Collings Foundation and FAA

gflinch · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:29 pm

I don't know how many are on the Collings Foundation mailing list but I got this email to day:

Quote:

WE NEED YOUR HELP

The FAA recently denied the Collings Foundation's request for flight exemptions for the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, Me262 and Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch.
We need a FAA exemption in order to accept donations for flight experiences in these historic aircraft.

Our unique living history programs for these aircraft will be dead in their tracks without these critical exemptions.

FAA Conclusions:
"Collings has included four aircraft in its request that do not meet the requirements for an exemption. The FAA’s “Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft” (72 FR 57196; 10/09/07) policy states that aircraft must meet the test of being historically significant in the context of U.S. aeronautical history. The Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch is a World War II German reconnaissance aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch in this exemption is denied.

The Classic Fighter Me-262 is a replica of a World War II German aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Classic Fighter Me-262 in this exemption is denied.

Collings Foundation's Response:
In denying the addition of Me262 and Fiesler Storch, the FAA concluded that “in the context of U.S. aeronautical history” neither the Fi-156 Storch nor the Me-262 satisfied “the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft.” The Fi-156 Storch and Me-262 denial by the FAA was arbitrary and contrary to FAA policy.

"An aircraft that was not made by a U.S. manufacturer may be considered for an exemption if the operational and maintenance history is adequately documented (72 FR 57197)."

There is no requirement in the FAA's policy 72 FR 57197 stating that the historical significance be "in the context of U.S. aeronautical history".

The Storch and Me-262 aircraft are most definitely historically significant, certainly more so that many aircraft already approved for flight exemptions! See Subject A in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

FAA Conclusions:
"While the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J may meet the historically significant test, the FAA must consider that permitting the public to experience flights in an aircraft that while in U.S. military service required the installation of an ejection seat raises a safety concern that has not been adequately addressed. Until the petitioner provides sufficient information on the means by which it ensures an equivalent level of safety, the FAA will not grant an exemption authorizing operations with the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J in this exemption is denied."

Collings Foundation's Response:
Regarding the A-4 and F-4 ejection seat training program: The Collings Foundation already has an ejection seat training program that was APPROVED BY THE FAA. In actuality, our ejection seat training program goes well beyond the standard United States Air Force program. We ensure the total understanding, compliance and competency of the ejection seat protocol and procedures. See Subject B in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

What this means:
Currently, we cannot offer Flight Experiences in the Me-262, F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk and Feisler Storch. Without the ability to offer flight experiences in these aircraft we will not be able to cover the operational expense. Thus, these unique aviation treasures and living history programs surrounding these aircraft will not be accessible to the general public.
To see the full document from the FAA outlining the denial click here.
To see the rules the FAA established to which they should have followed click here.

How you can help:
Show your support! We need EVERYONE who receives this to act. Tell your friends and family! Aviation heritage is at stake. Call, email or write to the FAA, your Congressman and Senator. Feel free to reference points listed in our Exemption Reconsideration document

Call or send an email or letter to:
Mr. John Allen, FAA Director of Flight Standards - john.allen@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 802
Tel: 202-267-8237

Mr. Randy Babbitt, FAA Administrator - randy.babbitt@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 1010
Tel: 202-267-3111
Please CC email to the Collings Foundation at: response@collingsfoundation.org

What is everyone's thought on this? They seem to send out a lot of email about bills/propositions/etc that the FAA is restricting vintage aircraft. 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.

What will this mean, and has stuff like this been resolved before?

Greg Flinchbaugh
Pittsburgh, PA

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:40 pm

Thanks, most interesting.

The FAA have rather made a mess of the rest of their case by including the Storch.

Perhaps they might need reminding that a chap called Eisenhower flew in one. I'm not sure, but I think as Supreme Commander at D Day and later President of the USA he might have some historical significance, but what would I know, compared to the FAA?

ZRX61 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am **Posts:** 2309

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??

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:01 pm

I'd write in, and will when I have the time. The Fieseler Storch is probably as safe as anything the FAA can put into the air themselves if it's maintained by the Collins guys and certainly has historic value. I can KIND of see the point on the Me262 - but that's still dumb. Now the A-4 and the F-4, I can kind of see either way, but I think personally that the FAA should let 'em do it.

For sure the Storch didn't deserve that kind of response. I guess I could be a bit biased though, it being an L-bird!

Ryan

DoraNineFan · **Joined:** Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:37 pm **Posts:** 678

I thought that the advertised flight experiences in the Me262 were only open to qualified pilots with jet time or high-performance time and not to anyone walking in the door.

I don't see what the problem is, unless the FAA wants them to get a proper checkout first.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

The FAA, unfortunately, as of late, has become something more of a political appeasement organization than one genuinely concerned with air safety. They have received intense scrutiny by Congress, who budget them, so they are at their mercy. When any certain Congress-person has a wild hair and decides to go after the FAA and threaten their funding and harness their power and control unless they change, the FAA tends to listen more to them than the general aviator. There is precedent for this in many, many proposals, rules, and decision-makings from the FAA since 9-11.

IMO, the FAA is trying to exert power and control in limiting the use of civilians flying highly maneuverable, tactical airplanes that could be used as weapons. I believe the FAA is very, very afraid of any potential negative publicity that might be generated through either: 1) any kind of fatal accident involving a "tactical" type supersonic or near supersonic fighter, especially ex- U.S. Military (i.e. - the Sacramento ice cream parlor F-86 accident from the 70's), 2) any kind of supersonic or near supersonic "tactical" type airplane potentially being used as a "weapon of mass destruction", by terrorists or crazy death-wish psychos.

