The Effect of Re-Registration

Three years ago, the FAA instituted a policy that required aircraft owners to renew their registration every three years. Registrations that were not renewed would be cancelled.

So, what did it do to the US fleet?

I don't have an FAA registration database for 1 October 2010 (the day the new program started), but I do have one for 31 December 2010. On that date, there were:

373,869 total aircraft registered
34,916 were listed as Experimental Amateur-Built

As of 15 November:

317,588 total aircraft registered (About a 15.1% decrease)
27,877 listed as Experimental Amateur-Built (a 14.7% decrease)

The FAA includes a list of deregistered aircraft with the database download.

72,888 total aircraft were deregistered from 1 October 2010 to 15 November 2013
7,672 homebuilts were deregistered over the same period.

Almost 20% of all US aircraft (19.5%) have been removed from the rolls, and about 23.5% (nearly a quarter) of the homebuilts.

The question is, will this be reflected in the FAA's flight-hour estimates when accident rates are computed? The FAA has used a low-annual-flight-time value for computing the accidents per 100,000 hours for homebuilts, because so many were supposedly inactive. Seems they should be using closer to even with the rest of GA, now that many of the inactive airplanes have been pared from the rolls.

Note that these aren't the final figures. The FAA says the deregistration process will continue until the end of this year, so there's ~45 more days for planes to be removed.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Three years ago, the FAA instituted a policy that required aircraft owners to renew their registration every three years. Registrations that were not renewed would be cancelled.

So, what did it do to the US fleet?

I don't have an FAA registration database for 1 October 2010 (the day the new program started), but I do have one for 31 December 2010. On that date, there were:

373,869 total aircraft registered
34,916 were listed as Experimental Amateur-Built

As of 15 November:

317,588 total aircraft registered (About a 15.1% decrease)
27,877 listed as Experimental Amateur-Built (a 14.7% decrease)

The FAA includes a list of deregistered aircraft with the database download.

72,888 total aircraft were deregistered from 1 October 2010 to 15 November 2013
7,672 homebuilts were deregistered over the same period.

Almost 20% of all US aircraft (19.5%) have been removed from the rolls, and about 23.5% (nearly a quarter) of the homebuilts.

Ron Wanttaja

---

Those deregistration numbers are huge. With apologies to Pete Seeger: "Where have all the airplanes gone, long time passing?" There is a story attached to each one of them. I'm wondering how many of them are associated with or related to the high cost of flying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Floatsflyer

Those deregistration numbers are huge. With apologies to Pete Seeger: "Where have all the airplanes gone, long time passing?" There is a story attached to each one of them. I'm wondering how many of them are associated with or related to the high cost of flying?

---

Probably not many. Letting the registration lapse would make the plane difficult to sell. Seems to me a fed-up owner would want to keep their options open for as long as possible; getting $10,000 for an airplane worth $50,000 is better than getting scrap value only. Though there are those who would, of course.

One has to remember that the re-registration process is weeding out airplanes that haven't existed for 70+ years. Without a financial incentive to cancel the registration, registrations just weren't getting cancelled. Heck, there were over 500 Bensen Gyrocopters on the deregistration list....

I don't like paying the re-registration fee, and share others' concerns that it may escallate, but it is cleaning the deadwood out of the rolls.

Ron Wanttaja

Just because one did not meet this deadline does not mean the airplane is a lawn dart. All one has to do is apply for a new N-number and re number the airplane. Simple...

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Just because one did not meet this deadline does not mean the airplane is a lawn dart. All one has to do is apply for a new N-number and re number the airplane. Simple...

Tony

---

Simple but not likely except in a very, very few cases.

I can think of a half dozen 'hangar queens' at our little airport that are most likely not registered. I don't have a problem with the registration process if it's not looked at by the FAA as a 'cash cow' to pay for some other program or operation although I do expect the registration fee will rise over the years (don't they always??).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Stadt

Simple but not likely except in a very, very few cases.

---

As long as all you did was miss the reregitration all you do is apply for another N Number. You must have this applied to the airplane but that is it. Simple maybe not for all airplanes but that is all that needs to be done with the FAA. Reapply for a new N number is what you do, no magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

As long as all you did was miss the reregitration all you do is apply for another N Number. You must have this applied to the airplane but that is it. Simple maybe not for all airplanes but that is all that needs to be done with the FAA. Reapply for a new N number is what you do, no magic.

---

Of the nearly 73,000 aircraft that fell off the registration database my bet is 95% or more will never come back. Like Ron said, this is 70 years worth of clean-up. There was never a reason to de-register a plane that was wrecked, parted out, left to rot on a tiedown, sold out of country, stolen to run drugs, three hulks used to make one airworthy aircraft and a bunch of other reasons. They are gone, never to return. They are not off the registration database simply because someone did not send in the paperwork. In other words, there is nothing left to attach an N number to, simple as that process might be.

