Some of this movement is being driven by small and medium-sized  businesses who are  downsizing, but who also still need to cover their territories around the US. We all know how ineffective the major carriers can be when it comes to schedule-dependability for these types of travelers! It’s not altogether uncommon today to see a CJ2 operator downsizing to a 421C, or a Hawker 800 owner sliding into a 441 Conquest II for it’s more attractive DOC’s. In like manner,  we are also witnessing a healthy dose of aggressive end-users who are set on taking advantage of some unbelievable prices on small jets. Opportunities are multiplying like mushrooms when you can pick up a killer Citation II or V for less than what you would have paid for a newer model B-200 just a couple of years ago.

 

While we are by no means “out of the woods” on this ailing economy’s impact on the Aircraft marketplace in general, almost everyone I have spoken    with in the past 3 months has indicated a positive turnaround in both the dialogue levels and the actual number of aircraft being sold. And that’s how  the recovery progresses- the dialogue leads to a sale, and eventually after many sales have closed,  prices will begin a rebound toward healthier, pre-2008 levels. Just remember,  a baby learns to sit up, crawl, stand up, walk, run and fly- in that order. We’ll get there, it's just a matter of time!

 

As for market trends, the average DOM ( days on market) in 2009 virtually doubled for most sellers from the previous year. Inventories are at or near record highs, and this usually translates into a buying frenzy. However, with banks tightening the screws, that wasn’t the case in ’09.  While transaction activity hasn’t ceased by any means, it has certainly slowed quite a bit, and that has resulted in significant price drops across the board for all makes and models. Large jets have been hit the hardest, and not coincidentally, small piston twins and singles, while not undaunted, have been the most resistant to these  downward market dynamics. Turboprops in general are holding their own fairly well, primarily because of their great performance capability compared against their average DOC’s.  Some Turboprops, like the 690 –Series Twin Commanders, have been hurt somewhat by the new AD requiring   upper wing skin and engine-mount beam support straps inspections. Interestingly, many brokers and dealers report activity levels in Q4’09   that were higher than the previous 3 Quarters combined! Could the 2010 turnaround already have begun?

 

Aside from the dynamics described above, the two biggest influential  factors in the U.S. GA marketplace, at least from my perspective, have been these:

 

Globalization. U.S. Market share is eroding because more and more global business is being conducted, primarily in the Middle East, Asia and South and Central America. Globalization is now a fact of life, and it opens up new markets and greater opportunities that may not have existed before. Let’s learn to take advantage of this.

 

The “Get Real” factor. This is how one might characterize the oft-wide disparity between what a seller believes  his airplane is worth, and what a buyer is willing to give for it. The “ Get Real” factor almost always falls on the shoulders of the buyers, who typically want the best airplane that money can buy- for free! To those buyers, the sentiment is often felt if not expressed- “Get real and come up with more money! “ But in ’09,  the “GR” factor has fallen moreso onto  the shoulders of the sellers. This is because many sellers, by and large, have not come to grips with the reality of the market slide, and therefore still believe that their aircraft is worth the asking price tag they hung on it a year and a half ago!    Remember, excess time on the ‘for sale’ market can kill an airplane’s reputation, and the more realistically-priced to the market  you make it, the sooner it will sell. Also, today’s sellers are tomorrow’s buyers, and any financial hit you may take on the sale side will most likely be recouped on your forthcoming acquisition.

 

People are still buying airplanes today, and that trend is expected to improve  in 2010. My call to Sellers everywhere is  to reframe your thinking, price your airplane to what the market is bearing out, and watch the overall health of the GA sector improve for all of us! Remember, buyers and sellers are like engines and fuel- one is no good without the other!

 

Here’s to a prosperous and healthy 2010 to all pilots and aircraft owners alike! Here’s to a clear vision for 2010!

 

‘Priced too high, it’s a death knell,

Priced just right, watch it sell!’

