FAA PROPOSES LIMITS ON AIRLINER LIFE
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The former would be devastating for smaller low cost air lines, but very good
for the plane makers.. The second might have some validity.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chocks_Away
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!!
Genius!!
Turn them into beer cans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alexban
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.....
Examples:
Aircraft Design Life
A320 48,000
A340 20,000
B707 20,000
B737 75,000
DC-9 100,000
DC-10 42,000
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then what are we supposed to do with all the aircraft once they are retired?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hertford
Age: 40
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ferrydude
Both Boeing and Airbus have established aircraft recycling centers for recycle/disposal of retired aircraft. Conflict of interest?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ferrydude
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.............
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.............