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.
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 this 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...

[CAPFlyer]

Where in the FAA regulations is that the case? As long as the aircraft carries a standard airworthiness certificate and your operation holds an appropriate operating certificate (Part 91, 125, 135, or 121) and the applicable manuals that go along with that operating certificate, *ANY* aircraft can be used for commercial service, regardless of its heritage.

I had done some research on using the C-2 Greyhound for oil field resupply operations several years ago when it looked like some may come available on the market, and the local FSDO indicated that they'd have no problems with such operations as long as I had the aircraft certified with Standard Certificates and I was operating as a part 135 charter carrier (there were concerns with operating off paved strips under part 125).

Here's the rub with most warbirds - they were never designed with the modern FARs (or even the FARs as they were at the time) in mind and cannot, without some major (read expensive) modifications, meet the requirements to receive a Standard airworthiness certificate. It has nothing to do with whether the government wants warbirds certificated, it has everything to do with wanting to have *SAFE* planes certificated.

Also, to state as you have that no warbirds are used to carry people around, you ignore the Commemorative Air Force and the fact that many of our transports (C-46, C-47, etc) hold standard airworthiness certificates and as long as the crew is properly certified (commercial pilot's license in most cases, although in certain cases a private license is all that is required under the CAF's LOA with the FAA on this matter) they can carry paying passengers on the aircraft at a price which is in excess of "portion of cost" which governs most flying by non-standard certificated aircraft or aircraft operated by private pilots.

Go into the FAA's database and search through the various warbird types out there. You'd be surprised how many have a Standard Airworthiness certificate. In fact, my former employer, Air Tahoma, operates 2 former T-29s and a VT-29B that have been converted to freighters in revenue service. 2 of the aircraft are flying daily out of Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands for FedEx. Desert Air flies a 4th T-29B (formerly of Air Tahoma) in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. There are several other T-29 & C-131s in revenue service still and there are also several C-116s in revenue service as well.

[Mark V]

This post is a little wrong headed! The thread starter is UK based so I would not be surprised to hear him complaining that ex military (Permit to Fly) aircraft in the UK cannot carry passengers for commercial gain as that is sadly the case but to name the USA - a place where there are many opportunities to fly in historic aircraft if you are prepared to pay, is odd to say the least.