Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:08 am
Good luck to the CF in getting this decision reconsidered.
It's clear from the policy that the FAA weighs three main considerations (1) historical importance of the aircraft, (2) whether its operating costs are such that the exemption is necessary to keep it going, and (3) safety issues. The F-4 and A-4 are slam dunks on #1 and #2, hopefully the FAA's concerns can be satisfied on #3.
On the other two aircraft, it would seem important to make a convincing presentation as to the historical importance, because they are a mixed bag on the other two factors. The cost argument is a bit tricky on the Storch as it would not seem to be an especially high-cost warbird to operate, and several are flying without ride revenue. It has a great reputation as a safe airplane, however -- was the French version certified there postwar? -- despite the deduction for being a foreign type. On the 262, the cost argument seems solid, although not as solid as it would be with a real 262 that used vintage German parts. Safety is very much an unknown quantity with this type. As to both, with luck, a strong argument on the historical value of demonstrating the aircraft might win the day. We hope.
It would be interesting to read through the past petitions under this exemption and see what arguments have been made, and which have succeeded and failed (I would not assume that only post-2007 decisions are relevant). That info does not appear to be freely available, although I'm sure an FAA lawyer knows where to find it and CF's has done so.
For me the most interesting aspect of this is that the FAA has set itself up as an arbiter of historical importance and also that its policy bears on some of the issues we occasionally discuss here, such as the relative historical value of genuine and replica aircraft. Replicas clearly are not automatically disqualified from the exemption, but it appears to be a strike against them. In certain cases, where you have a dataplate restoration that would satisfy the 51% rule and therefore gives you the option of registering it as either a vintage original or an amateur-built experimental (i.e. replica), the implications for obtaining this exemption might be a factor in the choice.
August
It's clear from the policy that the FAA weighs three main considerations (1) historical importance of the aircraft, (2) whether its operating costs are such that the exemption is necessary to keep it going, and (3) safety issues. The F-4 and A-4 are slam dunks on #1 and #2, hopefully the FAA's concerns can be satisfied on #3.
On the other two aircraft, it would seem important to make a convincing presentation as to the historical importance, because they are a mixed bag on the other two factors. The cost argument is a bit tricky on the Storch as it would not seem to be an especially high-cost warbird to operate, and several are flying without ride revenue. It has a great reputation as a safe airplane, however -- was the French version certified there postwar? -- despite the deduction for being a foreign type. On the 262, the cost argument seems solid, although not as solid as it would be with a real 262 that used vintage German parts. Safety is very much an unknown quantity with this type. As to both, with luck, a strong argument on the historical value of demonstrating the aircraft might win the day. We hope.
It would be interesting to read through the past petitions under this exemption and see what arguments have been made, and which have succeeded and failed (I would not assume that only post-2007 decisions are relevant). That info does not appear to be freely available, although I'm sure an FAA lawyer knows where to find it and CF's has done so.
For me the most interesting aspect of this is that the FAA has set itself up as an arbiter of historical importance and also that its policy bears on some of the issues we occasionally discuss here, such as the relative historical value of genuine and replica aircraft. Replicas clearly are not automatically disqualified from the exemption, but it appears to be a strike against them. In certain cases, where you have a dataplate restoration that would satisfy the 51% rule and therefore gives you the option of registering it as either a vintage original or an amateur-built experimental (i.e. replica), the implications for obtaining this exemption might be a factor in the choice.
August
Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:53 pm
My face just got flush while reading this....
Add this to all the other stuff that governments do to restrict freedoms in the world and it makes me positively livid.
I am getting very tired of this.
While we yell at each other over paint jobs and tramp stamps the very existence of our avocation ( and some vocations) are threatened by over reaching bureaucrats and politicians.
The statement posted by Greg in the original post says a lot....
If we all sit on our hands and wait for the other guy to send letters to our representatives and the bureaucrats then the opportunity for anyone to ride in a bomber someday may not exist....
grrr....
Add this to all the other stuff that governments do to restrict freedoms in the world and it makes me positively livid.
I am getting very tired of this.
While we yell at each other over paint jobs and tramp stamps the very existence of our avocation ( and some vocations) are threatened by over reaching bureaucrats and politicians.
The statement posted by Greg in the original post says a lot....
I am not involved in this stuff, I just like to go to airshows, and I hope someday to take a ride in a bomber.
