Warbird Information Exchange

From an email by WIXer Joe Scheil forwarded by Steve Hinton-
Please see this thread at CJAA and read the FAA PDF High Performance Jet Memo
http://www.classicjets.org/forum/viewto ... =12&t=1639

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

I practiced administrative law for 17 years and really understand the power they have. They can make RULES which have the force and effect of LAW without going through any of the processes that a "law" would have to pass through. Rules are subject to local interpertation.

For those who haven't looked. Read the message on the link and download the attached (to the link) "High performance jet memo.PDF". Guys really only 4 paragraphs there and what is contained in them is pretty amazing.

To some extent, I can see where they are headed (no supersonic jets or Vietnam Era jets or "high performance jets"). There may be some left, but not many and nothing thrilling to see fly or fly for that matter.

While Joe Schell gets into the term "high risk", he glosses over a few particular points that I'm sure they will raise. While a F-4 (or similar type) may have been relatively "safe" to operate, that was during a time that NEW spare parts were available in unlimited supply, there was factory engineering support (although its hard to imagine that the F-4 would have any "bugs" that needed worked out), and there was a real pilot training program with lots of "mentors" (other pilots with current time which can share experiences with).

Consider that combined with the fact that some organizations CAN operate jets without real problems (CF for example) and there are some potential owners who simply can't support them. The FAA has a lot of room here.

For Tom P. Inviting Congressmen to a "jet blast" (which already has a name that doesn't sound good on the news--Think "fraternity gathering" vs a "chug, puke, and pork" event) doesnt' help. One Congressman doesn't matter a lot, their priority is getting reelected and god forbid if someone has some mechanical problem at the event....

I think it will be interesting to see what happens with all of this. I know in some areas (and I live in one) the local FSDO wouldn't want a jet here. They really didn't want a P-51 here, but it managed to get in.

Best wishes guys.

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

Rich,

Thank you for posting this, and as always, I really enjoy your posts and insight.

This is a huge deal, and while many people are working dilligently to discover the actual effect this memo will have, I believe its important for everyone to know what is happening. Please look at the very instructive and dangerous points that P51Mstg is bringing up in his post.

However the truly terrifying thing is that Mstg agrees with the viewpoint that its "understandable" and "rational" for a group of people that are govt. employees to decide without any data or cause to regulate or mitigate an entire industry. The safety record of civilian F-4's flown for the purposes of exhibition is 100 percent safe. The Collings Foundation pilots are all high time Military pilots who have become civilian F-4 instructors. The maintenence crews on the F-4's flying from Holloman are civilian too... How a FSDO cannot "want" a P-51 to get in is unconscionable. We are American citizens, and had rights.

Perhaps this isn't a big deal to most...but they will come for your Mustangs next....

Spread the word.

You are a smart man Joe. Come for your Mustangs, next doesn't even start to cover it. They will be coming for any airplane that was former military. A major problem with the Feds is once they take something, they rarely give it back. For the gun lovers, No transferable civilian Class 3 (machineguns) since May 1986. Its gone and not coming back..... I've often thought that it would only take ONE airshow crash into the crowd and then they are done (Bruce Moorhouse almost did that in 2007 at Reno with an L-39).... Either insurance companies would quit covering shows or the FAA would end them.

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

You are most correct.We had rights and have not seen the worst of it yet.

_________________
Hang The Expense

My initial reaction is that the US G is getting too powerful. That's an easy one. Bad Government= 2012 bloodbath at the polls. I think this is more TSA valiantly fighting homegrown terrorism than it is safety concern, but I digress.

The second reaction is more complicated. Let's look at an F-4. These aircraft are not being operated in the environment in which they were originally intended to be operated. There is a smaller support staff working on the aircraft, a smaller quantity of spares, and a Quality Control for maintenance that is agreed upon between the operator and the FAA. Logbook checks are not good oversight for complicated maintenance procedures. I'm not saying that any of these aircraft are operated in a way that is less than 100% safe. But I am saying that they are being operated with a lot of good will and trust between FAA and the owner/operators.

The FAA mandate is not to generate good will and trust- it's job is to ensure the safety of the public from flaming death ships and absolve the government of any responsibility when said flaming death ships crash into civilians. My interpretation of that memorandum is that they want to centralize the responsibility for giving permission instead of allowing local FSDO's to handle it, and the FAA probably wants more language in the agreements for operating limitations, training, and maintenance procedures...
...meaning more paperwork, more administration, and more headaches for operating the jets. Which of course will frighten off the dedicated, homegrown, domestic terrorists from attempting to do something bad with an F-4.

What an effective government effort! Your tax dollars at work. Vote your conscience in 2012...

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

I'm closer to this than most, the above statement is troubling, at best. I suggest that this little innocuous memorandum from on high, is very bad juju. There should be basic guidelines for airworthiness certificates, no argument there. My problem is further involvement from people who have no real working knowledge of these types of aircraft and what it takes to operate them. The folks at AIR 230, AFS 800, and AFS300, are far removed from what we do, our local guys are in a much better position to determine if one of these aircraft are good to go. We are not operating in a vacuum ! Washington does NOT always know what is best. This really smacks of a solution looking for a problem.

There is no great secret to flying these aircraft, we deal with airframe, systems, and powerplants. We have accumulated a great deal of technical paper (manuals) and a great deal of corporate knowledge. We have built on that corporate knowledge to include several types of aircraft. You would be surprised just how much transfers from one to the other. You would also be surprised in how much stuff on these aircraft are the same or similar to standard commercial components. Most of these aircraft are actually safer than the civilian jet types out there. Why ? Because they were designed to be shot at and still get their crews home ! Redundancy is a wonderful thing !

