What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Experimental Aircraft over Sporting Events

noelf

Well Known Member
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
More support...

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.
 
Airventure

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
 
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.
 
Flight over DPA

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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Seems like this includes a totally different issue.... Compensation for a flight in an experimental aircraft that likely has operating limitations that specifically prohibit it (unless he has a LODA authorizing a deviation from his operating limitations).
 
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.

Well testing this theory a bit. I know of no certified planes that have been issued an investigation letter for flyovers. No certified planes doing flyovers, and there are many, have been called by the FAA to stand down that Im aware of and I have spoke to some of these pilots.
So far, only experimentals have been issued LOI's for these flyovers. In a flight of combined experimentals and certified, ONLY the experimentals got letters.

I have no way of knowing if any certified planes have been the subject of any investigations. I only know that I know of none and I have been poking on this issue for quite some time.
 
Stadium Flyovers

Certified, in this case Bonanzas, are being approved with no repercussions. This from an FFI Bonanza pilot:

"For the record:

DHS, TSA and FAA approved the TFR waiver for our recent Beechnutz overflight of KU stadium, as they did twice earlier this fall.

The overflight was conducted at 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000' laterally.

Flyover airspeed and altitude, combined with the close proximity of farm fields to the north combined to meet the emergency landing requirement in case of power plant failure.

Certified aircraft do not seem to be in the crosshairs of this witch hunt like Experimental aircraft, but we'll proceed cautiously before we commit to any stadium flyovers next year. "


Well testing this theory a bit. I know of no certified planes that have been issued an investigation letter for flyovers. No certified planes doing flyovers, and there are many, have been called by the FAA to stand down that Im aware of and I have spoke to some of these pilots.
So far, only experimentals have been issued LOI's for these flyovers. In a flight of combined experimentals and certified, ONLY the experimentals got letters.

I have no way of knowing if any certified planes have been the subject of any investigations. I only know that I know of none and I have been poking on this issue for quite some time.
 
Stadium Flyovers

As previously stated, the various YouTube videos of Large Formation Flyovers has been getting FAA attention. Because of the TFR approval through TSA, FAA felt they were loosing airspace control. (They are now in the approval loop after TSA has their cut.) FAA was worried about untrained, unknown, uncarded, "non-professional" formation groups conducting the flyovers. To regain control, they used Part 91, 319(c) to issue the LOIs.

EAA, ICAS, and FFI are involved in discussions with FAA to help resolve the situation. It will be time consuming, but hopefully we will have a solution so flyovers can resume.
 
Stadiums

A Stadium defined bt the FAA and Sean Elliott is an "Open Air assembly of people" Not a DPA !!
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
 
Compensation for Experimental Aircraft

Seems like this includes a totally different issue.... Compensation for a flight in an experimental aircraft that likely has operating limitations that specifically prohibit it (unless he has a LODA authorizing a deviation from his operating limitations).

Compensation for certain flights in Experimental Aircraft dates to at least the period immediately after WWII.
The vast majority of aircraft used for airshows and many used for air racing since that time have been Experimental Exhibition and Experimental Air Racing certificated aircraft. This predates the EAB rules by several years and predates EAA by about seven years.
Examples form the late 40's early 50's are the Pitts S1's flown by Phil Quigley, Betty Skelton and Caro Bayley. All flew airshows for compensation.
The Cole Brothers Stearman's were modified aircraft that were no longer certified standard category.
 
Compensation for certain flights in Experimental Aircraft dates to at least the period immediately after WWII.
The vast majority of aircraft used for airshows and many used for air racing since that time have been Experimental Exhibition and Experimental Air Racing certificated aircraft. This predates the EAB rules by several years and predates EAA by about seven years.
Examples form the late 40's early 50's are the Pitts S1's flown by Phil Quigley, Betty Skelton and Caro Bayley. All flew airshows for compensation.
The Cole Brothers Stearman's were modified aircraft that were no longer certified standard category.