 

Brent and Steve began preliminary work on this venture back in 2004, and it has taken a formidable engineering effort to bring the APMDAS STC into fruition. According to Brent, the blood sweat and tears have begun to pay off though. All APM –modified 400-Series Piston Engine Cessna’s have experienced a true airspeed increase of somewhere between 6-12 kts. But there’s something even better than the TAS bump. Recently, one of their customers, who happens to be a world-renowned Apollo and Gemini astronaut, experienced an engine failure in flight in his 421B. Shortly after he landed, he phoned Brent and Steve to tell them just how “amazed he was at the increased stability of his airplane with the dual aft strakes installed and one engine out!”  Let’s hear it for vertical stability!

 

Colorado-based businessman and Conquest II owner Barry Farah writes to say that    “ Most notable has been the improvement in the stability of the aircraft from the perspective of passengers.   Second, I have observed a modest increase in cruise speed. The folks at Weststar   calculated the increase to be 4.5 knots. In addition to the sharp look, I am sure the strakes add some strength to the tail. Thank you for performing a meticulous job of installing these -- I am happy with the results."

 

Package pricing for the APM DAS mod runs between twelve and eighteen-thousand dollars, and the turnaround time is usually three days. The Hinckley’s have made this portion of your project very palatable though, with a free rental car and a $500 credit voucher for fuel. And if the breathtaking vistas of the Rockies aren’t incentive enough to make the trip, you could kill a couple of days just touring the United States Air Force Academy and Pikes Peak! It’d be a very good start anyway!

 

For more information, contact Steve or Brent Hinckley of Aircraft Performance Modifications, Inc. at (719) 499 – 8316. Or visit them online at www.AircraftSTC.com

 

Nearly one year ago, Jessica became the first pilot licensed to fly using only her feet. With one foot manning the controls and the other delicately guiding the steering column, Cox soared to achieve a Sport Pilot certificate.  Her certificate qualifies her to fly a light-sport aircraft to altitudes of 10,000 feet.

'She's a good pilot.  She's rock solid,' said Parrish Traweek, 42, the flying instructor at San Manuel's Ray Blair Airport . Parrish Traweek runs PC Aircraft Maintenance and Flight Services and has trained many pilots, some of whom didn't come close to Cox's abilities. 'When she came up here driving a car,' Traweek recalled, 'I knew she'd have no problem flying a plane.' Doctors never learned why she was born without arms, but she figured out early on that she didn't want to use prosthetic devices.

 

Why was the turnout so strong across the board? "I undershot - we all undershot a bit," Poberezny admitted. "When times are tough, people have to make choices. Those with a passion for aviation said Oshkosh needed to be on my calendar."   He revealed that an estimated 15,000 people showed up to see comedian Jeff Dunham on Saturday night at Theater in the Woods. That's an all-time record for the venue.

Harrison Ford gave a moving speech on how he wants to help lobby government to save GA from being taxed.  Also hung out with Jeff Skiles and Sulley Sullenberger, two  great and fun guys who wowed about 5,000 people at Theatre in the Woods with their story of landing in the Hudson.  Funny. Informative  and very moving!

 

With special thanks to Ric Reynolds, EAA AirVenture Today

 

 

InFO

 

Information for Operators

U.S. Department InFO 09008

of Transportation DATE: 5/22/09

Federal Aviation

Administration

Flight Standards Service

 

Washington, DC

Flight Standards Service

 

Washington, DC

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info

An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulatory, or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety.

Subject:

Current Inspection Programs Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91 § 91.409(f)(3)

 

Current Inspection Programs Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91 § 91.409(f)(3)

 

Purpose:

This InFO contains information about the use of current inspection programs as mandated by § 91.409(f)(3).

 

This InFO contains information about the use of current inspection programs as mandated by § 91.409(f)(3).

 

Background:

There are two recent examples of manufacturers’ updating maintenance/inspection instructions to include new inspections and new inspection thresholds. Cessna developed a completely new structural inspection program, while Gulfstream reduced an inspection threshold by one half. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that would make these inspections mandatory. The Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) requested and received an interpretation from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations regarding the correct interpretation of the term "current" with respect to compliance with § 91.409(f)(3). The Assistant Chief Counsel concurred with AFS-300’s understanding that changes to an inspection program appropriately adopted by the owner/operator under § 91.409(f)(3) are not mandatory unless required through rulemaking.

