steingar
Taxi to Parking
Some time ago the EAA petitioned the FAA requesting an exemption from the FARs such that Young Eagle pilots could receive donated fuel free of charge for their flights. The FAA has answered.
The FAA's response
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
tmyers
En-Route
I think those are also CAP requirements for orientation flights.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Only 200 hours PIC required for OFlights in CAP. Also, no limit, so far as I can see on only landing at the takeoff airport...in fact, many encourage taking Cadets on repositioning flights to not waste the flight.
tmyers
En-Route
I was referring to 5g and 5h, that Ed mentioned. I am not in CAP but had a friend in it and knew that there were wind limitations.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
10 c ii isn't the greatest either, currently my plane does meet the requirments for comercial operation for sight seeing flights, and (unrelated) I even meet the drug test requirments.
I also don't see why a SP in an appropriate aircraft shouldn't qualify given the daytime only and weather limitations imposed.
I also don't see why a SP in an appropriate aircraft shouldn't qualify given the daytime only and weather limitations imposed.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Correct me if I'm wrong (probably), but looking at #4, it says you must "Hold" a Private, Commercial or ATP. It does not say that you must be exercising the privileges of a Private+, so if you have a CP, and a DL Medical, is that OK?
Also, you'd think that the planes that EAA flies, that the "type" rating requirement would be kinda redundant!
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Likely, as I didn't see mention of a current medical either.
What about guys with only SP certificates though? Seems to me that at 500hrs+ the average SP will be just as good as the average PP at flying in good day VMC
PW_Plack
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 377
- Location
- West Valley City, UT
- Display Name
Display name:
Paul Plack
The FAA calls YE flights "quasi-commercial," and continues its position that loggable flight hours represent "compensation," both of which I think are gross stretches of the original spirit of the regs. What's next - Do I have to claim time I volunteered to fly Young Eagles as income on my 1040? Can I at least write off an hourly pro-rated depreciation on the aircraft?
I do see merit in the FAA's assumption that the general public has no clue that the there are pilots taking kids up who have not met even the Private Pilot standard. But I would think this could be handled through a disclosure requirement.
It's important to note that the barriers in this exemption apply only to flights for which donated fuel is provided. It does not restrict Sport Pilots with Experimentals from participating in YE, only from having their fuel covered.
I do see merit in the FAA's assumption that the general public has no clue that the there are pilots taking kids up who have not met even the Private Pilot standard. But I would think this could be handled through a disclosure requirement.
It's important to note that the barriers in this exemption apply only to flights for which donated fuel is provided. It does not restrict Sport Pilots with Experimentals from participating in YE, only from having their fuel covered.
CJones
Final Approach
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.
Not pointing finger at EAA, just the situation.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I understand the FAA's point of view though. Don't like it, but can't blame them.
I like it ,looks like a giant step forward for the FAA .looks like they may be worried about GA and their jobs in the long run.GA needs more pilots and more interest in flying.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Agreed, if they allowed it for folks with nice EABs they would also be allowing every potential clap trap as well
On the other hand as the passengers aren't paying for anything who give a blank who pays for the gas?
CJones
Final Approach
What about every potential 'certified' clap trap? I still don't buy into the argument that because a 'certified' a/c is SUPPOSED to be inspected by a COMPETENT A&P every year guarantees that it is safer than EAB that is SUPPOSED to be inspected by a COMPETENT builder or inspector every year.
To me, this press release says that the FAA doesn't stand behind their own EAB certification process.
Skylane81E
Final Approach
Well a certificated plane is "supposed" to be safer.
Ain't always the case however due to crap maintenance.
I think we are on the same page, just remember why the FAA made that call, that word in quotes above:wink2:
steingar
Taxi to Parking
The experimental fleet has an accident rate 6X higher than the certified fleet. Moreover, there is really no way for the FAA to certify that the Ex/Ab aircraft is maintained to an airworthy standard. Agreed, certified aircraft may be similarly deficit, but there is at least a process to ensure this isn't so.
Again, I don't like it one bit, but I do understand the FAA's point of view. I personally think this is a substantial victory for the EAA.
denverpilot
Tied Down
What's the breakdown (pun intended) of whether it was pilot error or mechanical failure? Are test flights and flying off the initial hours removed from that statistic?
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Ron Wattanja has done some substantial analysis on the subject. What I got from a talk by the EAA's former president Ron Hightower were hotspots including first flights, anything glass, and Sport Pilot.
EppyGA
Touchdown! Greaser!
Doesn't help me for another 200 hours. Good thing our Chapter is 501(c)3.
denverpilot
Tied Down
After reading the doc, looks like CYA and making sure the aviation pecking order remains intact.
Didn't see a single statement of fact that EAA/YE pilots with less than 500 hours were ACTUALLY experiencing a higher accident rate or anything of substance in FAA's reply other than "We think the rules we made for sightseeing flights are better than not using them, but we didn't actually attempt to prove it or do our homework in this reply... Trust us. We're the FAA."
Now I don't doubt that MAYBE they're right. But they didn't show their work, or cite any previous works, which in any college in America gets no better than a C- if the prof is feeling generous that day.
