George

28th Apr 2006, 00:12

The natural market forces are going that way anyway.

Just read of two ex Air Littoral CRJ 100/200s ferrying to Opa Locka for parting.
I checked one of them---built 1995 ,and has been stored for two of those years---therefore used for NINE years,and then scrap! OK,I realise this could be exceptional,due to the regional jet market bottom dropping out,sky high fuel prices etc.---but still astounding!

ICT_SLB

28th Apr 2006, 01:47

George,
The Air Littoral aircraft may well be at or near limit. A lot of RJs (any manufacturer) are doing 10 cycles a day - some with more cycles than flight hours. As their name suggests, Air Lit also operated a lot of the time in salt air (to & from Sardinia) - as Aloha found not good for aluminum structure.

ferrydude

28th Apr 2006, 11:25

And then what are we supposed to do with all the aircraft once they are retired?

Both Boeing and Airbus have established aircraft recycling centers for recycle/disposal of retired aircraft. Conflict of interest?

Chocks_Away

28th Apr 2006, 13:00

Both Boeing and Airbus have established aircraft recycling centers for recycle/disposal of retired aircraft. Conflict of interest?

The Airbus recycling centre is still in a test phase and even when it does begin full scale recycling it only expects to recycle ten aircraft per year! A few less than the numbers Airbus are building!

ferrydude

28th Apr 2006, 13:30

Right, "test phase". More like, "waiting for the afformentioned "retirement" regulations to be universally promulgated and adopted.
Boeing is moving out on a grander scale, having already formed the AFRA.
Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association of which Chateauroux Air Center is a participating member along with 9 other firms.

Chocks_Away

28th Apr 2006, 19:43

Good for Boeing, its about time the issue is addressed on a realistic scale!

ferrydude

28th Apr 2006, 19:59

My point was, Airbus is targeting a scale grander than 10 aircraft per year.
They specify 2-3 aircraft per month after the "test" phase which I believe is con sidered complete. This makes for more like 30-36 aircraft per year. Inasmuch as they also allow that approximately 200 aircraft are retired each year, I find it hard to accept that they won't want a large piece of that.

ZQA297/30

28th Apr 2006, 20:10

I have 2 questions.
Life on C-47/DC-3?
Life on L-1011?
Anyone have definitive numbers?

ferrydude

28th Apr 2006, 20:27

glhcarl

28th Apr 2006, 21:29

I have 2 questions.
Life on C-47/DC-3?
Life on L-1011?
Anyone have definitive numbers?

DC-3/C-47 under 75,000 lbs.
L-1011 36,000 cycles

glhcarl

28th Apr 2006, 21:37

No limit on the DC-3
The L-1011 is limited to 27 thousand flights until certain elements approved by the FAA Aircraft Certification Office are inorporated into the individual aircraft maintenance program. At least for those on the US register!

Please tell me where you got the 27,000 cycles? 36,000 cycles is in the NPRM and has been the L-1011's design life since 1988 when the Aging Aircraft Program was started. 36,000 was established because that is 1/2 of the cycles that were completed in the original fatigue test in 1970.

Telstar

28th Apr 2006, 22:11

Anti-ice

28th Apr 2006, 22:31

The thing is , as we are practically in an oil crisis right now, there will probably be no civil aviation as we know it in 20 years time..... so what will it matter ?

With oil being burned at rates practically beyond production ,and talk of the 'peak' being reached why worry about airliner lifespan ?

Unless ALL countries (and one in particular that burns petrol as if it were water) dont start making a REAL effort into efficiency and conservation instead of gratuitous excessive use, then there will be no fuel to put in these new generation jets.............

glhcarl

28th Apr 2006, 22:34

I think this is a reaction to the Chalks Airways Mallard in flight breakup, and the number of fire fighting aircraft that have suffered similar fates. Some have questioned if 70+ year old aircraft in regular commercial use is a good idea and this may be a knee jerk reaction.
As I stated earlier this actually all started with the Aging Aircraft Program, which was started after the Aloha 737 incident. The Widespread Fatigue Damage proposal is just another portion of the Aging Aircraft Program. The Chalks aircraft are not covered by this proposal as they are under the 75,000 pound limit.

