AIRCRAFT MUST RE-REGISTER -

[John Baker]

I received this e-mail today. This is probably of interest to owners.

John




AIRCRAFT MUST RE-REGISTER - If Issued Registration Before October 1, 2010.
The Re-Registration and Renewal of Aircraft Registration rule went into effect on October 1, 2010. Aircraft registrations issued on or after this date will expire after three years when they may be renewed. Aircraft registered before October 1, 2010, are required to re-register during the next three years according to the schedule provided in 14 CFR Part 47.40. Reminder notices will be sent using the address of record, make sure your address is up to date.
The first group of aircraft to be re-registered are those aircraft that have a current registration issue date during the month of March, from all years. Application for re-registration of these aircraft should be made between November 1, 2010, and January 31, 2011. Making an early application will ensure the new certificate of registration can be delivered before the old certificate expires on March 31, 2011.
More information about these and other changes can be found at http://registry.faa.gov/aircraft.asp.
Questions may be directed toll free to 866-762-9434.

 

[ScottM]

This popped up earlier this year and was discussed at length in this thread:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36994

I got the email today too. I think the FAA is going to keep trying to get the word out to all. So get ready to hear this a lot over the next few years.

 

[John Baker]

This has to be another way to raise money. Does anyone know how much they are planning to charge for this "service"?

John

 

[flyer]

i got my new registration card in the mail last week. It now has a expiration date on it

 

[Doggtyred]

This has to be another way to raise money. Does anyone know how much they are planning to charge for this "service"?

John

This is also a way to get stale N numbers of unused, derelict aircraft off the rolls..

 

[ScottM]

This has to be another way to raise money. Does anyone know how much they are planning to charge for this "service"?

John

$5, it was mentioned in the link that was provided in the email. The $5 probably does not even come close to covering the cost to administer the stupid program.

 

[Tom-D]

$5, it was mentioned in the link that was provided in the email. The $5 probably does not even come close to covering the cost to administer the stupid program.

They will fix that..............(Ta Da) no new taxes, yeah right.

 

[wanttaja]

$5, it was mentioned in the link that was provided in the email. The $5 probably does not even come close to covering the cost to administer the stupid program.

Considering they had a identical program before (albeit not mandatory), I suspect they're not out any $$$$.

The $5 charge tends to confirm that the goal of the program is to get tens of thousands of abandoned/scrapped/inactive airplanes off the rolls, and to get the registration data corrected for tens of thousands more. The FAA database is in poor shape.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[gprellwitz]

Considering they had a identical program before (albeit not mandatory), I suspect they're not out any $$$$.

The $5 charge tends to confirm that the goal of the program is to get tens of thousands of abandoned/scrapped/inactive airplanes off the rolls, and to get the registration data corrected for tens of thousands more. The FAA database is in poor shape.

Ron Wanttaja

How much does it matter if the database is current if other agencies (e.g. EPIC) don't query it regularly to update their records? Ask the Kings about that!

 

[John Baker]

How much does it matter if the database is current if other agencies (e.g. EPIC) don't query it regularly to update their records? Ask the Kings about that!

This is America, we must have all data about every aspect of our citizenry. Records are important to us all. Your papers must be in order. You will comply.

John

 

[wanttaja]

How much does it matter if the database is current if other agencies (e.g. EPIC) don't query it regularly to update their records? Ask the Kings about that!

It would matter if another GA plane is used in a personal/terrorist attack, and the new media report that "The FAA lost track on who owned the airplane twenty years ago." You may not like what the FAA is doing now, but I guarantee that you would like it even less if Congress were dictating what the FAA had to do to "take control" of the registration process. This is a "pre-emptive strike" by the FAA to look like they're doing something. I saw the same thing on a Flight Safety Review board I was on this year...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Bob Noel]

This is also a way to get stale N numbers of unused, derelict aircraft off the rolls..

