Warbird Operators in danger again!

[jack973]

Warbird Operators in danger again!
FAA Moratorium on Living History Flight Exemptions (LHFE)
Recent actions of the FAA in Washington is increasingly
hostile to historic warbird operators across the United States.
This Memorial Day we are reminded of all of the sacrifices made by our nations veterans. But the FAA wants to take away our Veteran's ability and yours to fly in their historic aircraft.
We need your support and help!

When the FAA says they would like to "re-evaluate" the Living History Flight Exemption (LHFE) - it is easy to guess what that means. It means the FAA is looking for ways to greatly restrict or all together stop issuing LHFE exemptions. Collings Foundation and the entire warbird community need your help to protect our freedom to offer flights in these aircraft. Without this exemption from the FAA we cannot offer rides to the public. The Wings of Freedom tour and flying of most historic aircraft will end without public support.

One would assume that something as drastic as a moratorium would have been precipitated by a major problem, like the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but it was not. In fact all of the LHFE operations that have ever taken place have a perfect safety record, there has not been one accident, fatality or serious injury that has taken place during an LHFE flight.

The FAA Moratorium (FAA-2011-0286) that was established on March 23, 2011 has had a profound negative impact on not only the LHFE operators, but also on the veterans, their families and the public have all been deprived of experiencing historic aircraft. This Memorial Day reminds us of all of our nations heroes that have left us. The Veterans Administration estimates 1,000 WWII Veterans pass away each day. The Vietnam Veterans Association states that an average of 390 Veterans that served in Vietnam pass away each day. This totals 10,758 Veterans each week that pass on, so our time is limited to personally honor these brave men. From the start of the Moratorium until the proposed open meeting we will have lost 645,000 veterans, many of them missing the chance see or fly on “their” airplane. Time is running out for Vietnam Veterans, as only 850,000 of the 2.7 Million that served “in country” are still alive!

Currently, aircraft that have a LHFE exemption are also at risk as there is no guarantee from the FAA that these letters will be renewed (especially considering recent actions taken by the FAA). The FAA has proposed a rule change involving the LHFE. The issues that the FAA have brought forward are virtually the same issues that has already been addressed at a conference in Oshkosh ten years ago at a meeting chaired by Director of Flight Standards, John Allen.

Some of the information in the FAA's notice is erroneous and meant to mislead the public (in a negative way). The current staff at the FAA chooses to ignore the existing policy and is using this opportunity to rewrite the regulations. (To see article written by Aero News regarding this issue click here).

Examples of the FAA and DoD hostility include the LHFE exemption program moratorium, the recent change of how the airworthiness certificates for former military jet aircraft are issued and the attempt to modify the Title 10 Section 2571 to prohibit any transfer of Government aircraft or parts for any purpose other than static display (see April's eNewsletter regarding Congressman Michael Turner). We are certain that changes in the LHFE program are just another way to limit warbird operation.

The FAA is hosting a public meeting to discuss LHFE in Washington DC, June 26th thru June 28th. The FAA is looking for input from the public. If you would like to see historic aircraft continue to fly in honor of our Veterans and be able to experience flying in these aircraft your support is needed. Tell the FAA and your local representative to leave the existing LHFE alone. This policy should be expanded, not contracted. It is important to present a cohesive front to the FAA before the rules become more draconian.

Talking Points (for FAA letters):

1) Leave the current LHFE policy alone.

2) Allow operators to offer aerobatic flight.

3) Allow operators to let the passenger manipulate the flight controls.

4) Allow "replica" aircraft like the Me-262 to receive an LHFE exemption.

5) Remove the unnecessary provision that forces us to have arrestor gear for the
F-4 and TA-4

6) End the unnecessary moratorium immediately and process the Collings Foundation's requests as expeditiously as possible.

[mustangdriver]

There is alot going on there

[Mudge]

Let me play "Devil's advocate" for a moment. You say these historic aircraft are flown to honor our veterans. OK, 'splain to me just how "allowing the passenger to manipulate the controls" is honoring our vets? How is "offering aerobatic flight" honoring our vets? I don't mean to start a big HOO-HA on this. Just askin'. If there are valid reasons, I'd just like to know what they are. If I was sitting on the panel that's hearing these reasons, I'd ask those questions.

Mudge the curious

[k5083]

Just a tip on dealing with the government.

Accusing them of having improper motives, such as depriving vets of experiences, intentionally misleading the public, and not pursuing their mandate in good faith, weakens your credibility with both the agency and sensible readers. Several times in this post you use "we" and "our" in a way that implies you are speaking on behalf of the Collings Foundation, thus weakening its credibility as well. I understand your frustration, but in the time it takes to prepare a posting of this length, you can consider the impact of your remarks more carefully.

August

[jack973]

k5083

i just made a copy-paste from an email i received from colling foundation. if they post it publically is because they have some concern.

they are not my words, i just passed the news i received to the rest of the people.

[k5083]

Thanks for the clarification. That gets you off the hook, but the foundation should really know better.

August

[RickH]

Mudge, August, if I may, the above post is an excerpt fom the Collings Foundation E newsletter. As such it was intended to motivate the thousands of Foundation members and supporters about this meeting and their ability to comment directly to the FAA. It was written from the Foundation's perspective, dealing with the Foundation's specific assets. The Foundation is heavily involved with other organizations across the Warbird Community in a broader effort to address the LFHE issue.

