Aircraft parting out

An aircraft depreciates in value with time. The reduction in value arises from a number of factors including the increased cost of maintenance, repair and upgrading to comply with legislation. At some stage, maintenance, repair and upgrading become uneconomic and at this at this time an option is to take the aircraft out of service. In many cases the retired airframe will contain valuable components and parts that can be returned to service via the second hand parts market. The second hand market is tightly controlled and parts returning to service must be accompanied by appropriate documentation. Failure to comply with national and international safety requirements can result in very significant fines.The process of dismantling an aircraft at its end of life as an integrated airframe is referred to as parting-out. An aircraft may be parted-out while still fully certified and potentially revenue generating because the component parts of the aircraft become more valuable than the aircraft in flying condition.The parting-out process is undertaken in phases as useful and reusable parts are progressively removed. Often the owner of the airframe at the parting-out stage may require that the engines, undercarriage, in-flight entertainment systems and some of the avionics are returned for future use. Following removal of these parts back to the owner, other useful parts are removed, catalogued and sold to specialist second-hand parts dealers. All parts are inspected and certified with the appropriate documentation. Second-hand parts suppliers tend to focus on particular aircraft types or makes.Having removed all valuable components, the remaining fuselage is broken up into small pieces and processed by a metal recovery company. The point at which sub-systems and materials cease to be valuable to the parting-out agency is dependent on the cost of removing them, the overheads associated with securing appropriate paperwork, and particularly the infrastructure and technology available to extract value. Aircraft disposal issues.Composites are an unresolved problem. As aircraft manufacturers increase the composite content of commercial aircraft so the recycling becomes increasingly difficult. When these airframes are retired, it is likely that the already difficult landfill regulations, especially in Europe, will put a high cost - or total ban - on disposal by this route. Further, should OEM take-back requirements such as those being introduced in the automotive sector in Europe in 2007 be extended to other products such as airframes, OEMs currently possess little know-how or experience in what to steps take. In general, OEMs in the aerospace sector have high levels of awareness of this scenario and are being proactive in seeking global solutions to end of airplane life issues. There is a growing reluctance for the OEMs to be associated with decaying structures. Science and technology plays a major role in determining the end of life value of an aircraft. Where value can be increased, an economic driver is created to increase the fraction of recovered, re-used or recycled materials. The infrastructure in Europe and the US is already in place to reuse/recycle more of the airframe if cost-effective dismantling and separation technologies were available, such as efficient separation of metallic materials including differentiation between aluminium alloys; carbon fibre extraction and re-use; avoidance of Pb, Cr and Cd in aircraft manufacture; and more recyclable cabin interiors.Currently over 2,000 aircraft are in storage world-wide, and the number of military aircraft in storage is considerably greater. Over the next 20 years, approximately 5,000 commercial airliners are expected to be withdrawn or retired from service at a rate of approximately 250 per year. Compared with the automotive sector for example, these numbers and the overall materials volume is small. However unlike the automotive sector, the asset value of components and materials tied up in retired airframes can be very considerable. In Europe, there is also the consideration of the high cost of space to store airframes as well as adverse climate considerations that quickly undermine end of life value.During outdoor storage, airframes slowly degrade to the extent that they eventually become environmental eyesores.Aircraft disposal legislationWhile the End of life Vehicles Directive is a significant burden on automotive vehicle manufacturers, with recycling and recovery targets of 85% and 95% respectively by 2015, no such directive applies to the civil aerospace industry. However, there is growing concern in the industry that a similar directive may be introduced. None of the world's civil aerospace suppliers are technically prepared. There is an opportunity for the UK to develop aerospace-related end of life technologies that will establish the UK as a world leader in economic end of life technologies and processes.By rethinking their products, their relationships with the supply chain and the customer, some manufacturers can increase productivity, reduce costs, foster product and market innovation, and provide customers with more value at less environmental impact. Reducing use of toxic substances, designing for reuse and recycling, are opportunities for companies to become better environmental stewards of their products.By taking responsibility for the whole life of a product the manufacturer can also go some way to preventing unauthorised use of its products and thus enhance brand credibility. This is particularly relevant to the aerospace industry where part control and associated safety requirements must be stringent. Aircraft life cycle managementLife cycle impact considerations include taking into account each stage involved in the manufacture of the product from obtaining the raw materials through to disposal, and where relevant, recycling or reuse. For example, consider a gas turbine sold to a user who then fails to maintain and service it according to the manufacturer's specification. This engine fails in service, resulting in an accident involving fatalities. Even though the manufacturer had sold that engine to the user and had no direct involvement in its use, the incident and public news reports will always identify the manufacturer. Similarly, potential litigants may identify the OEM for damages, and investigators for prosecution. Thus manufacturers of safety critical components are actively considering leasing arrangements in preference to selling a product. In doing so the manufacturer retains control of the product, its use, maintenance and therefore exposure of the company to product liability claims. Such schemes are also driven by the preferences of the airlines for engine leasing programmes.In the EU, there is a growing volume of directives and legislation that is forcing manufacturers to think about their responsibilities in relation to the manufacture, use and disposal of their products.A recent example was where Ryanair had sold a number of aircraft to a US company for disposal at end of life. The US company subsequently sold some of the airframes for scrapping or salvaging, and parts of one of these were subsequently washed up on a beach near Methil docks in Scotland. The parts washed up included seats, oxygen masks, electronic components, safety cards complete with Ryanair logos and parts of a wing or fuselage.However, the washed up fragments were not the result of a tragic accident as was at first feared, but the fly-tipping of the remains of one of the parted-out planes retaining Ryanair identification. Even though both Boeing and Ryanair had sold the airplane and all associated liability, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency identified a responsibility on the part of Ryanair to ensure proper aircraft disposal.