Experimental Aircraft over Sporting Events

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by sprucemoose

That is not a good analogy at all. In our case, the local police (FAA) had given its express, written blessing to these events for years, even issuing permits for the events, not just "looked the other way." If the town council decides that things are getting out of hand and they want to rethink the whole idea, that is well within their rights. What is not within their rights is to direct the police to issue tickets to those who participated in the past (previously approved and permitted) events. That is clearly out of order and reeks of the "Bob Hoover" enforcement mentality of some within the FAA. Any signs of that sort of thing need to be aggressively fought against, in order to protect our freedoms in the long term.

Totally agree...having approval by FSDO, TSA, etc., ought to guarantee that there'd be no enforcement action (in fact, has any enforcement action been taken yet? All that's been referenced here are Letters of Investigation?). Not arguing this point at all.

But "aggressively fighting" a specific enforcement action, complete with documented FAA approval, etc., is NOT the same thing as "aggressively fighting" for the right to do it *again*, or to drag into the equation a much larger scope with its consequent potential effects.

I'm all for the first part; not so much the second.

[Toobuilder]

Originally Posted by sprucemoose

..."Poking the bear" implies some level of irresponsible behavior...

Not in my mind, and certainly not in this case. "Poking the bear" in this case is gaining approval, then performing an act that is far outside our "normal" behavior.

Look, deserved or not, E-AB's and RV's in particular have a poor reputation in the aviation community. This is pointed out on this forum every time someone is found "hot dogging" at a pancake fly in or doing something else questionable. "...Keep the public safe..." Or at least "...do it away from people..." Because "...our right to fly is at stake...".

In my mind our ability to operate E-AB's essentially unrestricted is a tenuous situation - subject to change when the "bear" wakes up. So if our normal mode of operation requires us to keep a low profile, then flying a mass formation directly over a stadium full of people is exactly the opposite. That's the "poke".

Im not suggesting anyone who participated in these stadium flyovers has done anything wrong or even unsafe, but if our ability to fly unrestricted requires us to keep a low profile, then that's what we need to do.

The fact that there is government movement on this issue indicates that the bear is "waking up"... This might be our wake up call as well. Time to tread lightly, IMHO.

[grubbat]

Can you imagine what would happen to the value of our RV's (and experimental airplanes in general) if the bear decides to define DPA and thus limit experimental activity? What would happen to Van's and other kit mfg?

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by grubbat

Can you imagine what would happen to the value of our RV's (and experimental airplanes in general) if the bear decides to define DPA and thus limit experimental activity? What would happen to Van's and other kit mfg?

Just think of all the money we would save on lower annual personal property taxes and insurance payments due to lower hull values.

[RVBuzz]

Originally Posted by sprucemoose

That is not a good analogy at all. In our case, the local police (FAA) had given its express, written blessing to these events for years, even issuing permits for the events, not just "looked the other way." If the town council decides that things are getting out of hand and they want to rethink the whole idea, that is well within their rights. What is not within their rights is to direct the police to issue tickets to those who participated in the past (previously approved and permitted) events. That is clearly out of order and reeks of the "Bob Hoover" enforcement mentality of some within the FAA. Any signs of that sort of thing need to be aggressively fought against, in order to protect our freedoms in the long term.

I think there is a little more to the story than some are acknowledging. It was touched on earlier in the thread but was quickly dropped for some reason.

There seems to be a very convenient over sight with regard to commercial operations and these flights. The formation teams have taken E-AB airplanes and performed at some of the largest commercial events in the country including football, baseball and NASCAR. However, we are not wanting to define the performances as commercial operations for the benefit of some of the pilots involved. Really...

Lets tell the whole story, several of the pilots involved do not have commercial pilots licenses or Classs II medicals. However, the teams seem to publicly post pictures inside the games, bus rides, party's etc... The group still wants to claim publicly that no one is receiving compensation or benefits for performing the flyovers. Wow, ok.

Furthermore, the groups have campaigned business's and solicited fund raising in the local communities for charity (i.e. Breast Cancer). However, a large portion of the money was used to outfit the airplanes with custom smoke systems that are still in use. Apparently this isn't compensation either...

No guys, FAST cards or FFI's cards do not meet the requirements of a commercial ticket either.

"compensation or hire"- The FAA has clearly and historically defined compensation to include any benefit including transportation, meals, lodging or any other benefit that the pilot would not have otherwise retained including flight time.

So while one aspect of the discussion hits on DPA's and the legality of the flights, in accordance with the waivers and approvals. There is also an apparent need for some clarification on the definition of "compensation" as it relates to the flights over the stadiums.

The teams have spoken loud and clear throughout the communities, internet and public in order to flag attention to themselves. It should not be of any surprise that LOI's have been issued and the FAA has realized that it's time to take a closer look. This is how you have "poked the bear".

