Warbird Information Exchange

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

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

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

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

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

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

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

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

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

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.

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

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

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.

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

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

_________________
1942 Dodge WC-51 Weapons Carrier
I am a reenactor, have been since the early 1980s, and I am an aviation enthusiast, PILOT, A&P mechanic, and military vehicle owner. I have restored cars, trucks, and antique radios. These are MY hobbies- What are YOURS?.