I think a close look at your operating limitations will say "passengers or property" may not be carried for compensation. You may pay a cfi to instruct you in your plane, you may hire a ferry pilot to fly your plane with no passengers, etc.
 
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.

At every Bears game I go to the entire crowd goes off the walls nuts when there is a flyover. People love them. From my experiences, people who don't like them would be in a tiny minority.
 
So, you are an FAA manager. Sunday afternoon you get your beer, wings, and chips all arranged. You turn on your TV to watch your favorite football team. Before the game a bunch of amateurs fly over the stadium in airplanes of questionable airworthyness. One small mistake and 10, 20, 30 or more of these flying beer cans could fall into the stadium, killing dozens of fans. If that happens, our NFL crazed FAA manager would lose his job and pension.

What do you are think he is going to do? Let that happen?

If they were able to stop Bob Hoover, then Team Aerodynamics and the other groups are easy prey.
 
I've been intimately involved with this for months, and will be a an FFI rep in the continuing discussions on a stadium flyover/DPA overflight solution with the stakeholders in this (FAA, EAA, ICAS, FFI and FAST). As an E-AB owner/pilot and EAA member, I don't wish to cross swords with Rick (please see his post on page 1 of this thread, quoting and pasting it below makes this post too long), but some of the comments concern me, as they are not in concert with the personal discussions I've had with Sean (EAA), John (ICAS) and FAA AFS-830. It's a complex issue, and giving benefit of the doubt means trying to work through the issue together.

My knowledge and experience in this matter matches that of Kahuna and Falcon, and began with a flyover request for the 49ers, whose new stadium is near DPA, as well as San Jose Intl (KSJC)...a challenging location, to be sure. At that time, the approval process included requesting approval for flight into the TFR via a standard form that was reviewed by DHS and the ATC side of FAA. In previous stadium flyovers, the Flight Standards side of FAA had not been in the approval chain, and local FSDO's had varying levels of involvement. In some cases, they (FSDOs) were not involved at all, in others, they spot-checked the operation, asking questions about safety briefs, pilot qualifications and even compensation for non-commercially rated pilots. No discussion of DPAs was ever conducted with respect to stadium flyovers, nor was DPA overflight even an issue (in my experience), until these past few months.

As I worked with the 49ers, San Jose Tower, NORCAL TRACON, and the San Jose FSDO (along with 3 other performer groups, including the Patriots Jet Team) to plan the Levis Stadium flyovers, San Jose FSDO was the first (in my experience) to declare that the flyover requests would be disapproved because they involved overflight of DPAs by Experimental Aircraft. They quoted FAR 91.319(c) as the applicable regulation that prohibit such flight. Although they were not in the chop chain for the TFR flight waiver, they insisted that our flight teams submit FAR waiver forms (7711-2, not previously required for stadium flyovers), even though we were not requesting that any FARs be waived. They used that form as the disapproval mechanism, and it was flight over DPA that was stated as the reason for disapproval...not flight over the stadium.

I took my request up the FAA Flight Standards chain of command, all the way to AFS-830, and presented my argument that FAR 91.319(c), FAA Order 8130.2G, and FAA Order 8900.1 (as modified 9/13/07), all indicated that E-AB aircraft are authorized, by our Operations Limitations, to fly over DPA. Based on that, I requested that the flyover disapproval be reversed.

Going into the nuances of the presentation to the FAA would take volumes here, but the bottom line is that I was told by AFS-830 that overflight of DPA by E-AB aircraft was, in the interpretation of AFS-830, only authorized for Takeoff and Landing, as Kahuna stated. Their position is that the 8130.2G, and the 8900.1 are policy documents only, and that "regs trump policy". Referring to the reg itself, and the preamble documents to that reg (they sent me copies of them all), that office said it would not authorize our flyover, due to 91.319(c).

