Experimental Aircraft over Sporting Events

[noelf]

I have not seen this mentioned in the FORUMS, and just wanted to make the FAA's position known to our RV Pilots.

The EAA is involved in helping to find a solution to the FAAs position of no Experimental Aircraft to be used in formation (or non formation) flights over populated sporting events.

This position does not appear to affect experimental aircraft in wavered airspace.

See Article here

[Kahuna]

Actually the problem is much worse than stated by EAA. While the current FAA focus is on stadium flyovers with their letters of investigation to RV pilots and others, there is a much bigger problem that is the elephant in the room. DPA's. DPA's, densely populated areas, are where the heart of the matter is.
Our EAB op lims allow for us to be able to fly over DPA's. However, currently, the FAA is taking the position that 91.319c allows flight over DPAs only for TO and Landing.And according to them, trumps op lims. This creates an entirely new problem, one that EAA so far has yet to address, but knows exists. Should the FAA take an official position, beyond the verbal one they are taking now, you can imagine what this would do to our flying.
So while they are addressing stadiums, if the DPA issue is not addressed, there wont be any stadium flyovers anyway, since there is no way to get to and from most stadiums without getting through a DPA.
What exactly is a DPA you ask? Thats a great question. No one has specifically answered it.
The DPA language is decades old and frankly does not represent the current safety and history of experimentals. The ultimate answer is a change in 8900 and part 91 to remove the DPA language from phase 2. That will be years in the doing if ever, and its not currently on the table anyway.
Make no mistake, we know based on these recent meetings with the FAA that their verbal position on DPA's will make it only a matter of time before there is a violation and its challenged. If that happens, and we loose the DPA issue, then that spells trouble for the entire experimental industry.

[jnmeade]

You may be right, but the FAA has plenty of fights going on right now, from NextGen and ADS-B to UAS and more, so one wonders if they would go looking for a chance to get embroiled in an issue that would be certain to polarize a very vocal segment of the aviation community.

[fixnflyguy]

I know there is a guideline as to what a "major event" is comprised over based on seating numbers, ect., but our small 4 ship local group has done several minor league baseball and veterans memorial fly-overs this year. All these fly-overs were briefed with KINT and KGSO towers prior to the event, as well as working us in the airspace. Never has any negative or regulatory dialogue occurred, and all fly-overs were typical formation with smoke and non-aerobatic . I sure hope we can keep these fly-overs going, as the public loves them, we love them and the requests keep coming in!

[Kahuna]

PART of the issue is control. After 911, when DHS, now through the TSA, came along, they began issuing TFR's over these events. These TFR's are issued by the TSA, and you must get permission from the TSA to fly in that airspace. The FAA, being airspace people, do not like this one bit. Having the TSA issue waiver approvals for pilots in airspace creates angst for the FAA. One method of taking control of the issue was to first get into the process. They did that about 2 months ago. Now, in order to get a TSA waiver, that waiver must now go through the FAA before being approved by the FAA, and then approved by the TSA. That gave the FAA visibility into the who and the what. With that, they immediately began pulling the lever on one item they had control over, issuing letters of investigation for DPA's. No one has been violated yet that im aware of. But it did accomplish a quick halt to the flyovers and got FAA and others to the table. You may think they have bigger fish to fry, but they have taken steps, gotten a lot of people involved, to get the FAA involved in this process. RV pilots are having to defend themselves. Money is being spent. Control is being shifted. Lines are being drawn. Fish are already being fried.
Claiming an open assembly of people constitutes a DPA, and stating that DPA's are for TO and Landings only, is a position and agenda that so far is not clearly understood.

[Hawg Driver]

This isn't just a RV issue, either. This is affecting every type of experimental aircraft, including many warbirds. A good friend of mine had to leave a very well-paying NASCAR flyby on the table because the local FSDO wouldn't him approval to fly his jet warbirds over a race, quoting this issue exactly.

[Gary 40274]

If the Feds want to have a really big fight on their hands watch them try and ban experimentals from OSH fly overs. That would effectively shut down the event

Gary

[springer]

Originally Posted by Hawg Driver

This isn't just a RV issue, either. This is affecting every type of experimental aircraft, including many warbirds. A good friend of mine had to leave a very well-paying NASCAR flyby on the table because the local FSDO wouldn't him approval to fly his jet warbirds over a race, quoting this issue exactly.

If this is a safety issue, are military a/c any safer? Back in the day when Defense funds were scarest it was all I could do to muster up four flyable F-4s to lead a missing man flyby over downtown Dallas.

[Rocket Rick]

Recently, the VP of the EAA Advocacy and Safety Office, Sean Elliott, and his staff met with the FAA in DC to discuss the issue of flights over densely populated areas (DPA). Everyone involved agreed to continue the solution that has worked for years. (Note: I'm only addressing Experimental - Amateur Built (E-AB) aircraft.)

The FAR's state flight over DPA by experimental aircraft are prohibited. However, the FAA has never defined 'densely populated' and frankly, we prefer they don't. FAA Order 8130 allows for E-AB aircraft to fly pretty much unimpeded in the national airspace system and we want to keep it that way.

The field inspectors operate based on the Policy Orders that FAA headquarters issues. The Policy, in this case Order 8130.xx currently does not, and will not in the next update, specifically address or prohibit flight over DPA for E-AB aircraft. Thus no action regarding flights over DPA should be taken by an inspector. However, any flights (formations included) over various venues, such as stadiums, attractions etc., are expressly prohibited.

Last week, the EAA Homebuilt Aircraft Council and the EAA Staff met for our fall meeting in Oshkosh. The subject of supporting flight activities over these venues were discussed at length. We all agreed that EAA cannot support this and thereby place the entire E-AB community at risk. (However, there are specific procedures that allow for some exceptions in these types of airspace, such as at Oshkosh.)

I hope this brief report of the issue is helpful and should dispel any rumor or inuendo that may be floating around. If things were to change, I have every confidence that the EAA Staff will be on top of the issue and fighting to uphold our rights. So let's enjoy our aircraft and go fly!

Rick Weiss
Chairman, EAA Homebuilt Aircraft Council
Member, EAA Board of Directors

[F1R]

I suspect that even if team Aero Dynamix switched to C 172's and called themselves the Chicken Hawks, they would not be doing stadium flights for long. The issue at hand is somebody does not want AC flying over stadiums. I suspect that the majority of people who pay to go to a ball game, might be a touch uncomfortable with 3 to 30 airplanes in close formation over 30,000 spectators. (I think they might go to an air show to see airplanes)
It was GREAT fun while it lasted! The military only did it for recruitment. http://youtu.be/lzFucqDElyE?t=39s
Oshkosh will be fine... nobody goes there unless they want to see airplanes.