Experimental Aircraft over Sporting Events

[rvmills]

It's also very important that we not publicly fire shots at the other stakeholders in this effort, and that we not try to affix blame on any group or agency. Trying this in the court of public opinion is of no value. Positive and honest discussions are a good thing, but bashing helps no one.

Not only is this not a crusade to salvage stadium flyovers at all costs, it is also not currently a crusade to rewrite 91.319(c). Selective enforcement may be a concern, but rule making changes are long and tedious, and may have unintended consequences, if not approached carefully.

As previously stated, freedom of flight is the most important issue here. Working through this professionally is critical to support that overall freedom of E-AB flight. The good of the many...

To provide an indication that this is not an RV issue, and that we are but a piece of a larger puzzle, here is a quote from the ICAS newsletter, released today.

ICAS WORKS TO PRESERVE STADIUM FLY-OVERS

Last week, ICAS representatives met with officials from the FAA?s General Aviation and Commercial Division to discuss options for continuing stadium fly-overs by experimental aircraft at sporting events and car races. ICAS President John Cudahy was joined by aviation attorney Jack Harrington, and Sean Elliot, Vice President of Advocacy and Safety for the Experimental Aircraft Association.

As a result of growing concerns within the FAA that experimental aircraft fly-overs at stadium events are not permitted by federal aviation regulations, several ICAS members received Letters of Investigation from the FAA following fly-overs at stadium events. Recognizing the possible broader implications of this issue, ICAS immediately began working with the FAA to identify alternative approaches.

Discussions last week focused on development of an exemption request process that addresses FAA concerns and ensures an equivalent level of safety for experimental aircraft participating in these very popular stadium fly-overs. We expect a resolution early in the new year.

In the meantime, ICAS reminds pilots to exercise extreme caution when planning a stadium fly-over in experimental aircraft.

It shows we are a part of a larger group, working together to find a solution that has the best interests of Experimental Aviation as its foundation.

Cheers,
Bob

[rvmills]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

<snip>
What we're saying is that maybe, assuming there's no violation or enforcement action, that asking for more stadium flyovers is not a good fight in which to engage.

If the FAA agrees not to violate anyone for past actions, would you then agree not to do flyovers, and everybody just walks away and we go back to what we've been doing?

Or will you insist on continuing to press for stadium flyovers, even if there is the possibility that the FAA will "press back" by no longer "looking the other way" about DPAs and airways?

Joe,

My thoughts here. The first statement above is being heard loud and clear. We'll work on the LOI issue and hope to avoid enforcement action. If the effort to resolve this becomes a fool's errand, and walking away becomes the best course of action, I do not believe there is any intent of pressing until the FAA presses back, as you describe. We're working with multiple groups here, but that is my assessment.

Cheers,
Bob

[jrs14855]

A little history on the DPA issue. This issue came up a long time ago. I believe it may have been the aftermath of a crash of an EAB in a residential area in Los Angeles. The end result, as I recall, was a ruling that the DPA only applied to phase one.
Now a couple of questions:
Will EAB survive, having poked the Gorilla in the eye with a sharp stick?
Will private flying survive the demise of EAB?
(A little EAB history, homebuilt aircraft were grounded in the late 30's, except in the state of Oregon. It was a small Oregon group, several years before the forming of EAA, that successfully lobbied for the regulations that established the Amateur Built Category of Experimental.)

[Christopher Murphy]

If memory serves, it was an incident at North Las Vegas. The EAB movement has changed drastically because of Van's aircraft types and the current regs are completely outdated I believe. We aren't flying Model T powered pietenpols anymore.

CM

[highflight42x]

what happens if someone in a large formation has a birdstrike or encounters some clear air turbulence when over a stadium? What happens if one of us old farts has a stroke or heart attack or whatever in a 30-ship flyover? Or just a plain vanilla mechanical problem - or even simpler: I was in a 6-ship when a guy up front ran a tank dry. Everybody got out of the way cause we were all hot. Of course EVERYONE who flies formation is hot, right?

Bad enough out over the middle of nowhere when we're practicing, but that's our choice. People down below in the stadiums are gonna love those flyovers until god forbid it starts raining airplane parts down

[N53LW]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

So are you trying to avoid an enforcement action? Or trying to continue doing formation flights over large assemblies of people?

The most important part for our group is Not receiving violations as a result of the LOIs.
As far as Stadium flyovers we have no desire to fight the FAA, however we would like to work with the FAA to find a resolve that would allow trained groups to apply for exemptions with FFI or FAST carded pilots to be able to continue doing stadium flyovers. I used the words "work with" because I have no desire to erode what appears to be a very fragile determination of where we can fly. When I am being told the FAA will continue to look the other for flight over DPAs, when I thought that was perfectly legal to begin with it makes me nervous. I for myself will avoid DPAs except for the purpose of TO / landing.

The short answer is NO I am not willing to fight Uncle Sam for the right to fly over stadiums. I believe as Nasty said in an earlier post those that are working with unfinished business from OSH 2014 have another topic on the radar with Stadium overflight and DPAs. I am confident these conversations they will have, will be productive in nature and jeopardize E-AB any further.