A few weeks later, a high visibility MLB flyover took place by RVs, and another high visibility stadium flyover took place by warbirds, and the first Letters of Investigation were issued. AFS-830 also changed the approval chain for stadium TFR flight waiver requests to include their office at that point in time.

I also had my first conversation with Sean Elliot at about that time. I had my second conversation with Sean this past week, as part of a conference call with him, John Cudahy of ICAS, and Falcon and myself, to discuss the meeting EAA and ICAS just had in DC, which Rick referred to. From that conversation, and others, it was confirmed that the LOIs that were issued for potential violation of 91.319(c) were intended to stop stadium overflights by Experimental Aircraft, until AFS-830 can implement what they feel are appropriate control and safety measures.

91.319(c) does not "expressly prohibit" stadium flyovers. That reg (in the interpretation of AFS-830) prohibits Experimental Aircraft overflight of DPA, except for TO and Landing. LOIs based on 91.319(c) is the lever that FAA Flight Standards is using to stop the flyovers until they can be regulated. FAA has assured EAA that they want only to stop, then regulate, stadium flyovers, and do not intend to go after airshow flying, such as Airventure, Young Eagles flying, and day to day operation of E-AB aircraft over DPA. The "solution that has worked for years" is for the FAA to "look the other way" on those types of flights (that phrase was used in conversation with me and others). Kahuna also referred to this situation in his posts in this thread. That "look the other way" position, and not 8130.2G, is what is allowing "E-AB aircraft to fly pretty much unimpeded in the national airspace" system, based on the current 830 interpretation of 91.319(c).

Sean indicated that AFS-830, and AFS-800 (their superior) are unified and unwavering in their position on 91.319(c), but equally committed to finding a solution to the stadium overflight issue via a coordinated effort with all of the stakeholders. They (830/800) also appear to be consistent in their position that the application of this reg is merely to stop, then control stadium/event flyovers, and will not be applied to day to day E-AB flying.

Although the selective enforcement of a reg concerns me, I do understand what the objective of 830 is at this point. It is safety and oversight, and those of us that train for and execute these flyovers in a professional manner are more than happy to be a part of this process. We are about to sit down with FAA, EAA, ICAS and FFI to explore an exemption process that could be used by appropriately trained, qualified and prepared flying organizations to conduct flyovers in the future. Entering into those discussions (which will start at ICAS in a few weeks, and will include EAA), I'm a bit concerned by the statement, "We all agreed that EAA cannot support this and thereby place the entire E-AB community at risk." My hope is that it represents a bit of mis-communication, and that EAA is as committed to working with all of the stakeholders to find a solution as Sean told me EAA is over the phone last week.

My hope is that FAA will not enforce 91.319(c) more globally, and in fact put the entire E-AB community at risk. As an E-AB flyer first (and EAA member), as well as a formation pilot, I want to find a solution, and will conduct operations in a manner that represents EAA well, and does not put our community at risk. I believe all of the stakeholders in this feel the same way.

Kahuna mentioned a rewrite of 91 and 8900. While a change to 91.319(c) would perhaps be a better long-term fix, it will take a long time and require much effort to put into effect, as he said. It's on the drawing board, but is not a high enough priority for FAA at this point to get traction (what we have been told by FAA). Working with FAA, EAA, ICAS and FFI is the near-term solution, and my hope is we have full buy-in on this from all sides.

As representatives of E-AB builders, owners and pilots, and as EAA constituents, we will certainly bring our best efforts forward to finding a solution!

Cheers,
Bob
 
Sad

The Bob Hoover situation was the warning shot to all pilots that nobody is beyond reach of the flying privilege. Without getting into politics, we as pilots need to take an active role with our politicians and get action done at the legislative level because this is the only way to motivate the controlling agency.

If anyone thinks that the controlling agency is going to throw us a bone and grant us something we don't already have, then they are sadly mistaken. There is no motivation to grant us anything. Nobody is going to get fired and nobody will lose their pension. Nobody is going to rock the boat and if anything, the regs will get more tight rather than more loose.

