-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
FAA loses track of 119,000 aircraft
- Thread starter Z-AZ1USN
- Start date
Curtis P40
Charter Member
Maybe now would be a good time to "acquire" an aircraft.
I thought the N number more or less stayed with the aircraft throughout it's life. How could you lose so many :isadizzy:
I thought the N number more or less stayed with the aircraft throughout it's life. How could you lose so many :isadizzy:It can, and in most cases does. The owner can request a new "N" number and the owner is required to notify the FAA of any transfer of ownership. It's not always complied with. If you go to the FAA website, there is (or was, I haven't been there in a little while) a registration number search page. As the atricle states, often an owner fails to tell the FAA when a plane is scrapped or left derelict. Many "N" numbers are listed as assigned to an aircraft but are listed as inactive or have info from years ago on file. Sadly the FAA is behind the curve again.Maybe now would be a good time to "acquire" an aircraft.
Dave
Railrunner130
Charter Member
This isn't new info. The only thing new is that they finally admitted to it.
I've looked up N-numbers on airplanes I flew back in my private pilot days and several are still registered to the flight school that no longer exists. Or worse, are registered to a previous owner.
I've looked up N-numbers on airplanes I flew back in my private pilot days and several are still registered to the flight school that no longer exists. Or worse, are registered to a previous owner.
jmig
SOH-CM-2025
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
The system depends on pilots and owners informing the FAA on changes. The new system on re-registering will depend on pilots and owners informing the FAA on changes.
Does anyone see the problem here?
Re-registering every 3 years is no big deal, given the fee is only $5.00.....of course, what's not mentioned in the article is the potential to increase the fee...and the opportunity to increase the fee routinely in the out years.
That guarantees the revenue, which is what most pilots think this is really about. The fee of course is a tax, but he FAA is not allowed to tax (it sometimes shocks Americans to learn that the Executive Branch of our government cannot Tax, only the Legislative -- but we've become so complacent we don't question it) . The FAA will therefore charge a "Fee". Personally, an administrative fee seems to me to be appropriate since I'm not sure the government should incur the basic cost of the paperwork to perform a unique service for me. However, the proposed changes to the fee later on could well exceed the actual cost of processing. That moves it into the "tax" category. Since Pilots already pay significant legitimate taxes in other ways I think a challenge is in order.
The supposed security threat is a bunch of malarkey. Illegal aircraft will still be illegal.
Does anyone see the problem here?
Re-registering every 3 years is no big deal, given the fee is only $5.00.....of course, what's not mentioned in the article is the potential to increase the fee...and the opportunity to increase the fee routinely in the out years.
That guarantees the revenue, which is what most pilots think this is really about. The fee of course is a tax, but he FAA is not allowed to tax (it sometimes shocks Americans to learn that the Executive Branch of our government cannot Tax, only the Legislative -- but we've become so complacent we don't question it) . The FAA will therefore charge a "Fee". Personally, an administrative fee seems to me to be appropriate since I'm not sure the government should incur the basic cost of the paperwork to perform a unique service for me. However, the proposed changes to the fee later on could well exceed the actual cost of processing. That moves it into the "tax" category. Since Pilots already pay significant legitimate taxes in other ways I think a challenge is in order.
The supposed security threat is a bunch of malarkey. Illegal aircraft will still be illegal.
Something that was brought up elsewhere points out a real bottleneck in the process...
The FAA will only accept a notice from the current owner of an aircraft. If the current owner dies, he's obviously not in a position to notify the FAA of the "change of ownership" even if he's left the aircraft to another in his/her will. The FAA will not accept nor recognize any notice sent in by the executor of an estate!
The FAA will only accept a notice from the current owner of an aircraft. If the current owner dies, he's obviously not in a position to notify the FAA of the "change of ownership" even if he's left the aircraft to another in his/her will. The FAA will not accept nor recognize any notice sent in by the executor of an estate!
After reading that article, I don't feel so bad about misplacing one of Deb's loaf baking pans. It's all about perspective, you see. I lost one little clear glass baking pan....compare that to the FAA losing 119 thousand big ol' airplanes....my transgression is actually quite tiny...almost microscopic. Now I just need to get Deb to have the same perspective.
OBIO
OBIO
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
I'm not so sure....a good baking pan. I think you're really in trouble here....
Frankly, I think you're doomed.