FIFI TO FLY

[dred]

let me guess.., the guy to initially release this to the press used to be in charge of the production run of A380's, then was moved to Boeing to run it's 787 line and now he is with the CAF?

[deskpro590]

So another delay? Posted two hours ago on the B-24B29 Twitter feed...
"FIFI" will not be flying for a couple of weeks. FAA conducting investigation to determine number of crewmembers needed for test flights.

http://twitter.com/CAFB2924SqdPIO

[Steve Nelson]

Well, I guess that officially rules out any chance of seeing her at Thunder...

SN

[eagle21]

So another delay? Posted two hours ago on the B-24B29 Twitter feed...
"FIFI" will not be flying for a couple of weeks. FAA conducting investigation to determine number of crewmembers needed for test flights.

http://twitter.com/CAFB2924SqdPIO

So rather than let the people that are actually going to operate the aircraft on a regular basis decide what minimum crew is needed, some bureaucrat in Washington is going to make a proclamation? Gotta love the new "Why do we need to Fly?" FAA.

JMC

Last edited by eagle21 on Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

[deskpro590]

So, a 1944 B-29 crew consisted of...



What will the FAA come back with?

[flyingsailor]

Well, I guess that officially rules out any chance of seeing her at Thunder...

SN

Unfortunately yes this eliminates Thunder and Oshkosh, we had planned on heading to Thunder after OSH. We were really looking forward to having her attend these shows.

As Dave said on another post, we are ready to open a new chapter with "FIFI" when she returns to the airshow circuit. I feel bad for Dave, Rick, Team Grandpa and the many others that have busted their %^&* the past couple of months to get her ready to go. They have done a wonderful job.

Thanks to the WIX world for your support over these years, and we will let you know when we return to the air.

Chris
CAF B-29/24 Sqd PIO

[John Beyl]

So another delay? Posted two hours ago on the B-24B29 Twitter feed...
"FIFI" will not be flying for a couple of weeks. FAA conducting investigation to determine number of crewmembers needed for test flights.

http://twitter.com/CAFB2924SqdPIO

So rather than let the people that are actually going to operate the aircraft on a regular basis decide what minimum crew is needed, some bureaucrat in Washington is going to make a proclamation? Gotta love the new "Why do we need to Fly?" FAA.

JMC

It happens all the time. We were on the ramp at Offutt one year with the B-25 ready to go. In our operation manual it clearly states that the airplane will not be operated in flight without a pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer. When the FAA guy on the ramp saw three people get in the airplane to perform our part of the show, the inspector would not allow us to go. We "debated" it for several minutes with his argument being that the type certificate says only a PIC and F/O are required for safe operation. He finally relented and gave us clearance but that was not the last we heard about it. I have no idea how an individual who has no background in a given airplane (Other than the fancy bookwork he may have read once upon a time) can attempt to dictate who and what is needed to operate it safely and effectively.

In the case of FIFI's first flight, does the FAA really think the CAF is not aware of the potential danger? Do they really believe that the CAF would put more people in danger than what is absolutely necessary? My guess is the CAF is shooting for a flight crew of five: PIC, F/O, FE, right waist spotter, left waist spotter. In their position I put that as a minimum complement and would accept no fewer. It may just be my point of view but it sure smacks of an administration that wants nothing more than to see all warbirds ground bound once and for all.

John

[eagle21]

So another delay? Posted two hours ago on the B-24B29 Twitter feed...
"FIFI" will not be flying for a couple of weeks. FAA conducting investigation to determine number of crewmembers needed for test flights.

http://twitter.com/CAFB2924SqdPIO

So rather than let the people that are actually going to operate the aircraft on a regular basis decide what minimum crew is needed, some bureaucrat in Washington is going to make a proclamation? Gotta love the new "Why do we need to Fly?" FAA.

