The challenge of age
CASA has launched their ageing aircraft project, but is it off to a good start?
Joseph Heller’s enigmatic novel Catch-22 is often quoted as a literary masterpiece. Set in the dying days of WWII, it examines an army ruling that pilots didn’t have to fly missions if they were crazy. However, to ask to be taken off ops for being crazy only proved that the pilot was sane, and therefore had to fly. It gave the world the phrase “catch-22” in describing situations that you just can’t get out of no matter what you do.
That’s where General Aviation is right now, in a catch-22, and we are all wondering how to get out of it. The answer to that lies in CASA’s hands starting right now. Over the next six months, they will be taking a good look at the problem of “ageing” aircraft and what to do about it.
In their hands lies the fate of GA, as most of the fleet will come under scrutiny as being a possible target for retirement. Now is not the time to be afraid, but it is the time for being concerned; no matter what the outcome, this is going to cost aircraft owners. The FAA has been working on the issue for a few years now, and the only real conclusion they have reached is that it is impossible to judge the integrity of an airframe based on its age.
CASA is of a different opinion, stating the aim of the program is to, “identify at what point an increase in the age of an aircraft results in unacceptable consequences”. If I have interpreted this right, what they mean is, “determine the age after which an aircraft is likely to fall apart in mid air”.
In fairness, a problem does exist. Sure, we have many ancient warriors like Tiger Moths, Ryans, Chipmunks and Stearmans still flying quite safely, but the love and devotion of their owners keeps them in a condition that would shame the average family sedan.
Warriors, C172s and Musketeers are generally not kept in such a sparkling condition; they tend to be maintained to the minimum and worked to the maximum. It is these aircraft that we have to admit are starting to look worrying. And some of them are much, much younger than your pristine Beech C35.
So which aircraft are we actually hunting here? Time to lay out the cards. The risk is in the condition of the aircraft and not the age. The factors for most weary airframes are fatigue and corrosion, and those two are in turn linked directly to how the aircraft has been operated more so than how long ago it was built.
In the absence of any method of accurately inspecting the airframe inch-by-inch, CASA has to come up with another method of assessing the condition. No matter what that is, the chances that the cost will exceed the value of the airframe are pretty good. CASA has already publically said in Australian Flying that they do not intend to arbitrarily ground aircraft; however, I believe the conditions on which one may remain airworthy could be so onerous that the effect is the same.
Then, fellow aviators, we become a much endangered species. Many of the target aircraft were bought back in the halcyon days of government subsidies, which enabled flying schools to upgrade from old wood, wire and fabric trainers to shiny all-metal machines. With the subsidies dead and the White Paper declaring them buried, will Australia be able to replace the aircraft that are inked into CASA’s “unacceptable consequences” column? Not likely.
Aircraft have become very expensive things, and that’s why we keep sending weary aircraft back into the air time and time again; we have no alternatives. Some flying schools have lashed-out and bought new aircraft, but that sends the old ones into the hands of private owners, who can’t afford to buy news.
Look at this: when the first Cherokees went on sale in 1961, they had a price tag of $US9995. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, that would be $US60,303 in 2010 money. The price tag for the current Warrior has $US290,000 written on it.
So we can’t afford to fly them and we can’t afford to replace them. Gives you sort of an empty feeling, doesn’t it?
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch
latest issue »
September/October issue out now!
Super Decathlon test
Busn nav tips
Tasman crossing
Subscribe to Australian Flying»
Yaffa Publishing Group
17-21 Bellevue Street
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Australia
reader comments
Simon, where CASA will find itself in a real pickle is with private flights conducted over built-up areas. With their stated aim to be to protect the general public under the flight paths as well as the fare-paying passengers, they can't just ignore trainers and private aircraft. That's why you have to have a medical to go into CTA, because CTA tends to exist around suburbs, and CASA doesn't want you to put the unsuspecting public at risk should you have an incapacitating heart attack. Why would they treat the aircraft differently? Shouldn't it have a "medical" as well? So far, the annuals and overhauls have done the trick, but they don't cover the intimate parts of the airframe, which CASA is now worried are getting creaky with age. My contention is that the creakiness is caused not by age in years, but a combination of age in hours and experience: "battle fatigue" if you like.
Hitch on 26-Jul-10 05:21 PM
The distinction needs to be made between private and commercial aircraft, just as it has for the C300 and C400 series SIDS fatigue program. Commercial charter and RPT aircraft should be to a set age and standard, maybe even engine standard. The blogger with the 172D has a passion and that's what's we need to foster in our industry for private owner/pilots. He is among many enthusiasts. Commercial operators, different story. Just like other commercial vehicles (buses, taxis etc) there is a commercial life. New equipment is good business, and good FOR business, and our industry. It's a pity that you cannot buy new aircraft for under 30 grand, I agree. But hey, this is the 21st Century - your house ain't worth $18,000 anymore either!
Simon Mathews on 26-Jul-10 04:42 PM
Ian, NDT to reveal fatigue cracks is very expensive and in many cases doesn't tell you so much, so I don't think this is a case of any regulatory failure. Metal will have cracks in it, but not necessarily are the cracks show-stoppers. The ability to accurately assess the impact of a crack on the integrity of an airframe is what's important. If you were to do, say, a mag-particle test on an airframe, you'd probably find a heap of cracks, but they are not necessarily going to mean the airframe needs to be scrapped. It depends on the length of the crack, where it is, and the chances that it will cause catastrophic failure of the component.
Hitch on 26-Jul-10 02:01 PM
There is an Australian conference that deals specifically with these issues. Details can be found at the website listed below. It is open for anyone to have their say, with representatives attending from civil and military, the GA manufacturers and Regulators....all experts and working on this ageing aircraft issue. This is the chance for owners and operators to have their views heard, in addition to the CASA consultation that is going on at this time.
Woxman on 26-Jul-10 09:04 AM
I would suggest that, if CASA is doing its job properly and ensuring that engineering orgainisations are doing their job properly, there shouldn't be an issue with the integrity of aging aircraft. It is very rare to hear of an aircraft accident resulting from structural failure or fatigue related engine failure. Most accidents tend to be the result of issues like weather, poor fuel management, and the inability to navigate precisely. If CASA looks at introducing expensive analysis of individual airframes they will destroy GA in Australia and at the same time admit to enormous administrative inadequacies. Just my two bobs worth.
Ian Holland on 26-Jul-10 07:47 AM
You are not on your own with this one, Morne, I suspect there are several people who will be wondering what's going to happen come December. I, too, have put a hold on tentative plans to buy because I don't know what's going to happen. I also have mates who just spent a lot of money to refurbish their Cherokee 180 and are now wondering if they are still going to have an investment come December. CASA is in a bit of a bind with this, and we can only hope what comes out of it is tarred with a sensible brush.
Hitch on 12-Jul-10 02:57 PM
I am about to put money down on a C172 D (1963) so this makes me a bit nervous. Truth be told, the aircraft is in excellent condition and I can't afford anything newer unless I look at LSA.
Morne Terblanche on 10-Jul-10 10:11 PM
tell a friend
Hi, we welcome your comments.
You may comment as many times as you like. We approve and edit comments at our discretion. Do not send us comments that are:
By commenting you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy. If you wish to alert us about a comment, contact us.
Thank you and happy commenting!
add a comment