Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
9-11 Planes Deregistration  
User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7722 times:

Hi!

Looking for real, honest (no conspiracy here!) information about the planes involved in 9/11. As far as we know here's the list:

N334AA AA11 was a 767-223 which hit the North Tower of the WTC
N612UA UA175 was a 767-222 which hit the South Tower of the WTC
N644AA AA77 was a 757-223 which struck the Pentagon
N591UA UA93 was a 757-222 which went down in Shanksville, PA

Now, I don't understand why an official FAA Registration Database (see at:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...644AA&cmndfind.x=13&cmndfind.y=10)
didn't and still doesn't keep exact track of the planes.

This Database says, that the planes were Deregistered on/Reason for Cancellation:
N334AA - 01/14/2002 - Destroyed
N612UA - 09/28/2005 - Cancelled
N644AA - 01/14/2002 - Destroyed
N591UA - 09/28/2005 - Cancelled

My questions are:
1. Why the delay with the deregistration? (it took 4 months for two planes and 4 years for other two!)
2. What FAA regulation says about deregistration time?
3. Why there's no "Destroyed" listed next to 2 other planes?

Thanks for a feedback!
An

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBimmerkid19 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7659 times:

Quoting Encore (Thread starter):

Can you say government conspiracy ?  Wink


User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7651 times:

No conspiracy please.  Sad I just want a simple explanation.
Thanks!


User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1611 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7631 times:

It might have something to do with the way in which the aircraft owners processed the de-registration.

The dates might have something to do with who actually OWNED the aircraft -- were the UA birds leased, but the AA birds owned? The legal wrangling on ownership and liability might have played a role in delaying the UA birds' de-registration.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7617 times:

To my way of thinking, the fact that the two AA dates/reasons are the same and the two UA dates/reasons are the same suggests that it was just corporate preference. I can't think of any insurance or lessor (if any) related reasons...

User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7607 times:

What about FAA explanation? Can we approach them with how officials would explain the inconsistency? What you suggest?

User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7586 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
To my way of thinking, the fact that the two AA dates/reasons are the same and the two UA dates/reasons are the same suggests that it was just corporate preference. I can't think of any insurance or lessor (if any) related reasons...

I understand the thinking, but does it mean that the owner has saying in what FAA enters in the registration database? If my plane was destroyed, can I ask FAA to enter just "Cancelled"? And can I tell FAA about my plane being destroyed in a terrrible accident - four years later? I just can't connect the dots.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7557 times:

Check out FAR 47.41

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/14cfr47.43.pdf

It appears that the registration is active until such time as the corporation requests that it be cancelled. The only scenarios I can see in a quick glance that involve time limits are ones involving a corporation that dissolves, or an individual owner that passes away...


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7501 times:

and delays are increased by the time the paperwork takes to go through the government bureaucracies...
I'm actually surprised it took only 4 months for the AA birds, the FAA must have been working overtime to do it that rapidly.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7498 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 7):
Check out FAR 47.41

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/14cfr47.43.pdf

It appears that the registration is active until such time as the corporation requests that it be cancelled. The only scenarios I can see in a quick glance that involve time limits are ones involving a corporation that dissolves, or an individual owner that passes away...

That's an interesting answer. Thanks!

I read the Code, however, which says:


§ 47.41 Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration
issued by the FAA under this
subpart is effective, unless suspended
or revoked, until the date upon which—
[...]
(2) The registration is canceled at the
written request of the holder of the
certificate;
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed
or scrapped;

Now, for me (3) is more important that (2), and (3) fulfills the Certification suspension. What do you think? Any lawyers here in Forum?


User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7486 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 8):
and delays are increased by the time the paperwork takes to go through the government bureaucracies...
I'm actually surprised it took only 4 months for the AA birds, the FAA must have been working overtime to do it that rapidly.

C'mon - be serious. Four years for deregistration two of the most famous planes? Even bureaucracy doesn't explain this fully.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7476 times:

I didn't say it does, just that it can completely explain 4 months or more  Smile

But rest assured there is no conspiracy.
No secret CIA plot under which the aircraft never actually crashed but were disappeared so they couldn't be scrapped from the registry.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7476 times:

You might direct further questions to these folks....

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...ry/contact_aircraft_certification/


User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7454 times:

My guess is that it took so long for the UA planes to be de-registered was due to the process being tied up in bankruptcy.

Only a guess.


User currently offlineReyes27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7283 times:

i am guessing tax reasons and depreciation

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7060 times:

Quoting Encore (Reply 10):
C'mon - be serious. Four years for deregistration two of the most famous planes? Even bureaucracy doesn't explain this fully.