 

There are two recent examples of manufacturers’ updating maintenance/inspection instructions to include new inspections and new inspection thresholds. Cessna developed a completely new structural inspection program, while Gulfstream reduced an inspection threshold by one half. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has not issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that would make these inspections mandatory. The Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) requested and received an interpretation from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations regarding the correct interpretation of the term "current" with respect to compliance with § 91.409(f)(3). The Assistant Chief Counsel concurred with AFS-300’s understanding that changes to an inspection program appropriately adopted by the owner/operator under § 91.409(f)(3) are not mandatory unless required through rulemaking.

 

Discussion:

Section 91.409(e) requires owners/operators of certain large aircraft to select an inspection program under § 91.409(f). In turn, § 91.409(f) requires the owner/operator to "select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use" one of the inspection programs listed in that rule. Therefore, the owner/operator should use either the inspection program that the owner/operator selected and identified in the aircraft maintenance records or the most recent manufacturer’s inspection program. If the owner/operator elects not to use the most recent program, the owner/operator must provide the maintenance provider with the inspection program and instructions for the aircraft that the owner/operator has previously selected and identified in the aircraft maintenance records. Section 91.409(f) also requires each operator to include in the identification of the selected program the name and address of the person responsible for scheduling the inspections the program requires. Section 91.409(f) also requires the operator to make a copy of that inspection program available to the person performing inspections on the aircraft and, upon request, to the Administrator.

 

In order to assure that updated guidance on this issue is available to aviation safety inspectors (ASI) who have oversight responsibilities of maintenance providers (part 145 repair stations and/or part 65 mechanics) and/or affected part 91 operators, AFS-300 initiated changes to Order 8900.1, Volume 6, Chapter 9, Section 7, Inspect a Part 145 Repair Station.

To comply with a regulatory requirement to incorporate the current manufacturer’s recommended inspection program, an owner/operator must properly adopt a manufacturer’s program that is "current" as of the time the operator selects and identifies such program in the aircraft maintenance records

Approved by: AFS-200 OPR: AFS-300 Approved by: AFS-200 OPR: AFS-300

(see § 91.409(f)). The program remains "current" unless the FAA mandates revisions to it in the form of an AD or an amendment to the operating rules.

The interpretation is available at; http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2008/Aircraft%20Maintenance.pdf.

Section 91.409(e) requires owners/operators of certain large aircraft to select an inspection program under § 91.409(f). In turn, § 91.409(f) requires the owner/operator to "select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use" one of the inspection programs listed in that rule. Therefore, the owner/operator should use either the inspection program that the owner/operator selected and identified in the aircraft maintenance records or the most recent manufacturer’s inspection program. If the owner/operator elects not to use the most recent program, the owner/operator must provide the maintenance provider with the inspection program and instructions for the aircraft that the owner/operator has previously selected and identified in the aircraft maintenance records. Section 91.409(f) also requires each operator to include in the identification of the selected program the name and address of the person responsible for scheduling the inspections the program requires. Section 91.409(f) also requires the operator to make a copy of that inspection program available to the person performing inspections on the aircraft and, upon request, to the Administrator.

 

In order to assure that updated guidance on this issue is available to aviation safety inspectors (ASI) who have oversight responsibilities of maintenance providers (part 145 repair stations and/or part 65 mechanics) and/or affected part 91 operators, AFS-300 initiated changes to Order 8900.1, Volume 6, Chapter 9, Section 7, Inspect a Part 145 Repair Station.

To comply with a regulatory requirement to incorporate the current manufacturer’s recommended inspection program, an owner/operator must properly adopt a manufacturer’s program that is "current" as of the time the operator selects and identifies such program in the aircraft maintenance records

Approved by: AFS-200 OPR: AFS-300 Approved by: AFS-200 OPR: AFS-300

(see § 91.409(f)). The program remains "current" unless the FAA mandates revisions to it in the form of an AD or an amendment to the operating rules.

The interpretation is available at; http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2008/Aircraft%20Maintenance.pdf.

Frequently asked questions pertaining to § 91.409(f):

1. Question: In regards to an airplane where an inspection program under § 91.409(e) was never entered into the log books, is the owner forced to make a selection as directed by § 91.409(e) before further maintenance can be done?