JMC

It happens all the time. We were on the ramp at Offutt one year with the B-25 ready to go. In our operation manual it clearly states that the airplane will not be operated in flight without a pilot, co-pilot and flight engineer. When the FAA guy on the ramp saw three people get in the airplane to perform our part of the show, the inspector would not allow us to go. We "debated" it for several minutes with his argument being that the type certificate says only a PIC and F/O are required for safe operation. He finally relented and gave us clearance but that was not the last we heard about it. I have no idea how an individual who has no background in a given airplane (Other than the fancy bookwork he may have read once upon a time) can attempt to dictate who and what is needed to operate it safely and effectively.

In the case of FIFI's first flight, does the FAA really think the CAF is not aware of the potential danger? Do they really believe that the CAF would put more people in danger than what is absolutely necessary? My guess is the CAF is shooting for a flight crew of five: PIC, F/O, FE, right waist spotter, left waist spotter. In their position I put that as a minimum complement and would accept no fewer. It may just be my point of view but it sure smacks of an administration that wants nothing more than to see all warbirds ground bound once and for all.

John

But it shouldn't. Part of the FAA's reason for being is to "Advance the cause of aviation." I was marshalling on the ramp at Temple this year and saw the results of over-reaching FAA presence. It sure isn't the FAA that my father was in 30 years ago when he was at Dallas FSS. But it was getting that way, and that is why he retired. Too much politics.

JMC

[bmoran]

It would have been really awesome to see 3 generations of Boeing Forts at TOM this year

Heres hoping for that possibility at my local air show next year *hint hint nudge nudge*

[Ken]

The CAF overcame the FAA paperwork hurdle quickly when that was a problem, let's wait to see if they can work with the same folks to settle the crew compliment issue just as well. We're not privy to the behind-the-scenes stuff, and that's okay. Standing by patiently, fingers crossed.

Ken

[mustangdriver]

I just hate to see this. Once again just like everything else there are alot of very nice people in the FAA and many of them have a great deal of knowledge. Some are even warbird fans. But it only takes a few to give the group a bad name. I will never understand the FAA check out and sign off procedures for things. When I waas training at the tower my tower chief trained me for 30 days, then called the Great Lakes FSDO who had to send someone over to observe me work traffic in order to check out. This man had never seen me work traffic, never heard tapes of me working traffic, and had never been to our tower.

[ZRX61]

Do they really believe that the CAF would put more people in danger than what is absolutely necessary?
John

B26 Marauder springs to mind...2 friends were on that last flight...

[marine air]

On the PBY, when they were civilianized, the engine start controls etc. were moved from the Flight engineers station, and the naviagtors radios were moved so that the PBY can be flown with a two person crew instead of a 4 person min. crew. Maybe they are looking at these kinds of things since it is being certified to fly again although this time with different engines.
Remember what hapened when the CAF rushed to fly their Mauler and Twin Mustang?

[CAPFlyer]

Do they really believe that the CAF would put more people in danger than what is absolutely necessary?
John

B26 Marauder springs to mind...2 friends were on that last flight...

That was then, this is now. In addition, if I do seem to remember correctly, they violated several existing rules anyway by carrying those pax, so that was a flight crew decision, not an organizational one.

[eagle21]

Remember what hapened when the CAF rushed to fly their Mauler and Twin Mustang?

Yes, I do. But again, those were displays of possibly poor judgement in an operational situation. This is a case of some outside agency continually slamming the door in your face after adequate preparation has been made. I don't sense there is any "rush" to fly the B-29, but when all of the maintenance and paperwork is done then it is time to go fly. Yes, I know the FAA decides when the paperwork is done.

That being said, the FAA has agreed the paperwork is done, but is dithering over the amount of crew members required. To my way of thinking the operator of the aircraft should decide what they think is the minimum crew and be able to justify each position. Unless it is grossly exaggerated (say 12 people for the B-29 instead of 5-7) then they FAA should go with the operator's decision.

Just my opinion though,

JMC