emirates773 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days ago) and read 5439 times:
According to the CAA in the UK this is what is the current situation:
There are two different types of registration marks currently issued, in-sequence and out-of-sequence marks. These differ in the fee for registration of each one, see forms and fees. In-sequence registrations have been used since 1919 starting at G-EAAA to G-EBZZ and then starting again at G-AAAA. The current sequence reached G-CBAA during 2001. Each aircraft in turn is allocated the next sequential mark within a range of three blocks of registrations (e.g. if the next mark to be issued is G-CBAA then an in-sequence mark is any between G-CBAA and G-CBCZ which has not already been used, this means there are always 75 in-sequence marks to chose from).
There are no longer any historical registration marks available for issue (i.e. between G-AAAA and the current in-sequence range) unless it is the original aircraft that is being re-registered or restored to the UK Register. Generally an original aircraft can return to any of the UK registration marks that it has previously carried.
Each aircraft is allocated only one in-sequence mark although it is possible for the same aircraft to have an unlimited amount of out-of-sequence marks in its history. Registration marks cannot be re-used on different aircraft even if the original aircraft that carried the marks has been registered overseas or destroyed.
source: CAA Website
Just a couple to start with: Australia re issue registrations e.g VH-EBL on a B747-238 now on a A330-203, Singapore re issue e.g 9V-STE on a A310-324 is now on an A330-343E. Possibly the UAE as well as some VIP aircraft have carried the same marks on differeing frames.
Not sure about the exact legal conditions, but Belgium definitely reuses since I recently flew on a helicopter (Robinson R44) registered OO-SJC. A quick Google (or Airliners.net) lookup shows that OO-SJC used to be a Sabena Boeing 707.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8112 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5061 times:
Quoting bluesky73 (Reply 4): I wonder if CAA will change this in future or open up a new sequence after G-ZZZZ? I'm sure it's a legacy thing but seems strange many countries do reuse yet some, especially UK don't.
With 25 letters (as the CAA does not use 'Q') and a four letter sequence there are 390,625 different possible registrations in the current system. If they decided to start to use 'Q' then that number would increase to 456,976. That's a huge number of aircraft.
In sequence registrations reached G-CAAA in 2001 - see Thread Opener - and in the middle of this year, eleven years later had progressed to around G-CHAA. That means the CAA have used one third of the available G-Cxxx registrations in eleven years. At that rate the G-Cxxx series will last until 2033, the G-Dxxx (G-Exxxx are already used) series to 2066 and the G-Fxxx series to 2099.
So with a further 19 initial letter registrations beyond "F" available, at the current rate of useage there are sufficient unused registrations to last well into the 25th century. So today I do not think anybody in the CAA will be worrying too much about where to go next.
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2779 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4985 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 7): The US reuses registrations after a certain number of years - I'm not sure of the exact time frame,
It is a very short time frame. I remember when I was at ACA when we lost N304UE, a J-41, in a fatal accident in CMH. About a year later, a new executive noticed the gap in the numbering sequence and had the next J-41 delivered registered N304UE. Obviously this created a lot of negative emotions at the airline and over 600 employees signed a petition to have the number changed out of respect for the crew and passengers who died in the accident, as well as all others who were affected by it. ACA changed the registration to N324UE.
Some major corporations in the US will re-register their newest corporate jet with the same N-number that was on the old jet it replaced, giving the old jet a new N-number.
bluesky73 From UK - England, joined Oct 2012, 384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 5): So with a further 19 initial letter registrations beyond "F" available, at the current rate of useage there are sufficient unused registrations to last well into the 25th century. So today I do not think anybody in the CAA will be worrying too much about where to go next.
Ha ha fairpoint that is quite a long way off always good to think long term, especially with Easyjet apparently looking at a large order .
Microlite, hot air balloons and having quite a few aircraft registered in later half of alphabet (G-VHOT, G-ZZZA etc must reduce by several decades but agree CAA might not be panicking quite yet.
With the Germans and other countries reusing registrations and many have the 4 digit suffix, X-XXXX they won't ever run out then. Some countries like keeping to certain regs. Lufthansa use D-AI** for airbus industry, D-AB** for Boeing and D-AE for Embraers.
Interesting that UK might be the only country (not confirmed) to not reuse registrations marks.
Netherlands: a registration can be re-used 30 years after the registration has been withdrawn from the register.
Registrations can be marked as 'never re-use'. This is common practice for registration that have been involved in an accident with (deadly) victims. For example, PH-BUF (which was involved in the Tenerife crash) will never be re-issued again.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 3): As previously mentioned, Germany reuses registrations. Here are two different LH Boeings both registered D-ABIH:
D-ABYA is also a nice one. The first LH 747 and the first 748 share the reg:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26852 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4663 times:
Registrations in Canada can be reused without any restrictions as far as I know. CP recycled many registrations. For example, CF-CPC was used on a Lockheed 14, DC-4, DC-6 and 737-200. C-FCRA was used on a 747-200, DC-10-30 and 747-400.
TimRees From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 357 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4584 times:
Countries I can think of that re-use registrations not already mentioned include;
Iceland and Luxemburg
Countries which don't seem to re-register (please correct me if incorrect) include:
Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland.
Spain has a shorter lifespan of registrations left as they are already registering in the EC-LSx range and so are more than half way through their available numbers. When I started spotting in around 1971 they were still using EC-Bxx numbers so at this rate they will run out in only around 50 years! Not that I will need to worry about that.....
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2148 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4563 times:
The UK also has the: -
* M- series registrations, which have been allocated to the Isle of Man
* VP- series reigistrations, which are allocated amongst UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories
* VQ- series registrations, which are allocated amongst UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories
* VS- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZB- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZC- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZD- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZE- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZF- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZG- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZH- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZI- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZJ- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZN- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZO- series registrations, which are unallocated
* ZQ- series registrations, which are unallocated
* 2- series registrations, which are unallocated
So this might explain why there has never been any interest in reusing registrations!