yesterday, while embarking on a Boeing 737-500 machine operated by Scandinavian Air Lines, I had to halt right at the entrance door, due to some logistical issue with stowing away a fellow passenger. As I was stood right on the doorstep for a couple of minutes I noticed something I’ve never noticed in a aircraft before (seeing as it’s not a place you usually spend much time…).
Inside the door frame, up under the “roof beam”, was a small metal plaque with a lot of writing on it. On this plaque was listed when the aircraft had been built (sometime in the late 80s I think), where (The Boeing factory, obviously) and then a long list of who bought it, who owns monies for it, who leased it and who borrowed the aircraft from the leaser… A rather long and detailed list, with at least 5 or 6 different companies listed.
Now for the question - why? Is this standard in all aircraft, or just a few? Is it some sort of legal requirement? Industry standard? Or just a SAS thing?
And, on a slightly related note: When landing and brakes are applied, a small hatch opened on the enginge cowling - revealing a metal grid inside. What does this accomplish? As soon as the brakes was released, the hatch popped down again. Related to the reversing of the engines, perhaps? Never noticed this either on other types of aircraft, but then I rarely get a seat right over the wing…
It’s the airframe ID tag. I use to install these and very well could have installed the one you saw. It are mounted on the flight deck door frame on the current model 737’s.
And they exist on all registered aircraft. Racer72 used to install them on Boeings, I’ve helped install one on a homebuilt experimental aircraft. If it’s a legal aircraft there’s one on the aircraft somewhere.
Okay. Makes sense to have an ID tag. But are they usually that detailed in respect to ownership? And do they have to be replaced with new ones each time a aircraft has a change in its ownershipstatus?
I was always fascinated by these, and just for fun did a bit of digging about. So this isn’t in any way authoratative, but just what I found.
Aircraft are seriously expensive. Say $50m for a 737. The engines account for a serious fraction of that, and a single engine can be worth tens of millions. This presents two problems. If you are an airline the likelihood that you can pay cash for your aircraft is close to zero. This means you need to lease or borrow money - secured by the aircraft. But aircarft are not like pretty much any other high value asset. They move about, and can easily end up in another country. A country that does not recognise the legal basis of the aircraft’s ownership, or one where legal action by some third party may seek to make a claim of ownership over the aircraft. So a creditor sees the risk that many tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars can just take off and fly to somehere where they are not recognised as the legal owner, or holder of a lien against the aircraft.
The current solution seems to be a treaty called the Cape Town Convention, which sets up an international registry of aircraft ownership. Its main mission seems to be to protect the owners, not so much the airlines. Signatories to the convention basically agree that the registry is the sole mechanism by which ownership is determined. So you can’t fly the aircraft to another country and try to prove you own it, or have some backwater legal action try to take the aircraft off you. However this convention is reasonably recent, and many countries are not yet signatories.
So, one wonders what happened before. And I suspect that a lot of owners and creditors like the idea of a plate fixed the the airframe in a prominent position, one that contains not just the serial number and maker’s details (which define the identity of the aircraft) but also contain a clear definition of just who owns the aircraft. I couldn’t find any mention of a treaty that specifies how ownership information on this plate is used, so it may be still subject to the vagaries of local law. The Chicago convention on Internation Civil Aviation (which pretty much governs everything else) doesn’t mention anything. But there is a clear requirement that an aircraft must have a maker and a serial number to identify it.
The Cape Town convention also applies to spacecraft. I am amused to think that the Space Shuttle’s ownership is so registered. (The USA is a signatory to the Cape Town Convention.) All aircraft must carry registration documents (under the Chicago convention) and I know the Shuttle does. Trans-Atlantic abort has them land in Spain. The crew carry passports too. Just in case.
I mentioned engines above becuse the Cape Town convention allows engines to be seperately registered, which makes sense, since they are easily exchanged and not really part of the airframe. There may well be a similar plate, will full ownership details, on each engine.
