Some good news from EAA - WOA

Eric Friedebach · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:44 pm

From today's EAA email:

Quote:

EXPERIMENTAL EXHIBITION RECOMMENDATIONS ADVANCED AT EAA/WOA CONFERENCE

March 22, 2007 - A substantial list of recommended changes and improvements to FAA Order 8130.2F resulted from a two-day meeting hosted by EAA and the EAA Warbirds of America (WOA) this week at the EAA Air Academy Lodge in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Several FAA and industry representatives were present to provide input on updating the order, which deals with certification and operation limitations of experimental exhibition and air racing aircraft. The hope is that senior FAA officials are receptive to the suggested changes and several onerous barriers to owning and operating these types of aircraft can be removed.
Participants went through the regulations, line-by-line, with a focus on updating the language and effectively bringing it up to date from when 8130.2F was initially put in place (1993).

WOA Executive Director Bill Fischer called it "a great meeting" that yielded some potential fixes. "FAA Order 8130.2F was due for an update, and this meeting proved to be a positive first step in this improvement process. EAA's industry leadership in hosting/facilitating the joint meeting continues to show the positive impact EAA and WOA have with both the FAA and other experimental exhibition aircraft industry partners, and our members."

One of the most sought-after changes in the warbird community is to eliminate the 300- and 600-nm proficiency limitations on piston and jet warbirds, respectively. Safety experience has shown that these limitations are no longer needed, and removing them would allow pilots to become even more proficient by training in more varied flight conditions.

Another suggestion was to remove the redundant paperwork requirement when a warbird owner sells or transfers an aircraft to a new area.

"I would like to thank the staff at EAA for coordinating the meeting of key industry organizations, EAA officials, and FAA policy divisions," said FAA's Jackie Black. "Having this opportunity to discuss industry and FAA concerns and recommendations is invaluable. The meeting was very professional and I believe, without exception, each participant came away with a better understanding of the issues, and with recommendations for possible solutions."

CAF's Eric Van Hoff added, "With all our experience gained over the last 14 years, our suggestions to update the current rules and regulations just make good sense." Van Hoff especially noted that removing the geographical limitations for Phase 2 and Group 2 operations would be beneficial for CAF.

"The process has been great, and we're glad to be included," he said.

Dick Bacon, a WOA member representing CJAA, said he was pleased to be invited to join the process. "It's incredibly open and honest, and will make an enormous difference in the way people can operate these aircraft," he said.

Representing the FAA were Ray Stinchcomb, AFS-800 (General Aviation and Commercial Division); Steve Mulsow, AIR-200 (Production and Airworthiness); and Jackie Black, AFS-300 (Aircraft Maintenance).

Joining Van Hoff from the industry side were Mark Clark, EAA WOA and Courtesy Aircraft; Rick, Siegfried, EAA WOA; Ray Dieckman, EAA WOA; Dick Bacon, Classic Jet Aircraft Association (CJAA); Kay Eckardt, CJAA; Warren Wood, EAA WOA & CJAA; and Charles Largay, CJAA

EAA attendees joining Fischer were Paul Poberezny, EAA founder and chairman; Earl Lawrence, vice president of industry and regulatory affairs; Doug Macnair, vice president of government relations; and meeting facilitator Randy Hansen, director of government relations.

Ztex · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:00 pm

Quote:

One of the most sought-after changes in the warbird community is to eliminate the 300- and 600-nm proficiency limitations on piston and jet warbirds, respectively. Safety experience has shown that these limitations are no longer needed, and removing them would allow pilots to become even more proficient by training in more varied flight conditions.

Ok...I'm not an operator so I don't understand what this means. Could someone explain it to me?

Thanks

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:38 pm

basically, you could only operate in those areas without having to notify the FAA. If you wanted to go beyond that, you had to fax them a notice saying where you were going.

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:39 pm

I am not sure exactly on this I got my rating before this happened. Perhaps 10 years ago a number of inexpensive jet trainers like L-29 started to come into US. There were complaints to FAA from some of the manufacturers like Cessna that they were competiton. The FAA put a restriction on these newly registered planes that they could only operate near their home airport, perhaps a 300 mile limit. You could go farther, such as going from Califonia to Oskosh, by sending local FAA office a letter of FAX of where you were going, ie Midland for CAF or similar. Guess what the local office does with this notice when recieved? So all it was is one more step of meanigless paperwork that really did little for safety.

Ztex · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:54 am

I "get" it..

The FISDO gets to flex it's power too huh?