I really want to see our RV Team grow and perform without harassment from our government. However, right now the need to protect seems to be trumping the want of freedom.

So, you are an FAA manager. Sunday afternoon you get your beer, wings, and chips all arranged. You turn on your TV to watch your favorite football team. Before the game a bunch of amateurs fly over the stadium in airplanes of questionable airworthyness. One small mistake and 10, 20, 30 or more of these flying beer cans could fall into the stadium, killing dozens of fans. If that happens, our NFL crazed FAA manager would lose his job and pension.

What do you are think he is going to do? Let that happen?

If they were able to stop Bob Hoover, then Team Aerodynamics and the other groups are easy prey.
 
Last edited:
I hate to say this, but it sounds a bit as if this has opened a can of worms that may have been better left closed.

Someone at FAA may get the bright idea that "hey, maybe we *should* start enforcing the no DPA rule more strictly...now that it's come to light and we're being pushed to allow this other activity..."

I'm a bit concerned that we're going to lose more than we bargained for.

FAA has assured EAA that they want only to stop, then regulate, stadium flyovers, and do not intend to go after airshow flying, such as Airventure, Young Eagles flying, and day to day operation of E-AB aircraft over DPA. The "solution that has worked for years" is for the FAA to "look the other way" on those types of flights (that phrase was used in conversation with me and others). Kahuna also referred to this situation in his posts in this thread. That "look the other way" position, and not 8130.2G, is what is allowing "E-AB aircraft to fly pretty much unimpeded in the national airspace" system, based on the current 830 interpretation of 91.319(c).

Forgive my pessimism, but I'm NOT reassured by the "FAA has assured" or any verbal promises to "look the other way".

Somewhere, sometime, an FAA official is going to decide to enforce 91.319 against some EAB pilot for flying over a DPA, and that'll be the end of that freedom.

I'd be careful about insisting on being able to do flyovers of stadiums or formation flights over assemblies of people or what have you...you may just cause a much more in-depth "assessment" of enforcement of the FARs than you anticipated, with effects on everyone.
 
Last edited:
...
Although the selective enforcement of a reg concerns me, I do understand what the objective of 830 is at this point.
...
Cheers,
Bob
Although I'm not a lawyer; however, I did date one once.

My fear is that there is no such thing as "selective enforcement". If it can be proven that laws are selectively enforced, then any defendant should be able to use that as a reason to get their case tossed out.

If that logic stands, this means the FAA will have to either enforce it for everyone or no one and with ADS-B / Mode S, the FAA knows exactly where, when, and how high each of us flies. With that data, none of us are safe from this "enforcement".
 
I'm curious as to what the sticking point is. Keep in mind all those military aircraft flying over the stadium don't have airworthiness certificates either.
 
After reading through this thread and being a long time EAA member I am a bit surprised at the lack of consideration to other related party's. I?m referring to the insurance company, stadium ownership and other pilots. The FAA and the technical regulations pertaining to flyovers is only one factor.

This issue seems to be evolving quickly and the other interest groups are also becoming educated on FAR's and aircraft requirements.

The NFL has adopted a new policy that any aircraft involved in pre-game activities is required to have a 5 million dollar liability policy. This new requirement is the result of the formation activities and the NFL's position on the risk. Two weeks ago, a local flight was planned for a certified aircraft to drop jumpers over a stadium. The flight had to be cancelled due to these changes. Unfortunately, impacts are already being felt through GA.

So, if all parties do reach a reasonable conclusion that allows flyover's to continue per the FAR?s, TSA, etc... Will the insurance company's that are financially liable for the event allow it?

Lobbying for different regulations is the tip of the iceberg; the insurance companies will make the final go/no go decision. It's difficult to see how putting this discussion in the spotlight can be good for general aviation and the experimentals.
 
just a thought

If all the formation guys bought 60 year old swifts that would make it safer. They have to be safer they are certified.
 
