The FAA's response

[JeffDG]

See item 10. C. 3. Specifies "exercising" private privileges.


Mike

See, I told you I was probably missing something!

 

[steingar]

There is exactly the same amount of validation of whether or not a certified a/c is maintained to standards as there is for whether or not an EAB a/c is maintained to standards.

The certified has a paper trail that the EAB may lack. Please understand that I don't condone or approve of the situation, just trying to see it through the agency's eyes.

 

[CJones]

Experimental, restricted, or limited airworthiness certificates are intended for operating special aircraft and do not meet the airworthiness requirements determined appropriate for the operations described in EAA’s petition.

Well, there it is... documented by the FAA. When I am flying the RV, I am flying a 'special' aircraft, while all you 'certified' guys are just flying 'un-special' a/c.

Now the question is... is that "short bus" special, or "awesome" special?

 

[CJones]

The certified has a paper trail that the EAB may lack. Please understand that I don't condone or approve of the situation, just trying to see it through the agency's eyes.

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not trying to be argumentative with your personal stance.

My argument/statement is that the basis that the FAA uses for "ensuring" certified equipment is maintained at a "higher" standard has just as much opportunity for failure as in the EAB world. An A&P can go down to the Aviation dept at Lowes and get a pack of screws, used them on a certified a/c, and write that he used 'FAA Approved' screws, just like an EAB guy can go down to Lowes and get a pack of screws and use them. When you get down to it, there isn't any REAL oversight into how a certified a/c is maintained. All of the 'paper trail' is based on the truthfulness and competence of the person signing the paper. Just like the airworthiness of an EAB is based on the competence and truthfulness of the person performing the work. The paper itself does not guarantee it will be safer.

To quote Tommy Boy:

Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.
Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I'm listening.
Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.
Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]
Ted Nelson, Customer: [impatiently] What's your point?
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?
Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of ****. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

 

[PPC1052]

The certified has a paper trail that the EAB may lack. Please understand that I don't condone or approve of the situation, just trying to see it through the agency's eyes.

Of course, if the FAA doesn't start with the assumption that certified is safer than experimental, then there is no reason to have a certified catagory with all of the required hoops of certification, is there?

 

[EdFred]

Ron beat me to it. Besides, how much wind would you give a 200 hour Private pilot operating on an exemption?


Question I thought of; Say you take off with a 10 knot crosswind with forecasts to remain the same throughout the day. During the flight the winds kick up to over the 15 knots crosswind limitation with no other runway available at departure airport.

Do you exceed the 15 knot limitation or violate the 'landings permitted at only the departure airport' (5.f) limitation.

I know what I would do, just curious what ya'll thought.

If there's an event at say BEH, LDM, or 3GM, I'm not going to worry about it. They all have other runways, and Lake Michigan provides almost 0 mechanical turbulence. Get within a couple miles of the shore and it starts to smooth out. That's why I have a problem with the limitations. It also appears that events will never be allowed this exemption in NE, KS, or WY.

What's stupid about this exemption is that it's perfectly fine to fly a YE event with wind conditions above what's stated, but if you want to get reimbursed for fuel, suddenly it's not OK. As if somehow getting free fuel affects how the airplane handles as compared to when it's fuel that's not free.

 

[denverpilot]

No one has yet mentioned that to get reimbursed you'll need twice the number of flight hours necessary for the Commercial certificate.

You'll also have to verbally tell your passengers your rating level. While ten feet away, another Private rated pilot without enough hours who opted out of reimbursement can just load up three people's kids and never say a word.

The more I read it, the dumber it gets.

Basically it's an admission by FAA that their own standards for a private certificate and currency, doesn't produce pilots that meet the stated goal of the rating.

Either you're safe to fly passengers not-for-hire, or you're not. Nothing changes when the gas in the tank was paid for by a different credit card at a YE event.

This is even dumber than the scenario where you're flying as an incidental way to travel for an employer. No one is dumb enough to believe EAA as an "employer" would ever push pilots to do things that are unsafe to make a deadline for a business meeting or similar, nor that any volunteer pilot wouldn't be smart enough to tell them the kids can fly another day, I'm tying the airplane down. Conditions are above my abilities today.

Absolutely retarded. Yeah, I used the anti-PC word. Because its accurate. Not as a euphemism this time.

 

[Clip4]

Kind of stinks that the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association can't get a waiver for EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft to be reimbursed at the same level as non-experimental a/c for the same activities.

Not pointing finger at EAA, just the situation.

Given the wide variance in design and manufacturing quality of experimental aircraft, the FAA was prudent in rejecting the EAA's request.

 

[Captain]

No one has yet mentioned that to get reimbursed you'll need twice the number of flight hours necessary for the Commercial certificate.

You'll also have to verbally tell your passengers your rating level. While ten feet away, another Private rated pilot without enough hours who opted out of reimbursement can just load up three people's kids and never say a word.

The more I read it, the dumber it gets.

Basically it's an admission by FAA that their own standards for a private certificate and currency, doesn't produce pilots that meet the stated goal of the rating.

Either you're safe to fly passengers not-for-hire, or you're not. Nothing changes when the gas in the tank was paid for by a different credit card at a YE event.

This is even dumber than the scenario where you're flying as an incidental way to travel for an employer. No one is dumb enough to believe EAA as an "employer" would ever push pilots to do things that are unsafe to make a deadline for a business meeting or similar, nor that any volunteer pilot wouldn't be smart enough to tell them the kids can fly another day, I'm tying the airplane down. Conditions are above my abilities today.

Absolutely retarded. Yeah, I used the anti-PC word. Because its accurate. Not as a euphemism this time.

Okay, what's your fix?

