76Srat

. . . but damn ain't that fancy air conditioned Boeing village at AirVenture nice? Let's hope they keep that for us at least one more year. It's always fun and nice to duck in there for a cool rest, once in a while. I'm also a huge fan of Boeing actually sponsoring the youth-get-in-free movement for anyone under 18 being allowed in to AirVenture for free (with a paid, ticketed adult). Don't get me started on why EAA doesn't just cover this anyway, but I digress . . .

I've enjoyed all of the info on this thread, for sure. What's funny to me is that literally none of the FF issue is vital to being able to actually fly. Am I blown away by FF and all of the EFB stuff out there? Absolutely and my two-pilot household subscribes to literally every option of such out there. That said, my teenage pilot son has never flown without any of them, ever. Me? I literally never flew with any of them until he started flying three years ago. To me, six-packs were of the baby-seal-endangering plastic ring holder thingies and round dials in a panel. To him? Only the former. Back to the OP: Boeing off-selling FF and its entire digital asset portfolio (save for that related strictly to its monitoring and airframe maintenance programs themselves) is merely the result of a board room decision and the ~14BB write-down of its core business these past few quarters. It has nothing to do with the actual value/profits/losses/core value of the digital assets themselves to Boeing's bottom line. Akin to GE Aerospace doing what it (rightly) did a few short years ago: off-selling its finance and maintenance businesses to separate units. That's all Boeing are doing here. At its core, Boeing owning anything related to EFB makes zero sense, and I argue has never made any sense. Boeing has no interest in what happens in the mind of the pilot. Its an airframer on the civil side, pure and simple. Its larger business is that of government contractor, but that's the subject of for a different day. Bottom line to me: FF and all of its kindred in the marketplace has not just been a true game-changer for how we fly our planes, it is a totally new universe that is as exciting as the actual universe way up there. Is it required for us to actually fly? Absolutely not. If we're not in favor of the next best PE group buying it up, then we can always speak with our wallets and not engage in any of it. But guess what will happen when we do that? You guessed it: absolulely nothing. As the debacle that is the debate over EAGLE/UL100, etc., we as a general aviation lobby simply don't matter for squat when it comes to what will actually happen to that which we use while flying. Same is the inevitable case for what will happen with FF, etc.

Great article, Don. I echo the expectation that it'll take regulatory agency help in softening a few of the key sticking points on certification processes, etc., especially those related to the sheer expense directly related to getting new powerplants to market that can be drop-in replacements for legacy piston-powered airplanes. The reason why those are so expensive is because of the obvious: the OEMs return on investment. As to why the factory OH route is so expensive is a mystery to me because legacy certified powerplants were monetised decades ago by the OEMs. I think its merely a marketplace commodity factor and nothing else, which will not be sustained long-term. It'll take agency and private industry partnerships to make anything sustainable happen (much like we now see taking shape nicely on the avionics side). Until then, we should be planning on spaces in the mausoleum of legacy piston airplane boneyards . . .

All good stuff here, guys. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: Is this reality? Yes, it is the new reality. Therefore, are we still going to be staring at the top of our boots in the next 20 year timeframe and lamenting the extinction of our legacy piston fleet? And I'm including all legacy pistons in that assumption, not just our beloved Mooneys. Unless there is a drastic and universal change in equipment being available to the legacy piston fleet, it will no longer exist as we know and love it. Period. I argue that we should stop expecting the factory/field OH market to somehow come back to earth and show us a welcome "correction" as to what all of that costs. What has never been controversial or refutable is how one owner chooses to undertake such a project. As we've all discussed above in this very topic, each owner/operator is different than the next. Some might choose to overhaul/replace literally everything from the firewall-forward. Others choose to do such on an as-needed or for-cause basis. Its Ford vs Chevy at that point and that's been the prerogative since airplanes went to maintenance for the very first time ever. That will never change. What does need to change, and I argue what must change, is what we expect to happen if we stay the course and simple expect the certified piston engine marketplace to somehow all of a sudden be transformed into something we think we can all live with. Bluntly, it won't. Without new technology on the power plant side for the certified legacy piston fleet, this is a race to the bottom with only one possible result: extinction. There is no help from the newly-certified crowd (read: Cirrus et al), nor is there any help from the regulatory agencies themselves (FAA/EASA et al). Instead of lamenting and wishing for short-term solutions (which are anything but "short-term" in their pursuit) such as UL100 or other band-aid so-called solutions for existing piston power plants, we should be lobbying for and arguing in favor of replacement power plants themselves (small turbines/diesel-derivatives, etc.). This may sound like crazy talk and will be crazy-expensive, but it truly is the only way out of this mire and mess, if we truly want to save our legacy piston fleets. Where would the piston fleet be if there were no investment or tech which replaced our beloved steamguages a few decades ago? Look at what Dynon and Garmin have done for that? Could and should there be the same type of focus for the powerplant side? I argue not only should there be; there must be. Otherwise, our legacy pistons will be seen by our grandchildren in the occassional static display museums, which will be few and far between. I'll pop some popcorn and now watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this thought . . .