I talked with a man whom has a 172 he flies often. He forgot about the reregistration and let the time lapse. He was having others tell him his airplane was junk. I told him contact the FAA and they will issue you a New N-Number and registration. You will then have to have the old number removed and put the new number back on. Just what he did.
He then asked how did I know about this. I told him.....Webinar......

Tony

The whole re-registration issue was driven by anti-terrorism efforts within FAA. The bogey-man approach was taken after comments over the number of "missing" airplanes and how the whereabouts or location and ownership (or possession) of GA airplanes were not known. This concern led to the tri-annual re-registration (as-if terrorists will follow bureaucratic rules).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1600vw

Just because one did not meet this deadline does not mean the airplane is a lawn dart. All one has to do is apply for a new N-number and re number the airplane. Simple...

---

It's actually not even that difficult. The N-number will go dormant for a while and not immediately assigned to a different aircraft. Know a case where several months past registration deadline, a plane was re-registered and retained the same n-number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Berg

I do expect the registration fee will rise over the years (don't they always??).

---

You expect correctly.

With less than 45 days left until the end of the re-registration period, it's hard to resist the urge to do a full analysis. But...

I took a look at the RVs on the de-registration list. Here's a breakdown:

Total: 408 (this includes 126 that had a blank entry for certification type)
RV-3: 49
RV-4: 96
RV-6: 130 (includes trigear models)
RV-7: 51 (includes trigear models)
RV-8: 36 (includes trigear models)
RV-9: 31 (includes trigear models)
RV-10: 14
RV-12: 1

However, 14% of these saw registration cancelled due to export to another country. They went a lot of places, including Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Croatia. 63% of the cancelled RV-7s were exported, the single RV-12, and 71% of the RV-10s.

Of the four RV-10s that were NOT exported, three had accidents. I'll do a full cross-reference to the NTSB list once the re-registration process is complete at the end of December.

Ron Wanttaja

More interesting stuff. This is a plot of the number of homebuilts deregistered vs. the "year of manufacture" in the FAA records.
Attachment 3470
Note the big spike in 1983. This is comprised of a *lot* of ultralight-inspired homebuilts: Quicksilvers, Goldwings, Eippers, Rallys, Tierras, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

Wow, Ron. Looking at the last five years vs '90-'95. Wow. Potential homebuilders dying? Uninterested? Uninformed about possibilities? Priced out? Regulated out? Buying light sport? Buying pre-owned EAB? buying boats? Ultralights? Factory builts? Wow. What a change.

Actually, my fuzzy reccollection is that in those '90's there was a sort of transition in kits that straddled the ultralight-homebuilt border. I think that is when ultralights started to look a lot more like traditional airplanes rather than hang gliders and ballistic parachutes started to get popular. The economy was good and more folks tried out flying. I think that ships like the CGS Hawk were popular then, and some of those go N-numbers. Around that time two seat ultralights came on the scene and had to get N-numbers. I will guess that the spike in the graph for that time period might reflect that those machines wore out or were retired to the trash bin.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

Actually, my fuzzy reccollection is that in those '90's there was a sort of transition in kits that straddled the ultralight-homebuilt border. I think that is when ultralights started to look a lot more like traditional airplanes rather than hang gliders and ballistic parachutes started to get popular. The economy was good and more folks tried out flying. I think that ships like the CGS Hawk were popular then, and some of those go N-numbers. Around that time two seat ultralights came on the scene and had to get N-numbers. I will guess that the spike in the graph for that time period might reflect that those machines wore out or were retired to the trash bin.

---

Sounds good. Also, there was a big surge in kit sales starting in the mid-80s, but these planes took years to build. So kits purchased as part of this boom would likely have early-to-mid '90s completion dates.

Ron Wanttaja

I would not be surprised if this program of having to register again was not a big profit maker to whichever company was contracted to do the computer program on it, though I don't have facts along that line. If you don't understand a program or a crime, it useually follows the money.
But the idea that this is a way to fight terrorism is nonsense.
All four of the planes hijacked on 9-11 for the biggest terror strike ever against the U S were registered, and well known to the FAA, but that had no affect on preventing the terror acts.
So there is no logic behind this reregister program, especially having to do it every year.
But who ever said logic was part of the govt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

Wow, Ron. Looking at the last five years vs '90-'95. Wow. Potential homebuilders dying? Uninterested? Uninformed about possibilities? Priced out? Regulated out? Buying light sport? Buying pre-owned EAB? buying boats? Ultralights? Factory builts? Wow. What a change.

---

As the attached figure shows, the 80s and 90s saw a steep rise in the number of homebuilts. The dark bar shows the number of homebuilts completed in a given year, as of the December 2010 FAA registry, and the yellow bar shows the current listing. The 80s and 90s took what appeared to be a disproportionate hit because there were more airplanes there to eliminate.
Attachment 3472
What actually gets me, when looking at the data, is the number of registrations of relatively recent homebuilts that have been cancelled...700 of the cancelled homebuilt registrations where of planes completed in the past ten years. 170 were exported. What happened to the rest of these relatively new aircraft? Accidents will explain some, but may not cover them all.