Just a badly written thesis statement referencing nothing to justify the position other than existing rules, and no work shown. I'm going with D. Barely passing and certainly not worth paying for as a taxpayer. Call me a tough grader, but FAIL.
Didn't see a single statement of fact that EAA/YE pilots with less than 500 hours were ACTUALLY experiencing a higher accident rate or anything of substance in FAA's reply other than "We think the rules we made for sightseeing flights are better than not using them, but we didn't actually attempt to prove it or do our homework in this reply... Trust us. We're the FAA."
Now I don't doubt that MAYBE they're right. But they didn't show their work, or cite any previous works, which in any college in America gets no better than a C- if the prof is feeling generous that day.
Just a badly written thesis statement referencing nothing to justify the position other than existing rules, and no work shown. I'm going with D. Barely passing and certainly not worth paying for as a taxpayer. Call me a tough grader, but FAIL.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,143
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
First few hours are real bad.
People assume that it is OK to do things in E-AB that that they wouldn't do in a certificated aircraft. Example: Jay Honek does the wind it up and zoom in his RV but (apparently) didn't do exactly the same thing in the previous airplane even though you would get pretty much the same results. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62578
Fuel / electrical systems are frequently not well done.
Home brew and two stroke engine packages are statistically problematic.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
What an absurd statement!
This is so full of factual and judgmental errors, I don't even know where to start. Suffice it to say your ignorance is breathtaking.
MikeELP
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,645
- Location
- El Paso, TX; Santa Teresa, NM
- Display Name
Display name:
Mike Bruening
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
With winds over 20 knots, I'm probably not taking those folks up anyway because I hate it when people puke in my plane. See "mechanical turbulence" in your favorite aviation weather book.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
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.
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,143
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
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.
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Oops. Got me. Nobody does this in an airplane without a medical due to 61.23 which requires a medical for the exercise of Private Pilot privileges in anything but a balloon or glider.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
How many times per day do you feel compelled to invoke this defense for some nonsensical BS you have posted? It seems like at least a half-dozen, but I don't read all the threads.
You might want to remember that unlike your other tabloid endeavors, the readers on these forums have immediate and unfettered access to challenge your inanities as well as your clumsy efforts to distance yourself from them.
You might want to remember that unlike your other tabloid endeavors, the readers on these forums have immediate and unfettered access to challenge your inanities as well as your clumsy efforts to distance yourself from them.
comanchepilot
En-Route
This requires that only AC with standard airworthiness certs are covered . . . so no RV's nothing experimental qualifies. Wonder what the reasoning was being that? Being given fuel does nothing for the safety of an experimental aircraft used un Young Eagles etc programs . . .
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
THIS!
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
This actually is a very large concession. Alberta is twisting at her desk....
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
The reasoning is explained in the linked document.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Isn't it the same "concession" CAP has always had for Cadet Orientation flights, both powered and glider?
denverpilot
Tied Down
P.S. Remember I'm not flying for them. I just barely have time to keep the radio infrastructure and paperwork done so I haven't bothered looking this up. It's an honest question.
skidoo
Line Up and Wait
I think this decision may have some unintended consequences... I for one, may just no longer do this simply because of the additional bureaucratic record keeping required of this decision. Sounds like there will be FAA officials at every event now just looking to bust someone for something.
Free fuel is not enough incentive to put myself at such a higher risk of getting busted because of something overlooked, or just because some authority wants to bust someone.
Even if I was to decline such free fuel, those authorities will be scrutinizing participants anyway. So, I am sorry to say, I am more inclined to just no longer participate.
Free fuel is not enough incentive to put myself at such a higher risk of getting busted because of something overlooked, or just because some authority wants to bust someone.
Even if I was to decline such free fuel, those authorities will be scrutinizing participants anyway. So, I am sorry to say, I am more inclined to just no longer participate.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Depends on if local Chapters even choose to use free gas.
I'd (barely) meet the requirements for said free gas, but I'd have a hard time looking folks straight in the eye who've been doing YE for years, but don't have 500 hours yet, and telling them that I was somehow more "worthy" of said free gas than they were.
This is assuming said free gas isn't a mythical unicorn anyway.
Notably missing in this reply is any consideration of discounted, not free, gas. Same deal?
I'd (barely) meet the requirements for said free gas, but I'd have a hard time looking folks straight in the eye who've been doing YE for years, but don't have 500 hours yet, and telling them that I was somehow more "worthy" of said free gas than they were.
This is assuming said free gas isn't a mythical unicorn anyway.
Notably missing in this reply is any consideration of discounted, not free, gas. Same deal?
Captain
Final Approach
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.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I have to agree with the former, quite the course reversal and on one of their key rules. Don't quite understand the latter (don't quite know who Alberta is...).
CJones
Final Approach
Bingo. To me, excluding EAB from this exemption is the FAA's way of saying they don't trust EAB at all and would prefer them not be used in the first place. If the intention of the exemption is to make it less of a burden for the EF/YE volunteers to give rides, then it should be less of a burden for all volunteering a/c.
Honestly, I don't give a rip about the exemption itself. If I'm going to fly YE, then I'll do it whether I'm paying for gas or not. But the FAA specifically excluding EAB from the exemption doesn't seem to meet the intention of the exemption.
CJones
Final Approach
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.