The restriction on ex-military planes

[Air Luchador]

I find the fact that the US as well as CDN government don't allow the use of ex-military planes for commercial use (as It is not the case in Russia and Australia) very back minded and senseless.
Let me simplify: What's wrong with restoring an old warbird (with your own money) of course and then offer to the public to go for a spin with you. There are tonnes of people who would love to take a ride in one of the warbirds and they are willing to pay big bucks for that.
If we are to keep the restoration passion of these beautiful planes towards the future generations then we should definately have some more liberal stands and regulations in hand.
All this paranoia after 9/11 about people trying to make their own air force and attack USA nonsense and other crap that floats around every now and then, definately doesn't support these projects.
I agree with one guy here who said that we might loose the whole generation of planes and that there might be a gap in museums of the future because of these stupid regulations that are in force.
Does anyone knows actually who came up with these laws and If there is a realistic possibility that one day these regulations will become non-existent and we could finally provide this passion that we mostly keep to our selves right now, to a wider public and this way get more enthusiasts and support for the future projects and preservation of these birds...

Sorry, no F4 roam over your shingles tonite...hahahaha...

[warbirddriver]

It's not 9/11. If you want to go to all the trouble and expense to certify these aircraft in the standard category, then you will be able to give rides! Aircraft licensed in the experimental-exhibition or limited category are prohibited from being used for compensation or hire. Been that way for DECADES!! However, for every rule there is and exception. Or exemption if you are willing to jump through all the hoops. That's how all the B-17's and B-25's etc. are able to offer rides. Read the regs before making statements that aren't based in fact.

Glenn

[Dan Newcomb]

I have to respond to this one. Join the CAF and you get to ride in any of our multi-seat aircraft. It’s so easy a caveman can do it. OOPS! You don’t get that TV commercial in Britain.

[muddyboots]

lucky them

[Mudge]

Luchador...Your only mistake here is trying to put logic and government in the same proposal. Never has happened. Ain't gonna' happen.
See you at Duxford in 23 days?

Mudge the logical

ps. I absolutely hate those cave man commercials. Wouldn't buy GEICO anyway, but that's another story.

[Jesse C.]

Hey Mudge, they are actually going to make a sitcom based on those commercials or at least on the Cavemen, so, if you wanted proof that the world is coming to an end, then look no further!

[Mudge]

I hope that sitcom doesn't come on opposite The Simpsons (:vom:) or I'll have to make a tough decision. The Simpsons or a sharp stick in the eye. The Cavemen (:vom:) or a bamboo splinter under my fingernail.

Mudge the undecided

[Nathan]

I liked the one where the caveman was going threw the airport termanal and saw that picture up on the wall. I thought that was very funny.

[oscardeuce]

The FAA can say "yes", but the insurance company has the final say.

[Mark V]

Scott - this is a duplicate thread!