FAA no longer allow experimental aircraft to be used for gov

[Vulture]

I was just advised (by a friend of a friend) that the FAA no longer allows experimental aircraft (warbirds) to fly military / government contracts. I am curious what this will do to blackwaters dream to have TUCANOs and what about those L-39s operating on contracts too .... What affect does this have on canada? I am assuming this will mean there will be some cheap warbirds available .

I have to assume the net result will be similar to that of when the FAA shut down the fire guys using warbirds. I dont know much about this subject but i do know that there always seems to be ripple effects in canada whenever the USA does something.

Does anyone know where i can find this "order?" dont even know where to look on the FAA site.

V


[/b]

[Old SAR pilot]

If it's true, wonder what that'll do to Starfighters, Inc.'s contract with NASA using F-104s??

[mustangdriver]

Yes grounding a bunch of the water bombers has worked wonders for California.

[warbirdcrew]

I am curious what this will do to blackwaters dream to have TUCANOs

I think Blackwater has much bigger things to worry about right now.


-wc

[Vulture]

TOUCHE

[Ryan Keough]

It was my understanding that many of them fly under RESTRICTED certificates... like ATSI at Gateway... all the A-4s they have are licensed as restricted.

Isn't this the same situation regarding the firebombers? I have NEVER heard of a firebomber (read: for profit machine) operating as an Experimental aircraft. To do that, they would need to file an exemption similar to the one applied to the B-24/LB-30 aircraft flying rides in the US. I don't think this issue is what pulled firebombers "off the line".

AFAIK the S-2F "Firecat" or "Turbocat" conversions are still being used... as well as the P-3 conversions... thus warbirds are still being used. The C-130A fleet as well as the PB4Y-4 fleet was grounded due to the airworthiness issues involving the wing spars.

[Jack Cook]

I think Blackwater has much bigger things to worry about right now.

Reminds for of Full Metal Jacket
"If they run they're insurgents. If they don't run they're well disciplined insurgents!"

[Vulture]

It was my understanding that many of them fly under RESTRICTED certificates... like ATSI at Gateway... all the A-4s they have are licensed as restricted.

Isn't this the same situation regarding the firebombers? I have NEVER heard of a firebomber (read: for profit machine) operating as an Experimental aircraft. To do that, they would need to file an exemption similar to the one applied to the B-24/LB-30 aircraft flying rides in the US. I don't think this issue is what pulled firebombers "off the line".

Is restricted still not experimental or is that R&D ? PART 91? From what I understand about some of the aircraft (not sure about the A-4) but I dont think they are licensed by the FAA? <<< is there another lic body in the USA? Maybe the government will have to license them like they do with police helicopters that are military ones (that process confuses the heck out of me)

Is NASA the lic body for Starfighters?

V

[CAPFlyer]

EXPERIMENTAL and RESTRICTED are two totally different animals. Difference maintenance requirements, different initial and recurring airworthiness inspection requirements, different operating restrictions, different operating manual requirents, the list goes on. It's like the difference between operating a Part 135 Airline and a Part 121 Airline. Two totally different worlds.

[Vulture]

EXPERIMENTAL and RESTRICTED are two totally different animals

maybe totally different but are they not both "EXPERIMENTAL" and under part 91? My undesrtsanding of what i was told was that NO PART 91 AIRCRAFT WILL FLY CONTRACT (commerical).... Seems kind of extreem but I think I recall an incident with a Mi-24 having the same issue with the FAA but it was for an ARMY contract. I guess I was just seeking the "black and white " for clarification. does anyone have a link?

V

[mike furline]

I think Blackwater has much bigger things to worry about right now.

Reminds for of Full Metal Jacket
"If they run they're insurgents. If they don't run they're well disciplined insurgents!"

I love that movie!

[dfrat]

How does this affect warbirds at Military airshows? They are all under "contract" to show and perform, especially the Heritage Flight birds.

[RickH]

Small point of clarification. I don't think that the FAA has any purview over aircraft contracted for govt purposes. The aircraft are flying on those contracts as public use aircraft. Pilots don't even require a license from the FAA. The contracting federal agency has the final say what aircraft are to be used. Correct me if I'm wrong but in the case of TBM, B-25s, PB4Ys, and C-130As the FAA didn't ground them, the US Forest Service was the agency that said that they could no longer fly those types under a Forest Service Contract.

I'm sure Larry could clarify but he may be busy in the skies over Malibu.

[aerovin]

Experimental and Restricted are totally different with different sets of requirements. See this explanation at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Airworthiness_Certificate for a bit of information.

[T2 Ernie]

I think RickH is on the right track here.

I've not kept up with this, but I know the C-130A that had the wings fold up a couple years back was a watershed event for USFS contractors; specifically WRT maintenance & documentation.

I've heard anectdotal reports that obtaining a contract w/USFS these days is as focused on maint as ops, if not moreso...

I should add that I've no direct experience in this area, but it's one I'm half-heartedly researching for future options...