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