Natural Disasters Affect on the Fleet

[Schllc]

Given that the last time I checked there were less than 150k certified piston planes (only 13k are twin engine!) registered in the US today, when an event like what happened in Nebraska, or with the one in Tennessee a few years ago, or Helene, or Milton, taking out 50 planes at one time has to have an effect on our fleet.  
Two years ago after Ian hit my hometown, I was talking to a tow truck driver who told me that they were projecting 100,000 flood damaged cars. That is almost a rounding error for automobiles, but 50 planes in one event is catastrophic for our fleet because unlike cars, they will not be replaced. 
this along with accidents does not bode well for us.

 

[wombat]

When we know that a hurricane like this is coming, should or could insurance mandate that people evacuate their aircraft or they will not be paid out if the aircraft is damaged/destroyed?  This is making my insurance rates go up!

[LANCECASPER]

People in FL most likely have higher rates than people in WA. @Parker_Woodruff could explain that better. 

[Hank]

How well do you trust the construction and current physical condition of your hangar? Either your own box hangar, or the whole row where your individual space is located?

Most insurance policies, including mine, offer remuneration for relocating your plane from a Hurricane Warning Zone to a clear area. My wife, though, said if we have to evacuate, she's taking the car and packing heavy!

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

Given that the last time I checked there were less than 150k certified piston planes (only 13k are twin engine!) registered in the US today, when an event like what happened in Nebraska, or with the one in Tennessee a few years ago, or Helene, or Milton, taking out 50 planes at one time has to have an effect on our fleet.  
Two years ago after Ian hit my hometown, I was talking to a tow truck driver who told me that they were projecting 100,000 flood damaged cars. That is almost a rounding error for automobiles, but 50 planes in one event is catastrophic for our fleet because unlike cars, they will not be replaced. 
this along with accidents does not bode well for us.

 

Twenty years ago over 20 Mooneys were damaged or destroyed just in Punta Gorda alone in Hurricane Charlie:

 

https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=1946e114-50b7-4e0f-8ef4-003f1b2afb8e

That was the storm that brought Brian Kendrick from FL to TX.

[Schllc]

Speaking of….

How many will this ground forever?

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/october/02/low-wing-piper-spars-life-limited-in-new-directive?utm_source=ebrief&utm_medium=email

[DCarlton]

23 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Speaking of….

How many will this ground forever?

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/october/02/low-wing-piper-spars-life-limited-in-new-directive?utm_source=ebrief&utm_medium=email

Curious what it will do to the Piper market even though it's a lot of hours.  There's just something about spar ADs...  I'd be the kind of guy that would cut the FAAs limit in half and still worry about it.  If I ever auger in, I want to make sure it's my fault and not the airplanes.  

[Schllc]

Inch my inch, the bureaucracy is diligently working to eliminate GA. 
this may not be an overt directive but it is the only logical outcome of all of these decisions. 
this kind of qualifies as a natural disaster….

https://www.globalair.com/articles/faas-moss-interpretation-could-devastate-ga-maintenance-industry-groups-say?id=8026&utm_source=airmailnews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=faa-and-39-s-and-39-moss-interpretation-and-39-could-devastate-ga-maintenance-industry-groups-say

 

This one is a little more difficult to understand, and is certainly one that is ripe for abuse, but rules written prior to the existence of the technology we possess today needs to be rationally considered. 
The FAR really needs to be brought out of the 19th century. 

[Vance Harral]

5 hours ago, Schllc said:

taking out 50 planes at one time has to have an effect on our fleet

While I understand the emotional sentiment, the math ain't mathin'.  From your own data, if there are 143,000 piston aircraft in the country, a loss of 50 would represent 0.035 percent of the fleet, which is indeed a rounding error.  Per GAMA, the industry built 1,909 new piston airplanes in 2023.  The idea that a theoretical 50 unit loss from a natural disaster somehow represents a "catastrophic loss" for the fleet that "won't be replaced", just ain't so.  Natural disasters have essentially nothing to do with the decline of piston GA.

More importantly, airplane owners in the paths of hurricanes have all kinds of concerns, of which their airplane is only one, and not necessarily the most important.  Whether to expend time, money, and energy to move it is their business and no one else's.

That said, it's certainly true that lost Mooneys aren't replaced with new Mooneys.  And none of this data changes my sympathy for those in the path.

[McMooney]

i suspect, looking at the airports i'be been based at  < 75% of those planes are even flying, wouldn't be surprised if it was far lower.   

 

I'd bet this storm, going over every airport i flew out of in florida, will get a few hundred planes.

Edited October 8 by McMooney

[Schllc]

Perhaps,  but your math isn’t complete either. 
How many of that 130k are trainers, and not really in our fleet per se. 
How many of those are registered but not airworthy. 
When you look at the Mooney fleet, under 10k were ever made, of which maybe 7500 are registered.  Losing 20 in one year is absolutely catastrophic.  
They will not be replaced, and it’s 20 less to choose from when you go to buy. 
I guess you could say it will drive values up, but at some point that will fall off a cliff because of scarcity of parts. 
GA is shrinking, not growing. There may be a better word than catastrophe, but it escapes me at the moment. 

also, it’s not really a rounding error when there are 130k planes available in a country of 350 million. 
Lastly, the affect on the fleet of losing 50 at once isn’t immediate, but it is over time. 

[LANCECASPER]

52 minutes ago, Schllc said:

When you look at the Mooney fleet, under 10k were ever made, of which maybe 7500 are registered.  

Close, Mooney mentioned at MooneyMax that there about approx. 7000 still flying.

They delivered their 11,000th Mooney back in 2006, so less than +/- 11,300?       https://generalaviationnews.com/2006/03/24/mooney-delivers-no-11000/

But your point is well taken. The ones destroyed aren't coming back.

