Posted on 02/23/2014 3:09:07 PM PST by butterdezillion
I think that’s the question we all would like answered. I have always found flightaware to be accurate and the FAA database to be accurate on planes and airmen.
Can’t just transfer a tail number on your own call. If the FAA is allowing that now, there is a problem. There are temp regs you can get.
If you are talking about 2006 and 2009, the FAA database for current/pending/new registrations shows a month online. If I read their data base correctly. That would have nothing to do with Leis in 2009 buying the plane from Arctic.
I think there is no argument about the Rules and registration. You can’t decide on your own to change the license plate, and the FAA can’t take your current and valid license plate away from you without reason. I can’t imagine why we would even bother with a license/registration of pilots and planes if it’s okay to just switch out without authorization and there isn’t any update.
Suppositions that there has been some nefarious misuse of the tail# are just that: suppositions. Suppositions without any supporting evidence.
That's known as a bug.
The airplane making the flight in question is probably N440RA.
I can throw that right back at ya. Supposing they just transferred their tail number/registration is a supposition. There may be NO mystery except why the heck the FAA is slow> or why not submitting proper paperwork is allowed? or why owners would think they could just go off and switch registrations? for our own safety we need to know who owns the planes and correct regs/identifying numbers. It could all be one great big pile of no one caring to submit paperwork or an agency that is slow as molasses, but even those two excuses shouldn’t be allowed.
It doesn’t even have to be a bug. Data entry problem? But still, it should be as accurate as possible. I guess that’s where the old saying goes, “that’s close enough for govt. work”.
Of course! Leis is involved in a conspiracy. There’s no question about it. There’s tail# monkey business going on. Why must there be tail# monkey business? To support a theory that the plane photographed by Lang is not the crashed plane that Fuddy was on. Even if it’s not (which it is), it.makes.no.difference.
Now, instead of acknowledging there is a discrepancy and lazy/slow/non filing of paperwork regarding planes and the FAA, you try to deflect using the “conspiracy” charge. it’s like the “race card”, all charged up and nothing left.
I railed on the inaccuracy of information, for whatever reason. You brought in the “conspiracy” (wink wink, kook)to shut down the debate. You lost the debate.
The website has a currency disclaimer. We’ve both acknowledge this disclaimer. So stow your nonsense about “deflecting”.
I have not brought any conspiracy to the thread, I am pointing out a conspiracy others have brought to the thread. Specifically that the Lang photo is of another plane. That’s not my theory, that theory belongs to someone else.
To support this theory allegations have been made about the tail number. These allegations rest on info “missing” from the FAA website, but this “missing” data is easily explained by the website disclaimer.
I have always found the site FAA and flightaware to be accurate. If the argument for the inaccurate information is backlog, owner disregard of rules, or FAA inaccuracy, that is a problem as I see it. As a taxpayer for sure. I would not want to be on a plane with a mis-identified tail number/reg if the Govt. was in reality looking for another plane.
Example: the crash at Aspen on January 4, 2014. Faa registry and flightaware both agree that the registration still belongs to the owner of the totaled plane.
A crash that for personal reasons that I had to use the resources online from flightaware and the FAA concerning a plane crash that had been literally less than 1 hour after occurrence, the resources were accurate as to the tail number/regs. That tail number has not been given out either to another plane owner or to another plane in a fleet. I don’t think it’s too much to ask the Govt. to be accurate? It’s not a conspiracy it’s a question of accuracy and safety.
I ain’t “stowing” nothing. For my tax money, I expect accuracy.
We all know the LEGAL reasons for the disclaimer on everything. That doesn’t excuse sloppiness does it? I should put a disclaimer on my tax form. That would do I am sure for the IRS. lol
A website is not an official record.
So we disagree.
No worries...!!
Yep, I know. Why I expect better things from my Government, I’ll never know?
Another aircrash that I personal knowledge of that happened over a year ago. The tail number has not been reassigned even though the owner died in the crash. The registration is current until july of this year.
In reading their own website, the FAA is woefully lacking in registration, although the majority of the unregistered craft are NOT business craft (tourism flights, cargo flights, etc), it is woeful indeed. From their own site as to registration:
“Prompt reporting of a change in aircraft ownership, mailing address, or destruction has long been required by registration regulations. Without these reports from the owners the aircraft records could not be updated. “
“Upon expiration of registration the owner of an unregistered aircraft will be sent notice of the scheduled cancellation of the N-number and their option to reserve the N-number. Once canceled, the N-number will not be available for assignment or reservation for the next five years.” -
this pretty much bites the dust on the ole lottery of the tail numbers after expiration. and the FAA is pretty clear on the OWNERS being required to promptly REPORT change in ownership, address, destruction... it’s clear. no conspiracy the FAA regulations require this. it’s also clear that by their own admission, the FAA is inadequate.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/reregistration/
Tough crowd today defending the defenseless. CEO’s have been dumped for less.
How do you reconcile Lang’s 2 different images for where the plane was? I posted on this on my blog (and thanked you for providing the aerial view of the area; very helpful and I had meant to get to that. So thank you for posting that!)
That’s in the update at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/a-closer-look-at-langs-photos/
I very strongly doubt that it was boring. I would love to see the parts they cut out.
If the NTSB saw the unedited video and still made the report they made then everything I suspected about their role in this is confirmed.
You’re concerned about the angle between the wings and the shore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.