Sure. The legal wheels United Airlines. If you notice they are also the one that list them as cancelled, not destroyed. Over that time period their Lawyers had bigger issues to deal. Also, there may be some connection to the lw suites that might have been filed by the families



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6830 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 15):
Sure. The legal wheels United Airlines. If you notice they are also the one that list them as cancelled, not destroyed. Over that time period their Lawyers had bigger issues to deal. Also, there may be some connection to the lw suites that might have been filed by the families

Well, read the Code again. It says that the aircraft must be deregistered when is totally destroyed.


§ 47.41 Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration
issued by the FAA under this
subpart is effective [...] until the date upon which—
[...]
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed
or scrapped;

It's so simple to me - the planes were destroyed on 9/11, why then it had been reported four years later? It's a clear violation of the FAA Code.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6752 times:

Quoting Encore (Reply 5):
What about FAA explanation? Can we approach them with how officials would explain the inconsistency? What you suggest?

Would any official be aware of the inconsistency, and more importantly what needs to be explained??? This has no material effect on anything at all. I would say that asking for an explanation is a waste of their time and hence our tax dollars. My suggestion is to let it go.

Quoting Encore (Reply 6):
I just can't connect the dots.

I struggling to understand why you place any significance on the issue. Exactly why are trying to connect dots in the first place???

Quoting Encore (Reply 16):
It's so simple to me - the planes were destroyed on 9/11, why then it had been reported four years later? It's a clear violation of the FAA Code.

 sarcastic  Gee whiz, let me think on this. Maybe having aircraft destroyed in this manner is not a routine event and AA/UA have no procedures in place. Maybe the very obvious and public destruction of the aircraft led to the assumption that the FAA knew about it and thus no paperwork was required. Maybe the folks at AA and UA faced emotional issues and just didn't address the question. Maybe it was just outright overlooked. Maybe nobody files timely registrations cancellations, or maybe some airlines are better than others about filing.

 point I suggest you look into the registration cancellation history of aircraft in general. Are the belated cancellations of the aircraft involved in 9/11 in any way unique?



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlinePanAmOldDC8 From Barbados, joined Dec 2006, 960 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6732 times:

Very interesting? Does this mean that pax killed on the 2 UA flights, that their families are not entiteld to compensation? If my memory serves me correctly, this is like missing in action and therefore no compensation is paid until after a certain time has elasped. Just wondering that's all


Barbados, CWC soon, can't wait
User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6558 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 17):
Gee whiz, let me think on this. Maybe having aircraft destroyed in this manner is not a routine event and AA/UA have no procedures in place. Maybe [...] Maybe [...] Maybe [...] Maybe [...]

You see, I don't want "maybe". I think people in our community don't operate under "maybe" assumption. Maybe my plane will fly? Maybe I have enough fuel? Maybe my aircraft is registered properly? Maybe?...

No - a want clear and precise answers. And in this case, I want to know who violated the FAA Code: FAA itself or UA? That's what I want to know.

Otherwise, maybe we all start flying thinking that "maybe" we have license and valid registration. Why bother with FAA Code in a first place, when we can't follow the rules?
And the procedures to deregister the planes are clear, and no circumstances explain why it took four years to do that.


User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6548 times:

Just out of interest, as UA was going into Chapter 11, could they have kept them registered to get compensation for lack of earnings from them through no fault of there own? sort of like one of them compensation for injuries. Basically they werent making money off them, so they say hey this isnt our fault, we want compensation from the state for lack of busting this attack?

Is that how it couldve worked?

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6473 times:

Quoting Encore (Reply 19):
You see, I don't want "maybe".

I presented a set of "maybe" cases to illustrate that there are any number of simple and entirely reasonable explanations, which you said in your reply#2 is what you wanted. I can't think of an answer that isn't entirely understandable, unless you delve into conspiracies (as you say is NOT your intent...).

Quoting Encore (Reply 19):
No - a want clear and precise answers. And in this case, I want to know who violated the FAA Code: FAA itself or UA? That's what I want to know.

WHY? For what reason do you want to know? What possible answer could arise that would have significance to you? Suppose the answer is "UA filed late"...so what? What action would you propose to take if that's the case???

 redflag I raise the red flag on you and call BS. You say you are not entertaining conspiracies, so what's your interest in this? I repeat my challenge to you: are the late deregistrations of the aircraft involved in 9/11 in any way unique? Are there no other aircraft with similar belated filings? Is it or is it not generally the case that airlines are late with this paperwork? Hmmm???



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6426 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 21):
WHY? For what reason do you want to know? What possible answer could arise that would have significance to you? Suppose the answer is "UA filed late"...so what? What action would you propose to take if that's the case???

