Warbird Information Exchange

I just heard about this from my friends at the Collings Foundation and I don't think it's right. I also want to go to an airshow and see an Me-262, an A-4 Skyhawk, and an F-4 Phantom go ripping by - don't you?! And I can't believe they think an Me-262 isn't significant! So what if it's a replica! It took 14 years to reverse engineer from an original!


So it would be great if you could help by contacting the FAA and ask them to change their minds and let these really special planes fly with passengers. That way the Collings Foundation can afford to have them go on tour and we can see an F-4 Phantom, an Me-262, and A-4, and even a Storch fly!


Thanks!

Evan


PS: All this below came from the Collings Foundation website. I hope the links work. If they don't, go here http://collingsfoundation.org/enews/ene ... _Oct09.htm





The FAA recently denied the Collings Foundation's request for flight exemptions for the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, Me262 and Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch.
We need a FAA exemption in order to accept donations for flight experiences in these historic aircraft.

Our unique living history programs for these aircraft will be dead in their tracks without these critical exemptions.

FAA Conclusions:
"Collings has included four aircraft in its request that do not meet the requirements for an exemption. The FAA’s “Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft” (72 FR 57196; 10/09/07) policy states that aircraft must meet the test of being historically significant in the context of U.S. aeronautical history. The Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch is a World War II German reconnaissance aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch in this exemption is denied.

The Classic Fighter Me-262 is a replica of a World War II German aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Classic Fighter Me-262 in this exemption is denied.
Collings Foundation's Response:
In denying the addition of Me262 and Fiesler Storch, the FAA concluded that “in the context of U.S. aeronautical history” neither the Fi-156 Storch nor the Me-262 satisfied “the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft.” The Fi-156 Storch and Me-262 denial by the FAA was arbitrary and contrary to FAA policy.

"An aircraft that was not made by a U.S. manufacturer may be considered for an exemption if the operational and maintenance history is adequately documented (72 FR 57197)."

There is no requirement in the FAA's policy 72 FR 57197 stating that the historical significance be "in the context of U.S. aeronautical history".

The Storch and Me-262 aircraft are most definitely historically significant, certainly more so that many aircraft already approved for flight exemptions! See Subject A in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

FAA Conclusions:
"While the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J may meet the historically significant test, the FAA must consider that permitting the public to experience flights in an aircraft that while in U.S. military service required the installation of an ejection seat raises a safety concern that has not been adequately addressed. Until the petitioner provides sufficient information on the means by which it ensures an equivalent level of safety, the FAA will not grant an exemption authorizing operations with the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J in this exemption is denied."

Collings Foundation's Response:
Regarding the A-4 and F-4 ejection seat training program: The Collings Foundation already has an ejection seat training program that was APPROVED BY THE FAA. In actuality, our ejection seat training program goes well beyond the standard United States Air Force program. We ensure the total understanding, compliance and competency of the ejection seat protocol and procedures. See Subject B in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

What this means:
Currently, we cannot offer Flight Experiences in the Me-262, F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk and Feisler Storch. Without the ability to offer flight experiences in these aircraft we will not be able to cover the operational expense. Thus, these unique aviation treasures and living history programs surrounding these aircraft will not be accessible to the general public.
To see the full document from the FAA outlining the denial click here.
To see the rules the FAA established to which they should have followed click here.

How you can help:
Show your support! Call, email or write to the FAA, your Congressman and Senator. Feel free to reference points listed in our Exemption Reconsideration document

Call or send an email or letter to:
Mr. John Allen, FAA Director of Flight Standards - john.allen@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 802
Tel: 202-267-8237

Mr. Randy Babbitt, FAA Administrator - randy.babbitt@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 1010
Tel: 202-267-3111
Please CC email to the Collings Foundation at: response@collingsfoundation.org

*Important note: We are still able to offer flight training programs in the F-4 and A-4 Jets. Certain pilot license requirements apply.


Thanks!
Evan

_________________
http://evanflys.com

I think that you misunderstand the total situation.

The Collings guys can fly the airplanes, they just can't sell rides in some of them.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

Weren't the 262's issued follow-on serial Numbers from messerschmidt? While not 60 years old wouldn't that authenticate them? There are warbirds that probalbly qualify for this exemption that are equally as new due to restorations.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

WTF.........well for all of those with deep enough pockets that want a ride into outer space after rutan gets is project running. NASA can step in and say that its not "historically Accurate BS" and shut him down???


Is the airplane safe per faa standards???? Obviously as they are flying it..........WTF does it matter who is in the back seat???? My only concern if something DID happen........some hot shot lawyer can run a muck with the waiver form and then someone else can own the B-24, P-51 after the lawsuit is over.