 

1. Answer:

Section 91.409 states that …"inspections must be performed within the preceding 12-calendar months…" The owner would not have to select an inspection program as directed by § 91.409(e) before further maintenance. However the owner/operator would have to select a current inspection program, enter that selection into the maintenance records and have that inspection program accomplished prior to operating the airplane. The owner/operator may not revert back to an earlier program. If it is impossible to determine the last inspection program used, the owner/operator should select the program that is current as of the time his/her selection is made.

 

Section 91.409 states that …"inspections must be performed within the preceding 12-calendar months…" The owner would not have to select an inspection program as directed by § 91.409(e) before further maintenance. However the owner/operator would have to select a current inspection program, enter that selection into the maintenance records and have that inspection program accomplished prior to operating the airplane. The owner/operator may not revert back to an earlier program. If it is impossible to determine the last inspection program used, the owner/operator should select the program that is current as of the time his/her selection is made.

 

2. Question:

A previous owner of the aircraft makes an explicit selection under § 91.409(e) and then sells the airplane to a new owner. Does the selection of a maintenance program survive change in ownership?

 

A previous owner of the aircraft makes an explicit selection under § 91.409(e) and then sells the airplane to a new owner. Does the selection of a maintenance program survive change in ownership?

 

2. Answer:

The new owner would have to select the most current program at the time of purchase. The new owner may not use the program that had been selected by the previous owner.

 

The new owner would have to select the most current program at the time of purchase. The new owner may not use the program that had been selected by the previous owner.

 

3. Question:

Would it be logical to assume that in a situation where the records are incomplete and or missing or it cannot be determined if an explicit program was selected, to use the same criteria as "no selection" made?

 

Would it be logical to assume that in a situation where the records are incomplete and or missing or it cannot be determined if an explicit program was selected, to use the same criteria as "no selection" made?

 

3. Answer:

As previously stated if records are incomplete or missing the last inspection recorded would have to be the default program for currency. If it is impossible to determine the inspection program the aircraft was last inspected under, then the owner must use the program that is current when the selection is made.

 

As previously stated if records are incomplete or missing the last inspection recorded would have to be the default program for currency. If it is impossible to determine the inspection program the aircraft was last inspected under, then the owner must use the program that is current when the selection is made.

 

4. Question:

How selective can this process be? Must the update be used entirely or can parts of it be selectively applied and others not? To be specific, could an owner elect to use the updated Cessna program except for the SID parts?

 

How selective can this process be? Must the update be used entirely or can parts of it be selectively applied and others not? To be specific, could an owner elect to use the updated Cessna program except for the SID parts?

 

4. Answer:

The owner may always elect to accomplish more than the required inspections and in fact is encouraged to do so. Therefore he or she may select to use an updated program as long as it is specifically stated in the maintenance records what that program consists of. An owner/operator must use the entire selected program. If the SID is part of the program selected, hen the owner/operator must implement it.

 

The owner may always elect to accomplish more than the required inspections and in fact is encouraged to do so. Therefore he or she may select to use an updated program as long as it is specifically stated in the maintenance records what that program consists of. An owner/operator must use the entire selected program. If the SID is part of the program selected, hen the owner/operator must implement it.

 

Recommended Action:

Owners/operators and maintenance providers should note the contents of this InFO.

 

Owners/operators and maintenance providers should note the contents of this InFO.

 

Contact:

If further information is required, contact Rusty Jones, Manager, Special Programs Branch, AFS-320, at (202) 385-6399, or Hawkeye at (918) 836-2727. 

If further information is required, contact Rusty Jones, Manager, Special Programs Branch, AFS-320, at (202) 385-6399, or Hawkeye at (918) 836-2727. 

 

Meanwhile, Press explained in a communiqué to Eclipse operators that the Eclipse service network’s Chicago maintenance facility has received FAA approval to install flight-into-known-icing (FIKI) upgrades on Eclipse 500s, using the Eclipse Aviation FIKI service bulletin procedures. The Chicago facility has access to all the parts needed for the FIKI mod, according to Press. Eclipse Aerospace is offering Eclipse 500 owners discounts on parts and priority service in exchange for a refundable $100,000 deposit by a May 31 deadline. The deposits will “be used to order parts, as well as provide working capital for the modification effort,” according to the communiqué.