I raise the red flag on you and call BS. You say you are not entertaining conspiracies, so what's your interest in this? I repeat my challenge to you: are the late deregistrations of the aircraft involved in 9/11 in any way unique? Are there no other aircraft with similar belated filings? Is it or is it not generally the case that airlines are late with this paperwork? Hmmm???

OK. You can raise the red flag if you don't want to know the truth. You suggest that I'm not entitled to truth ("what's your interest in this", "what reason do you want to know"), and some other say that trying to find a truth would be "a waste of our tax dollars". Well, very interesting thinking... Red flags. What's next? Curse and threats?

C'mon - there's an implication for this: if we can't follow the Code, we need to change it. If someone (whoever) violated the Code - has to answer to that.
I don't care who did it, all I want it to find out *if* the Code had been violated.
But some of members here prefer to brake the Law, or leave it and not talking if the Law has been violated. I don't think it's a good and healthy approach. And I think I may be more entitled to raise the flag for such members who hushing up the breakers.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

Quoting Encore (Reply 22):
OK. You can raise the red flag if you don't want to know the truth.

Since nobody here (myself included) seems to be able to answer the questions to your satisfaction, why don't you just call the FAA at the number that was in the link I provided back in reply 12? If you don't get the answer that you expect, like, or understand, with that (or the fact that the info came from FAA, a "government agency") then consititute additional "evidence" of a conspiracy?  Yeah sure


User currently offlineEncore From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6390 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 21):
are the late deregistrations of the aircraft involved in 9/11 in any way unique? Are there no other aircraft with similar belated filings? Is it or is it not generally the case that airlines are late with this paperwork?

.


That's very interesting question, thanks - that's where we should go to find out what had happened. Anyone here with deregistration experience? Thanks in advance.

[Edited 2006-12-15 21:06:24]

25 CasInterest : your assumming code was broken. Why don't you call the FAA to find out. Perhaps the UA planes were "destroyed" prior to officially cancelling the reg
26 TeamAmerica : "the truth" about what, Encore? About a possible code violation? Why? What harm has been done? Who has been injured? I keep asking, and you don't ans
27 Encore : If I don't get a clear answer - and I will call them up - it might mean either incompetence, bureaucracy, but Law violation wouldn't be excluded. And
28 Encore : Now, I really don't understand your approach - it seems that you're trying to minimize what had happened, or planely don't get it. If I follow your t
29 OPNLguy : You're obviously not getting your clear answer here--how about just calling them?
30 Lowrider : I think you need a little perspective here. Maybe a FAR was violated, but I didn't see any timeline requirement involved in the cancellation of regis
31 EMBQA : Actually, no it's not that simple and black and white. United may have had to legally prove that the planes in question were indeed the planes that w
32 Kalvado : I just looked up few destroyed plane regs in a database. Few years are not that uncommon; look up N233YV if you want a real violation. I would assume
33 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Then maximize it for me. Give me a good reason to think there is something here other than an issue over filing of paperwork. If that's all there is,
34 Post contains images Cadet57 : You really like the bold Don't cha
35 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I did not use bold in reply#21, but this one makes up for it.   [Edited 2006-12-16 03:35:06]
36 Scalebuilder : Yes - I think canceling the registration as early as possible would have an immediate positive financial impact. UA would have to pay no property and
37 LeanOfPeak : So the government was able to completely conceal a giant conspiracy foisted upon the American people for some devious reason... But when it comes to c
38 Levg79 : As a tax accountant I can only tell you that if the property does not exist, it cannot be depreciated. Furthermore, UA was in Ch. 11 bankruptcy and t
39 Post contains links SJCRRPAX : There is a video on youtube that pretty much explains what happened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=043qG1rdCGw
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pieces Of 9/11 Planes posted Mon Jul 14 2003 00:48:14 by Jhooper
Continental To Ground 11 Planes posted Tue Aug 20 2002 18:59:25 by Flyingbronco05
Are CVRs From 9/11 Planes Available To The Public? posted Thu Jul 11 2002 05:29:00 by Bobcat
Feature Movie About Planes On 9.11.01. posted Tue Mar 8 2005 10:52:01 by Aa777jr
Any American Planes Stranded In Europe After 9/11? posted Mon Aug 5 2002 13:40:22 by Godbless
More Than 4 Planes On 9/11? posted Tue Dec 18 2001 21:36:47 by CactusA319
TUI Orders 65 Boeing Planes posted Fri Dec 15 2006 11:17:50 by N1786b
McDonnell Douglas Paper Planes posted Wed Dec 13 2006 03:30:31 by L.1011
Old SEA Film On ABC News 12-11-06 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 04:28:51 by Falstaff
LH Cargo Will Keep MD-11 posted Wed Dec 6 2006 11:23:07 by EDDB