Sorry for the rant, wish they would concentrate on getting laptops out of cockpits before they go harassing warbird owners about giving rides.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

I think they can give rides all day long if they want, it is the acceptance of compensation that FAA has a problem with.

Standard FAR stuff.

Please see http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.o ... hp?t=32485

_________________
Robert "JP" Spivey

My friend Hunter at the Collings Foundation told me this...

"Currently, the FAA has denied our petition for exemption - meaning, the only people we can take flying would be certified pilots with multi engine rating and complex endorsements. This means we will not be able to generate enough money to cover its operational expenses. - this also applies to our F-4 and A-4 jets......"

Evan

_________________
http://evanflys.com

Can this issue be circumnavigated with a minimum "donation"??
I'm afraid I am with N3Njeff on this Cluster Fu......uhh this mess.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

Why would you need a multi-engine rating for a single-engined A-4?

Our LODA for our training program mandates that anyone in the flight training program must have the prerequisite ratings in type and category for the aircraft you are receiving instruction.

Single engine land, with high performance endorsement as well as a high altitude endorsement because the aircraft is capable of going over 15,000 ft.

The F4 and ME 262 would require the multiengine rating.

Originally, the FAA representative said that for upset training the trainee could have a student pilot license, but when the LODA came down from Washington, the new requirements were in play.

Essentially this has greatly reduced the potential pool of flyers. We have a long list of folks who want to experience these jets but the prerequiste license qualification has shrunk the list to just a few.

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

High altitude endorsement over 15k'? Ridiculous.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

remember who we're dealing with here, Government Offal...er.officials who still aren't too sure about airplanes made completely out of metal, let alone ones powered by a noisy engine that doesn't turn an honest to god propeller-
remember the oft quoted motto of the Freely Associating A$$holes 'we aren't happy until you aren't'

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Isn't the High Altitude endorsement a requirement for PIC?
Does your training program include a PIC level proficiency check ride?

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

In the USAF (yes, not the same thing as the FAA...but you'd think they'd work off the same sheet of music...or at least book) and we wanted a non-rated person (media, VIP, etc) to fly in a high performance jet but didn't have access to an altitude chamber we'd just fly lower.
That seemed to keep the safety guys happy.


Later when I was media (and my altitude card was long expired) I went for a B-1 flight.
We stayed at low level and just skipped the AAR work.

FAA should be bright enough to say that althought the ac are capable of high altitude flights (gee, most GA aircraft are too, but that doesn't mean you MUST carry oxygen)...that doesn't mean thay must fly that high.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

I agree... I flew in an F-15E a few years back (2006) in Alaska, and wasn't rated in an altitude chamber. We kept below 18,500', but it didn't stop us going ballistic on take off... that was quite a ride!

I must admit though that I had to have a rudimentary physical, and an ejection and survival training course before-hand though. Mind you... we were over the wilds of the Alaskan out back, so the survival training probably was a necessity. The physical just involved checking my blood pressure, heart, and ears from what I remember, and didn't take long.

I don't see why the Collings Foundation couldn't do this sort of thing though. The potential flying donors could just get a flight-physical on their own (as any pilot does), and bring in the proof to the location on the day they fly. Ejection seat training isn't a big deal either.

The one thing that was a big deal for me though was getting an oxygen mask that fit properly. That took a while, and was not pleasant. I also had to turn my own oxygen system on, once the aircraft had started, and not before.

I was told a story at the time by the flight crew, perhaps apocryphal, about an incentive ride that had happened in Florida in a two seat F-16, where the guy being given the ride switched his oxygen off in flight. He panicked. Instead of just pulling the clip to release his mask he tried to find the knob to turn the O2 back on, passed out before he could locate it, and suffocated. There was nothing the pilot could do. Needless to say, I did keep a hard check on what my actions should be had the oxygen system failed.... perhaps that was the purpose of the story.

The other problem is air-sickness... Throwing up in the highly constrained environment of a jet cockpit is a lot harder, and more difficult than you'd expect. You can't wretch properly as you are strapped in very tightly, and I could see how it woud be easy to panic and choke. I went 45 minutes of fast manouevering while photographing... it's exhausting work when holding a 10 pound camera that goes between being weightless and suddenly weighing 50 pounds or more. I did fine until the pilot mentioned that I hadn't been sick... literally, within microseconds I was. Bugger! Anyway, I did fine, but it did take a concerted effort not to lose my cool as my throat filled up. And no... I hadn't eaten before hand... and yes, it all went in the little bag it was supposed to!

Anyway, just my two cents from a personal experience.

Cheers,
Richard

PS. Feel free to go to my site to see the photos from that little adventure http://www.rmallnutt.com The new site is still under heavy development, but there is some aviation content up now.

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com