So has anybody tallied how many airframes died during re-registration? What was the fleet total, what it is now?
So has anybody tallied how many airframes died during re-registration? What was the fleet total, what it is now?
I have a tradition of downloading the FAA Registration Database about the first of every year.Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com
From 1 January 2009 to 1 January 2013, overall FAA registrations decreased by 23,929 aircraft.
Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft? They actually increased in the same period, from 31,242 to 32,041.
You can see the effect of the re-registrations in the yearly totals, though:
2009: 31,242
2010: 31,914
2011: 32,682
2012: 33,038
2013: 32,041
(The dates are as of 1 January)
The FAA dropped a thousand EX-AB airplanes between 2012 and 2013.
In recent years, the FAA database has started including a list of deregistered aircraft. It lists almost 165,000 aircraft, but that's from ~1927 on.
According to the deregistration list, 44,181 aircraft (including 3,366 homebuilts) have been deregistered since 1 January 2009.
Note that the numbers are a bit deceptive...not all "homebuilt" aircraft have an airworthiness code, and without that you can't tell if it's Experimental Amateur-Built. Some of those remaining ~41,000 airplanes were undoubtedly homebuilts.
Ron Wanttaja
The last group of initial re-registrations is happening right now (ending October 31), so the final totals probably won't be known until next year.
Duh! on me. I was in the last group,and thought when I did mine they must all have been done because I'm normally late. thanks.
Just an update...
When I returned from Osh, I went ahead and re-registered via the online process. When I get my registration in the mail, I will update everyone with what the new expiration date is. The online form indicated Aug. 31, 2016. It also indicated I will get my new one in the mail in 5-7 days. We will see.
Thanks for the input,
Corey
The expiration date will be as stated regardless of how early or late you tried to renew it. Frankly, I view it as a collosal waste of time and money on both the fed's and the citizen's part with ZERO benefit. Even the alledgedly bloated database isn't that big.
Maybe the gooberment wants to know what they're up against, so far as civilian aviation...
They're doing all they can to collect all of the data they don't need to know about us, why not this?
concur
Come on now, "a collosal waste of time and money on both the fed's and the citizen's part with zero benefit"
Nah, does that sound like the govt that we all know and so dearly love?
So if there is no real benefit, then why have this program? And by the way it is an ongoing and repeating thing, we have to do the dance over and over every few years.
Behind almost everything that Congress does there is a profit motive. Do you think wars just happen and go on for decades? Could it have to do with profit for Lockheed or Oshkosh trucks or whoever? Do you think some companies have made millions off the whole TSA industry?
I don't have the facts, but my guess is that there is a contracter behind the registration deal that is doing very well. These things don't exist in a vacume.
My theory is that it makes it easier for taxation.
When an aircraft isn't in service (scrapped, non-renewed, etc.) it falls off the active registry. Then notify the appropriate tax gatherers at various government levels of a nice, tidy list of only the active N-numbers.
The upside for builders is that it frees up N-numbers for registration requests, IIRC.
Btw, what's the penalty for flying an aircraft with an expired N-number (as if one would ever actually get caught without a wreck)?
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote