Is this true?!

[Mike A]

Brand new 162's being crushed, new engines, avionics and all?!

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...20477551354279

[DaleB]

Sure looks like it from the pictures. You'd think they would pull those engines and avionics at least, if only for a repair parts stock for the exisitng (small) fleet, but it sure looks like at least one went in with all the expensive stuff still attached.

It makes no sense to me at all, but I've heard accountants explain away what seem to be some really, really stupid decisions based on accounting and tax rules. Doesn't mean it's less stupid... but that's just my opinion, which means next to nothing.

In case the scrap dealer is reading this, I sure would like to score a "gray market" O-200D though. I wouldn't even need the data plate.

[Floatsflyer]

I'm not a Facebook user but with all the "fake news " emanating from it and other social media, I'm very skeptical about any info that's posted to it or reposted. So I did a little research.

A search for the picture's N number on the FAA registry indicates it's real and indeed belongs to a Cessna 162. The registration type is corporate and it's owned by Cessna in Wichita. No date of registration, the info on the record is current and the N number has assigned/multiple records. This aircraft/ N number has not been deregistered and the N number used to belong to a C-185 which was cancelled in 1989.

So, how does an aircraft go through a destruction that the owner Cessna Aircraft Corp itself did not/has not deregistered? I dunno, draw your own conclusions.

[rwanttaja]

Well, let's look at the lead-in picture for the FB posting:

Note that:

1. The engine in the foreground has dessicant plugs. Odd, if the intent is to scrap the entire thing.
2. Every airplane in the picture is sitting on the base of an identical crate.
3. The windscreens, and all other plexiglass is covered with plastic.
4. All the airplanes have identical-looking paperwork taped to the windscreen, nearly all in the same places.
5. None of the airplanes have propellers.
6. All of the airplanes have identical lift straps attached at the wing root.

Seems odd, if the intent is to run them through a scrapper. These look more like they're freshly arrived. One comment says they were improperly crated and riddled with corrosion. Could be...if so, it would make a lot more sense. But this is not a collection of random Skycatchers collected for disposal.

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

But this is not a collection of random Skycatchers collected for disposal.

I did some Googling around and found a couple of other articles about it in various other places on line. OF course some or all may be speculation, or downright fiction. Neither Cessna nor the scrapper will answer questions. Cessna did get stuck with 70- or 80-odd 162s when they pulled the plug on that model. They said some of the remaining airframes would be used for parts to support the ones they sold, but I'm guessing not all of them. So it makes sense that there would be a lot of scrap... it just makes no sense that there would be THAT MUCH scrap.

I s'pose it's possible that they had a contract with Continental and Garmin that says they can't resell the engines and avionics, and they wouldn't need that many spares or want to keep them warehoused for years. It's possible that tax write-off from scrapping would be more than they could make selling the stuff, and I'm sure Hades would have an ice rink before they'd do anything to materially benefit the E/AB market. Still... if those did go into the recycle bin, it would be a cryin' shame.

[rwanttaja]

The more I think about it, the more sense the story about "improper crating and riddled with corrosion" makes. The picture could have been taken when the airframes were being inspected.

Very likely there's an insurance company involved here...and very likely, Cessna, Continental, and the avionics manufacturers will demand complete protection against liability claims from this "scrap" material. If one of those O-200s make it into a Pietenpol, and the Piet crashes five years from now, Continental could still get sued.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kurt Flunkn]

Tax write off and reduction of unsold goods..... kind of a shame though....

[martymayes]

When Scott Ernest announced the Skycatcher had no future with Cessna, he wasn't joking.

The plane disappeared from the Cessna website, no more sales or deliveries, existing inventory stored in a warehouse. Would not surprise me at all if they drew up a contract and solicited bids to destroy the inventory. Companies do it all the time. And I doubt a salvage business would risk lawsuit for not fulfilling the terms of the contract. Holding out any parts for sale to the public won't happen.

Since there is only about ~200 planes in the field, I'd wager they have a scheme in place to remove those from service and smash them as well. They will drop all support as soon as legalities permit making it difficult for operators to continue.

[Bob Dingley]

Not a first for Cessna. Back in the 60's, they developed a helicopter and it didn't sell well. They bought them all back and scrapped them. Except for the Army test items. Then there was the Beech Starship....

[martymayes]

So, how does an aircraft go through a destruction that the owner Cessna Aircraft Corp itself did not/has not deregistered? I dunno, draw your own conclusions.

No rule that I know of requires deregistering a plane before it's destroyed. Can gather up all the paperwork after ascertaining planes have in fact been destroyed, mail it in to FAA, couple months later aicraft registry accurately displays status.