Correct that military aircraft weren't issued civilian registrations, though many civilian aircraft were used militarily (L-birds being the easiest to mention). And to clarify my earlier statement, the CAA would issue successive numbers to each manufacturer, so for example Taylorcraft would have its allotted numbers, as would Cessna/Beech/Piper, etc. So your C140 being a couple of numbers away from your neighbor's likely would have rolled out of Wichita one or two ships away from his. Either way, the earliest of registration numbers (N numbers, for the US) were successive and not vanity or custom like we can do today.

Also curious to see how the Registry will be able to reconcile this with its own regulations governing the requirements of the registration of Aircraft generally (49 USC 44101 et seq; and 14 CFR 47 and 49). In classic form, one reg requires that the FAA provide for methods of keeping your information private, but doesn't say how or where that information is otherwise supposed to be accessible, as required by the very regs that establish the Registry in the first place. You may not think this makes a hill of beans difference and that privacy is the key component here. It isn't and it makes a helluva a hill of beans difference. The very reason for Registry records in the first place is (was) to equip the enforcement agencies with the ability to find out who owns an airplane operated in US airspace***. Circa 1999, our friends at the Aeronautical Center Counsel's office in OKC issued a letter (just a letter, not a "ruling" or "regulation", but a guidance "letter" to all Registry examiners) requiring that "physical addresses be included in all 8050-1 forms filed with the Registry". How's that sit with you? Why should we have to comply with that? Nowhere in the then-regs did it require that your physical address be included in your documents filed in OKC anytime you wished to register your ownership of an aircraft once you bought it. FAA Registry documents examiners began immediately rejecting ownership and registration documents filed that didn't comply with that unpublished requirement. Perhaps some of us on here experienced this joy, which also caused some of us to operate unknowingly in violation of Registration requirements if such flights occurred beyond the 90 day "temporary" (pink copy) registration carried on board without having had the final registration card issued in the interim. Anyway, when queried about this craziness, the answer was twofold: "the FAA has been instructed by DOT and Treasury and Dept of State to require the physical location of where each US registered aircraft is to be based" and second, "the FAA has an interest in maintaining safe flight operations of all aircraft operated in US airspace". What??? Seriously, those were the answers. In reality, when pushed further on the topic and at multiple seminars following this silly unpublished change in the regs, ACC finally admitted it was so drug trafficking could be tracked more accurately and then it became a firm requirement once the disaster that was 9/11 happened. Thus, we've been required to show a physical address ever since. So guess what this triggered? Yes, you guess correctly: my aircraft is "physically located" at my hangar and I don't receive mail or notices at my hangar, because, well, my hangar doesn't have a f*cking address. The FAA hadn't thought of that. Remember the most recent debacle about requiring the "re-registration" of the triennial registration requirements? All of that was birthed by the ignorance of the FAA's own regulations about providing a proper address for registration purposes. The "physical location" of the aircraft requirement caused the removal of thousands of actual mailing addresses for FAA notices and manufacturer notices to reach the aircraft-owning pilot community. It's taken decades since to resolve. All of this to say that you may not think that what goes on at the FAA Civil Aircraft Registry affects you nearly as often as what goes on at Aeromedical, but it does. I argue it likely affects us more because the Registry records are one of the easiest ways to commit fraud using aircraft records. They're all there to see, as you wish. All of your financial data found in your loan documents on that fancy Mooney you just bought are in those FAA Registry records. Hopefully you used a proper aircraft title company in OKC and a proper aircraft lender who knows what not to include in those filings, but if you didn't, your info is there for all to see and the bad guys to exploit. Finally, think about this: next time you do a pre-buy and make an offer on a plane to purchase and you run a title search (which you should, always), how does availing oneself of these new privacy regs hurt your due diligence on important matters such as who owns the aircraft and, more importantly, who holds a valid encumbrance against that collateral? This reg is so vague and useless by its language and text that it will yet again open Pandora's box on more craziness that was never intended. Think that you'll always be able to review the records on a plane you're looking at, like we all could in the old days? Maybe and likely not, going forward. Welcome to FAA Registry Operations in the new age . . . ***Fun fact: ever wonder about those really old tail numbers you see in those really old photos, or perhaps even on the tail of some classic aircraft today, e.g. "N31178" on the tail of a 1940 Piper J-3? In the pre-DOT/pre-Civil Aircraft Registry days, circa 1958 and prior, the manufacturers assigned successive N numbers to the aircraft rolling out of their factories, which generally coincided with when that particular aircraft was registered with the Dept of War (the predecessor of our friendly, modern FAA Registry). Aside from a few exceptions through the decades, next time you're strolling the vintage ramp at Airventure, which everyone should do every year, you can safely assume that those airplanes bearing those old numbers were the "x" aircraft ever built in the US. So in 1940, N31178 (a 1940 J-3) was presumably the thirty-one thousandth and change airplane ever manufactured in the US. Seeing that there are now ~600,000+ US registered aircraft operating daily and airworthy currently (with legion more than that manufactured throughout history), I've always thought its rather cool to see an old aircraft with an old NC tail number.

This is perfect--what a great bit of advice. Thanks for supplying this and sharing your process. I still think it sucks that we have to establish multiple online accounts with the FAA (using different interfaces and even different vendors supplying the services to the FAA), just to apply for a medical or inquire/establish something with the Registry. CAMI and Civil Aircraft Registry buildings are merely a few yards away from each other in OKC. Why they don't use the same online portal will forever baffle me.

Only thing missing there, @EricJ would have been the Brady Bunch on their exciting vacation to the Grand Canyon or Uncle Jesse and Old No. 7 . . .

This I do know: donuts (and several boxes of them, and don't forget to add the apple fritters) work really well for the FBO line guys and those Little Caesars hot-n-ready $6.00 pizzas work great in the shop working on your airplane. These two small, relatively inexpensive gestures go a long way toward keeping everyone on the same wavelength. We're all human and we all make mistakes, all the time. Anyone not willing to admit this or agree with this won't be getting donuts or pizzas from me anytime soon.

^^^+1000 for @Parker_Woodruff and his attention to customer service and timely responses, etc. Just wrote a renewal with Parker yesterday and already referred a longtime pilot buddy to him who didn't know any better. Way to go, Parker.

I know, I know. I cringed right after I posted that. I was (stupidly) trying to think like an installer and forgot its as simple as designating which is which. My bad for overlooking a simplicity amidst what is usually Medusa's headdress of compliance BS.

Indeed yours is an interesting perspective, but what the ruling actually clarifies isn't the leaded versus unleaded avgas issue--it was a clear and unequivocal ruling that agencies (in this case, a county) cannot unduly deprive rightful access to something federally mandated otherwise. It just so happens that this case involves 100LL and 100UL of various types (such as they are). Unfortunately, all of aviation is on a downhill slide on this issue and literally every other issue taken up by those opposed to anyone exercising their freedom to fly. If we're truly supportive of GA overall, and I believe all of us on here are, then we need to come together and let the market bear out what should or shouldn't be available. To do anything less than that is to remain unwilling subjects to bureaucrats who truly do not have GA's best interests in mind. In fact, they have the opposite in mind: absolute abolishment. If all we do is sit back and expect to turn our heads and cough when told, then we shouldn't even expect a soft, gentle hand when asked to do so.

Interesting theory, PC. I'd be curious, however, to see how many annuals would get that wiring setup squawked by an IA for not being "i/a/w certification", etc. I could see several not signing off on that setup unless there's an approved published alternative in the installation process. Just thinking out loud here . . .

@mhoffman Just lurking to see if you have an update on this? Has to have been maddening for something like this in-flight, compounded by the fact that the remedy is replacing the gear motor. We'd love to hear how your quest to replace that went/is going. Hopefully getting one reasonably is a bit easier than milking the truth out of a politician . . .

I hear you, Mr. Cone. My take on his diatribe is less about all GA pilots being wrong about it, and more about being wrong about overlooking establishing habits that focus on maneuvering speed versus religiously and rotely (is that a word?) going for glide speed in engine-out situations, instead of perhaps better options that give you more airspeed options (such as the aforementioned maneuvering speed instead of best-glide). Quick side story: My son is going through his PPL training now as a 16 year old and has been doing so since age 15 at my buddy's local 141 and he won't even be able to take his check ride until this summer when he turns 17 (I know; cue the "why are you doing that" questions). I occasionally go up with him and his instructor and I just watch and listen. I'm amazed at what they're doing now in 141 curriculum versus the part 65 when I did mine back some 7 presidential administrations ago. To my shock and dismay, there isn't a standard "engine-out" curriculum in the C172S 141 syllabus. Instead, there are all kinds of "engine out recovery" situations. Now I'm not here to debate the ills or extol the virtues of these many stair-stepped syllabus steps to learning emergency recoveries in a 141 environment--they all have their pros and cons. What does make we amazed and astonished is how rote and routine they try to make all of them. To me, there doesn't seem to be much thought or questions around why they do them or whether there are better ways to react and recall how to recover--it's literally become a check-the-box learning and achievement environment. Case in point: in the "engine fire in-cruise recovery" portion, guess what the very first requirement is? "Turn the aircraft toward the direction of the engine fire". Seriously? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How about establishing where you're going to put the aircraft down safely, first? If one stops long enough to think about the recovery steps in that situation, shouldn't we ask "how on God's green earth, or more accurately, how in God's blue sky are we supposed to determine 'which side the engine fire is coming from'? If you're supposed to "turn in the direction of the engine fire", shouldn't you be able to figure out which side of the cowl it's coming from first? So please tell me, even at C172S cruise speeds of ~110kt, give or take, how are you doing to determine where the flames/smoke are? You can't. Ram air physically prevents it. So what good does that kind of recovery training teach a learning pilot-to-be? I detailed all of this with my son afterward and he hadn't even thought about it that way. Most, if not all such student never would think of it that way because it isn't "in the syllabus", so they aren't supposed to think of it that way. All of that sidebar to say that as long as videos and other elements of learning that are logical and get us to actually think about an emergency situation logically, we'll all arrive safely at our destination, whether such destination is planned or unplanned. After all, that's always our ultimate goal of flying: make sure our number of landings equals our number of takeoffs, period.