The reregistration program is having a huge impact. Prior to 10/1/2010, when the program started, the FAA had cancelled about 28,000 aircraft registrations of all types... with the cancellations dating back to 1950. In the three years since the program started, the FAA has cancelled nearly three times the number of planes. The overall US fleet is down 15% since the program started.

Ron Wanttaja

OK, a look at the certified aircraft world. About 80% of the airplanes deregistered since 10/1/2010 were type-certified airplanes.

The percentages below are the percentage of the aircraft of that type deregistered during the current program:

Cessna (all): 16.5%
Cessna 150/152: 23.6%
Cessna 172: 13.0% (about the same percentage as the C-170)
Cessna 182: 9.7%

Nearly one in four (22.6%) of the deregistered aircraft were Cessnas.

Piper (all): 16.4%
Piper Tripacer: 26.0%
Piper PA-28: 11.5%
Piper J-3: 13.4%
Piper PA-11 through PA-18: 12.2%

Beech: 16.4%
Beech 35/36: 10.4%

Some of the older companies:
Aeronca: 14.6%
Stinson: 21.5%
Mooney: 10.5%
Luscombe: 17.7%
Taylorcraft: 21.5%

I'm actually a bit surprised by this; I expected more lost classics that would be unfindable.

Who took the biggest hit? Surprisingly, it was some of the major non-GA manufacturers:

Boeing: 26%
Douglas/McDonnell: 39.5%
Lockheed: 45.8%

However, about a third of the Boeing numbers are Stearmans, and another third are exports.

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...

Attachment 3510

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Cessna 150/152: 23.6%

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloridaJohn

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurt Flunkn

.... This concern led to the tri-annual re-registration (as-if terrorists will follow bureaucratic rules).

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

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.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

The question is, will this be reflected in the FAA's flight-hour estimates when accident rates are computed? The FAA has used a low-annual-flight-time value for computing the accidents per 100,000 hours for homebuilts, because so many were supposedly inactive. Seems they should be using closer to even with the rest of GA, now that many of the inactive airplanes have been pared from the roles
Ron Wanttaja

---

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" :)

Good points, Wes. I'm curious now to download some other countries' databases and see if I can correlated aircraft S/Ns with the ones exported from the US.

Quote:

---

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.

---

An especially good point. The re-registration effort got started because the FAA had to go in front of Congress and admit they didn't really know how many airplanes were in the US, or where they were located. Getting rid of some of the deadwood is going to help, but there's still a bunch of things wrong that aren't being corrected by the current program. There are 20% more homebuilts in the FAA register than are officially recognized as such. I'm hoping that they'll finally recognize them as such, but there's no real incentive for them to do so.

For example, go to http://www.faa.gov/ and enter "16JA". This is an RV-6 a friend of mine built 20 years ago. If you scroll down to Airworthiness, you'll see it says "Unknown" under Classification. This means the FAA does NOT count it as a homebuilt! If you run that number through the NTSB accident records, you'll see two accidents with this airplane (after my friend sold it). In other words, it only counts as a homebuilt when it crashes.

I've attached a list of nearly 6000 aircraft registrations that come up as "Unknown". Yes, some certified airplanes are there. Some Warbirds. Some LSAs, too. But the vast majority are recognized homebuilt types.

These all have "passed" the FAA re-registration effort. But they don't contribute to the FAA's estimate of how many hours homebuilts flew last year. The only time they're counted as homebuilts is when they crash.

Arghhhh.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danielfindling

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?

---

Nope. I've never seen a write-up on how the FAA makes its estimation. Yet "everybody" uses it, especially the Nall Report.

It's one of the reasons I assess accident rates as a percentage of the fleet. Anyone can access the same basic data and re-create my analysis to verify the results.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

More interesting stuff. This is a plot of the number of homebuilts deregistered vs. the "year of manufacture" in the FAA records.
Attachment 3470
Note the big spike in 1983. This is comprised of a *lot* of ultralight-inspired homebuilts: Quicksilvers, Goldwings, Eippers, Rallys, Tierras, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

---

I know of at least one and probably two or three ultralights like this that were, um, "down-converted" some time in the past. In other words, they had built them as E-AB because of the uncertainties of 14CFR103 even existing at the time. Once the path was clearer, the markings and paperwork were removed and the airplanes became air vehicles.

I believe all of these craft have since been scrapped, the paperwork is just now catching up, 20 years later.

Jim

Spent some time this weekend counting up how much the re-registration hurt the fleet size for various homebuilts. This plots what percentage of the fleet for a number of homebuilt types were de-registered since October 2010. As one might expect, the older homebuilt types were hit the hardest.
Attachment 3705

Ron Wanttaja

Registration Round 2 is upon us. Hard to believe it's been 3 years already. There will probably be a few lengthened bars on your chart after this go around, Ron.