And...here's the number of certified-aircraft registrations cancelled vs. the year of manufacture. Sure can tell when the Boom and Bust periods were...
Ron Wanttaja
And...here's the number of certified-aircraft registrations cancelled vs. the year of manufacture. Sure can tell when the Boom and Bust periods were...
Ron Wanttaja
I wonder if a lot of those were exports. There has been a lot of activity lately exporting 150/152s for training in other countries.Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Interesting thought, but it looks like the 150/152s are LESS popular in the export market.
Here's the percentage of the deregistered aircraft that were deregistered due to exportation:
Cessna (all): 22.1%
Cessna 150/152: 14.5%
Cessna 172: 27.1%
Cessna 182: 25.9%
Cessna 210: 29.5%
Piper (all): 10.1%
Beech: 20.7%
This reflects the results over the three years of the deregistration effort, though...could be that 150/152 exporting has become popular only recently. However, the cost of exportation is probably nearly the same regardless of single-engine type, so it seems like a more-expensive airplane makes a better candidate.
Ron Wanttaja
If I may offer some perspective on the export market for light aircraft, one factor that drives the choice or make and model is the costs for fuel and maintenance in the destination countries.
As an example that I am familiar with, The 2 seat Pitts line includes the S-2A, S-2B, and S-2C. The -2A has a 4 cylinder 200hp Lyco where the -2B and -2C have 6 cylinder 260hp Lycos. The -2A is much more popular outside of the US. There are estimates that 50% of the -2A's have been exported. The exports of the models with larger engines is much lower. The -2A has lower hourly fuel burn. In geographies where fuel costs $10 or more per US gallon, that operating cost difference gets large rapidly.
Outside the US, flying clubs are very popular. I will speculate that C-150/152's, C-172, and the small Pipers are good candidates for flying clubs. A friend went to Munich, Germany and rented a C-172 to check out the local landscape.
And outside the US, the aircraft factories are much more oriented towards larger aircraft, even when you look at what they call General Aviation. So each geography is more likely to import from the US a C-172 sized aircraft since for larger aircraft like the C-210 there might be a domestic equivalent to compete with it. For example in Oz the Gippsland Airvan is very competitive to the C-206, Piper Cherokee 6, and similar sized US aircraft. Interestingly Gippsland is now exporting a lot of their product to the US.
And then there is the relative values of the US $ vs other currencies. US aircraft are a relative bargain in many countries when the USD is weaker.
So there is a very reasoned argument as to why we see a lot of small aircraft, that have lower operating costs, exported.
Best of luck,
Wes
N78PS
why wouldn't they? more laws certainly have a history of working exceptionally well for firearms control, curbing drug abuse, ending illegal immigration, stopping prostitution.
I like this post.. I needed a laugh this morning.....
Now, if we only knew someone with a copy of the FAA database and could check that...
Oh, wait.
On 31 December 2010, the registry included:
Pitts S-2A: 122
Pitts S-2B: 237
Pitts S-2C: 73
(This includes Experimental aircraft as well...not many, but some.)
As of 15 November 2013, here are the number of each model that have had registrations cancelled due to export.
Pitts S-2A: 17 (13.9%)
Pitts S-2B: 30 (12.7%)
Pitts S-2C: 14 (19.2%)
Not near 50% for any of them, BUT: Just because someone exports a plane doesn't mean the registration is cancelled. I don't think the FAA cares, and there are probably some advantages of retaining the US registration. There were four S-2As registered with non-US addresses, for instance...
Ron Wanttaja
Ron I can specifically speak to why N-numbers do not get cancelled when an aircraft is exported to europe. The regulations in many european countries are written so that if an aircraft is registered in that country, then restrictive and expensive maintenance regulations apply. For example, my understanding is that in Germany, engines may not be overhauled. The must be replaced with new. Perhaps a German reader of this forum can clarify.
But in most european countries, you can import and US registered aircraft and retain the US N-number, maintaining that aircraft under US rules. US maintenance rules are much less expensive to comply with in those geographies. So you will see a LOT of US exported aircraft flying around europe with european owners but N-numbers on them.
The EU is currently working to figure out how to plug this "loophole" in the rules over their, just like they are trying to limit the ability of european pilots to travel to the US, earn US pilot certificates, and apply that US flying time towards european certificates and ratings. But as of today, you see N-numbered airplanes flying around overseas.
Looking at other databases, I see that there aere 12 S-2A's just registered in Oz. 6 are registed in Great Britain. 1 in Holland. 6 in Canada. etc. So perhaps the cancelled registration data does not cover the exports that I referenced in my post. We may be asking different questions here.
Interestingly, my Pitts, N78PS s/n 2068, was originally exported to Canada not long after leaving the factory in Afton, WY in 1974. During that time, it was C-GTBE. In the late -90's, it came back to the US. I purchased the airplane in 2001. I am not sure how that shows up on the report that you are looking at.
Unfortunately, there are a bunch of factors at work with the deregistrations so like many "social science" type investigations, it may be almost impossible to identify the most important cause of the change.
By the way, thanks for keeping up with the information that you look at. I suspect that it is one of those jobs that is personally satisfying but short on pats on the back.
Happy Holidays,
Wes
N78PS
Per the FAA Executive summary from the Federal Register (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010...2010-17572.htm) the FAA estimated that approximately 1/3 of the 357,000 registered aircraft are inaccurate. If the actual number is a 15 percent reduction in the fleet vs a 33 percent reduction in the fleet it would seem GA got a whole bunch safer as the "per 100,000 flight hours" would be a larger denominator in the fraction accidents/100,000 flight hours.
Ron, do you know how per 100,000 flight hours was adjusted for fleet size?
Daniel
One consideration missing is the amount of re-registrations which are NOT flyable. The average ramp queen that hasn't flown in years will still probably go through the reregistration process especially since it's so inexpensive. Seriously, how many of us have seen dilapidated aircraft that the owners are paying ramp fees for years. A few more bucks isn't going to change that. For the heck of it, I looked at registrations in my zip code as I know a lot of the owners and aircraft. One individual who does not have one, even remotely complete, flying airplane shows 9 registered (certified) aircraft in his name. IMO, the VAST majority of disassembled aircraft hanging from rafters, many of which probably are still registered are older certifieds. It's a redneck philosophy at work that somehow you are diminishing the value of these aircraft by not keeping them actively registered. Of course, they are all going to restore and fly them "someday"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote