FAA to Possibly Ground Jet Warbirds

[Perriwen]

http://www.classicjets.org/forum/dow...a4f8b8dfd0d161

This was posted on ASB earlier...looks like the FAA is going to really be restricting air worthyness certificates to...well, any aircraft over 10k pounds and powered by engines with thrust above 3k....

[lijk604]

Well this is going to suck!

[threeholerglory]

i dont know but that sounds like a crock of sh!t. If I'm not mistaken, those aircraft are required by federal law to be maintained in accordance with the same rules and regulations that any other airplane is held to. If that is the case, being that they are being maintained to FEDERAL standards (the saaaaame folks who are putting out these bulletins) then the onus of danger is presented directly to the owner/operator. Furthermore, the fact that these people are buying such expensive airplanes that are not only expensive to procure but more so to maintain, one would imagine that they would do their research and understand the "inherent dangers" with flying such aircraft. I'm amazed that this is even being allowed to happen.

Quite frankly, everything in my experience is left up to the insurance companies. For example...I hold commercial multi-engine land with instrument privileges. With that, I am qualified by FAA law to fly our Cessna 441 Conquest II with 8 total seats and over 1200 combined horsepower. Pretty powerful stuff. As far as the FAA is concerned, I can fly that airplane solo any time I want, and can carry passengers so long as I have done my three takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days leading to that flight. Mind you, they did NOT at ANY time mandate that I go to flight school to learn the complicated systems or procedures required to fly that airplane safely. Let's talk insurance...granted every policy and agency will have a different say on the matter, our policy dictates that I (to sit in the right seat in VFR conditions and NOT touch anything) MUST have (if I'm not mistaken on the numbers...) 5000 total time, 2500 multi engine, and 1000 in that make and model airplane. Point being? The FAA has an incredibly loose stance on what is considered safe and what is not, which is what raises my eyebrows on this one. I'll give one more example.

In the New York area we have an abundance of lights on the ground from buildings, roads etc. Consider parts of the country in the midwest or great plains where there are virtually NO lights. Flying VFR, we use the horizon (or lights on the ground or stars) to orient ourselves, assuming we're purely flying visually and not using instruments. Consider now a very high overcast cloud layer that obscures all celestial objects, stars, moon, etc. In the NY area, we don't even consider it an issue and will fly VFR using ground lights to orient ourselves. Consider the midwest where deep in the night there may be no usable ground lights to orient oneself if that high overcast obscures the stars, etc. Both instances are considered legal VFR, and a VFR pilot can fly legally in either scenario with minimal instrument training. That instrument training when conducted as a pilot is going for a private pilot certificate is nowhere NEAR enough to get that pilot out of an instrument condition.

The FAA tends to write these rules with a lot of leeway which can be good, or bad depending on the pilot in question and the JUDGEMENT of that pilot. The question every pilot should ask themselves is "it may be legal, but is it the best judgement call?" And that's what SO many rules come down to. Judgement. Which again, causes me to wonder why they would ground so many aircraft on the basis of safety. So long as the owner/pilot in command can maintain the aircraft to federal standards and can PROVE that the maintenance has been performed appropriately, it becomes a judgement call. Sounds to me like a kneejerk reaction to something stupid.

End rant.

[gonzalu]

Mike, tell us how you 'really' feel? Seriously though, either way, it is a lot of horse manure! I have personally seen how well run and maintained some of these are and frankly, I rather fly one of them than a not-so-well-known-how-they-are-maintained-major-airliner

[markg]

It could be a "security issue". I went to the museum at Elmira a few years ago and the guide told us about a WWII Bomber that couldn't get a permit to fly in NY state because it "might be used to drop a bomb on a city". I used to work for an insurance company and asked them about covering historic aircraft. They wouldn't touch it for the reasons mentioned....I kid you not!