Warbird Operators in danger again!

[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.

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.....).

Thanks for your support.

In some ways I thing my post is what they are looking for.........


That's why my degrees are in Chemistry and Medicine

[Ken]

A hungry man wants food. A man with food wants hot food. A man with hot food wants steak. A man with steak complains that it isn't cooked to his liking.

This deal with the FAA is symptomatic of the general down spiral of culture. Despite all we should worry about (insert your opinion here: economy, debt, world affairs, etc) our society at large doesn't wonder about where their next meal will come from or if they will have a roof over their head - for most, these things are taken care of. As a result, some feel like they have the free time to worry about every other detail - like "is your Grandfather going to hop in the right seat of a B-17 under the watchful eye of a fully qualified left seater"? If the majority of us were scrounging for food, you can bet this would be a low or "non" priority.

Mudge, kmiles is right. Aerobatics boils down to anything other than a vanilla sightseeing flight in the FARs. An abrupt pull-up or a snappy roll to 31 degrees of bank could easily be seen as verboten per the reg. As far as "manipulate" the controls, that means a person can't sit in the seat and touch the stick/yoke, period. Now let's say you owned a T-6 and had the insurance and pilot credentials required to give flying lessons. Unless I'm missing a subtle nuance, one could go out privately and offer training to a prospective pilot (or at least a free ride to anyone) and allow them to fly and maneuver, but under the umbrella of this program, it'd be verboten.

When a guy gets so spoiled by steak that it's more important to have it cooked just so versus being thankful that he has steak, he tends to worry about these things ...

Ken

[Ken]

Okay, in an attempt to be productive, I took a moment and submitted a comment via their website.

"This document touches on a wide range of the FAA's concerns, and while I commend its thorough nature, the LHFE subject addresses so many variables as to be difficult to define in the manner set forth by the FAA. Given the variety of operators, aircraft types, performance, and flight profiles, I do not believe that any rule can succinctly cover LHFE and ensure common sense prevails.

My position: I support LHFE exemptions to be granted on a case by case basis. I believe the existing FARs for weather, aerobatics, and observing Flight Manual limitations should be maintained - just as they would be if these flights were not for hire. Allowing passengers access to flight controls under direct supervision of an instructor pilot is reasonable. An exemption for formation, as managed by known organizations such as FAST, should be included. Just as with Experimental Amateur-built aircraft, an initial DAR inspection could be required, a placard displayed for passenger awareness, and then the aircraft released for flight in accordance with its Operating Limitations. Reasonable oversight of these for-hire programs would be expected by the FAA, but there should be no presumption that approved groups and certificated airmen would not operate to their certificate standards/limitations.

In summary, the public desires these flights and there have been, and still are, groups willing to safely provide them. Whether the motivation lies with historical preservation or pure marketing, given our nation's ideals regarding free market and freedom of choice, I see no need to curtail or prohibit these operations. The FAA should Inspect, Approve, and Monitor, but there is no reason to generate an additional layer of restrictions in an attempt to define myriad options when a case-approval method would be more efficient and appropriate within the framework of existing FARs."

If you would like to comment, the web link is:

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... ducted-for

Ken

[Mudge]

On the one hand, I agree that there must be oversight, for public rides, by a governing body.
On the other hand, we've all seen the speed at which all government agencies work. If the solution is to their benefit, they jump on it with both feet. (Sometimes, without thinking the problem through.) When they couldn't care less about the problem, they grind to a halt to "investigate further".
A case by case solution might be self defeating. By the time the agency gets around to a decision, the opportunity for flight sales might be over.
IMHO, Therein lies the problem.

Mudge the logical

[Ken]

Point taken, Mudge, but realize that every airline, Part 141 flight school, and commercial operator already deals with the FAA essentially on a case basis. The airline submits its own training program, operating specifications, and all other details for FAA approval. (That said, the programs often look alike between companies; there is a lot of copy and paste.)

There should be no reason that a group, particularly one with a track record such as Collings, can't submit their program for approval - this would consist of ride profiles, approved aircraft, unique limitations, etc. Some of them may be 1-liners like: "Passenger Briefing - per FAR XX.XX". In fact, if you read Rob Collings' submission on the Federal comment website, he, in short, already does this in his rebuttal of the proposed rule change. I'm not privy to the info they have already submitted for the LHFE exemption but much of the grunt work may already be done.

Bottom line, the FAA wants something to come out of this because they probably won't accept "no change" as an answer. With that in mind, let's hope, whatever outcome is decided upon, the result is one that causes the fewest steps backward.

Ken

[Kyleb]

The FAA has solved the big problems. Airliners don't fall out of the sky. Neither do freighters or charters.

In private industry, someone would declare "Problem solved, game over, slash the funding for improving safety."

But the FAA is a bureaucracy with people running it who'd like to keep their jobs. I understand that. Unfortunately, since they have (arguably) done a good job in eliminating accidents in commercial aviation, they need to find new problems to work on to justify maintaining the bureaucracy. So now they are looking up the skirts of the warbird and homebuilt communities.

[The Inspector]

And, I just found out that the new guy @ the FAA in charge of experimental aircraft is getting ready to issue a directive that pretty much specifically will take the Me-262's out of the air, if it were written any more tightly they would have to say 'replica twin turbine powered aircraft painted brown and green over light blue' instead of just reffering to twin turbine powered replica aircraft with over 3000Lb/Thrust- chew on that

[Mudge]

Having worked with the folks on Capitol Hill for 6 years, (back in the 60s-70s), I am totally aware of the fact that they have the mindset that they must be constantly be doing something, (even if it's idiotic), to justify their own existence. Much of the time it's of the idiotic persuasion.

Mudge the observant

ps. list the thrust at 2975 in the specs.

[Robbie Roberts]

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.
. I am that disgusted with the way we were treated by the FAA.

Probably the same jackwagons who tried to ground Bob Hoover many years back.
Scott