[RVBuzz]

The campaign and movement that has been adopted by the formation group seems a little difficult to grasp. The Letters of Investigation have evolved into a dispute over the regulations pertaining to Densely Populated Areas (DPA?s) and its effect on the Operating Limitations of modern Experimental Amateur Built airplanes. Regardless of old or new; Are we not being asked to improve the current safety record of experimentals as a whole? Pietenpols included...

Also, due to the fact that little consideration has been given to the increased exposure of E-AB?s to this point, the team is going to seek clarification and interpretation of the rules on behalf of the experimental community.

Furthermore, we're going to seek an exception or waiver process with the help of the EAA, ICAS and FAA in order to grant approvals of the same or similar activities in the future. For some reason that doesn't seem like a good idea.

Not trying to be the negative but, it has been fairly obvious that FAA intervention would occur and this is largely a self-inflicted pain. The use of RV?s over the stadiums and open air assembly?s would eventually have to be challenged by the overseeing authorities. Many of onlookers have commented that the day would come. Hopefully, not as the result of an accident but the level of risk and liability is too big.

Not to mention, the teams have marketed themselves through the media, internet, charities and other venues. The forward actions of the groups have only heightened the call for attention to the events, airplanes and pilots. Unfortunately, not all attention is good attention as you can tell. Hopefully you proceed with caution as it?s easy to see the impacts of your negotiations can do more harm than good. The experimental rules have existed for a long time without too much help. Somehow the Rutans managed to get around the world? Today we need help across town!

[jrs14855]

Originally Posted by Christopher Murphy

If memory serves, it was an incident at North Las Vegas. The EAB movement has changed drastically because of Van's aircraft types and the current regs are completely outdated I believe. We aren't flying Model T powered pietenpols anymore.

CM

The accident I posted about was long before the North Las Vegas accident. The earlier accident involved a Wheeler Express, known by at least one other name.
The start of the modern kit built era was the Christen Eagle NOT Vans RV. Vans is significant because of the numbers, not because they were first. The Eagle is actually much easier to build than even an RV quick built, but the numbers are not there because the Eagle is a "specialty" airplane.
The North Vegas accident was unfortunately followed by a Piper Navaho crash, which I believe involved fatalities on the ground. The issues from the first Vegas accident did not involve DPA after Phase 1. There were rather draconian local rules involving anything that was phase 1 at N Vegas. This included changing propeller make/model on an airplane that was not in phase one. The propeller ruling by Las Vegas FSDO was contradictory to established FAA policy. it is an issue that is still disputed today, ie, doe a change from one model wood fixed pitch prop to another near identical but different manufacture prop constitute a major change?
The Velocity accident involved an out of aft cg scenario. The Pilot was a high time professional with considerable Velocity experience.

[jrs14855]

Originally Posted by highflight42x

what happens if someone in a large formation has a birdstrike or encounters some clear air turbulence when over a stadium? What happens if one of us old farts has a stroke or heart attack or whatever in a 30-ship flyover? Or just a plain vanilla mechanical problem - or even simpler: I was in a 6-ship when a guy up front ran a tank dry. Everybody got out of the way cause we were all hot. Of course EVERYONE who flies formation is hot, right?

Bad enough out over the middle of nowhere when we're practicing, but that's our choice. People down below in the stadiums are gonna love those flyovers until god forbid it starts raining airplane parts down

Interesting to observe that those who truly care about the future of EAB and perhaps even the future of private airplanes in the US have finally awakened from their long Rip Van Winkle style naps.
Risk/Benefit:
Stadium flights: no significant benefit
Risk: the eventual end of EAB as we know it in the US.
GET OVER IT. No more stadium flights except by the military.
The exception would be as it always has been-if an airshow performance, conducted under the terms of an airshow waiver, can be conducted under standard waiver rules at a small to medium venue, such as an auto race track in a sparsely populated area. This would not be a fly over, it would be an airshow or other waivered activity at the appropriate distance from, NOT OVER the spectators.
Taking this a step further I will be asking EAA and FAA to terminate approval for ANY mass formations over the crowd at Oshkosh, regardless of altitude.

[claycookiemonster]

I don't have them at my fingertips, but if actual accident statistics for in-flight loss of control leading to a crash or pilot incapacitation or in-flight break-up were compiled for all the types of aircraft doing stadium fly overs, I'd bet a lot of money that Experimental Aircraft will NOT have the worst record. Do you assume that military aircraft are immune to accidents? Checked the headlines on helicopter incidents lately? How about parachute-ists dropping onto the 50 yard line; what are the actual odds they could end up in the crowd?

Given the likelihood of alcohol consumption before, during and after any stadium-worthy event, what are the actual odds of death or injury driving to the venue or simply walking through the parking lot to your seat?

Now, fighting the FAA with mere facts may be a fools errand, government agencies demonstrate their relevance by prohibiting behavior - no one notices an agency that says, "yes", but facts shouldn't be eliminated from the discussion.

Were we able to assemble a cloud of RVs capable of blotting out the sun over a football game, we would probably be doing more statistical good by reducing sun burn and skin cancer rates than we would be endangering fans by exposing them to the risk of falling aluminum.