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

Keep in mind that several years ago a couple of FAA types decided to ground Bob Hoover just because they could (and it took F. Lee Bailey to straighten them out about it in court). Stormbirds had a h ell of a time prying the type cert for the Me-262's out of the Seattle FSDO and the Seatle FSDO chased off a couple of FSDO guys from Dallas who were up here to sign off a corporate Boeing BBj a few years ago, and didn't NozeeDave have issues getting an ex-Israeli C-47 past the Seattle Office? So leaviing it up to the local offices discretion may not be such a great idea if that ofice couldn't find 'discretion' in the dictionary let alone figure out it's meaning.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

A few points, voting isn't going to help much. The Feds have been getting too big and too out of control since the late 1950s. Keep in mind that ANYONE elected to office considers reelection their #1 prority. Once in, its about impossible to get them out. The President (Dem or Rep) really has no clue about the inner workings of govt agencies and if he did the FAA would be way down on the list.

The Director of the Agency is the key to anything (appointed by the PRES) and sorry, hate to tell you guys that a group of millionaire jet warbird owners doesn't even rate on the scale of getting considered. Take into consideration that a REAL lobbying force is the NRA, they have 3MILLION members (1% of the country).... There are what? 200 jet warbird owners.... This is a game like real estate in Jackson WY, where the billionaires have thrown the millionaires out of town. So the INDUSTRY (Airlines, Acft MFG (Boeing, GD, etc), maybe airline pilots but I doubt it) has all the pull. Trust me they don't want jet warbirds in the sky. If it was up to the trucking industry (and I'm sure they have tried), you wouldn't have cars on the interstates. Up to the airline industry, those G-IVs would be taking off from cow pastures.....

An adminstrative function is the delegation of authority. IN THEORY, all FSDOs are the same and all people working there are equally qualified and should interpert the rules the same way. Its far from that. If our local FSDO was in Southern CA, there would be FEW if any warbirds and all the shops that work on them would have moved. So all are not created equal.... But still you are not going to see centralized control.

One caution on the central control thought is WHAT if you get centralized control and they decide to do away with jets? At least with local control, you can move the airplane to a more friendly area.....

Joe raised a point of "It also precludes building an aircraft from parts that looks like an A-4 but really has no serial number", Its a VERY small step from there to ending the Data Plate rebuilds of aircraft. But if you take that a step further, maybe they'll be looking at prior Data Plate rebuilds already flying and pulling the airworthiness certificates on them.

Its a mess, a much bigger mess than you can possibly imagine.

Mark H

Local discretion is one of the problems

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

'Building airplanes from parts but has no serial number' is a true fact. There are more BELL model 47's flying than were ever built thanks to buying wrecks/junk and 'moving' the s/n to a new airframe that could be from several sources, and I got that from a retired FAA Inspector I know.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Bell 47.... Being I have one in the hangar and used be on the board of the 47 Assn..... You are pretty much right....

Actually there are a LOT fewer 47s flying than were built (around 1000 now). BUT there are some flying that used to be military that had their paperwork changed over the years. It was hard to do back in the early 1970s when the Army got rid of them, but as time went on, there were quite a few that found a data plate and logs.

Bell is one company that is pretty serious about seeing anything they built that was DESTORYED in an accident stay that way. They have a list of serials that as far as they are concerned are gone....

Times have changed some since the Type Cert for the 47 got sold off. But still, I'd use caution before I got in one.....

Mark H

_________________
Fly safe or you get to meet me .......

Yeah, no. Were you aware the tax rate today is lower than it was in the 1950s?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

Tax rates in a discussion of FAA policy gets us where?

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Some have c/n's from rebuild shops (Texas, World, etc) ...I'd assume they're legal. At least someone in the FAA okayed them at some time.
I've always assumed they were made from spare/surplus parts. Remember, a helicopter (especially a Bell 47) is not like an airplane, it is an assemblige of parts, no "real" airframe in the airplane sense.
The dynamic components go away at overhaul time, the tailboom can be a legit replacemet part. Does the cabin ID establish the airframe?
Not in my humble opinion. There is not much to it....and some were replaced by shops for single seat AG work (albeit for restriced AG work).
And remember, Bell sub contracted ooouit many of the dynamic components. I've toured the shop that makes the 47 rotor heads, it's not owned by Bell. So they (and we) have to trust the PMA system is working. Again, it's not like Boeing assembling the hull of a jetiner.


I'm not sure why an assembled one would be any less safe than one with a Bell c/n as long as it was made with the correct parts.
The one I used to fly (see photo at left..last known location was in Ft. Worth in unairworthy status) had been wrecked twice since going on the civil register. And when surplused from the Army it was converted from a D-1 (A H-13E) to a civil G. That meant a new or modifed cabin, fuel tanks, a stabilizer...
Did I expect that to have any of the parts that went down the Bell assembly line in 1951?
No.

Same goes for most General Aviation antiques out there. A lot of home made (home restored?) components are used.
Or any of you have a Beech/Cessna/Piper with a replacement wing fitted after a hailstorm or careless fulel truck driver. Do you feel it's unsafe?

The Bell 47 situation is no worse, and probably better, than many/most of the Mustangs and Spitfires out there.
Look at some of the airworthy warbirds.
Do they really expect us to belive it is the same plane that was buried in beach sand from 1945 to 1995?
We all know it's new metal with an old data plate.

So who would you trust...some warbird shop essentially building a new airframe, or a Bell 47 assembled from surplus or PMA's parts?

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Is this happening to the jets, then the Mustangs, then the Trojans then the L birds?