I saw a guy post on social media expressing concern with the guidance set forth by FAA order 8100.19. It is in the best interest of this community and the legacy fleet of general aviation aircraft to oppose this authority.

Here is the FAA order: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8100.19.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0PqMqZU44i7lBOvnpgA_7Sjuy_3G1YwJfgQEOeFu4_2RDGzdhEupnN3Ko

Here is the text of the post and accompanying letter to senator:

We have a serious issue with FAA guidance letter 8100.19. It will allow a single FAA inspector remove many aircraft from service that are completely repairable utilizing FAA PMA parts and assemblies. Please read the attached document and contact your Senators and Representatives in Washington today. I am attaching a copy of my letter to Scott Leathard in Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan’s office. I spoke with the Senator Saturday in person. He was very receptive and concerned.

My letter follows-

“Mr Leathard,

I met with Senator Sullivan this morning in Reno at Safari Club. Sen. Sullivan directed me to contact you concerning FAA Order 8100.19 – Destroyed and Scrapped Aircraft.

I am attaching a .pdf of the document as well as the schedule for the FAA Inspection Authorization meeting in Anchorage at Change Point Church January 25, 2019 where it is to be presented.

This Guidance doc authorizes and attempts to provide guidance to certain FAA inspectors on determining if and aircraft is damaged to the point of being considered scrapped or destroyed. Without the consent of the registered owner the aircraft can be deregistered and the data tag required to be surrendered. At this juncture the aircraft is just gone. Many of the aircraft we rely upon in Alaska for our day to day livelihood are no longer in production. Examples are Piper Super Cubs, Cessna 180 and 185, Beavers, Otters, just to give a few examples.

Many of these aircraft have aftermarket current production parts from FAA approved PMA sources. Super Cubs are a great example there is a large local cottage industry surrounding the overhaul, repair, and reconstruction of these aircraft. I have personally repaired aircraft as old as 1947 with a new manufactured FAA/PMA fuselage frame and all new parts to equal, and in many cases better than when they left the factory. In a large part due to modern manufacturing and metallurgy,

Concerns:
1. Commercial and private sectors will be impacted dramatically from the implications of the power granted to individual inspectors by 8100.19. Rural remote Alaska depends upon the “Bush Pilot” to deliver groceries, fuel, food, emergency evacuation, tourism from flight seeing, hunting, fishing, eco tours all will be impacted from the loss of aircraft no longer in production do to surrender of paperwork and data plates for aircraft that could be reconditioned/overhauled at the owners discretion.
2. Usurping private owners rights. If a government employed inspector can effectively condemn someones private property without them having a say I believe that is wrong. So long as the aircraft can be reconditioned to original or properly altered, approved condition who is to determine what is “too much” damage. This is the choice of the owner. There is an appeal process, however, I personally feel this is unethical abuse of power and a violation of public trust.

Should the owner of a damaged aircraft wish to repair/overhaul the aircraft requiring an FAA authorized inspector to perform a conformity inspection would be an acceptable method of insuring the safety of the public and assuring the aircraft in question was returned to the original manufactured or approved and altered state.

Thank you for your help in considering this matter.

Best Regards...

The last thing we need is the FAA getting involved to tell us if our airplanes can be repaired.

Time and money is what determines what can and cannot be repaired.

A few bad apples doing shady things have ruined it for the masses, as usual.

Here is a photo of a success story that I’m sure the FAA would have screwed up had they applied their logic in the attached order.

It’s our government, and they profess to be here to help.

sidebar: that repaired 170B above is rocking my old upper cowling.

denalipilot wrote:sidebar: that repaired 170B above is rocking my old upper cowling.

It's got my old motor mount too.

Aryana wrote:
A few bad apples doing shady things have ruined it for the masses, as usual.

What bad apples and what did they do to cause this?
John

hardtailjohn wrote:
What bad apples and what did they do to cause this?
John

People taking data plates off wrecked aircraft and and replacing them with one from another plane to move all the logs and paperwork over to another aircraft.

I’ve seen some egregious stuff done on helicopters to trade aircraft without paying taxes.

Everywhere you look, there are always a few a-holes who want to game the system for their own benefit.

The negative impact to the aviation community from the folks doing this and the FAA stepping in is obvious.

I am against this the FAA does not need to be the one that says a plane is repairable or not. But how can you say a supercub built from a box with a 1951 data plate is the same aircraft? One slippery slope to getting rid of all the vintage aircraft out there.

AK_Logan wrote:I am against this the FAA does not need to be the one that says a plane is repairable or not. But how can you say a supercub built from a box with a 1951 data plate is the same aircraft? One slippery slope to getting rid of all the vintage aircraft out there.

Because it conforms with the type certificate? Even if you start with a data plate and a log book from a desk drawer, it still needs to conform and repairs be documented.

Assuming we're talking about someone doing this legitimately because these rules will never stop the a criminal from doing the same.

There will be a paper trail a mile long detailing all the work performed to 'repair' the fuselage to original condition.
Wings were rebuild using new spars, cables, fittings, fabric ...