Well, as long as there is a really really really important reason for it.
</sarcasm>

 

[silver-eagle]

They could accomplish the same thing by just asking us to acknowledge we still own the aircraft. They do have MY current mailing address. Any returned mail could then mean they deregister the aircraft.
Come to think of it, the state has my address too. They collect $165 registration fee annually. (Now managed by MASS DOT/MASS Registry.)

 

[wsuffa]

$5, it was mentioned in the link that was provided in the email. The $5 probably does not even come close to covering the cost to administer the stupid program.

For now. According to an AvWeb article, the FAA reauthorization bill proposed initial fees of $130 and renewals of $45.

BTW, the final rule is here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-17572.htm

It's worth the read to see the rationale behind the rule.

 

[steingar]

You have to register your car every year. Doesn't seem at all onerous to register my aircraft every three.

 

[dmccormack]

You have to register your car every year. Doesn't seem at all onerous to register my aircraft every three.

So since there's one money grab there should be another?

 

[steingar]

So since there's one money grab there should be another?

Both cars and aircraft have the potential to inflict damage on uninvolved people and property. It is therefore reasonable that the state exercise some measure of control over their use, as least in my opinion. Personally, I think the measures of control used in this country quite benign, compared to the potential (and real) damage inflicted by the vehicles.

 

[tonycondon]

how does registration have anything to do with control or preventing damage?

 

[steingar]

You can at least connect the vehicle with an owner if something goes boom. Why is it reasonable to register cars and not aircraft? We all regularly land on Federally funded airstrips using Federally funded ATC services. Why is it so horrible to think the FAA might want to know who's using these things. Like I said, it doesn't seem any more unreasonable than registering cars, about which I have seen exactly no one complain.

 

[skidoo]

You can at least connect the vehicle with an owner if something goes boom. Why is it reasonable to register cars and not aircraft? We all regularly land on Federally funded airstrips using Federally funded ATC services. Why is it so horrible to think the FAA might want to know who's using these things. Like I said, it doesn't seem any more unreasonable than registering cars, about which I have seen exactly no one complain.

I had thought that pilots as a group were about freedom and liberty. The more I read posts about government actions, the more I realize that my assumption was wrong.

Some states require annual aircraft registration as well. Our state, for example, uses it to collect fees in lieu of property taxes. Doing it this way, it is much less than if it were property taxes. Registering cars is about the same, to collect taxes. I have paid too many taxes in recent years, so yes, I'll be the first on your list to complain about registering my car.

But, at least for cars over 11 years old, our state allows you to do a "permanent" registration. I don't see anything wrong with a one time registration. Perhaps the problem for aircraft is that neither the state nor the FAA provides a guarantee of title. But, they want to collect fees for registration?

 

[rpadula]

Why is it reasonable to register cars and not aircraft?

Because pilots are notoriously cheap bastiges!

 

[wsuffa]

how does registration have anything to do with control or preventing damage?

Car registration was done for three primary reasons: 1) to ensure that folks had insurance (and to improve insurability), 2) to codify government belief that ownership is a privilege (not a right) and thereby ensure government control of who could & could not own a vehicle, and 3) to provide a means for titling & verifying ownership so buyers could be sure that they were purchasing something that is owned by the seller. In a number of states it was also done for tax purposes (to ensure that sales tax is collected & that property tax is paid where applicible). Liability matters were the key driving force.

Until recently the data has not really been used to track vehicle movements.

If you read the FAA notice, the key reason for annual registration is to ensure fresh data to improve the reliability of "law-enforcement" tracking of aircraft. Since there are no Federal requirements for liability insurance, there's a substantial difference between cars and aircraft. Some states do impose taxes and liability insurace requirements: and any number of those states impose annual registration requirements (Virginia is one - they even provide a sticker that has to be displayed on your plane).

Read the actual FAA notice in the link I provided earlier. You'll see very quickly how the rationale for car vs aircraft registration differ.

 

[Bob Noel]

You have to register your car every year. Doesn't seem at all onerous to register my aircraft every three.

ok then, let's not register cars every year either.

 

[Everskyward]

Because pilots are notoriously cheap bastiges!

That's the real reason!

Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with it. I know that there are some aircraft I have flown which I know are no longer with us which are still listed as registered.

 

[dmccormack]

You can at least connect the vehicle with an owner if something goes boom. Why is it reasonable to register cars and not aircraft? We all regularly land on Federally funded airstrips using Federally funded ATC services. Why is it so horrible to think the FAA might want to know who's using these things. Like I said, it doesn't seem any more unreasonable than registering cars, about which I have seen exactly no one complain.

When you purchase a vehicle in Pennsylvania you pay registration, title, and 6% sales tax.

Each document lists everything about the vehicle: how much, who owned, who will own, names, locations, VIN numbers, yada, yada.

Each sale requires these same transfer documents.

Each year each car is "registered" again. Those who fail to register if caught are fined $150. Each registration runs from $36 to several hundred dollars (weight and class determines).

So -- what is it about the annual registration that is not handled by the transfer paperwork?

Nothing. It's a money pump and we pay it.

End of reality break. You may return to your regularly scheduled delusion.

 

[timrj]

You have to register your car every year. Doesn't seem at all onerous to register my aircraft every three.

It is if we've already complied with the rules about registration. This whole "re-registration" process seems totally mismanaged. I can think of so many better ways to handle it.

IAs (And homebuilts) can submit paperwork for an annual at annual time and that would cut down almost ALL of the unnecessary re-registrations.

Just because states do it for cars does not mean it should be something we impose on the airplane fleet.

The dates are arbitrary. It would have been better to just have one date for everyone. This whole nonsense of expiration based on the month is silly.

These amendments will improve the accuracy
of the Civil Aviation Registry database and will ensure that aircraft
owners provide information to maintain accurate registration records.
These amendments respond to the concerns of law enforcement and other
government agencies to provide more accurate, up-to-date aircraft
registration information.

The ostensible reason sounds great, however I find it highly unlikely that this program will improve the database or sharing of information.

The people who are in the database correctly will still be there that way and the outliers will be outliers. The registration info is available via a google search. Pretty simple if you ask me. Not sure how this program improves things.

 

[Bob Noel]

Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with it. I know that there are some aircraft I have flown which I know are no longer with us which are still listed as registered.

We shouldn't have to shoot it down. The FAA should have to justify it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Because pilots are notoriously cheap bastiges!

Ya think? I mean, seriously - Look at all this, over a measly $5 for THREE YEARS. Honestly - It's times like this I'm embarrassed to be a pilot. "I can afford to sink five FIGURES a year into a hobby, but five BUCKS to the government agency in charge of that hobby, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

I had thought that pilots as a group were about freedom and liberty. The more I read posts about government actions, the more I realize that my assumption was wrong.

It is if we've already complied with the rules about registration. This whole "re-registration" process seems totally mismanaged. I can think of so many better ways to handle it.

IAs (And homebuilts) can submit paperwork for an annual at annual time and that would cut down almost ALL of the unnecessary re-registrations.

Just because states do it for cars does not mean it should be something we impose on the airplane fleet.

The dates are arbitrary. It would have been better to just have one date for everyone. This whole nonsense of expiration based on the month is silly.

We shouldn't have to shoot it down. The FAA should have to justify it.

 

[tonycondon]

its not the money Kent, I just think it's dumb.

 

[Bob Noel]

Ya think? I mean, seriously - Look at all this, over a measly $5 for THREE YEARS. Honestly - It's times like this I'm embarrassed to be a pilot. "I can afford to sink five FIGURES a year into a hobby, but five BUCKS to the government agency in charge of that hobby, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

whooooosssshhhhhhhhhh

You are missing the point. Has anyone, anyone at all complained about
the $5?

Look at the reason provided for "justifying" the re-registration. Some
pointy-haired moron thinks that this will help somehow with the fight
against terrorism or crime or chemtrails. So as a result, everyone has
to waste more time re-registering their aircraft and the FAA has to waste
time processing all those registration. And I guess the slack-jawed
geniuses at TSA will somehow do something with the late or missing
registration. Yep, we can all feel safer now. phew, that's a huge
load off my mind. Now I can worry about less important things.

