Is this true?!

[Mike A]

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

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1188980157837342&id=220477551354279

[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:
http://www.wanttaja.com/skycatcher.jpg
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.

[rwanttaja]

Article in the Wichita newspaper:

http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article121267978.html

"Textron Aviation spokeswoman Rosa Lee Argotsinger said in an e-mail that Cessna retained its remaining inventory of Skycatchers for spare parts after the company ended sales and marketing of them in early 2014.

“The company did dispose of what remained after salvaging usable parts,” Argotsinger said in the e-mail."

So it sounds like these were aircraft Cessna never intended to sell, and that some useful goodies *were* saved.

Ron Wanttaja

[Sirota]

Per AvWeb




http://cdn.avweb.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif


http://cdn.avweb.com/media/ui/clearpixel.gif


Cessna Scraps Unsold Skycatchers (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna-Scraps-Unsold-Skycatchers-228208-1.html)
By Elaine Kauh




http://cdn.avweb.com/media/newspics/170/p1b41mauji1hg31li5v841cqfrt86.jpg


Cessna has scrapped the remaining inventory (photo gallery (http://www.avweb.com/gallery/Skycatcher-Destruction-228210-1.html)) of its 162-model Skycatcher airplanes, capping the end of the company’s light-sport program (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/End-Of-The-Road-For-Skycatcher-221429-1.html). AVweb has learned that the unsold Skycatchers, which the company confirmed in 2014 amounted to about 80 aircraft, were destroyed as shown in photos of an assembled but unfinished Cessna 162 being dropped into a recycling container as similar aircraft sit in storage. Cessna told AVweb on Thursday that it "utilized the remaining inventory for spare parts to ensure the current fleet of fielded aircraft can receive ongoing support. The company did dispose of what remained after salvaging usable parts." In response to questions about the decision, the company did not specify further.
The Skycatcher program launched in 2007 soon after the advent of the light sport pilot certificate, which allowed some pilots to enter or re-enter GA flying without medicals. LSAs, which are limited to 1320 pounds and other criteria, opened up what aircraft makers saw as a potential big market for new buyers. Major manufacturers such as Cessna and Piper developed light-sport designs, but sales never met expectations. Cessna delivered the first 162s in 2011 and had more than 1,000 orders at the time, but less than 200 were reported delivered. In 2013, Cessna CEO Scott Ernest said the Skycatcher had “no future.” Nearly two years ago, Cessna said it would halt sales of the two-seat LSA and use the remaining airplanes for spare parts.

[martymayes]

There were ~1000 planes on order. ~200 delivered, despite having ~80 production airplanes in inventory, ready for final assembly and delivery, a halt was put on any further deliveries. I would bet that was a high level decision. Salvaged usable parts? Not likely. They want those planes out of circulation ASAP.

Looks like another dumpster diving missed opportunity.

[DaleB]

Ten minutes and a plasma cutter sure would have been nice! :)

[John Cox]

Wouldn't this be a Great Question for Mr. Pelton?? I would rather not fan the flames of False News.

[Floatsflyer]

Per AvWeb

The Skycatcher program launched in 2007 soon after the advent of the light sport pilot certificate, which allowed some pilots to enter or re-enter GA flying without medicals. LSAs, which are limited to 1320 pounds and other criteria, opened up what aircraft makers saw as a potential big market for new buyers. Major manufacturers such as Cessna and Piper developed light-sport designs, but sales never met expectations. Cessna delivered the first 162s in 2011 and had more than 1,000 orders at the time, but less than 200 were reported delivered. In 2013, Cessna CEO Scott Ernest said the Skycatcher had “no future.”

The avweb reporter has not told the whole story. At Oshkosh in 2007, Cessna made it look like they were giving Skycatchers away. They had a bright red electronic tote board in their exhibit tent showing the number of pre-sold Skycatchers. It went to an astounding over 1400 for the week. What we didn't know at the time was that over 80% of them were Cessna dealer sales which they were compelled by Cessna to purchase.

Piper partnered with a Czech company design and very soon after dissolved the partnership over some corporate in-fighting. Only a tiny handful of Piper branded light sports were sold. Cirrus got into the act as well but cancelled there very nice looking LSA(shown at Oshkosh)almost before it even started. They said at the time they wanted to concentrate efforts and resources on their VLJ jet but then that program shut down for a few years and then was later revived. Truth was Cirrus was in deep doo doo financially.

What really killed it for Skycatcher was Cessna increasing the price from $109K to a whopping $150k within one year of delivering the first one(to Jack Pelton's wife no less). The dealers and the public said for what? A bare bones 2 place airplane with 100mph cruise, no interior and a useless useful load. They all walked away.

Then Cessna soon realized they couldn't sell them outside the US because the LSA weight limits were too high for Canadian, European and Australian ultralight categories. So they started the process to reclassify the Skycatcher from LSA to Primary Category to enhance sales efforts outside the US. I think this was actually completed but it was too late.

[raytoews]

Score another one for the liayers. Any of you out there hang your heads for a minute and pray forgiveness.
And don't feed me the bullshit about the system and insurance companies. I'm not buying. I live in Canada.

[Floatsflyer]

Score another one for the liayers. Any of you out there hang your heads for a minute and pray forgiveness.
And don't feed me the bullshit about the system and insurance companies. I'm not buying. I live in Canada.

I'm Canadian and live in Canada(Toronto) so you'll forgive me when I ask you, WTF are you talkin' about?

[Sirota]

Score another one for the liayers. Any of you out there hang your heads for a minute and pray forgiveness.
And don't feed me the bullshit about the system and insurance companies. I'm not buying. I live in Canada.

Funny how everyone like to blame and trash the lawyers but then look for the meanest junkyard dog of an attorney when they think they've been wronged. I'm not an attorney but I deal with a lot of them. Remember, its the jury that sets the awards, not the lawyers. Want to blame someone, look at ourselves - the jurors.

[CarlOrton]

Funny how everyone like to blame and trash the lawyers but then look for the meanest junkyard dog of an attorney when they think they've been wronged. I'm not an attorney but I deal with a lot of them. Remember, its the jury that sets the awards, not the lawyers. Want to blame someone, look at ourselves - the jurors.
One of my favorite quotes was from Breaking Bad: "You don't need a criminal lawyer. You need a CRIMINAL lawyer..."

[jethro99]

From a company/corporate stand point it makes perfectly good sense to completely scrap most/all of the airplanes, and related spare parts, if any.

This is all now just residual un-needed production inventory. Might be more costs to the company to sell components than profit to be realized. No costs to warehouse stuff not needed. No potential liability head aches down the road.

Does Cessna even sell standalone engines, avionics, instruments and other similar non-Cessna proprietary spare parts? Why retain stuff that is not sold as part of the core business? Scrap it and take the tax write off.

If the stuff that manufacturers scrap on a daily basis could be seen it would make eyes roll. But in the scheme of things it makes sense to do it.

[DaleB]

But in the scheme of things it makes sense to do it.
That would depend on who you are, and who's running the business.

Cessna could have easily offered the parts (for example, just the front half of the fuselage, where 90% of the value is) as a scrap lot, and simply not required that the parts all be entirely destroyed. It's not had to imagine those bringing several thousand per, if the avionics, engines, wheels, brakes and tires could be recovered. But accountants and corporate counsel can make even the most basic transaction look suicidal, I suppose.

I completely understand why they would do a thing like this. I've seen similarly senseless things done at the last couple of places I worked. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Not being a Cessna stockholder, though, they are free to ignore my outrage and carry on.

:|