I am a firm believer that anything is repairable. Not everything is worth repairing and some parts will be unbelievably difficult to reproduce but it's just parts made in a certain way and assembled in a certain way.

Bagarre wrote:

AK_Logan wrote:I am against this the FAA does not need to be the one that says a plane is repairable or not. But how can you say a supercub built from a box with a 1951 data plate is the same aircraft? One slippery slope to getting rid of all the vintage aircraft out there.

Because it conforms with the type certificate? Even if you start with a data plate and a log book from a desk drawer, it still needs to conform and repairs be documented.

Assuming we're talking about someone doing this legitimately because these rules will never stop the a criminal from doing the same.

There will be a paper trail a mile long detailing all the work performed to 'repair' the fuselage to original condition.
Wings were rebuild using new spars, cables, fittings, fabric ...

I am a firm believer that anything is repairable. Not everything is worth repairing and some parts will be unbelievably difficult to reproduce but it's just parts made in a certain way and assembled in a certain way.

My point about a cub was you can build rebuild a cub completely new with out using a single piece of the original aircraft besides the data plate and it is the same. There is no repairs it is new. Maybe this is what they are trying to eliminate? Who knows. My comment about the slippery slope was just about the process, it was supposed to be a separate thought I didn’t write it that way.

Don’t get me wrong. As a cub guy I want to keep my plane alive for ever!

You’re not thinking like a criminal. That’s a good thing!

AK_Logan wrote:I am against this the FAA does not need to be the one that says a plane is repairable or not. But how can you say a supercub built from a box with a 1951 data plate is the same aircraft? One slippery slope to getting rid of all the vintage aircraft out there.

I look at it as being rebuilt. A fuselage has a part number same as a pulley or rib. So you are changing parts numbers which is a repair. Sure it's basically a new airplane, but according to the logs it is repaired/rebuilt. It wont be "zero timed" per se, so you still end up with a 19 something supercub with X amount of hrs on it.
I agree that this is a slippery slope with the FAA. As Baggare says, it's not going to stop the criminals from doing their thing.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

AK_Logan wrote:

Bagarre wrote:

AK_Logan wrote:I am against this the FAA does not need to be the one that says a plane is repairable or not. But how can you say a supercub built from a box with a 1951 data plate is the same aircraft? One slippery slope to getting rid of all the vintage aircraft out there.

Because it conforms with the type certificate? Even if you start with a data plate and a log book from a desk drawer, it still needs to conform and repairs be documented.

Assuming we're talking about someone doing this legitimately because these rules will never stop the a criminal from doing the same.

There will be a paper trail a mile long detailing all the work performed to 'repair' the fuselage to original condition.
Wings were rebuild using new spars, cables, fittings, fabric ...

I am a firm believer that anything is repairable. Not everything is worth repairing and some parts will be unbelievably difficult to reproduce but it's just parts made in a certain way and assembled in a certain way.

My point about a cub was you can build rebuild a cub completely new with out using a single piece of the original aircraft besides the data plate and it is the same. There is no repairs it is new. Maybe this is what they are trying to eliminate? Who knows. My comment about the slippery slope was just about the process, it was supposed to be a separate thought I didn’t write it that way.

Don’t get me wrong. As a cub guy I want to keep my plane alive for ever!

But if the 100% replacement/repair of the aircraft is properly performed and documented, why should the FAA care?
Of course, to be a legit repair there needs to be SOME part of the major structure remaining to 'repair'.
OR if it is 100% new parts, it's legit under Owner Made Part. There's nothing on a SuperCub that can't be made in a garage.

I understand and agree about stopping a case where:
1.someone balls up a nice, new, low time SuperCub,
2. pulls the data plate off and puts it on an old, 10,000 hour SuperCub
3. cleans it up with a fresh paint job
4. sells it as a nice new low time SuperCub

That's fraud but you won't stop that with regulations.

I think they are focused on the fraud and not realizing how they will affect everything else while still not stopping the fraud.

Reminds me of the old story of a prop shop refusing to repair a prop because it was bent beyond limits.
So the guy wedged it between two trees and bent it back within limits and re-sent it to the prop shop to be repaired.
No amount of regulation will stop that kind of stupid.

Not to add fuel to the fire here, but this has been going on for a long time. I acted as a consultant on a case where the FAA went in with the DEA as the enforcement agency to do a night SWAT team arrest of a person who had purchased a King Air B200. They came and arrested him for basically fraudulently registering an aircraft. They asserted it was not a Beechcraft B200. The aircraft was built back up from parts after being used as a parts plane to support government contracts abroad. The aircraft was current with an airworthiness certificate issued by the FISDO, not a DAR.

The case took a while to settle, but the FAA inspectors wrote up 260+ violations, such as, "does not have original tires, does not have original ELT battery, does not have original toilet seat." and so on. Ultimately we proved every part was legit. No fraud intended, but it took getting Congressman Westmorland to actually attend the meeting and personally beat them up. It was rather comical, as the FAA didn't believe I would drag the congressman to the meeting. Led to some very tense moments for the inspectors and the general counsel of the FAA. Congressman Westmorland stated at the end of the meeting: "I was going to retire from congress at the end of this session, but you six have motivated me to stay on. I want to make sure you do not work for the Federal Government anymore."

