Russia's leased planes may be worthless

[FowVay]

Some parts on an aircraft can be used without records. ALL critical parts must have a birth certificate (certificate of origin), and an accounting of cycles recorded. Some companies will also ask for hours of operation but the cycles are the life limiting factor.

If you have an LLP (life limited part) with no records then the value is simply what it will bring on the scrap market. There are records used for manufacturer run time where test cell operations of engines does not count toward the life cycle of the part BUT the run cycles are still recorded. Many brand new engines are built, tested, and disassembled and sold for parts. Just know that all life limited parts require back-to-birth records to be used.

All aircraft that are sent to the desert for either storage or future scrap have their full records on file. If a part is a tracked part then it has a serial number tied to that part in which all updates are recorded. Generally the part is marked to denote the service bullet or airworthiness directive that has been applied to that part. This is all recorded in the aircrafts records and follows the aircraft to whomever owns it. Parts can be overhauled as many times as required to keep them performing as needed but once they hit their cycle limit they are removed and scrapped.

I simply cannot imagine aircraft in Russia with no records. Who was floating the loans on these things? And who was performing maintenance? I know Russia has their own civil aeronautics board so just what are those guys doing?

 

[Astro14]

@atikovi - your ignorance is exceeded only by your desire to argue.

The airliners in the article operate under Part 121.

You quote part 91 and 135 operations.

Apples and oranges.

Instead of seeking data to further support your misunderstanding, go research how commercial airlines are required to maintain and operate airplanes.

I’m quite serious.

 

[FowVay]

From a Google search,

Perhaps unique among prewar aircraft, the DC-3 continues to fly in active commercial and military service as of 2021, eighty-six years after the type's first flight in 1935.

atikovi, there is no limit to how long a company can keep an aircraft flying. The structure has a design life but this can be extended through inspections, updates, engineering overrides, etc. A non-pressurized vessel such as the DC-3 doesn't suffer from the cyclic fatigue that a modern jet suffers from.

If you're truly interested in the mechanics and physics of this stuff then there are plenty of books to read. It's very fascinating and enlightening.

 

[wag123]

Two questions.
1. Don't the lease contracts stipulate that proper maintenance be performed and documented?
2. Assuming that said maintenance has not been performed and documented, how is it that these planes have been given landing rights in the EU, US, or other countries? I know that the FAA is pretty strict about this sort of thing.

 

[Astro14]

Two questions.
1. Don't the lease contracts stipulate that proper maintenance be performed and documented?
2. Assuming that said maintenance has not been performed and documented, how is it that these planes have been given landing rights in the EU, US, or other countries?

1. Absolutely
2. That right has been revoked.

Look, any airplane operated in a particular jurisdiction has to comply with the requirements of that jurisdiction. They have inspectors who check on that stuff.

If an FAA inspector walks onto my airplane, I have to show him the registration, compliance certificates, etc. for the airplane. I’m required to have a paper copy of the maintenance release (a multi page document with every discrepancy and authorized deferral for that discrepancy) for that flight on board, in the logbook.

If they want to delve into the maintenance history, we have a compliance certificate, that I have to be able to present, that allows our maintenance records to be maintained in our facility in SFO.

I have to demonstrate that my publications are up to date and that the iPad meets FAA requirements.

I have to have my license, medical certificate, radiotelephone operator permit, ID, and passport available for inspection.

If my medical certificate has any restrictions, for example, reading glasses, I must be able to demonstrate compliance with those restrictions, I must present the glasses.

It‘s rigorous, exacting, and painful.

Do the Russians comply with it? Do the Chinese? No idea. Not my department.

 

[pghvolvo]

I know almost all of the Russian leased aircraft are registered in the Bermuda.

Picked that up off of ADS-B Exchange. When you check out the aircraft coming and going from Moscow, the regional airlines start showing up with Bermuda registations.

 

[wag123]

2. That right has been revoked.

I know that they were revoked after the war started. What about before the war started. Were any Russian airlines allowed to land in the US? If so, I have to assume that these specific aircraft must have met the FAA requirements.

 

[Kestas]

People here keep trying to project auto maintenance onto aircraft maintenance. It cannot be done. Unless you understand what each part does and how it wears, ages, and is affected by duty cycling, you won't understand why aircraft maintenance documentation is critical to keep aircraft from dropping out of the sky.

My microcosm in all of this was helicopter and aircraft jet engine bearings. They have a finite useful life before they are iffy and need to be replaced. There is absolutely no way you can tell from visual or nondestructive testing the number of hours on the bearing. The damage is changes in the bearing material from use. The same holds true for assemblies with gear teeth.

This is just one example of many that factor in to the importance of documentation.

 

[Graham Piccinini]

"An airplane is not airworthy, until service/maintenance paperwork outweighs the airplane."
- my Avionics instructor, 2014. Gotta love FAA.

 

[Astro14]

I know that they were revoked after the war started. What about before the war started. Were any Russian airlines allowed to land in the US? If so, I have to assume that these specific aircraft must have met the FAA requirements.

Yes, they were. You would see Aeroflot at major airports, like Dulles, or O'Hare.

Russian charter companies operate the AN-124 to move big parts around, like 777 engines, and you would see them in places like DEN, or IAH, where aircraft maintenance was being done.

I don't know how they complied with the FAA requirements.

Many of the leased airplanes didn't leave Russia. It's a big country. 12 time zones. Lots of flights internal to Russia, so airplanes like A320 or 737 might not ever see the border.

 

[kschachn]

I don't know how they complied with the FAA requirements.

They don't have to, all that's required is a bilateral agreement. If no agreement is in place then they can't operate in US airspace without a special flight permit.

