End of warbird flights?

[Tupac]

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011-6712.pdf

"We're not happy until you're not happy"

[Saxman]

Doesn't seem to be saying that at all. From what I read, it appears that they're putting a hold on new exception requests pending a review and development of procedures for the handling of more contemporary jet aircraft. Existing exception permits are not being revoked, and furthermore, expiring exemptions may be submitted for renewal per the existing processes.

[oakranger]

Doesn't seem to be saying that at all. From what I read, it appears that they're putting a hold on new exception requests pending a review and development of procedures for the handling of more contemporary jet aircraft. Existing exception permits are not being revoked, and furthermore, expiring exemptions may be submitted for renewal per the existing processes.

^^^^^What he said^^^^^^

[flight17]

Doesn't seem to be saying that at all. From what I read, it appears that they're putting a hold on new exception requests pending a review and development of procedures for the handling of more contemporary jet aircraft. Existing exception permits are not being revoked, and furthermore, expiring exemptions may be submitted for renewal per the existing processes.

read the last few paragraphs on what they are adding to the extention permits.

paying passengers cant touch controls and no aerobatics...

that means all the places where you can go and fly the planes hands on and even do aerobatics can no longer do that. I wonder if Warbird Adventures will be affected by this. I flew T-6's with them multiple times and did aerobatics in them as well...

[Saxman]

read the last few paragraphs on what they are adding to the extention permits.

paying passengers cant touch controls and no aerobatics...

that means all the places where you can go and fly the planes hands on and even do aerobatics can no longer do that. I wonder if Warbird Adventures will be affected by this. I flew T-6's with them multiple times and did aerobatics in them as well...

Funny, I'm not aware of any B-17 flights that let passengers take the yoke to begin with....

[Tupac]

Funny, I'm not aware of any B-17 flights that let passengers take the yoke to begin with....

This is aimed at Single-engine warbirds. P51 rides are going to be really boring when you can't touch the stick.

[MachFly]

I did not read that two page file, but what if you want to take a lesson in it? You can't do that without touching the stick.

[Golfer]

I don't believe this will have an effect on any of the places that provide training in warbirds. It's more identifying a type of operation which is like what the Collings Foundation and others do. In fact I imagine the Collings Foundation is the reason for this since they're flying F4, A4 and an F100 these days. It's not a bad thing and actually seems proactive rather than waiting for someone to ball up a bomber full of kids and families with the resulting backlash and outcry.

I believe all of the Warbirds Adventures and Stallion 51 pilots are CFIs anyway (the ones I know are) since they actually provide instruction rather than just rides for donations. This still isn't requiring these operators to operate part 135 which is a good thing for them especially from a cost standpoint.

[Saxman]

This is aimed at Single-engine warbirds. P51 rides are going to be really boring when you can't touch the stick.

I would say that the vast majority of licensed pilots probably SHOULDN'T be touching the stick (unlicensed passengers are right-out). Every aircraft has its quirks, but these aren't ultralights and Cessnas we're talking about. I'm not a pilot myself, but the way I see it is similar to the difference between being able to drive a car and riding a motorcycle. Just because I know how to drive a car, doesn't mean I'm qualified to take a Harley out for a spin (or perhaps more appropriately, a street-legal daily driver vs. a high-performance NASCAR machine).

One definitive solution would be to drop the exceptions for warbirds in the existing regulations outright, and develop new licensing and regulations specifically FOR them (which if I'm reading that document right, is precisely what they'll be doing).

I did not read that two page file, but what if you want to take a lesson in it? You can't do that without touching the stick.

As I said, if they're working on rolling out licensing and regulations specifically covering warbirds I'm sure this will be covered.

It's clear from the document the FAA DOES recognize the importance of maintaining these historical machines and keeping them flying, they're just trying to determine the best way to cover the legalities of doing so.

[Tupac]

I don't see what the big deal about taking the stick in a P51 is.

I recall HiTech saying that the P52 he got a ride in was a very easy airplane to fly.

[Tupac]

Golfer, you are right. I recall the USAF and the Collins foundation not seeing eye to eye on the issue of engines for the phantom

[flight17]

I don't believe this will have an effect on any of the places that provide training in warbirds. It's more identifying a type of operation which is like what the Collings Foundation and others do. In fact I imagine the Collings Foundation is the reason for this since they're flying F4, A4 and an F100 these days. It's not a bad thing and actually seems proactive rather than waiting for someone to ball up a bomber full of kids and families with the resulting backlash and outcry.

I believe all of the Warbirds Adventures and Stallion 51 pilots are CFIs anyway (the ones I know are) since they actually provide instruction rather than just rides for donations. This still isn't requiring these operators to operate part 135 which is a good thing for them especially from a cost standpoint.

i thought Warbird adventures was a certified training facility but i wasnt sure... Now that i think about it, it does say on their site that they can profide flight training...

[Golfer]

A certified training facility?   

Certified by who?  All you need is an airplane. I could have a B-17 for flight training as long as someone wanted to rent it and a CFI giving dual in it. Think of it as a big Seminole.

You can have part 141 schools and part 142 training centers (think FlightSafety Academy for the flight training and FlightSafety International or Simuflite as a simulator training provider) which do require approval. Flying and training under part 61 just needs a fresh annual or 100 hour as needed and a CFI.

When I was actively instructing I would rent a Piper Apache in 100 hour blocks as a named insured on the airplane. I'd then fly off the block with students which covered the airplane at the rate I paid and then paid me for my services. I didn't have so much as an office but still had students and sent them off for checkrides. I could do the same in a T-6 if I bought one.

That's a totally different thing from taking donations for experience rides. Basically they're flying as an air carrier without having to adhere to the same restrictions which are training, recordkeeping and maintenance. It would add great expense and hassle and this seems to be a reasonable compromise at face value.

[Angus]

Certified training facility? It's the sky, right?
 

[colmbo]

That's a totally different thing from taking donations for experience rides. Basically they're flying as an air carrier without having to adhere to the same restrictions which are training, recordkeeping and maintenance. It would add great expense and hassle and this seems to be a reasonable compromise at face value.

Actually the Collings Foundation operation does meet requirements for training, maintenance and recordkeeping -- but I agree not to the level a certificated carrier goes to.  Or I should say "on paper" they meet those requirements.