 

[Everskyward]

Look at the reason provided for "justifying" the re-registration.

I think it's a good idea to have the database up to date no matter what the reason. Owners have obviously not been deregistering their aircraft like they should have been doing.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You are missing the point. Has anyone, anyone at all complained about the $5?

Look at the reason provided for "justifying" the re-registration. Some
pointy-haired moron thinks that this will help somehow with the fight
against terrorism or crime or chemtrails.

Has anyone, anyone at all said it's for terrorism or crime or chemtrails?

Look at the REAL reason for justifying the re-registration: Cleaning up the FAA registry. This is bad... How exactly?

 

[Bob Noel]

I think it's a good idea to have the database up to date no matter what the reason. Owners have obviously not been deregistering their aircraft like they should have been doing.

If you are a database geek, it makes perfect sense.

Algorithmic purity is not a justification.

 

[Everskyward]

If you are a database geek, it makes perfect sense.

Algorithmic purity is not a justification.

Haha. If you knew me you would know that I'm far from any sort of geek. But I agree with Kent. What's wrong with cleaning up the FAA registry? As I said, I can enter N-numbers of airplanes that I know are no longer around and come up with a registration. If nothing else it will free up some N-numbers.

 

[gprellwitz]

Are plsanes on static display in museums supposed to be in the database? If so, will the museums now need to continue paying to keep them registered, or can those numbers be released? Does it matter if they're "flyable"?

 

[timwinters]

Well...

I think it's pretty "interesting" that while it appears that the AOPA might be ripping us off for hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions...we're fixated on $5.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

we're fixated on $5.

FAA admin staff:
"We need to milk them for more money"
"Let's invent a paid regulation system like the dmv has - the road vehicle fees bring in millions!"
"Whoa whoa, if we charge them anything much, there will be serious resistance"
"OK, let's set it at a minimal amount, such that no one could possibly complain - say $5.00?"
"Yeah, yeah! Then, over the next 10 years, we can find justification to gradually jack it up to 100$, 200$ -whatever we need!"
"Exactly, slip it to them gently - then sneak the rate up over time! Right now we will pass it off as a 'database cleanup', with minimal fees. Genius!"

/thread on hold. Make note to resurrect in 5 years.

 

[tonycondon]

i don't think anyone is complaining about the $5. And we all have the option of getting ripped off by the AOPA so if we don't like it we can stop paying dues. Unfortunately if we don't like the government we're still obligated to pay taxes and fees.

I just don't see the benefit to getting all the hangar queens and museum planes out of the database. Or should I say, the danger of having them in the database.

 

[Bob Noel]

Has anyone, anyone at all said it's for terrorism or crime or chemtrails?

Look at the REAL reason for justifying the re-registration: Cleaning up the FAA registry. This is bad... How exactly?

Well, let's look at the NPRM

"These amendments respond to the concerns of law enforcement and other government agencies to provide more accurate, up-to-date aircraft registration information."

"Law enforcement agencies rely on the registration database when investigating improper activities such as drug smuggling."

"This program continuously draws registration information for combination with other data, satellite feeds, and radar to develop a display of the national airspace complete with the registration status of each aircraft that is operating on a filed flight plan. Using this information, appropriate safety, security, and law enforcement actions can be initiated. The development of the ADAPT program and other safety- and security-related programs demand an accurate database."

hmmmm

 

[gprellwitz]

Well, let's look at the NPRM

"These amendments respond to the concerns of law enforcement and other government agencies to provide more accurate, up-to-date aircraft registration information."

"Law enforcement agencies rely on the registration database when investigating improper activities such as drug smuggling."

"This program continuously draws registration information for combination with other data, satellite feeds, and radar to develop a display of the national airspace complete with the registration status of each aircraft that is operating on a filed flight plan. Using this information, appropriate safety, security, and law enforcement actions can be initiated. The development of the ADAPT program and other safety- and security-related programs demand an accurate database."

hmmmm

yes, Big Brother IS watching. Right, Ted?