 

CFR Part 91.409(f)

(f) Selection of inspection program under paragraph (e) of this section. The registered owner or operator of each airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft described in paragraph (e) of this section must select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use one of the following programs for the inspection of the aircraft:

1.       A continuous airworthiness inspection program that is part of a continuous airworthiness maintenance program currently in use by a person holding an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under Part 121 or 135 of this chapter and operating that make and model aircraft under Part 121 of this chapter or operating that make and model under Part 135 of this chapter and maintaining it under Sec. 135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.

2.       An approved aircraft inspection program approved under Sec. 135.419 of this chapter and currently in use by a person holding an operating certificate issued under Part 135 of this chapter.

3.       A current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.

4.       Any other inspection program established by the registered owner or operator of that airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft and approved by the Administrator under paragraph (g) of this section.

 

There is a strong push within the industry  to persuade the FAA to come up with more specifically detailed language that will either compel owner/operators to specifically choose and adhere to a program, or to default to the last previous     (i.e; current, as we usually define the term) prescribed maintenance standard to which the Aircraft was inspected or repaired.

 

In this scenario, if the owner has not specifically chosen a program,  the repair station (or maintenance provider) must refer to the last maintenance entry required to be maintained by the owner under 91.417(a)(2)(iv) which provides the status of the last inspection made by the program under which the aircraft is required to be maintained.  That record establishes the inspection program chosen by the operator, albeit by default.  At most that would roll back to the program in effect at the time the last inspection was performed.  In the event the program is "older" than the truly "current" one, the owner is responsible for providing the manufacturer documents that outline the program the owner wishes to use. As this newsletter goes to press today, we have just received an update from Cessna on this very subject. If you'd care to discuss this issue in greater detail, please feel free to call us here at the office. As always, we here at Griffith Aviation remain committed to bringing you the very latest developments from Washington on this and other  important aviation-related subjects.

 

 

The issue here centers around the CFR   Title 14, Aeronautics and Space, FAR Part § 91.409(f) (3) relating to Inspections.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—

 

(f) Selection of inspection program under paragraph (e) of this section. The registered owner or operator of each airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft described in paragraph (e) of this section must select, identify in the aircraft maintenance records, and use one of the following programs for the inspection of the aircraft:

(1) A continuous airworthiness inspection program that is part of a continuous airworthiness maintenance program currently in use by a person holding an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate issued under part 121 or 135 of this chapter and operating that make and model aircraft under part 121 of this chapter or operating that make and model under part 135 of this chapter and maintaining it under §135.411(a)(2) of this chapter.

(2) An approved aircraft inspection program approved under §135.419 of this chapter and currently in use by a person holding an operating certificate issued under part 135 of this chapter.

(3) A current inspection program recommended by the manufacturer.

(4) Any other inspection program established by the registered owner or operator of that airplane or turbine-powered rotorcraft and approved by the Administrator under paragraph (g) of this section. However, the Administrator may require revision of this inspection program in accordance with the provisions of §91.415.

§ 91.415   Changes to aircraft inspection programs.

(a) Whenever the Administrator finds that revisions to an approved aircraft inspection program under §91.409(f)(4) or §91.1109 are necessary for the continued adequacy of the program, the owner or operator must, after notification by the Administrator, make any changes in the program found to be necessary by the Administrator.

(b) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator to reconsider the notice to make any changes in a program in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) The petition must be filed with the Director, Flight Standards Service within 30 days after the certificate holder or fractional ownership program manager receives the notice.

(d) Except in the case of an emergency requiring immediate action in the interest of safety, the filing of the petition stays the notice pending a decision by the Administrator.

 

An estimated 70% of the world fleet of Conquest II’s still have the Cessna 1000-series autopilot installed.   Long recognized as the weakest part of an otherwise great airplane, this analog autopilot is prone to failures and peculiar tendencies, and has become increasingly more expensive and difficult to support over the years.   West Star has retrofitted an estimated 60 Conquest II’s with either the Collins APS-65 autopilot or the S-Tec 2100 autopilot, and we continue to perform both of these installations on a routine basis.   We have also developed RVSM STC’s for Conquest II’s with the Collins and S-Tec autopilots installed so operators can appreciate the efficiencies and convenience of operating in RVSM airspace.  