[sprucemoose]

Buzz,

Nasty laid it all out very clearly- this issue is about FAA concern about DPA overflights in E-AB, not compensation. That may be another issue but it is not the one at hand.

The custom smoke systems you speak of were paid for by the individual pilots, despite many of us being qualified to receive compensation.

[RVBuzz]

Understood and my apologies for the misstatement.

However, it also reminder that experimental airplanes are also prohibited for use in commercial operations for carrying of persons or property for hire or compensation as well. So it's hard to see how the events can be carried out with any real consideration of current regulations.

[rvmills]

Originally Posted by RVBuzz

So it's hard to see how the events can be carried out with any real consideration of current regulations.

Buzz (Tim),

I'd like to speak to many of the statements, questions and thoughts you have posted, some of which are echoed by other posters. I hope this all comes across in the spirit of mutual respect that I feel we as RVers can and should share.

First, in general terms, I see from your profile that your occupation is in risk management, and I can appreciate how your training would drive you to question what formation teams do, and how. I respect that. An underlying philosophy of what formation teams do is risk management, via planning, preparation and training. These events are not ad hoc in any way, shape or form. The larger flyovers are the culmination of months (seriously) of planning. Events such as this are carefully choreographed from brief, to staging, to start, to taxi, to takeoff, to join-up, to timing, to ingress, to overflight, to egress, to recovery. Very, very detailed, including risk assessment and mitigation, emergency procedures, and what we call "outs". They are not done without due consideration of risk.

They also cannot, and never are, carried out without "any real consideration of current regulations". I want to speak to that.

Lets talk about compensation first. It was brought up, as you noted. However, as Jeff pointed out, the major point of contention has become flight over DPA, as it related to stadium flyovers. However, I respect your concern, and in fact, compensation of non-Commercial Pilots is on the FAA's radar, and has been for quite some time. However, it is not the reason for the LOIs, and has not been a discussion item concerning this event. It has not been a part of my discussions with any level of the FAA regarding stadium flyovers…but it is out there.

Compensation for non-CPs is a hot button, and one we not only know about, but have taken measures to ensure we are in compliance with. We are giving very real consideration to that reg, and all regs. For instance, as Jeff said, we paid for the materials to make our smoke brackets. They were fabricated by members of a formation team. In the first "pink flight" in 2012, I traveled from Reno to KC to participate, and paid all of my expenses…every penny…and I am a CP and ATP. My wife is a Breast Cancer Survivor, and that cause is important to us…formation was not my only motivation. The following year, sponsor funding and team funding was raised to help defray some of the costs. Donation funds were not utilized for that, but the other sourced funds were used to partially reimburse some of the costs…to the CPs in the group. The bus we rode in was privately owned by a friend of one of the flight team (most of us rode on bean-bag chairs), and any parties you saw were thrown by us…with our own money. Not compensation…just fun. Even the t-shirts we made were never sold, they were given away. And tens of thousands of dollars have been raised for Breast Cancer Awareness and Cancer Treatment Centers.

Later that year, prior to the Phoenix Raceway NASCAR flyover, the compensation issue was raised by the local FSDO, and answered to their satisfaction. How that happened: After the TFR waiver was approved (by TSA and FAA ATC), the cognizant ATC facility contacted the local FSDO. That FSDO contacted the formation coordinators, and stated E-AB aircraft could not be used for compensation. It was clarified with them that no passengers or cargo were being carried for compensation (that is the actual prohibition, as you know), and that only CPs would be partially reimbursed for their expenses. That FSDO accepted that, came out to check our credentials, and attended our safety brief, which they said was excellent. The flight was all good to them, and DPA was not on the radar screen…at all.

So we are well aware of the compensation issue, and I feel are doing the due diligence to ensure we are in compliance with those regs.

Segue to DPAs and 91.319(c). There seems to be an outcry here that "these formation groups" knowingly and negligently violated 91.319(c), and knew about the interpretation of AFS-830 and -800 before doing the flyovers. Its as if some feel we picked up a lamp engraved 91.319(c), knew there was a dangerous genie inside, and by doing flyovers and posting videos of them, figuratively rubbed the lamp until the genie came out.

That is so far from the truth. 100% of our pilots felt we were authorized to fly over DPAs by the language in the FARs and our OPS Lims. None of us had an inkling that 91.319(c) was a threat, or about to become a hammer. Had any of us known that 830/800 held the opinion that DPA overflight was strictly for TO and LNDG only, and that stadium overflights would be the trigger that would cause them to dust off the reg and bring a hammer down, none of us would have poked that bear. We would have been concerned about that interpretation, and its contingent liability (and are now, but want to be a part of the solution).