Ultimately, we got the aircraft out of the US Marshall's impound in Midland Texas. We recovered fees and expenses. But in the meantime, the customer had to endure jail and the loss of business, as the banks pulled all his loans (he was a real estate developer). If you ever read your loan documents, banks can pull your loans if you get into criminal legal problems. Turns out one of the inspectors used to work for the client and it was felt the entire thing was revenge. The Inspector General didn't see it that way, naturally. You cannot sue the FAA, they are a safety agency and shielded. You can sue the DEA on a Blivens action, but it takes years and serious $$$.

So, if they want to dick with you, they don't need this regulation. BTW, the inspectors, they still work for the FAA.

I suspect that this "Re-interpretation" of the regulations came about because of the case the FAA made against a mechanic in Anchorage. In that case, as Aryana suggested, a client owned an airplane that was going to be subject to seizure by a law enforcement agency, but hadn't gone to court yet.

The short version is that the mechanic switched data plates with another airplane, and the actual airplane which was subject to seizure "became" a different serial number, tail number, etc.

They got caught, of course, and the mechanic suffered revocation of his certificates.

But, I totally agree that this proposal takes the authority of an inspector way, way too far.

MTV

Bagarre wrote:

AK_Logan wrote:

Bagarre wrote:

AK_Logan wrote:I am against this the FAA does not need to be the one that says a plane is repairable or not. But how can you say a supercub built from a box with a 1951 data plate is the same aircraft? One slippery slope to getting rid of all the vintage aircraft out there.

Because it conforms with the type certificate? Even if you start with a data plate and a log book from a desk drawer, it still needs to conform and repairs be documented.

Assuming we're talking about someone doing this legitimately because these rules will never stop the a criminal from doing the same.

There will be a paper trail a mile long detailing all the work performed to 'repair' the fuselage to original condition.
Wings were rebuild using new spars, cables, fittings, fabric ...

I am a firm believer that anything is repairable. Not everything is worth repairing and some parts will be unbelievably difficult to reproduce but it's just parts made in a certain way and assembled in a certain way.

My point about a cub was you can build rebuild a cub completely new with out using a single piece of the original aircraft besides the data plate and it is the same. There is no repairs it is new. Maybe this is what they are trying to eliminate? Who knows. My comment about the slippery slope was just about the process, it was supposed to be a separate thought I didn’t write it that way.

Don’t get me wrong. As a cub guy I want to keep my plane alive for ever!

But if the 100% replacement/repair of the aircraft is properly performed and documented, why should the FAA care?
Of course, to be a legit repair there needs to be SOME part of the major structure remaining to 'repair'.
OR if it is 100% new parts, it's legit under Owner Made Part. There's nothing on a SuperCub that can't be made in a garage.

I understand and agree about stopping a case where:
1.someone balls up a nice, new, low time SuperCub,
2. pulls the data plate off and puts it on an old, 10,000 hour SuperCub
3. cleans it up with a fresh paint job
4. sells it as a nice new low time SuperCub

That's fraud but you won't stop that with regulations.

I think they are focused on the fraud and not realizing how they will affect everything else while still not stopping the fraud.

Reminds me of the old story of a prop shop refusing to repair a prop because it was bent beyond limits.
So the guy wedged it between two trees and bent it back within limits and re-sent it to the prop shop to be repaired.
No amount of regulation will stop that kind of stupid.

I agree 100% with AK_Logan... STC'd fuselage, wings, gear, engine, prop, and PMA'd or owner produced parts, etc.... who cares when I replace all those parts? Is it somehow ok if I do it over a year, one part at a time and not all at once?? What's the logic in that??? I know what Dan tried to pull with his data plate switch. He got caught and paid the price as MTV said. That has absolutely nothing to do with legal parts replacement/construction. As is said above, there's not one part on a Cub that I can't build right here at my shop....legally. IF you've been in this game a while, you know that 30 years ago, a bent up (I mean really bent up) Cub wasn't worth repairing. It was cheaper to just find another one. But now, we have Super Cubs in the $100K range regularly....sure makes that old wreck worth digging out of the bone pile and fixing! Shouldn't be anything that the FAA is even worried about, as long as it's all done with approved parts and by the book. Who cares if it's "new" parts?
John

AK_Logan wrote:...My point about a cub was you can build rebuild a cub completely new with out using a single piece of the original aircraft besides the data plate and it is the same. There is no repairs it is new....

Reminds me of a local guy years ago who wanted to tear down an old house he'd bought and build a new one.
Nope, couldn't get a permit for a new house due to it being right alongside a creek (which was the attraction)
and in the flood plain (which wasn't).
So he had the beater house jacked up and put on cribbing,
poured a tall foundation (to get it up out of the very real flooding),
then rebuilt the entire house from scratch except for one wall.
Then after his final inspection, he rebuilt that wall from the inside.
It was all completely legal-- it was a "remodel", not a new construction.
But it was 100% new when he was done.