 

Perhaps the current most popular Conquest II retrofit has been the S-Tec autopilot combined with the Avidyne EX 5000 flight displays.   This retrofit, known as the “Alliant” package, includes the reasonably priced and extremely capable S-Tec 2100 autopilot teamed up with the large Avidyne EX-5000 flight displays.   Other equipment such as Garmin 530’s and GTX -330 transponders can be interfaced to make for a complete and integrated package.   West Star is in the final stages of certifying this Conquest II Alliant package for flight in RVSM airspace, with all certifications expected by mid-late February.

 

For information regarding Conquest I and II avionics retrofits, contact Jim Pommier or Aaron Berg at West Star’s Grand Junction facility at (800)-255-4193 or (970)-243-7500.

 

The steepest decline came to Part 135 large-cabin jet aircraft (identified as those with a maximum takeoff weight of over 41,000 pounds), which saw a 44 percent decline in activity. On the opposite end of the scale, Part 91 business aircraft operators as a group curtailed their activity by only 15.3 percent and showed the largest diversity in change by aircraft size, according to ARG/US. Small cabin jets (MTOW under 20,000) flown under Part 91 and midsize-cabin jets suffered the least, falling just 6.3 percent, while turboprop business aircraft (both single- and multi-engine) took the largest hit for the Part 91 category, chiming in with a 23.2 percent drop in activity. Fractionals told a slightly different story.

The business use of fractional aircraft fell by about 32 percent with small-cabin jets bringing the largest impact on the overall figure -- their use fell by more than 44 percent within the fractional category. Just one step up in size, midsize-cabin jets used in fractional business operations fell by 24.3 percent.

 

Let’s examine some comparative numbers between 2007-2008. In all of 2007, the total number of 441 Conquest II’s that sold worldwide was 53, and in 2008 that figure dropped to 30- a reduction of 44%. On average, there were 17 441’s   for sale during any given month in 2007, whereas that number rose to 26 in ’08- a softening of 35%. Not unpredictably, domestic sales were down and International business rose sharply, especially during the first half of 2008 when the dollar was weakened  Now these stats may have a ‘gloomish and doomish’ quality about them, however consider this….

 

The average number of days on market ( DOM) dropped by 3 weeks, from 210 in ’07 to 189 in ’08. The average asking price in 2007 was $1,508,304, whereas in ’08 that figure rose to $1,715,833. And while those two factors alone aren’t enough to justify singing and dancing in the streets, remember that the SIDs Inspection requirements weren’t demanded by Cessna until June of 2007, whereas their dampening effect was felt for the entire past year of 2008. So while actual sale prices were down between 10-15% last year, the ‘headwind’ was much stronger as well.

 

Finally, consider this: In the 30+ year history of the 441 Conquest II, the worst market drop occurred in the two years following 9/11, when prices dropped by some 25%, or about $400K on a $1.6 Million dollar airplane. The recovery was dramatic, as prices rose to record levels between 2005 and 2007.

 

With a new administration set to take office this month, optimism is at an all-time high. We may not be out of the woods completely, but we are indeed very close to the bottom, and the only way from here is up! It is truly a ‘Buyer’s Market’ out there right now, and the best deals to be made will be made this 2009. The 441 Conquest II is the most efficient and economical twin turboprop in it’s class, and the demand for this perennial performer will slowly creep back up to pre-2008 levels this year- it’s only a matter of time!

 

 

They were part of the 650-workforce reduction announced by the aircraft manufacturer in November, the result of reduced production outlook for 2009. About 500 people will be cut from the Wichita plant and 165 from Bend, according to company spokesperson Doug Oliver. Of the total, about 150 people accepted a voluntary severance package offered by the company.

Cessna initially had forecast 535 deliveries in 2009 and 470 in 2008. Now, says Oliver, the company expects to deliver "less than" the total projected for next year, but more than 470 for this year. Specific totals were unavailable.

 

 

When she was appointed by President Bill Clinton, Garvey was the first woman to head the FAA and the first to serve a five-year term.