It's difficult to see how putting this discussion in the spotlight can be good for general aviation and the experimentals.

Agreed. 99% of us have little interest in flying over a stadium at low altitude.


The big picture is that 91.319 prohibits all EXPERIMENTAL aircraft from flying over Densely Populated Areas except for takeoff and landing. Regulations trump FAA Policy and our Operating Limitations are issued on Policy. The ability for the FAA to violate a group of formation pilots is easier than going after a single aircraft. Newer operating limitations says that we can fly over a DPA if "directed by air traffic control, or unless sufficient altitude is maintained to effect a safe emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure, without hazard to persons or property on the ground." 91.319 says we cannot.

A few formation pilots are fighting the fight with the FAA so that all of us with EXPERIMENTAL aircraft can fly over DPA per the quoted line from our Operating Limitations and not roll back the regulations prohibiting overflight of DPA except for takeoff and landing.

If the Formation Pilots are violated, it is only a matter of time till each single amateur built aircraft flying over a DPA gets violated. What is a DPA? It will be defined in court by a recognized legal expert.




 
With so many EAB's flying IFR these days I've always liked the part about the prohobition of flying in congested airways. ATC issues a route via an airway and we can say "unable" and request GPS direct.

Kidding aside, everyone needs to read their operating limitations. The older ones are different and completely prohibit flying over DPAs. Everyone also needs to read the FARs pertaining to EAB aircraft. And most importantly it is best we do not poke the giant. The giant is mean, ugly, and has bad breath when woken up.
 
There is a very real possibility that a fight with the FAA, chosen by a few, will drastically affect all of us. They were warned ahead of time not to fly over the games, and they did so anyway. If the FAA decides to define densely populated in such a way that destroys our flying...are they going to just apologize to the rest of us?
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, having flown E-AB & certified formation over the last 14-15 yrs, I do not concur with stadium overflights with the large flights (more than 4). Too much risk.

I've been in small & large flights. And while it's perfectly fine to assume the risk and go have fun with 10-20 or more of your buddies, I don't see the risk being worth the reward when weighing in the well-being of thousands of spectators below.

Aero Dynamix is the best flying act in the air right now, second only to the Blue Angels. Not sure if the crosshairs are on y'all, but I do respect and appreciate your work. But I just don't concur with the large stadium overflights, from anyone. Way to much risk to the general public - and pushing it is just asking for trouble.
 
Last edited:
...And most importantly it is best we do not poke the giant. The giant is mean, ugly, and has bad breath when woken up.

There have been several posts with this sentiment and I have to agree. The Feds have been looking the other way with regards to E-AB's flying essentially unrestricted - and I'm OK with that. I'd much rather them take a better look at the regs and loosen them up to match reality, but what are the odds of that happening? The actual risk to the gen pop with overflights of stadiums or other "open assemblies", is arguable, but I can now see where we are very much "poking the giant" and forcing him into a corner with a highly visible (and blatantly reg conflicting) public display.

Sometimes it is necessary to create a crisis to get something done, but this is not one of those times as far as I'm concerned. I'm perfectly happy with the status quo. I know there are some intelligent and well intentioned people taking this fight forward; I'd only ask that you keep the big picture in sight and be VERY cautious.
 
There have been several posts with this sentiment and I have to agree. The Feds have been looking the other way with regards to E-AB's flying essentially unrestricted - and I'm OK with that. I'd much rather them take a better look at the regs and loosen them up to match reality, but what are the odds of that happening? The actual risk to the gen pop with overflights of stadiums or other "open assemblies", is arguable, but I can now see where we are very much "poking the giant" and forcing him into a corner with a highly visible (and blatantly reg conflicting) public display.

Sometimes it is necessary to create a crisis to get something done, but this is not one of those times as far as I'm concerned. I'm perfectly happy with the status quo. I know there are some intelligent and well intentioned people taking this fight forward; I'd only ask that you keep the big picture in sight and be VERY cautious.