Mudge, the Foundation's base goal is to keep these aircraft flying to honor the veterans. You're right, manipulation of controls and aerobatics doesn't do anything extra to honor the vets, however, being able to do those things does enhance the experience flight. We've had several WWII Mustang pilots who have flown on the 51 who were able to get back in the swing of things and they were doing loops and rolls like they'd never left. Same thing with Viet Nam era Skyhawk and Phantom pilots. We were able to do thos things with pilots who qualified for the training flights. Guys who may not have kept up with their licenses or who have lost their medicals were not so fortunate. Sure , they were flying in the aircraft but we could have offered those guys so much more. It would be better if they gave the fighters some more leeway and not treat everything as if it were a B-17.

[mustangdriver]

I have nothing but respect for you Rick, but had to give you this!

Attachments

kool1.jpg (30.87 KiB) Viewed 1665 times

[Kyleb]

My question would be:

"Who is driving this type of regulation?" There has to be someone (or probably a few individuals) in powerful places who have a bug up their collective bum's and are driving the whole thing. Efforts like this (the continual promotion of reg's restricting warbirds) don't happen by themselves.

Find who is behind it, understand their rationale, and try to convince them that their efforts are misguided.

[mustangdriver]

Tha FAA simply has turned it's magnifying glass on warbirds. A few years ago it was medical helicopters. This is the time for any one operating a warbird to act as proffesional as possible. Probably not a great idea to put out a publication with this type of language.

[Mudge]

Rick...I fully understand the "argument" of allowing SOME passengers to manipulate the controls. The way the article is written doesn't specifically state that only certain (ie. qualified) passengers would be allowed to do this. It just says "passengers". That's kinda' generic to me. And as far as the statement regarding "aerobatics", I visualize aerobatics as something other than normal combat maneuvers. The loops and rolls you refer to are normal combat maneuvers which pose minimal threat to the safety of the passenger. Aerobatics, to me is; hammerhead stalls, multiple aileron rolls and other high stress maneuvers.

Mudge the clarificationistical

[kmiles]

According to the FAA (FAR §91.303), aerobatic flight is defined as “an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.”

As you can see the FAA definition of aerobatic flight is a little on gray side. That leaves the enforcement to the individual FAA representative. Do you really want to spend thousands of dollars and many hours defending every maneuver that you do? By this definition something as mundane as a missing man formation pullout could be considered aerobatic. By leaving language like that in the Living History Flight Exemptions, operators may have to spend considerable time defending actions that a particular FAA inspector considers to be aerobatic.

[jack973]

people

here is the link to the topic just to make you sure that i did not type the first post, it was the foundation.

http://collingsfoundation.org/enews/ene ... May.12.htm

[oscardeuce]

We were the first to fluy the UH-1 under the exemption. We spent hours on all the issues, pilot crew training, maintenance etc. We had 4 years without an issue. When AD's came out for the tail boom and main mast the FAA sent us a letter to stop the flights which we did. With the repairs in excess of $35,000 per aircraft, we requested the FAA put in writing they would re approve our exemption if we complied with the AD's and any other issues that they defined. Guess what, they would not put it in writing. We were a small museum and that was our major source of income to keep the aircraft flying. Without the exemption we could not keep them in the air. With the FAA being unwilling to put it in writing we let the Hueys sit, and we sold them a few years ago. I am sick of being treated this way. Even when you do what they say in the way they want it you are still at their mercy. Not about safety, it is about power. Somebody gets off pulling the rug out from the people who pay their salary. I am not against the AD or safe flying and maintenance. I am against some person in an office controlling my life and not helping when I am trying to do the right thing.


Flying is not what it was in 1986 when I started my pilot training. I will most likely sell my O2-A while it is still worth something.

I doubt I will ever take to the air again. I am that disgusted with the way we were treated by the FAA.

[RandolphB]

We were the first to fluy the UH-1 under the exemption. We spent hours on all the issues, pilot crew training, maintenance etc. We had 4 years without an issue. When AD's came out for the tail boom and main mast the FAA sent us a letter to stop the flights which we did. With the repairs in excess of $35,000 per aircraft, we requested the FAA put in writing they would re approve our exemption if we complied with the AD's and any other issues that they defined. Guess what, they would not put it in writing. We were a small museum and that was our major source of income to keep the aircraft flying. Without the exemption we could not keep them in the air. With the FAA being unwilling to put it in writing we let the Hueys sit, and we sold them a few years ago. I am sick of being treated this way. Even when you do what they say in the way they want it you are still at their mercy. Not about safety, it is about power. Somebody gets off pulling the rug out from the people who pay their salary. I am not against the AD or safe flying and maintenance. I am against some person in an office controlling my life and not helping when I am trying to do the right thing.


Flying is not what it was in 1986 when I started my pilot training. I will most likely sell my O2-A while it is still worth something.

I doubt I will ever take to the air again. I am that disgusted with the way we were treated by the FAA.

This message alone should be forwarded to the head of the FAA. When people with a passion for flight get so disgusted they would rather leave the activity, it speaks louder than much else.

I see this same sort of issue in pretty much every world I live in. I put it ALL down to Too Many College Grads. In the past, to rise to a position of power in most any organization, you had to start at the bottom and work your way up....learning everything along the way. Today, you get mommy and daddy to rent a condo for a few years, get you a credit card so you can "Party" during that time and at the end you have a peice of paper that says you know more than others and deserve a position. Then, others with papers like you hire you....where you get to screw up the real world for those who have lived and built it. (Certainly there are degrees in advanced areas such as Engineering that do provide a skill...but if I had a dime for every "Business Admin" degree I've choked working under.....).