Garvey, 63, lives in Maine. Before joining the FAA, she was acting administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. 

 

Eclipse Aviation, based at Albuquerque, confirmed on Nov. 4 rumors that it had dropped plans to attend AOPA Expo as part of its cost-cutting effort while it, like Grob, looks for new financing. Reports from industry sources say that Eclipse hopes to raise something between $200 million and $300 million in order to continue its operations. Although several industry analysts have predicted the demise of Eclipse in 2009, the company's position is that European certification - expected soon - would bring what CEO Roel Pieper called "hundreds" of orders from Europe, Russia and other places where the efficient little VLJ should do well. Pieper had predicted, earlier, that EASA certification would come before the end of October.

 

 Comp Air said it has deposits in hand for about two dozen airplanes and plans to make the move to Melbourne by January 1. Comp Air has accumulated approximately 200 hours on the prototype that has been flying since last year. However, the production model will undergo significant changes, including a 42-inch fuselage stretch and a four-inches-larger fuselage diameter. Additionally, the cruciform tail on the prototype will be dropped in favor of a conventional design, and the main door might also be enlarged. Comp Air plans to fly the larger Model 12 by next July, with FAA certification following by the end of 2010.

 

The company reports that several development and certification flight tests have been performed to date, including low- and high-speed characteristics, stalls and flutter. Additionally, the test aircraft have flown in natural ice conditions, which will allow the aircraft to be certified for flight into known icing conditions upon delivery. Crosswind tests were also performed in Punta Arenas, Chile, earlier this year, and operational tests in high-altitude airports were recently concluded in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Systems and performance tests are ongoing, and one test aircraft is currently in the south of Argentina undergoing cold-weather tests. All structural static tests have been completed.

 

Aviators around the country were affected directly -- stranded by the airspace shutdown, then faced with suspicious scrutiny from local governments and increased regulation of our freedom to fly. Small general aviation airports in the Washington, D.C., area were closed for months, and flight schools around the country saw a drop in student enrollments. Now, seven years later, we almost take for granted those airport fences across what once were open fields. But maybe seven years from now, or seven years after that, or somewhere in the future, those fences will wear away in the wind and weather, and if we're very lucky, nobody will even notice they're gone.

 

Most other airports in the region were reopened by Tuesday, although some were lacking electrical power. Gustav has been downgraded to a tropical depression as it moves northwest, but threats of local rains up to 20 inches and possible tornados remain. Early reports said eight people died in the storm. Officials were asking evacuees to wait another day or so before returning home. Meanwhile, the active hurricane season continues, with three more storms -- Hannah, Ike, and Josephine -- already on track for the southeastern U.S.

 

 

Piper President Jim Bass said there's a lot riding on the PiperJet. "With this major milestone in the PiperJet's development, we are witnessing our future – one that is built on a strong and lasting heritage and reputation for innovation and excellence," he said. Brennan said people at the airport have gotten used to the aircraft doing high speed taxi tests but word spread quickly that today might be the day for the first flight. He said that the plane did a couple of high speed runs on the runway before lifting off. There has been no official announcement of the flight from Piper but we expect to hear from them soon.

 

Pieper said there will be new focus on efficiency and operational excellence as the company moves into its new phase. "I'm very confident we have adequate funding in place," Pieper said. In fact, Raburn's departure was a condition of Eclipse obtaining its most recent round of financing. "Under the terms of the commitment and agreements, Founder and CEO Vern Raburn will step down and veteran executive and Eclipse Aviation Chairman Roel Pieper will become acting CEO effective immediately," said Eclipse's news release.

 

"It takes a lot of organization and preparation and office support," Pouille said, to make the trip run smoothly and on time. "But it's been a fantastic experience." Since AVweb last checked in with the group, they have flown up the east coast of Asia via Taipei, Taiwan; Seoul, South Korea; and Vladivostok, Russia; then across the Bering Sea to Anchorage, Alaska. The pilots stopped in Juneau for a cruise and ended their journey in Seattle, then each aircraft headed for home.

 

 

If such a trip sounds appealing, be prepared to spend $68,750 per person for the 2009 trip, plus an airplane registration fee of $16,500 and various other expenses. For more details from earlier legs of the trip, click here and scroll to the "Around The World" stories.