ferrydude

28th Apr 2006, 23:15

Please tell me where you got the 27,000 cycles?
Erm, that would be straight from FAR 91.410. Be sure you understnad the context in which stated

glhcarl

29th Apr 2006, 02:59

Erm, that would be straight from FAR 91.410. Be sure you understnad the context in which stated
Different program that is Repair Assessment program. As it states prior 27,000 cycles or May 25, 2001 which ever is later, the L-1011 operators had to have a inspection procedure approved by the FAA with which they could verify all repairs to the pressure vessel meet type certificate guidelines. Cycles for these thresholds are lower than the new proposed Widespred Fatigue Damage. The Repair Assessment Program threshold for the L-1011 is 27,000 cycles while the Widespread Fatigue Program 36,000 cycles. For a DC-9 the numbers are 60,000 and 100,000 respectively.

ferrydude

29th Apr 2006, 04:46

Eerm, all the BS aside, is 27 thousand flights not a limiting factor if the conditions I listed are not complied with? Applicable for N registered aircaft only

GotTheTshirt

29th Apr 2006, 07:08

Ferry dude

Yes. FAA only

At the moment its relatively simple - just wait till EASA get on the soapbox:)

Of course you appreciate that the thread started talking about a calender life but the current programs are all cycle related.
Long haul aircraft are typically running 1-2,000 cycles per year so do the maths :}

ferrydude

29th Apr 2006, 10:42

Right, just as posted. Now then, are you suggesting that the proposed rule is establishing a calender life limit for aircraft? I think not.

FearlessFreep

29th Apr 2006, 14:19

Now to throw another log on the Airbus/Boeing/Douglas differences fire:

Using similar size and utilzation aircraft, A-320, B-737, DC-9

The A-320 is good for only 64% of the life of a B-737, and 48% of the DC-9

The B-737 is good for only 75% of the life of a DC-9

Considering the type of operation and utilization of these aircraft obviously you best bet would be the DC-9 family (no longer manufactured)

Do we really want throwaway technology? I am sure that the Airbus justification of this would be that technology advances would obsolete the other higher time aircraft. Boeing would retort that the older aircraft could be modified.

If you put this into a concept most of us could relate to do you want to buy a car that would only be able to be driven 100K miles, 150K or an indefinite amount.

So do you buy the Mercedes or the Nissan?

I know what I would do.

glhcarl

29th Apr 2006, 20:20

Right, just as posted. Now then, are you suggesting that the proposed rule is establishing a calender life limit for aircraft? I think not.
The SUMMARY of the NPRM reads:
"This action is intended to prevent widespread fatigue damage by proposing to require that design approval holders establish operational limites on transport catagory airplanes. Design approval holders would also be required to determine if maintenance actions are needed to prevent widespread fatigue damage before an airplane reaches its operational limit. Operators of any affected airplane would be required to incorporate the operational limit and any necessary service information into their maintenance programs. Operation of an affected airplane beyond the operational limit would be prohibited, unless an operator has incorporated an extended operational limit and any necessary information into their maintenance program."

Seems to me that the FAA is trying to establishing a service life for transport aircraft.

I am retired now but when I was working on the original Aging Aircraft Program, the CAA was an partner in the program and stated that what ever the FAA approved would also applied by the CAA.

ferrydude

29th Apr 2006, 21:23

Ok, I'm pedantic.
You posted;Of course you appreciate that the thread started talking about a calender life but the current programs are all cycle related.

The thread started with;FAA PROPOSES LIMITS ON AIRLINER LIFE
A new rule proposed by the FAA would begin a process to set what are essentially life limits for transport-category aircraft. The new rule would require manufacturers to develop an operational limit and substantiate that widespread fatigue damage will not occur prior to airplanes' reaching that limit. Once the operational limit is set, airplanes cannot be flown beyond that point unless an extension is approved. The FAA says the program would have a total cost over 20 years of $360 million, of which about 10 percent will be faced by manufacturers and the rest by operators. The rule has no affect on GA aircraft, and AOPA would like to keep it that way. "A review by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation shows that the problem of mechanical or maintenance failure due to age is actually declining," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs, last week. Avflash.

I don't see any reference to a proposed calendar life limit for aircraft in the original thread, or the NPRM. Do you??