Allow Private Pilots to fly whoever they can talk into getting in their plane for whatever they are willing to pay? That would disincentivize the 135 shop across the field trying to comply with all those pesky regulations.

So....what's the proper reg?

 

[Skylane81E]

Okay, what's your fix?

Allow Private Pilots to fly whoever they can talk into getting in their plane for whatever they are willing to pay? That would disincentivize the 135 shop across the field trying to comply with all those pesky regulations.

So....what's the proper reg?

Just allow 501c not for profits to reimburse the pilot for operating expenses of the flight

 

[MAKG1]

You never know -- John Travolta might want to give rides in his 707, and he holds only a PPL last I checked, albeit with a B707 type rating.

I'm just trying to imagine a B707 landing at KWVI. I do think the runway is long enough for that (barely), but trying to imagine the noise complaints as one blasts four turbojets next to a hospital makes me shudder.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I'm just trying to imagine a B707 landing at KWVI. I do think the runway is long enough for that (barely), but trying to imagine the noise complaints as one blasts four turbojets next to a hospital makes me shudder.

Runway length wouldn't be his problem, this would though:

Runway 2/20

Weight bearing capacity: Single wheel: 81.0 Double wheel: 96.0 Double tandem: 167.0

 

[denverpilot]

Okay, what's your fix?

Allow Private Pilots to fly whoever they can talk into getting in their plane for whatever they are willing to pay? That would disincentivize the 135 shop across the field trying to comply with all those pesky regulations.

So....what's the proper reg?

Dunno, but as long as no one else is paying, that exact scenario plays out every single day.

 

[Henning]

Well, there it is... documented by the FAA. When I am flying the RV, I am flying a 'special' aircraft, while all you 'certified' guys are just flying 'un-special' a/c.

Now the question is... is that "short bus" special, or "awesome" special?

If you have to ask, it means you belong on the short bus...

 

[CJones]

Given the wide variance in design and manufacturing quality of experimental aircraft, the FAA was prudent in rejecting the EAA's request.

The intention of EAA's request was not to 'increase safety at EF/YE events'. The purpose of the request was to reduce the burden imposed on volunteer pilots who fly at EF/YE events.

Even *IF* the intention of the request was to 'increase safety at EF/YE events', allowing certified a/c to be reimbursed for fuel and EAB not be reimbursed for fuel does nothing to make EF/YE events safer.

To me, there is no justification in this request for denying the reimbursement exemption to EAB pilots. Denying the exemption for EAB pilots does not increase safety at EF/YE events in any shape, form, or fashion.

 

[denverpilot]

Note FAA didn't cite a single shred of evidence that Experimental aircraft are currently experiencing higher accident rates at EAA YE events nationwide when the fuel is paid for by their pilot/owners versus Certificated aircraft. Just "fears".

That's the part that chaps my ass about their response. Bureaucrats writing rules from legal precedence and operational assumptions, not facts.

 

[Jay Honeck]

You regularly (ever?) did this in your previous aircraft?

"Keep the nose down, flying in ground effect, letting the speed build until there is no more usable runway ahead...
A firm-but-not-crazy pull..."

People fly hot rod experimentals differently than plodding old 172's and Cherokees. This does not help the accident statistics. Just like sports cars have more accidents than mini-vans.

We did the same type of departure in the Pathfinder fairly regularly. Pretty much whenever we departed Oshkosh on Rwy 27.

But with an added wing waggle "wave".

The only difference: The Pathfinder didn't have the performance of the -8. It therefore couldn't hold the upline as long before the airspeed decayed, and thus did not look very impressive from the ground. But the physics were the same -- we were converting airspeed to altitude.

Do you think that climbing steeper than Vy with appropriate airspeed is "dangerous" in some way? Methinks your idea of "hot-rodding" differs from mine.

 

[wabower]

Maybe they know how duck-quacking sounds.

Note FAA didn't cite a single shred of evidence that Experimental aircraft are currently experiencing higher accident rates at EAA YE events nationwide when the fuel is paid for by their pilot/owners versus Certificated aircraft. Just "fears".

That's the part that chaps my ass about their response. Bureaucrats writing rules from legal precedence and operational assumptions, not facts.

 

[denverpilot]

Maybe they know how duck-quacking sounds.

No in this regard, I disagree. The Experimentals are showing higher accident numbers in earlier phases of test and early flights, but the typical one at a YE event has that long under the belt.

A sign on the aircraft stating how many hours since it was built might have been more useful than a pilot with 500 hours. Is a 500 hour pilot more likely to be able to fix the broken engine only one hour after flying off the test time?? Was 250 hours higher than the Commercial based on any real accident statistics?

It's poorly documented and implemented fear-mongering. Yes there are real objective risks but FAA didn't attempt to address them objectively.

 

[wabower]

Phrases like "in the public interest" and "nose under the tent notwithstanding?

No in this regard, I disagree. The Experimentals are showing higher accident numbers in earlier phases of test and early flights, but the typical one at a YE event has that long under the belt.

A sign on the aircraft stating how many hours since it was built might have been more useful than a pilot with 500 hours. Is a 500 hour pilot more likely to be able to fix the broken engine only one hour after flying off the test time?? Was 250 hours higher than the Commercial based on any real accident statistics?

It's poorly documented and implemented fear-mongering. Yes there are real objective risks but FAA didn't attempt to address them objectively.

 

[denverpilot]

Phrases like "in the public interest" and "nose under the tent notwithstanding?

I'd say they didn't prove the public interest piece. They can't even show a better safety record between sightseeing charter (which they claimed they based their legal opinion on) and now just how many successful non-reimbursed YE flights?

"Nose under the tent" is an enforcement problem not a legal one. Well, it might make the Chief Counsel too busy trying cases to write letters, but that wouldn't exactly be a bad thing.