 

The Low Down on the Cessna 400- Series Wing Upper Spar Cap….

 

There is an interesting, ongoing research project currently underway   in Wichita that centers around Non-Destructive testing of airframe and wings on the 400 Series Cessnas.  In one instance, the test subject is a Cessna 402, with some 30,000 hours on it’s odometer. The airframes being tested have literally been beaten up through the years hauling freight in and out of the humid environment of the Eastern Seaboard, in some cases racking up over One Thousand hours a year. The researchers on this project are learning quite a bit about what kind of structural testing limits the Main Wing Spars on this airplane will withstand, and therefore what a similar life expectancy may be on the sister ships within the 400-Series family.

 

Airworthiness Directive 95-21-08 R1, issued in November 1994 addresses the specific issue of spar cracks in the   421C and 425 Model Cessnas. Here is the basic gist of what the AD calls for…….

First, any crack found in the Main Spar that runs from North-to-South ( Nose-To-Tail)   is a big No-No, and requires immediate attention and remedy. For all other cracks, the chief concern is the length of the crack itself, which is generally measured in inches and not feet. If for example, the inspection reveals a crack that is longer than 2.5 inches, the Spar Cap Kit must be installed prior to any further flight, and must also be re-inspected every 600 hours or less. It was no coincidence that this time interval lines up perfectly with the Phase “D” requirement on the Conquest I and II, every 600 hours or 24 calendar months, whichever occurs first.

 

If the crack found is between 2.0 and 2.5 inches long, you may fly up to 50 hours before installing the kit, and the re-inspection requirement remains every 600 hours. If the crack is less than 2.0 inches in length, you have up to 200 hours of flight time before the kit must be installed; however, you must re-inspect the Spar every 50 hours, and again, after the kit is installed, the re-inspection requirement remains every 600 hours. When do these inspection requirements first kick in? Great question, glad you asked!

 

The initial Upper Spar Cap inspection is required once your airframe reaches the 3,000 hour TT mark, and it is required every 300 hours thereafter. If no cracks are found, you may keep on flying and re-inspecting until a condition like the ones described above arises. Some folks believe that they   eliminate the need for recurring inspections   when they have the Kits installed, and this is correct ONLY if the Spars are found with no cracks at the time of Kit-Installation. Only if you choose to install the Cap Kits on Spars that have no cracks do you eliminate the requirement for any further inspections. Why, you ask, would someone want to approach it this way? Again, great question!

 

Resale….resale…..resale! Each time you invest in an upgrade on your airplane, you add intrinsic value to some degree or another, and this usually translates to more money at resale. And because of the potential ( or perceived potential) for wing failure due to cracks in the Spar, an investment in Upper Spar Cap Kits usually has a very positive effect on resale. The hard truth of the matter is that we’ve   never seen or heard of any wing falling off of any airplane because of a 2-inch crack in the Main Spar. Nonetheless, until more conclusive evidence is obtained through research regarding the absolute hourly life-expectancy of these airframes, the compliance with AD 95-21-08 R1 provides a very comforting measure of security that is well worth the investment price- especially when your wife and kids are sleeping comfortably in the back!

 

PiperJet Ground Testing To Start Soon
Piper Aircraft reports that its PiperJet prototype is making progress, with the first engine start and run to “occur shortly.” Earlier this month, the Vero Beach, Fla.-based aircraft manufacturer finished all static load testing on the single-engine jet proof-of-concept airframe. These tests consisted of applying normal loads (+3.8g to -1.5g) to the airframe. The prototype has since been removed from the test fixture and is now standing on its own landing gear. However, the landing gear configuration used on this test aircraft is a conventional oleo design instead of the trailing-link gear planned for follow-on test and production aircraft. Meanwhile, the airplane’s Williams FJ44-3AP turbofan was installed in the vertical tail location, which Piper said results in better engine efficiency because air entering the intake is undisturbed and not subject to airframe interference. Workers are now finishing installation of the PiperJet prototype’s electrical and avionics systems, with first power-on tests expected to take place in the next week or so. Following this, Piper will start engine runs and then ground runs before first flight, which is expected to occur this summer.