If either of these 2 scenarios played out, the negative press associated with them would be absolutely crushing to the FAA. Congress and the public would have an absolute fit to know that so-called "civilians", however competent, could have access to such "weapons" or dangerous airplanes.

Like it or not, amongst the general public in the U.S., by and large, there is very little support for civilians flying these types of airplanes. That is their perception, flawed as it may be. I believe the FAA just threw in that Storch to act as a "token" so their agenda could not be so readily apparent and obvious.

The FAA still does good work from time to time in ensuring safety in flying, but they are EXTREMELY, unduly influenced by politics, power, and public perception. This unfortunately, has negative consequences when the FAA has to fight a public relations campaign to placate the public and Congress, instead of focusing on the real issue at hand - regulating and enforcing rules, regulations and flying safety.

I hate to say it, but I think things will get worse over time. Slowly our rights as civil aviators will erode to the point of making general aviation an extremely unjustifiably expensive and ultra-controlled proposition for most people.

Just my perception, from someone who deals with, and has family members and friends that deal with the FAA on a daily basis.

warbirdguy · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:19 pm

Here is the original email in its entirety:

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/enews ... _Oct09.htm

JBoyle · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:27 pm

Are we really surprised?

Look at what the CAA has done to historic aircraft operations in the UK.
Expect more of the same here as we become more of a "nanny state".

A2C · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:46 pm

Warbird1 wrote:

Quote:

The FAA, unfortunately, as of late, has become something more of a political appeasement organization than one genuinely concerned with air safety.

Exacting! That statement bleongs in an important textbook.

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:01 pm

Interesting.

If anyone wants to read the policy in full, go to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/retrieve.html. Click the check-dot that says "2007 Federal Register, Vol. 72" and type the number 57196 into the field near the bottom of the page, then click the "Submit" button. Once viewing page 57196, you can use the "Next page" link at the bottom to see the rest of the notice on pages 57197 and 57198.

It does say explicitly that the exemption is to preserve U.S. aviation history on page 57196, but that is the "Background" section. The "U.S." condition doesn't appear in the formal part of the policy statement, which mentions "aviation history" several times without national qualification.

The FAA's rejection of Collings' request as to the Me-262 could be understood to be because the Me-262 is not historically significant because it is a replica, and is not a Messerschmitt Me 262. However, the discussion of the Wright Model B on page 57196 shows that the replica point has already been considered, and the FAA has determined that replica historical aircraft may be eligible for the exemption. It is not clear whether the FAA's rejection as to the Me-262 is based on it being a replica, or being based on a non-U.S. type, or a combination of both.

One thing is clear, the policy gives the agency broad discretion in deciding on a case-by-case basis whether an aircraft meets the historical criteria.

Further analysis and discussion would be interesting, but if the majority on the forum prefer hysterical anti-government rants, that would be fine too.

August

Oscar Duck · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:03 pm

this sort of thing was what I referred to in another post regarding the fact that like it or not we ARE in a PC world and the FAA or any other regulatory body will move to shut things down for real or perceived "non-conformance".

I'm not suggesting "non-conformance" here with Collings but rather referring to the regulatory zealots who don't give a f....... about old aircraft operations.

We must challenge ourselves to operate by the rules/regs/AFM's etc as they are intended, not as we feel, otherwise we will feel the wrath of these 'bar stewards',,,,,

uh1h430 · **Joined:** Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:38 pm **Posts:** 93

Look there ways around these FAA guys and their regs.

If you really want to fly a F4, A4 or a ME 262 you could join the Collings group donate money to the airplane or the general fund.

On the Storch thing the FAA is way out of line and I think they are going to get called on it. Unless the one they have is a French or a Chez one. Even so the French used them in Vietnam and Algeria.

I know Bob Collings from when 909 was being repaired at Beaver Falls Pa. he is a long time business man. He had something to do with inventing the bar code. And he is tough to deal with just ask any airshow producer. He will get around these ruleings

RickH · **Posted:** Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:46 pm

The biggest issue is that FAA didn't follow their own 2007 guidelines. They fell back on the 1997 guidelines which were superceded by the 2007 guidelines. We were told that all was well and NO one had any problems, or, more importantly, didn't need any additional infor for a period of 180 days. When they sent the approved exemption out after telling us that everything was approved, the FAA folks neglected to tell us that the original exemptions for the B-17, B-24, TBM, B-25, and UH-1 were renewed and that on the second page the F-4, TA-4, 262, and Storch were denied, for lack of information and the other reasons cited.

The Storch is a composite of several German built airframes.

A new application has been filed, it will go through slightly different channels as a reapplication.

A2C · **Posted:** Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:07 am

FAA wrote:

Quote:

FAA Conclusions:
"Collings has included four aircraft in its request that do not meet the requirements for an exemption. The FAA’s “Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft” (72 FR 57196; 10/09/07) policy states that aircraft must meet the test of being historically significant in the context of U.S. aeronautical history. The Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch is a World War II German reconnaissance aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch in this exemption is denied.

The FAA has always held that experimental aircraft cannot be flown for compensation or hire. A waiver is an exception. So in reality the Collings Foundation is exceptional in getting this permission. This exception is clearly not being allowed this time on a whim from the FAA.

This is precisely why the Collings Foundation should lobby congress, AOPA, and the EAA to have this restriction lifted on all historic aircraft. That is if the planes can be brought to as near as possible to standard category standards, I think it can be done.

RickH · **Posted:** Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:27 am

A2C, not as exceptional as you may think, research shows that NO exemption petitions have been denied since the 2007 guidelines were adopted. Several precedents exist in regards to replica aircraft gaining this exemption.

Warbird Information Exchange

Collings Foundation and FAA

Who is online