Experimental Aircraft over Sporting Events

[ColoRv]

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?

[Low Pass]

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.

[Toobuilder]

...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.

[Rock]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

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...

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by RV6_flyer

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?"

[N53LW]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ColoRv

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.

[Christopher Murphy]

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

[rvmills]

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

[N53LW]

Originally Posted by Toobuilder

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.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by N53LW

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?