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