Before this thread, did anyone reading this know that this 830/800 interpretation of 91.319(c) existed? Did anyone reading this know that such an interpretation potentially renders our OPS Lims item #6 legally impotent? If so, no one that read coverage of stadium flyovers, or saw pictures of the same, communicated that concern, AFAIK. No one raised a red flag, publicly or privately, to say these formation groups were poking the bear. Instead, it seems a lot of "great job", "awesome performance", and even "great way to to represent Experimental Aviation" comments were the overwhelming response…until now.

Being responsible and responsive, formation groups reacted proactively to the LOIs (which were issued without warning, and after the fact), and stood down the flyovers. FAA, EAA and ICAS have started a dialogue to determine if a viable path forward exists for flyovers. Our groups will be represented as well, and hope to join the others to find a solution that does not threaten the E-AB community. If it exists, we'll be a positive part of it. If not, we won't chase a windmill, or press until big brother presses back.

Cheers,
Bob

[RVBuzz]

Bob, great info and I understand your comment on respect. Understood and agree... Hopefully, others will share those same considerations into the future as well.

You have made several key points that deserve a bit more clarification and insight from this perspective. I am clear that good risk management practices and planning are an important aspect of these flights and your team. My hat is off to you and the team for the safety and diligence during these important phases. However, I?m sure that you can agree, the RV?s are man and machine and accidents still happen. This is only a fact?

Reno has learned this lesson on several occasions, and we are all aware of the tragic Leeward accident. I?m sure Jimmy didn?t think it would happen and many have said that ?if he would have known, he wouldn?t have done it?. The point is, regardless of planning and risk mitigation, it still happens. My training in life, business, flying and common sense are all sources of knowledge that lead me to this reasonable conclusion.

-DPA?s? I?m certainly not insinuating that your teams have ?picked up the lamp? and performed outside the waivers/approvals. I can only assume that this would be a poor decision on everyone?s part. Hopefully, this will be the basis for dismissal of enforcement without implication.

Moving on? the title of this thread is ?Experimental Aircraft over Sporting Events?. So by reference of the title, one would only assume that this is the right place to discuss the relevant subjects pertaining to the topic both now and in the future. As I?ve mentioned, there are numerous aspects of the flights that are easily questioned and gain speculation based on the team?s public presentation.

Specifically, there have been several comments in this thread stating "that we were not aware of the can of worms on the shelf". Frankly, several other topics including commercial operations, open air assemblies, persons or property and experimental operating limitations for commercial use? are also the proverbial ?can of worms? in the wings (sorry for the pun). It seems as if we are still very willing to ?poke? on these other confrontational areas... The group is publicly pushing against the system and regulations that we have been allowed to participate for many years.

With respect to the interpretation on Non?Commercial private pilots receiving compensation; You?re clarification on compensation is as stated ?It was clarified with them that no passengers or cargo were being carried for compensation (that is the actual prohibition, as you know)? Just for clarification, 61.113 reads:

Private pilot privileges and limitations include: carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire...

Apparently we are not interpreting smoke or smoke systems as property within the scope of the discussion or as outlined in 61.113. Additionally, it sounds as if we are not receiving any personal compensation in the form of benefits or personal gain in exchange for the flights. This is still hard to believe?

If compensation were to be acknowledged and received this would potentially render this a commercial flight governed by the operating limitations and/or the specifics of part 91.319.

In the past, non-commercial solo pilots have been violated for using E-A/B aircraft such as the pitts or christen eagle, if they received fuel (Not cash) in exchange for the show. It sounds as if the RV teams may be working to establish a new precedence for compensation as it relates solo PIC flights in E-A/B?s. That?s great, will be watching closely on that issue. I?m not sure if that is good for general aviation or the growth of commercial pilots?

You have also mentioned contingent liability which is a valid point. The contingent liability of these flights is distributed amongst many stakeholders including those that are likely involved if an accident would occur. As you know, it is very common that the waivers and/or government approvals establish some degree of responsibility and precedence for civil matters. This is where the trail will usually lead in order to verify how these types of operations were conducted and/or who approved. It will be interesting to see how the waivers and approvals process comes together.

Overall, it still seems that many within the formation group have difficulty seeing the overarching risk/reward impact that is being presented across the community. So, as the team seeks waivers and exemptions that could allow flying experimental airplanes over large or small commercial venues.. it sounds as if we are willing to establish some new precedence for aviation. Not be negative if that?s how you?re receiving the information. These points are valid and fair within the subject line of the thread.

I do respect your position as your negotiations move forward; however we also realize that the filings, approvals and actions of your team may have substantial effects on all stakeholders, contingent included?

Respectfully, Tim

[Mike S]

Tim, welcome to VAF------sorry I missed you a few days ago.

From AOPA today.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/faa-ta...adium-flyovers

Apologies if this is a dupe link.....