X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.5) with ESMTP id 902768 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:50:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.70; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm67aec.bellsouth.net ([68.213.226.209]) by imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20051227164843.JYUI18781.imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm67aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.103] (really [68.213.226.209]) by ibm67aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20051227164843.KDVZ12654.ibm67aec.bellsouth.net@[192.168.0.103]> for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-Id: <7EA374B9-AFE4-4E64-99FF-E381625E83CA@bellsouth.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-628614455 References: <1a1ac6d30512270705k1629f613g3dcffff6e5bac227@mail.gmail.com> From: Buly Subject: Fwd: [c-a] Expiramental aircraft bans in California. Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:48:40 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) --Apple-Mail-2-628614455 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Begin forwarded message: > > To: canard-aviators@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [c-a] Expiramental aircraft bans in California. > > Saw this being passed around in the Lancair group. Thought it > might be of > interest to some of you on the West coast. > > From AVWeb > http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/537-full.html#191233 > > Four California Airports Off-Limits To Some Homebuilts, Warbirds > > EAA says it's making progress in reversing or modifying > restrictions on > experimental aircraft imposed on four busy California airports by > the Van > Nuys Flight Standards District > Office > (FSDO). > In April of 2004, then-FSDO Manager Robyn Miller issued a > memo that effectively barred > some > experimental aircraft from regular operations at Van Nuys (yes, of > One Six > Right fame ), Whiteman, Burbank and Santa > Barbara airports. Most experimentals are homebuilts but many > warbirds are > operated in the experimental category, also. The memo says that > "phase II > and 'normal' operations [by experimentals] will not be allowed" at > the four > airports although "exceptions may be made based upon current office > policy, > certification category, aircraft type and operator experience." The > memo did > contain a grandfather clause allowing existing experimentals to > continue > using the fields until they are moved, sold or the nature of their > operation > is changed. The memo also bans initial flight and phase I testing of > experimentals at the airports. > > Policy Discriminatory, Says EAA > > EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski said the organization has been aware > of the > memo since it was issued last year and has worked behind the scenes > to help > individual pilots at the affected airports. However, Knapinski said > the memo > is fundamentally flawed in that it can only apply to aircraft that > the local > authorities are familiar with. "The way it stands now, there's > nothing to > stop someone from flying an experimental aircraft in from somewhere > else, > overnighting and taking off the next day," said Knapinski. "It > creates two > different levels of enforcement." ... And perhaps enforcement by > personal > interpretation. In addition to helping pilots at the affected > airports, > Knapinski said EAA has been lobbying FAA officials on the matter. > "We've > been after the FAA about this and I think we're making some > progress," he > said. Knapinski said the Van Nuys memo was "enacted at the local > level" and > allowing such local interpretation can cause problems. "Those > levels of > various rulemaking in these instances is something that EAA is > constantly > working against, because it leads to confusion in the pilot > community," he > said. > > FSDO Defends Actions > > Van Nuys FSDO Manager Richard Swanson said his office is merely > spelling > out a policy that has been directed by the FAA administrator. > Swanson said > all offices were asked to review their policies with respect to the > operating limitations that come with flying an experimental > aircraft. He > said the limitations vary depending on aircraft type and use, but, in > general, experimental aircraft are not supposed to fly over > congested areas > and the four California airports are all in heavily populated areas > with > busy airspace. But he noted that doesn't necessarily mean that all > experimentals are banned from using the airports because many > homebuilts > have an exception in their operating limitations that allows them > to fly > over developed areas and in congested airspace for landing and > takeoff. > "Each pilot has to be aware of the operating limitations of the > aircraft," > he said. Swanson said the difference between a homebuilt and a > certified > aircraft is that a certified plane is theoretically a "known > entity" that > has been through airworthiness processes and is supposed to be > maintained to > those standards. Experimental aircraft don't have that paper trail and > that's why the limitations are in place. "It's really a certification > issue," he said. "Our task, after all, is to protect the general > public." He > also noted that it would be impossible for his office to monitor > transient > traffic and determine which experimentals are allowed to use the four > airports. He said it's up to the aircraft owners to make sure they > operate > within the rules and all it takes is a ramp check to determine if > they are > being followed. The devil's in the paperwork. > > Visit your group "canard-aviators" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > canard-aviators-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > --Apple-Mail-2-628614455 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Begin = forwarded message:


Subject: [c-a] Expiramental aircraft bans in = California.
http:/= /www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/van>(FSDO).
= In April of 2004, then-FSDO Manager Robyn Miller issued a
memo = <http://www.aero-farm.com/vnfs= do.pdf> that effectively barred some
experimental aircraft = from regular operations at Van Nuys (yes, of One Six
Right fame = <http://www.onesixright.com/>),= Whiteman, Burbank and Santa
Barbara airports. Most experimentals = are homebuilts but many warbirds are
operated in the experimental = category, also. The memo says that "phase II
and 'normal' operations = [by experimentals] will not be allowed" at the four
airports = although "exceptions may be made based upon current office policy,
= certification category, aircraft type and operator experience." The memo = did
contain a grandfather clause allowing existing experimentals to = continue
using the fields until they are moved, sold or the nature = of their operation
is changed. The memo also bans initial flight and = phase I testing of
experimentals at the airports.

Policy = Discriminatory, Says EAA

EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski said the = organization has been aware of the
memo since it was issued last = year and has worked behind the scenes to help
individual pilots at = the affected airports. However, Knapinski said the memo
is = fundamentally flawed in that it can only apply to aircraft that the = local
authorities are familiar with. "The way it stands now, there's = nothing to
stop someone from flying an experimental aircraft in from = somewhere else,
overnighting and taking off the next day," said = Knapinski. "It creates two
different levels of enforcement." ... And = perhaps enforcement by personal
interpretation. In addition to = helping pilots at the affected airports,
Knapinski said EAA has been = lobbying FAA officials on the matter. "We've
been after the FAA = about this and I think we're making some progress," he
said. = Knapinski said the Van Nuys memo was "enacted at the local level" = and
allowing such local interpretation can cause problems. "Those = levels of
various rulemaking in these instances is something that = EAA is constantly
working against, because it leads to confusion in = the pilot community," he
said.

FSDO Defends Actions
=
Van Nuys FSDO Manager Richard Swanson said his office is merely = spelling
out a policy that has been directed by the FAA = administrator. Swanson said
all offices were asked to review their = policies with respect to the
operating limitations that come with = flying an experimental aircraft. He
said the limitations vary = depending on aircraft type and use, but, in
general, experimental = aircraft are not supposed to fly over congested areas
and the four = California airports are all in heavily populated areas with
busy = airspace. But he noted that doesn't necessarily mean that all
= experimentals are banned from using the airports because many = homebuilts
have an exception in their operating limitations that = allows them to fly
over developed areas and in congested airspace = for landing and takeoff.
"Each pilot has to be aware of the = operating limitations of the aircraft,"
he said. Swanson said the = difference between a homebuilt and a certified
aircraft is that a = certified plane is theoretically a "known entity" that
has been = through airworthiness processes and is supposed to be maintained to
= those standards. Experimental aircraft don't have that paper trail = and
that's why the limitations are in place. "It's really a = certification
issue," he said. "Our task, after all, is to protect = the general public." He
also noted that it would be impossible for = his office to monitor transient
traffic and determine which = experimentals are allowed to use the four
airports. He said it's up = to the aircraft owners to make sure they operate
within the rules = and all it takes is a ramp check to determine if they are
being = followed. The devil's in the paperwork.




 =

= --Apple-Mail-2-628614455--