FAA Has No Clue About Who Owns Approximately 1/3 Of All Private And Commercial Planes

from the our-government-at-work dept

Mon, Dec 13th 2010 6:28am — Mike Masnick

johnjac points us to the news that the FAA's record keeping is so bad that it is "missing key information" on who owns 119,000 out of 357,000 registered private and commercial airplanes. Apparently, the FAA is so bad at record keeping that its solution is to phase out every plane's registration and demand that everyone apply for a new registration to get its database back on track. Apparently, the old system was that you just had to register once, and then you were responsible for letting the FAA know if info changed, but not everyone does that. So, basically, the FAA is rather clueless about approximately 1/3 of what's in the sky.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: airplanes, data, faa
Companies: faa

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Enrico Suarve, 13 Dec 2010 @ 6:41am

[Cough] "spfluck wha..." ??
The FAA owe me a new keyboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 6:58am

To be fair...
The numbers do include planes that may no longer fly. So the FAA is rather clueless about approximately 1/3 of what's on the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:10am
  
  Re: To be fair...
  Maybe we should just stope at the word "clueless"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:17pm
  
  Re: To be fair...
  who`s to say the terrorists couldn't fix one, or steal its info and paint it on the part on the side w/ numbers and letters on it (that is how they check who owns they plane right?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:21am

Would't the owners have to pay some form of tax for owning a plane (or is there no vehicle tax in the US?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:52am
  
  Re:
  > Would't the owners have to pay some form of tax
  > for owning a plane (or is there no vehicle tax
  > in the US?).
  
  Not federally. Each state has different rules on that sort of thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:24am

Ownership
Each owner registers the Plane when purchased once. There is not annual fees for owning a plane. The FAA has enough built in costs to owning airplanes there are no need for further costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haywood (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:39am

It's not like there is a rash of unknown plane incidents
The anarchist in me sees on reason for government to know or register anything. The only real reason is to get a hand in your wallet. It is probably the way it is to avoid the same reason most yachts are registered in more owner friendly countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michial Thompson, 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:57am
  
  Re: It's not like there is a rash of unknown plane incidents
  Airplanes was one of the last sensibly registered things in this country...
  
  The FAA has numerous requirements for maintenance on planes in order for them to be airworthy which makes sense, Registration is when you first buy it which puts you as owner of record for the plane. Then you are obligated to send in a change of address if you move and that is essentially all.
  
  At the state levels you have some issues with taxes, but it's in the states with Property (not land) Taxes.
  
  It sounds like the FAA is about to complicate a system that doesn't need it.
  
  As for the airplanes that they have no clue about, most likey most of them aren't airworthy and will never fly again anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btr1701 (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 7:51am

FAA
And I'm sure there's a fee for the new registration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:16am

I feel so much safer in our friendly skies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kingster (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:24am

I guess my question is, why are leasing companies and airlines whining? There's something fishy there, and the question wasn't answered in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vidiot (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:29am

Re-documenting only works with follow-up
It's not unheard of to try to fix a porous system by requiring a one-time re-documentation... witness the large number of US states which forced drivers to appear in person with multiple high-value forms of identification, once the high number of phony licenses became apparent. The issue here, though, is follow-up -- a small plane with a lapsed or incorrect registration still has its original "N-number" painted on the tail, and unless the FAA begins spot-inspections in the field, it's possible to completely avoid any contact with system. In a few years' time, you're back to an identical state of affairs... once-registered aircraft now junked or sold, leaving meaningless entries on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: Re-documenting only works with follow-up
  For that matter is there any review or enforcement linking the tail number to actual registration documents. I can't imagine that it would be difficult to register a plane, then get out a bucket of paint and put the same tail number on 3 more planes. Would anyone notice as long as you didn't park them next to each other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:33am

Why would they want to know?
Won't that make them complicit in knowingly permitting known drug lords to own aircraft?

When did plausible deniability become a bad thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haywood (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:47am
  
  Re: Why would they want to know?
  will the CIA have to register their planes now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 8:58am

doot doot doodle-oodle doot doot do do
anyone else have calliope music going through their head after reading this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gary (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:26am

hmm
I cant get on a plane without getting felt up and the FAA doesnt even know who owns the plane I am getting on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: hmm
  More importantly, you can carry a baby on a plane and hold them in your lap, despite how dangerous it can be, because airlines don't want to lose those passengers, and pay their politicians well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 9:44am

I don't know that I'd blame the FAA...
...because every time they try to do something sensible, they get shot down by Congress, et al. Quite a few of my family members work for, and have worked for, the FAA, and they've all been frustrated, time and time again, as their ability to both enforce existing regulations and to pass new regulations have been stymied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MD, 13 Dec 2010 @ 10:50am

Let's Be Fair
Most of these planes are probably small 2 or 4-seaters that have either been retired, or owners have neglected to keep up the paperwork when they are sold. Add a few dodgy owners (drug smuggling) and the occasional paperwork flub, and I.m not surprised the numbers are that high. There's no paperwork requirement to say "my plan no longer flies".

he simplest path is to make various actions - airworthiness cert, flight plans, air traffic control use, etc. - require valid registration.

The other problem is that real enforcement means money, and I bet the FAA has been starved for small plane rule enforcement, concentrating on other issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 13 Dec 2010 @ 1:11pm

For what's it worth...
There is no federal tax on airplanes. At least in Arizona, you do have to register with the state and renew your registration on a yearly basis. In case you were wondering, AZ feeds off the FAA database, not the other way around. The registration fee is also minimal in AZ.

Taxes are paid to feed the FAA via embedded fuel taxes.

In the US, we enjoy a great deal of freedom to fly. Most smaller plane pilots are able to fly as easy as someone drives around town - they just hop into the plane and go without talking to a tower, FAA, etc.

In short, even if the FAA had a 100% accurate ownership database, they still could never know who and what is flying in the skies at any single point of time without a massive change in the system.

In the small plane world, a pilot will only deal with the FAA when they've broken some rule and gotten caught. In that case, then the FAA will make sure everything is in order, but the system is very much a reactive system and definitely not a proactive/check-point system.

Just my two cents - freedoms are extremely hard to obtain and yet we give them up so easily. Only in a country as rich as America would you give up your Freedoms AND gladly pay more taxes to Uncle Sam to "protect you".

Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 13 Dec 2010 @ 3:46pm

So?
Yes, we will molest you at the airport. No, even the "War on Drugs" was cause enough to get our records right.

By the way CIA will be pissed if there funding source goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]