:roll:

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:51 pm

I was never subject to this restriction, but from what I hear nobody was ever hassled by the local feds for this. I have heard many complaints that some feds, especially in California, seem to dislike warbirds, also that local practice may not always follow national policy. In my case I have only dealt with the Denver folks, who are fine, but so busy it is hard to get them on the phone; and the Milwaukee one whom we got a ferry permit from at Osh and they were very nice. The problem with this restricton was it had no real safety function, but was something extra to worry about. Let's say I was about to set out from Aspen to Florida for Sun N Fun. I need to make sure everythng is right on the plane, I have to do a lot of planning for the trip, and especially check weather forecasts. The last thing I need is one more paperwork hassle, to find the fax no., write the letter, and send it. I guess the FAA finally realized this.

DB2 · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:16 pm

Technically, in the Experimental Exhibition category, the flights within the 300 nm limit are only for "proficiency". Flights outside of that range can only be to "exhibit" the aircraft at events (or perform maintenance), and a list of these events is supposed to be provided to the FAA each year in an annual program letter. For exceptions you have to fax the FAA.

The proficiency circle, and requirements to obey the "rules", does vary by FSDO. Some guys with foreign jets are only allowed to take-off and land at one airport for "proficiency". To me, it seems every single person has a slightly different set of rules they operate under.

I believe it was in 1993 that the FAA implemented these restrictions. A specific aircraft that was operating in the US before this date is classified "pre-moratorium" and is not subject to restrictions and, for aircraft like a CJ-6, that adds some value to the aircraft. You will often see this listed in for sale ads for foreign aircraft.

It's really a ridiculous rule. I can understand trying to limit the activities of some guy with a Mig-21. But to say that's it's OK for me to fly IFR, in a plane I built and designed in my garage, the 370 nm to my parent's house for Thanksgiving, while to say that flight is not technically legal in a Yak-18T (the Russian Bonanza, built to military/airline specs), is just stupid.

Ryan Keough · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:16 pm

When I was with the Collings Foundation, we had to send a fax of our schedule to all FSDO offices that were in the jurisdiction of where we would fly... needless to say, we had to usually send to ALL FSDOs in the end due to the amount of visits we conducted. It was very time consuming because you had to go to each FSDO site, and try and find their fax or email and the Manager of the FSDO to put attention to. Needless to say (again), just about every FSDO had a different site design and you had to DIG to find this information as the FAA did not give a master fax or email list to us to use.

In the end it drew more hassle than anything. I can remember a few situations where a "green" manager or inspector would call on us either in person at the planes or via phone and give us hard time like we were some great unwashed burden on air transportation. Then on the other end of the spectrum was the manager that called me and asked to be taken off their list as he thought we were spamming his fax-box...

I wonder if this will be eliminated from the exemption letters that a lot of the bombers fly under these days.

Mudge · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:15 pm

You aren't telling me that this is another verification of the: "What good's a little power, if you can't abuse it." rule, are you?

Mudge the cynic

T33driver · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:37 pm

The FAA reps at the recent Oshkosh meeting only have authority to give a preliminary acceptance of the recommendations. The recommendations still have to pass through FAA's upper echelons, legal dep't, and their labor union. Hopefully the new rules will be in place by this fall. A friend of mine at the meeting said the EAA folks were like a well oiled machine with one of their guys typing changes to the draft (that they'd written!) on his laptop right in the meeting. We're very fortunate to have the leadership we do at EAA as well as their expertise and horsepower in lobbying and legal/legislative issues. Way to go!

krlang · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:58 pm

Thats funny,
We were at the Bedford FSDO's IA renewal meeting the other day and the link listed to the FSDO's website was three lines long.

You would think they could link it with a few less dashes and slashes.

They are looking for input on how to streamline their stuff. :shock:

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Sat Mar 24, 2007 4:11 pm

I don't think this one is so much a case of abuse of power; like the persecution of Bob Hoover was. In order to understand the FAA, it may help to think about a talk Barry Valentine gave at NWOC a few years back. Some expeienced B-25 pilots restored a Martin B-26. They got provisional appproval to fly it. After a couple of months, someone in the FAA rescinded the approval and said they needed a checkout. Of course, there were no guys left that had B-26(not A-26) time. The most experienced pilots were the guys who had just flow it safely for months. So Catch 22. Barry said we must understand the Govt way of doing things: that is nobody gets extra pay or promotion for sticking his neck out and approving something unusual. If it goes bad you might lose pay or rank; if it all goes well you don't get promotion or extra pay. Thus when the FAA had complaints, especially of jet noise, they responded with a regulation that may look good on the surface, to a Congressman or voter. Some individual Feds may like rare or antique planes, but their career may not be measured by helping get a B-26 flying again.

Warbird Information Exchange

Some good news from EAA - WOA

Who is online