I totally agree. This could be bad for the experimental world...
 
A few formation pilots are fighting the fight with the FAA so that all of us with EXPERIMENTAL aircraft can fly over DPA...

Really? They're fighting the FAA because they want to ensure that current policy on flight over DPAs and on airways is continued?

or they're fighting the FAA because an activity they like is not being allowed?


If the Formation Pilots are violated, it is only a matter of time till each single amateur built aircraft flying over a DPA gets violated.

Yeah...thanks for opening what appeared to be a settled issue.

I remember talking back to my parents when a punishment was being meted out...and the response was much like what many of us fear in this instance?

"Oh, yeah? You don't like being grounded for two weeks? Well, okay, then...how about being grounded for two weeks AND no television? Want to talk back to me some more and see what else can happen?"
 
Pre-Warned?

There is a very real possibility that a fight with the FAA, chosen by a few, will drastically affect all of us. They were warned ahead of time not to fly over the games, and they did so anyway. If the FAA decides to define densely populated in such a way that destroys our flying...are you going to just apologize?

Just a little clarification, Sean Elliot of EAA called to warn me that the next Stadium Flyover our group did would result in LOIs. Unfortunately that warning came one day to late, however on the day of the fateful flyover I contacted the local FSDO 45 minutes before the flight. The Ops inspector gave me his full blessing for the flight so long as TFR waiver was in hand. Being warned AHEAD of time is completely false!! Others have received phone calls from office 830 suggesting they re-think a planned stadium fly over, we were not given that same courtesy otherwise we would not have received certified letters from the FAA.
 
work things out.

Let the signatories work things out. It was just a matter of time before this happened. Now its time to work through the issues and that is what is happening.

cm
 
I do have a couple very important points of clarification.

First and foremost, the ongoing discussion between FFI, ICAS, EAA and FAA is not a crusade to salvage stadium flyovers at all cost. That is a critical point. None of the formation groups are saying, nor do they have the attitude that, "by God, we are going to fight for our God-given right to do stadium flyovers". That simply is not the case here, so please don't light your torches.

It is also important to note that no flyovers were conducted by any of our RV formation groups after being told not to fly them. That is simply not the case at all. The sequence of events is important here.

Our group's request to conduct a stadium flyover was denied at the local FSDO level, based on 91.319(c). We felt the application of that reg was an incorrect interpretation of the reg at the local level, and we appealed the decision to AFS-830. 830 upheld the denial, and clarified with us their position on the reg. At that point, we stood down on that flyover. Period. 830 also said to us that the best way to do a flyover such as the one we proposed, was to seek an exemption. We began to look into that for the future, in hopes of doing flyovers at our particular stadium next year.

At no point were we told that "all these flyovers by experimental aircraft must stop". The discussion was strictly about the flyover we were planning, which was definitely in a complex airspace environment.

We stood down on our flight, because we were told to stand down on our flight. Prior to the LOIs being issued on subsequent flyovers in other areas, there honestly was no shot across the bow fired about all E-AB stadium flyovers. Had there been such a warning, all would have listened, and complied.

The ALCS flyover that resulted in the issuance of LOIs was conducted with full written TFR Flight Waiver approval, signed by TSA and FAA ATC. The local FSDO knew about it in advance, and verbally supported it.

The LOI was issued over a week after the flyover, and was the first official indication that a more global cease and desist warning was being issued by FAA Flight Standards.

It is important to note that no stadium flyovers by RVs have been planned or executed, that I am aware of, since that time.

It is also important to note that we are working with EAA, ICAS and FAA to determine if a viable solution can be developed. The exemption process is what FAA and EAA have recommended. Therefore we are exploring that with them.