 

[wag123]

Yes, they were. You would see Aeroflot at major airports, like Dulles, or O'Hare.

Russian charter companies operate the AN-124 to move big parts around, like 777 engines, and you would see them in places like DEN, or IAH, where aircraft maintenance was being done.

I don't know how they complied with the FAA requirements.

Many of the leased airplanes didn't leave Russia. It's a big country. 12 time zones. Lots of flights internal to Russia, so airplanes like A320 or 737 might not ever see the border.

We're assuming that the "news" report isn't fake news. Considering how much money is involved here, I find it hard to believe that the aircraft leasing companies weren't keeping an eye on these airline's maintenance records and documentation on their aircraft.

 

[kschachn]

We're assuming that the "news" report isn't fake news. Considering how much money is involved here, I find it hard to believe that the aircraft leasing companies weren't keeping an eye on these airline's maintenance records and documentation on their aircraft.

They do, at least the ones I've dealt with. Usually there is an annual audit of some sort where they look through the records for the aircraft.

As you say this could be more disinformation which is expected and useful in war. You could even have the aircraft operator deliberately withholding or even destroying records as retaliation in order to diminish the value of an asset that is owned by an enemy.

 

[Astro14]

The report is entirely plausible.

When we retired our airplanes over the years, we usually sold them. They had full records. They had value.

There are a lot of FedEx DC-10s, 727s, and 757s, that have a registration number ending in "UA". Guess where they bought them?

We also broker aircraft sales - and used to do it to/from Russian companies because they trusted us to understand, and validate, the documentation.

Because without the documentation - the airplane is scrap.

If a lessor doesn't verify or inspect that the maintenance records are being kept up, then yeah, they lose. Big time.

You would have to talk with a company like ILFC about how they verified lease terms and conditions were complied with.

 

[Astro14]

Sixty seconds on Google...

Hundreds of Russia plane leases to be axed after EU sanctions

Lessors are set to terminate hundreds of aircraft leases with Russian airlines following Western sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine.

www.cnbc.com

Jet lessors are forfeiting up to $10 billion worth of aircraft in Russia

EU sanctions forced jet lessors to cancel contracts with Russian airlines. Now they're struggling to get their planes back.

fortune.com

Owners Fear Planes ‘Are Gone Forever’ After Russia Shields Them From Seizure

Aircraft owners are coming to grips with the loss of hundreds of Airbus SE and Boeing Co. jets that Russian carriers have effectively shielded from seizure behind a new incarnation of the Iron Curtain.

www.bloomberg.com

Aircraft lessors could lose hundreds of planes stranded in Russia

Lessors have until March 28 to get their planes out of Russia, but an estimated $10.3 billion worth of aircraft could be "gone forever."

www.businessinsider.com

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2022-03-16/leasing-firm-sees-headway-in-returning-planes-from-russia

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/russia-could-refuse-to-return-leased-aircraft-draft-law

 

[Astro14]

Jens Flottau | Aviation Week Network

Based in Frankfurt, Germany, Jens is executive editor and leads Aviation Week Network’s global team of journalists covering commercial aviation.

m.aviationweek.com

Several articles in Aviation Week on the topic by this author alone.

 

[Rand]

dont forget this one..

Russian aviation authority switches to paper after losing 65TB of data | Cybernews

Rosaviatsiya has switched to pen and paper after losing 65TB of data. According to sources, it suffered a major cyberattack on Saturday.

cybernews.com

 

[raaizin]

Without maintenance documentation, the airplane cannot comply with regulations in the US or EU.

There are requirements for maintenance. It's not like a used car with no history. Airplanes must have the hours, and cycles, and maintenance, carefully documented and all requirements carefully complied with.

An airplane without that is good only for spare parts. It can't be operated. It's junk.

Why would another plane be able to fly with parts from these planes aren't they suspect as well? If the plane as an aggregate of these parts cant fly what is the reasoning for letting individual parts fly. Not trying to be a wiseguy just trying to understand. If they are willing to certify these suspect parts to fly why cant they just break the plane down and recertify it. They have been rebuilding B-52's forever. I understand that it would get expensive but wouldnt it be cheaper than buying a new plane.

Astro14, I did try to read on the link you posted but I was only able to read one article before they wanted me to subscribe.

 

[Astro14]

Why would another plane be able to fly with parts from these planes aren't they suspect as well? If the plane as an aggregate of these parts cant fly what is the reasoning for letting individual parts fly. Not trying to be a wiseguy just trying to understand. If they are willing to certify these suspect parts to fly why cant they just break the plane down and recertify it. They have been rebuilding B-52's forever. I understand that it would get expensive but wouldnt it be cheaper than buying a new plane.

Some parts can be rebuilt, or reused.

Some cannot.

Rebuilding an airplane from the ground up will cost about what a new airplane costs. So, why bother?

The USAF is a specious comparison, because the B-52 production line is closed. If the line were open, then you would just buy a new one. Further, the USAF knows exactly how many cycles and hours are on every part of every B-52.

So it is with airliners - you can get a new 737, or A-320. A plane without documentation has no value, because it can be replaced with new.

Put another way: a new car is a lot cheaper than a frame-off, all new parts, complete restoration. People only do that to a rare car, or out of love of a car, it makes no financial sense when looking at the cost of a restoration vs. the value of the finished product.

 

[measureman]

From a Google search,

Perhaps unique among prewar aircraft, the DC-3 continues to fly in active commercial and military service as of 2021, eighty-six years after the type's first flight in 1935.

When I joined the Marine Corps I and others flew from Newark N.J. to boot camp at Parris Island S.C. on a DC-3 in 1965.
Low,slow and noisy.