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