I also suspect that the additional informationon on the airframe identity plate is addd by the manufacturer by direct request of the owners at the time of manufacture. The aircraft might be ordered by an airline, and painted in its livery, but the leasing company will be the one signing the cheques and calling the tune, and remain the actual owner. Indeed many aircraft spend their entire lives owned by leasing companies. They may even move from one airline to another, but never actually be sold.
If you looked at the grid (called a “cascade” by nacelle/reverser manufacturers) more closely, you’d see them curved like venetian blind shades. You would probably not see blocker doors, or the inside of a translating cowl, inside it. Most of the engine’s thrust comes from the big fan up front, and the reverser blocks that air and redirects it forward (well, at a forward angle). The cascades turn the air through more of the reversal than the blocking system can.
Very interesting, thanks for the reply. It makes sense when explained Fascinating stuff, the number of companies involved just getting an airplane commisioned…
Ah, another factoid to share with my fellow travellers next time I’m stuck in a tin can So, no AC engines are ever reversed then? Its just a convenient expression for land lubbers like me?
Always fascinating the things one learn on this board
The engines do not reverse their direction of rotation, correct. What is reversed is their direction of thrust.
Engines do have their own data plates, since someone asked. Just as in airframes, their continuity of identity passes through the data plates, not any other part. You can replace every single part on an engine or an airplane, attach the assembly to the old data plate, and it will legally be the same engine or airplane as it was before.
Correct, it would be impossible to reverse a jet or piston engine. They’re called thrust reversors for that reason. On prop planes the blades of the prop are adjustable and some of them will actually pivot until a reverse thrust is attained. You may get to see this when the Blue Angels fly and they demonstrate this with the Hercules support plane. Most small planes with adjustable propellers just feather to a neutral thrust.
If a repo man can do these things just to grab an aircraft, it shows just how lax airport security really is and all that passenger security stuff is window dressing.
I’d be very curious if any outside sources are able to definitely verify what the *Salon *article claims. The bit about repossessing a 707 in Haiti seems particularly far-fetched.
Using the government calculated CPI to adjust from 1955 to 1979 dollars, that’s $127,774.
Reasonable people would conclude that the probability of a banker paying a repo-man $145,000 to repossess an aircraft of uncertain quality and maintenance that costs less than $200,000 new is very near to 0.
Keep in mind many of those exploits date from prior to 2001. That, and airport security levels are not the same everywhere.
Also, a repo man does have a legal right to repossess the vehicle in question if he’s been hired legally and the purchaser did not live up to obligations. I question some of his actions and attitudes, but hey, it’s an article.
I’ve actually met the guy and some of his employees - fortunately, not while they were on duty or in circumstances where what I was doing, or failing to do, called for their professional services. He’s based in northwest Indiana, and so am I. We got pilots out here even crazier than he is. But yeah, the Salon article is going for the sensational. Note the most hair-raising tales are in foreign countries, often 3rd world nations. Can’t say I know the man well, we’re only the most distant of acquaintances if that, but yeah, he’s known for his tales.
Repo’ing within the US is much more like the New York Times article. Most of what Sage-Popvich repo’s is much more like the New York Times article than the Salon article. I’ve seen repo tags on small aircraft, usually the situation is resolved quietly. Worst I’ve seen was a guy who reported someone stealing his airplane, the cops showed up in about 15 seconds (the airport in question also housed the local sheriff’s air wing), the repo guy showed his credentials/papers, the former owner got huffy, and when the dust settled the repo guy was airborne and the former owner in cuffs because, I’m sorry, it’s not OK to attempt violence on the repo guy. I can well believe some people get violent over these things, and criminals/militias are likely to use firearms.
But every other repo situation I’ve seen was nonviolent and much more in accord with with New York Times article. It may be as simple as Hill not wanting to take extreme risks whereas Sage-Popovich will take on the jobs no one else will.