The FAA is targeting warbird operations... again...info?

Airlift48 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:01 pm **Posts:** 744

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=02c3450e-6e49-4be8-8e95-c2624fdab2bb

Anyone have an actual copy of this memo? Does it include Piston Engined aircraft, too?

All the articles I have found have excerpted the memo. I'd like to see the actual wording.

KK

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 9:45 pm

AOPA had an article by Barry Schiff about how he used to do some real flying around controlled airspace without any problems. The same flying today would have his license gone. I'm getting tired of them curtailing our freedoms in order to keep us safe.

RickH · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 11:00 pm

Kevin, more info in this thread.

Quote:

Your Chance To Make A Difference

Also a link to the Federal Register where you can leave a comment.

It applies to ALL experimentally registered aircraft. Especially those flying ride flights on an exemption letter.

http://www.regulations.gov Docket No. FAA-2012-0374

Having just read the link you posted, that's part II. The memorandum is pretty much as it was written. This is the same basic memo that we have been suffering with since May, 1 year ago, the change is the reduction in gross weight before this applies. It is ONLY applies to former military jets .

Paul Draper · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:17 pm **Posts:** 125

This poorly written memo does not apply to reciprocating engine powered aircraft, even though it sounds like it does. This was verified with the originator, Mr Allen, by the EAA. A corrected memo is due out shortly.

Even though this memo is only directed at turbine powered experimental aircraft still does not make it OK. This memo affects more than just warbird certification it affects turbine powered aircraft that are operating under experimental for testing and other purposes. It also allows the certificating office to circumvent the Operating Limitations matrix found in Order 8130.2g and add more operating limitations as they see fit. The matrix in 8130.2g was supposed to make it easier to obtain an experimental certificate and ensure that across the country that everybody was operating with the same limitations. Not that I every agreed with the limitations found in the matrix or 8130.2g for that matter.

The FAA blindsighted all the organizations with the final release of this memo.

Ken · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 7:07 am

The first poster's link has this language:

"A sophisticated and high-performance former military aircraft includes those weighing more than 9,000 lbs. Maximum Take-Off Weight, or turbine powered (more than 3,000 lbs. total engine thrust of all engines, or 1,000 shaft horse-power of one engine) or originally equipped with an ejection seat system."

The use of the word "or" instead of "and" would leave me to believe that any one of these criteria would snag an airplane, recip or not. Interesting that it has to be military. Is a former Lockheed Electra okay, but a P-3 is not?

Paul Draper · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:17 pm **Posts:** 125

Ken,

I realize how the memo reads, it was poorly written and does not include recip aircraft. I was on the phone last night with the President of EAA Warbirds (I'm a Director) discussing this memo, which is where I got my information from.

Any DAR's working on issuing an airworthiness cert on an experimental recip powered aircraft over 9,000 lbs or 1,000 HP needs to have their local office contact AIR-200 for clarification. They will verify that it does not apply to recip powered aircraft.

Again, this memo does not apply to reciprocating engine powered aircraft, and a corrected memo will be out shortly. There is however, more at stake here as to why the FAA is taking aim at turbine powered experimental aircraft, and this is an on going discussion.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 8:21 am

Rick is this the thing I saw a while back and mentioned to you? If this is I can tell you it may not be in the memo, but they named planes to go after. Including B-17, B-24, F-4, A-4, ME262, and others. First thing is first. We have to let the FAA know what a B-17 is. This whole thing makes me sick.

Airlift48 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:01 pm **Posts:** 744

Thanks for the replies, guys. Still, I am anxious to see the actual memo, though.. Like was mentioned, the language is what's important to me right now, as we are going Experimental with the 97 and have a DAR to hel us out. If the designee is no longer authorized, that will complicate things.

Why the perpetual onslaught of regulations and infringements? I have my own ideas, but won't voice them here. All I know is that we lost our last opportunity to fly the 54 into Tempelhof because of the LODA issue a few years ago, which was resolved by the FAA simply rescinding the original change...(We spend all the planning time trying to deal with the LODA issue so we could fly period, nevermind going overseas...)

Also, there are TWO issues going on here, both bad for warbirds.

1, Airworthiness Certification for Experimental Aircraft.
2. Reevaluation of the Living History Program.

Thanks for your replies.

Paul Draper · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:17 pm **Posts:** 125

Kevin,

I can send you the memo, but the way it reads it looks like it applies to piston and turbine powered aircraft. It does not. EAA and EAA Warbirds have had this discussion with AIR-200 already, AIR-200 will be sending out a corrected memo shortly.

If you are working on the experimental cert right now, have your DAR contact his FAA advisor and ask them to contact AIR-200 for clarification. They will verify that it does not apply to recip engined aircraft, and your DAR can proceed with the cert.

And yes, the LHFE program got mixed up in this thread, which is a whole other mess. At this time there is no resolution in sight for that.

Airlift48 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:01 pm **Posts:** 744

Paul,

I hope you are right about that, We've already contacted our DAR.

An old friend with connections was kind enough to send me a copy of the original memo. It does apply to pistons as written.

It reads:

"This memorandum restricts the issuance of experimental airworthiness certificated (includind amendments) for sophisticated and high-performance former military aircraft (including replica turbine powered aircraft and aircraft that, at one time in their past, previously had a standard airworthiness certificate). A sophisticated and high-performance former military aircraft includes those weighing more than 9,000 lbs Maximum Take Off Weight, or turbine powered (more than 3,000 lbs total engine thrust of all engines, or 1,000 shaft horse-power of one engine) or originally equipped with an ejection seat system. The airworthiness certificated for this type of aircraft would be experimental under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.191. This activity will not be delegated to designees "

Now our C-97 clearly weighs more than 9,000lbs. Our engines produce much more than 1,000 HP, although that seems to be pertaining to an individual Turbine engine as written.

I was also told in no uncertain terms that there is a "war on warbirds" being protracted by some folks in the FAA.

This issue and the "Living History Flight Experience" issue seem to me to be aimed at the fast jet warbird operators.
But it will affect us all.

There are FAA friendlies trying to curtail this "war", but the more crashes that occur are making it harder and harder to defend. So... Keep it safe out there folks, we all depend on it.

Warbird Information Exchange

The FAA is targeting warbird operations... again...info?

Who is online