I still believe though that corrosion is taking more out of the fleet every year than natural disasters.

[Vance Harral]

Sure, a lot of the 130K airplanes are trainers, but so are a lot of the theoretical 50 airplanes you're postulating will be lost in a natural disaster.  Yes, a lot of registered airplanes are unairworthy, but as @McMooney points out, so are a lot (most?) of the airplanes "lost" in said disasters.  Using your own numbers, a loss of 20 Mooneys from a fleet of 7500 is 0.26%, which is still a rounding error - it would take 40 years of a major disaster every single year to affect even 10% of the Mooney fleet.  That's really an irrelevant concern, given the rate at which Mooneys (and other piston singles) exit the fleet for other reasons.

50 minutes ago, Schllc said:

GA is shrinking, not growing. There may be a better word than catastrophe, but it escapes me at the moment. 

It seems to me you're just complaining about the general decline of GA, and the disproportionate impact on the Mooney fleet due to the failure of the brand as a new airplane manufacturer.  I'm sympathetic to that, and worried about it myself.  But the impact of hurricanes, floods, volcanoes etc. is irrelevant to that concern.  To the extent Mooney (and piston GA in general) might die, natural disasters aren't going to be even a meaningful contributor, much less the primary cause.

[Parker_Woodruff]

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

People in FL most likely have higher rates than people in WA. @Parker_Woodruff could explain that better. 

Not much, if any - depends on the insurance company

[Schllc]

I have evacuated since I have owned an airplane, but I was in annual and didn’t have the option. 
with this much time to plan, I think most people use them to get away. 

[1980Mooney]

On 10/8/2024 at 3:58 PM, Vance Harral said:

Sure, a lot of the 130K airplanes are trainers, but so are a lot of the theoretical 50 airplanes you're postulating will be lost in a natural disaster.  Yes, a lot of registered airplanes are unairworthy, but as @McMooney points out, so are a lot (most?) of the airplanes "lost" in said disasters.  Using your own numbers, a loss of 20 Mooneys from a fleet of 7500 is 0.26%, which is still a rounding error - it would take 40 years of a major disaster every single year to affect even 10% of the Mooney fleet.  That's really an irrelevant concern, given the rate at which Mooneys (and other piston singles) exit the fleet for other reasons.

It seems to me you're just complaining about the general decline of GA, and the disproportionate impact on the Mooney fleet due to the failure of the brand as a new airplane manufacturer.  I'm sympathetic to that, and worried about it myself.  But the impact of hurricanes, floods, volcanoes etc. is irrelevant to that concern.  To the extent Mooney (and piston GA in general) might die, natural disasters aren't going to be even a meaningful contributor, much less the primary cause.

It may not be the primary cause but it chips away at and adds a bit faster rate of decline of the fleet.  It's the loss at the small airports that rarely get mentioned.  Here is a poor Mooney at Hendersonville Airport (0A7), NC that was submerged in 9 ft of water  (video incorrectly states 3 ft. initially but it was 9 ft. of water)  It floated up and pushed under the hangar door.  You can see the water level in time lapsed pic in another hangar.  The plane is covered inside and outside with silt.  Other planes seen in the video shared the same fate.

Edited October 11 by 1980Mooney

[Schllc]

On 10/10/2024 at 8:39 PM, 1980Mooney said:

It may not be the primary cause but it chips away at and adds a bit faster rate of decline of the fleet. 

Exactly!  Think about it like compounding interest. 
The percentage of a fleet that isn’t being replaced increases every year, even if accident rates stay the same…

[Pinecone]

Since that was fresh water, it may be just some sheet metal work.

Rinse and hit it with ACF-50 ASAP.

[1980Mooney]

39 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Since that was fresh water, it may be just some sheet metal work.

Rinse and hit it with ACF-50 ASAP.

You can see the silt built up inside the landing light lens.  It was completely submerged.  There will be flood water silt inside everything - some water may be trapped for the likely months it takes to haul the plane away.  The avionics and all instruments are shot.  The engine is shot.  The plane will need to be gutted.  You may be right that they could salvage a hollow shell of an airframe but every bearing surface, pivot point, jackscrew, etc will need to be dissembled, cleaned and lubricated.   

I suspect that what is left of the plane will be become a parts donor in a salvage yard.

[Pinecone]

This was fresh water, so less of an issue.  Avionics may be OK if they are allowed to dry out before applying power.  And can be dunked in ACF-50.

The trick is to get to it NOW.  Pull inspection plates to allow air movement.  Keep door open and use fan to move air.

If you really want to get fancy, tent the plane and get some industrial dehumidifiers running.  These can pull the moisture level down to the point where you enter the area and can feel the moisture being removed from your eyes.

Corrosion does not happen immediately.  

I have been involved in flood and leak damage where thousands of gallons of water were involved.  If you get to it, you can dry things out.  Only thinks like paper (used as an interior backing) and manufactured wood get major damage immediately.

[LANCECASPER]

35 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You can see the silt built up inside the landing light lens.  It was completely submerged.  There will be flood water silt inside everything - some water may be trapped for the likely months it takes to haul the plane away.  The avionics and all instruments are shot.  The engine is shot.  The plane will need to be gutted.  You may be right that they could salvage a hollow shell of an airframe but every bearing surface, pivot point, jackscrew, etc will need to be dissembled, cleaned and lubricated.   

I suspect that what is left of the plane will be become a parts donor in a salvage yard.

I agree 100%. Even just the wiring, a lot of which is in the belly - the canon plugs weren't  designed to be submerged in water. You would be fighting electrical gremlins for years trying to bring this one back to life.