There is no intent to poke the bear, and have its wrath be felt by all E-AB. As an EAA member and an owner/pilot of an E-AB aircraft, our collective freedom of flight is far more important that conducting stadium flyovers. If there is a solution that can be found via the process that FAA and EAA recommend, we'll work honestly and diligently with all stakeholders to develop and utilize it. If it becomes obvious that a solution is not achievable, or is really not desired by the other stakeholders, this issue will not be battled at the expense of all E-AB flying. That is a critical point!

Our meeting with EAA, ICAS, FAST, FFI and FAA next month is a continuation of discussions on a variety of topics that was started at Airventure 14. This stadium flyover issue has been added as a discussion topic. The meeting offers an opportunity to explore this topic, but the meeting encompasses far more. It was not called to poke the bear on stadium issues, it is a continuation of previous discussions.

Bottom line, RV formation groups did not conduct stadium flyovers in spite of threats of violation of 91.319(c). 319(c) was used as a lever to stop the flyovers, in what appears to be a reaction to the feeling that no other recourse existed. Had our groups been told to cease and desist until appropriate oversight and safety measures could be implemented, all of our groups would have complied, and come to the table. It is unfortunate that it was felt that LOIs on 91.319(c) were necessary to "get our attention", because all of our groups are professional enough to listen and work with FAA and EAA. That is in fact what we are doing now, and the global good of E-AB flying is Pri 1 in this effort.

Cheers,
Bob
 
Poking the Giant

e, but I can now see where we are very much "poking the giant" and forcing him into a corner with a highly visible (and blatantly reg conflicting) public display.

Sometimes it is necessary to create a crisis to get something done, but this is not one of those times as far as I'm concerned. I'm perfectly happy with the status quo. I know there are some intelligent and well intentioned people taking this fight forward; I'd only ask that you keep the big picture in sight and be VERY cautious.

Actually with our Ops Lims we were not blatantly breaking the regs., we thought we were following the regs to a "T", and we certainly did not set out to create a crisis. We are not ones to poke the Bear or Giant, before our first stadium flyover several years ago I sat down with our local FSDO who apparently at the time must have assumed our Ops Lims allowed us to fly over DPAs because it was never questioned. Unfortunately now they have brought the fight to us, it could be very costly to roll over on our backs and allow a violation to occur, especially for those that have to fly for a living within the airlines. Unbeknown to us that "Can" has been sitting on the shelf for a long time, and we had no idea the FAA filled it with worms! Whether or not Stadium flyovers are ever allowed again is not the real issue now, the selective enforcement of 91.319c is, can I trust big brother to say that they will look the other way when I go on a trip or to breakfast?
A change to the rule could take time, and we may not like the change that is made, anymore than we would like a definition of DPAs.
First and foremost I am a E-AB builder and pilot, and don't like seeing our freedoms eroded. I get a great amount of enjoyment from formation flying and invest heavily in that avenue of pleasure with a great amount of time and financial resources in order to stay proficient.
There are some very good people with Nasty, Falcon, Sean Elliott, and ICAS that we hope will have a positive outcome in their discussions with the FAA.
 
Actually with our Ops Lims we were not blatantly breaking the regs., we thought we were following the regs to a "T", and we certainly did not set out to create a crisis. ...Unfortunately now they have brought the fight to us, it could be very costly to roll over on our backs and allow a violation to occur, especially for those that have to fly for a living within the airlines. Unbeknown to us that "Can" has been sitting on the shelf for a long time, and we had no idea the FAA filled it with worms! Whether or not Stadium flyovers are ever allowed again is not the real issue now, the selective enforcement of 91.319c is...

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

Because those are two very different things, and what I'm reading sounds much more like the latter, to which I (and others) are saying, essentially...maybe that's not a good thing to pursue.

Nobody would fault you and the rest for fighting against an enforcement action based on what you've told us about having FSDO approval, etc.

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?
 
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
 
<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
 
DPA

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.)
 
North Las Vegas

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
 
formation hazards

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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!
 
Accident

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.
 
Stadium

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.
 
How 'bout some objective facts?

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.
 
Back
Top