If we all sit on our hands and wait for the other guy to send letters to our representatives and the bureaucrats then the opportunity for anyone to ride in a bomber someday may not exist....
grrr....
Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:39 pm
The statement posted by Greg in the original post says a lot....
Quote:
I am not involved in this stuff, I just like to go to airshows, and I hope someday to take a ride in a bomber.
If we all sit on our hands and wait for the other guy to send letters to our representatives and the bureaucrats then the opportunity for anyone to ride in a bomber someday may not exist....
I think you are misunderstanding my comment. I didn't want to step on anyone's toes that might be directly involved with this issue, i.e. owning a warbird as many do on the forum.
I didn't mean that I don't care about the issue and will not do anything about it, just my stakes aren't as great as those guys that have millions tied up in these aircraft and know a lot more about this issue than I do.
After reading others input on this, I understand the issue a lot more, which is exactly why I posted what I did an commented that way.
Sorry, I just felt the need to defend myself, I am just as passionate about aviation as the next guy.
Hopefully we will all do our part to support these guys and get them back in the air.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:06 pm
Hopefully we will all do our part to support these guys and
Greg, we haven't not been in the air.
What we're trying to accomplish is a way to get YOU in the air ! Right now, under our FAA approved flight training programs you have to have the prerequisite licenses and endorsements to fly in these aircraft. We are trying to add the ability to do a jet experience flight, much like the media rides done by the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds.
.get them back in the air
Greg, we haven't not been in the air.
What we're trying to accomplish is a way to get YOU in the air ! Right now, under our FAA approved flight training programs you have to have the prerequisite licenses and endorsements to fly in these aircraft. We are trying to add the ability to do a jet experience flight, much like the media rides done by the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:32 pm
Greg,
That was not meant as a personal slight towards you. It is just that the statement stuck me as an appropriate launching pad for another part of the discussion.
"We" need to wake up and stand for what we think is right. That's all.
By the way....
Welcome to the board!
Z
That was not meant as a personal slight towards you. It is just that the statement stuck me as an appropriate launching pad for another part of the discussion.
"We" need to wake up and stand for what we think is right. That's all.
By the way....
Welcome to the board!
Z
Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:44 pm
gflinch wrote:After reading others input on this, I understand the issue a lot more, which is exactly why I posted what I did an commented that way.
And a great start, too, Greg. Welcome to WIX!
Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm
Ztex,
No problem, no problem at all
Rick H,
That's what I understood after reading a bit more.
Thanks all for the welcome too btw, didn't mean for my first post to stir up a hornets nest.
No problem, no problem at all
Rick H,
That's what I understood after reading a bit more.
Thanks all for the welcome too btw, didn't mean for my first post to stir up a hornets nest.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:21 pm
gflinch wrote:Thanks all for the welcome too btw, didn't mean for my first post to stir up a hornets nest.
Hornet's nest? Oh, just don't mention the &##&, &**$#%# or the &*(&%$ or %^ and certainty not &%$ and you'll be fine. Probably.
More seriously, people bring and take what they want here. Stick to the good stuff, which there's plenty of. And the good guys with good stuff get good things going on as a result off board, too, which is neat.
HTH.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:42 pm
You can hardly swing a cat around here without starting a bar room brawl! Not that I condone the swinging of cats! Oooops I'm in trouble now!! 
I know that the FAA claims in all these decisions that it is just following the rules and watching out for the publics safety, BUT.....If they spent as much time per airliner as they do per warbird.....we'd need a bunch more people in the FAA! It is a totally different kind of thing tracking safety between types and paperwork is an unknown or a fuzzy thing on many warbirds, much like the squabble with the Red Bull Albatross. YES there needs to be oversight, BUT there should be a reasonable arbitration board to go to with special cases that fall outside of the regular set of rules. Reasonable Government entity!!! I make Me Laugh!!
I know that the FAA claims in all these decisions that it is just following the rules and watching out for the publics safety, BUT.....If they spent as much time per airliner as they do per warbird.....we'd need a bunch more people in the FAA! It is a totally different kind of thing tracking safety between types and paperwork is an unknown or a fuzzy thing on many warbirds, much like the squabble with the Red Bull Albatross. YES there needs to be oversight, BUT there should be a reasonable arbitration board to go to with special cases that fall outside of the regular set of rules. Reasonable Government entity!!! I make Me Laugh!!
Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:57 pm
You can hardly swing a cat around here without starting a bar room brawl! Not that I condone the swinging of cats! Oooops I'm in trouble now!! I know that the FAA claims in all these decisions that it is just following the rules and watching out for the publics safety, BUT.....If they spent as much time per airliner as they do per warbird.....we'd need a bunch more people in the FAA! It is a totally different kind of thing tracking safety between types and paperwork is an unknown or a fuzzy thing on many warbirds, much like the squabble with the Red Bull Albatross. YES there needs to be oversight, BUT there should be a reasonable arbitration board to go to with special cases that fall outside of the regular set of rules. Reasonable Government entity!!! I make Me Laugh!!
The problem is quite simple. The FAA has the FARs (Federal Aviation Reg's), and these state what can and can't be done with an aircraft. An experimental warbird can't be flown for compensation or hire. The waiver that the Collings Foundation is using is exactly that.
A waiver is no guarantee, it means if they (the FAA) change their mind, then you're out of luck. The real problem that needs to be addressed is eliminating the need for a waiver, and changing the rule so experimental warbirds can be flown for compension under any circumstance.
In order to do this, there would have to be documentable evidence in the log books that the airplanes are being maintained to a standard category safety standard.
To the FAA experimental means below the "standard category" standard. Everybody I know with an experimental warbird maintains them to the standard, so I think with some advocacy we can convince both the AOPA and the EAA to lobby Congress to change the rules.
Until then, don't complain if they don't feel like granting a waiver.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:32 pm
ZRX61 wrote:They are apparanetly unaware that the reason the F4 & A4 had ejection seats is because of the risk from being shot down by AAA or a SAM ....
& the Me262 isn't historically significant??? On what planet??
I won't say what I was going to say
Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:05 pm
Not always true. Depending on your ops spec, FSDO and the regulation of the day, you could roll lease charges into flight training or R&D programs. I once worked for BAE Flight Systems in Mojave Ca. We had 4 leased F-4s from the USAF and would charge for their use all the time in an R&D, training or government contract capacity. All 4 aircraft had N numbers.A2C wrote: An experimental warbird can't be flown for compensation or hire. The waiver that the Collings Foundation is using is exactly that.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-p ... 427968.jpg
The efficiency of the US Post Office combined with the compassion of the IRS = The FAA
Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:20 pm
Until then, don't complain if they don't feel like granting a waiver.
Your kidding, right ? You apply for a legal exemption, that guidelines clearly exist. You follow the precedure and you are denied the exemption after being told multiple times that your application is in order and they don't need any additional info. They deny you after 180 days by saying that they need additional info ? They use incorrect criteria from their own latest guidelines, falling back on the older criteria, and you would just accept the decision and rollover ?
Say it with me again, THEY WORK FOR US ! They are bound to treat everyone without discrimination as long as the published criteria is followed. Any deviation from the regs they hold so dear, opens them up to scrutiny. They are not allowed to pick and choose how they will interpret and apply each reg, even though they do, but there are avenues within the system that allow for appeal.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:31 pm
ZRX61 wrote:They are apparanetly unaware that the reason the F4 & A4 had ejection seats is because of the risk from being shot down by AAA or a SAM ....
Not always, what is the procedure on an A4 or and F4 for an engine fire light? Answer, you ride the silk elevator down.
Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:31 pm
Flyboy wrote:
Of course, but keep in mind the FSDO will only grant the R&D once, and that would possibly restrict the aircraft to to gov. research work. No airshows no rides. Given the aircraft is working for the gov. of course they will let the operator get paid.
A better alternative would be an experimental certificate which will allow the pilot to get paid, and not put the aircraft totally in standard category.
Not always true. Depending on your ops spec, FSDO and the regulation of the day, you could roll lease charges into flight training or R&D programs. I once worked for BAE Flight Systems in Mojave Ca. We had 4 leased F-4s from the USAF and would charge for their use all the time in an R&D, training or government contract capacity. All 4 aircraft had N numbers.
Of course, but keep in mind the FSDO will only grant the R&D once, and that would possibly restrict the aircraft to to gov. research work. No airshows no rides. Given the aircraft is working for the gov. of course they will let the operator get paid.
A better alternative would be an experimental certificate which will allow the pilot to get paid, and not put the aircraft totally in standard category.