Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

[evanflys]

I just heard about this from my friends at the Collings Foundation and I don't think it's right. I also want to go to an airshow and see an Me-262, an A-4 Skyhawk, and an F-4 Phantom go ripping by - don't you?! And I can't believe they think an Me-262 isn't significant! So what if it's a replica! It took 14 years to reverse engineer from an original!


So it would be great if you could help by contacting the FAA and ask them to change their minds and let these really special planes fly with passengers. That way the Collings Foundation can afford to have them go on tour and we can see an F-4 Phantom, an Me-262, and A-4, and even a Storch fly!


Thanks!

Evan


PS: All this below came from the Collings Foundation website. I hope the links work. If they don't, go here http://collingsfoundation.org/enews/...tter_Oct09.htm




WE NEED YOUR HELP

The FAA recently denied the Collings Foundation's request for flight exemptions for the F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk, Me262 and Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch.
We need a FAA exemption in order to accept donations for flight experiences in these historic aircraft.

Our unique living history programs for these aircraft will be dead in their tracks without these critical exemptions.

FAA Conclusions:
"Collings has included four aircraft in its request that do not meet the requirements for an exemption. The FAA’s “Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft” (72 FR 57196; 10/09/07) policy states that aircraft must meet the test of being historically significant in the context of U.S. aeronautical history. The Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch is a World War II German reconnaissance aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Fieseler Co. Fi-156 Storch in this exemption is denied.

The Classic Fighter Me-262 is a replica of a World War II German aircraft that does not meet the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the Classic Fighter Me-262 in this exemption is denied.

Collings Foundation's Response:
In denying the addition of Me262 and Fiesler Storch, the FAA concluded that “in the context of U.S. aeronautical history” neither the Fi-156 Storch nor the Me-262 satisfied “the policy requirement of being a historically significant aircraft.” The Fi-156 Storch and Me-262 denial by the FAA was arbitrary and contrary to FAA policy.

"An aircraft that was not made by a U.S. manufacturer may be considered for an exemption if the operational and maintenance history is adequately documented (72 FR 57197)."

There is no requirement in the FAA's policy 72 FR 57197 stating that the historical significance be "in the context of U.S. aeronautical history".

The Storch and Me-262 aircraft are most definitely historically significant, certainly more so that many aircraft already approved for flight exemptions! See Subject A in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

FAA Conclusions:
"While the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J may meet the historically significant test, the FAA must consider that permitting the public to experience flights in an aircraft that while in U.S. military service required the installation of an ejection seat raises a safety concern that has not been adequately addressed. Until the petitioner provides sufficient information on the means by which it ensures an equivalent level of safety, the FAA will not grant an exemption authorizing operations with the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J. Therefore, the petitioner’s request to include the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and the McDonnell Douglas TA-4J in this exemption is denied."

Collings Foundation's Response:
Regarding the A-4 and F-4 ejection seat training program: The Collings Foundation already has an ejection seat training program that was APPROVED BY THE FAA. In actuality, our ejection seat training program goes well beyond the standard United States Air Force program. We ensure the total understanding, compliance and competency of the ejection seat protocol and procedures. See Subject B in Application for Exemption Reconsideration document for detailed clarification.

What this means:
Currently, we cannot offer Flight Experiences in the Me-262, F-4 Phantom, A-4 Skyhawk and Feisler Storch. Without the ability to offer flight experiences in these aircraft we will not be able to cover the operational expense. Thus, these unique aviation treasures and living history programs surrounding these aircraft will not be accessible to the general public.
To see the full document from the FAA outlining the denial click here.
To see the rules the FAA established to which they should have followed click here.

How you can help:
Show your support! Call, email or write to the FAA, your Congressman and Senator. Feel free to reference points listed in our Exemption Reconsideration document

Call or send an email or letter to:
Mr. John Allen, FAA Director of Flight Standards - john.allen@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 802
Tel: 202-267-8237

Mr. Randy Babbitt, FAA Administrator - randy.babbitt@faa.gov
Orville Wright Bldg.(FOB10A)
FAA National Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20591
Room 1010
Tel: 202-267-3111
Please CC email to the Collings Foundation at: response@collingsfoundation.org

*Important note: We are still able to offer flight training programs in the F-4 and A-4 Jets. Certain pilot license requirements apply.



Thanks!
Evan

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

I don't quite understand. Do they really need to be carrying passengers just to perform fly-bys at airshows?

I'd love to see these rare machines go zooming by too, but from the viewing stands it doesn't matter to me how many souls are aboard, and they ARE somewhat more dangerous and difficult to fly than conventional (and slower) aircraft.

I do agree about the ME-262 being judged unfairly, being a relatively slower twin in comparison, but the FAA point there is that it's NOT a 262...it's a replica they say, and that's a completely different topic we won't need to go into right now. Let's look at the Phantom and the Skyhawk for now.


Is it really a financial thing? I know one needs deep pockets and extra uncommon skillls to fly the thirsty high-maintenance buggars, but that's partially why they are so rarely seen in flight anyway.




Jets like A-4s and F-4's are so costly to fly AND maintain that I can't see them making much money unless the rider was filty rich.

...And if an F-4 went down with a very wealthy successful business-person inside, the family of the victim, and even the company(s) he/she is involved with could easily destroy the whole foundation with one lawsuit. Sounds really, really risky to me.


Forgive me for saying so, but if a foundation doesn't have the financial resources to protect itself from such litigation, then it really shouldn't be trying to fly them anyway, no matter how much the common man like myself would love to see them in their proper enviroment (the air). I'd hate to see the entire Collins Foundation destroyed because one small, highly stressed part broke at a bad time, and they do happen with these type of machines.

And judging by the number of mil pilots killed each year, just having an ejection seat doesn't mean you will survive, especially at low fly-by altitudes. Things happen way too fast when they go wrong.



Please explain. I need more convincing, and I'm straddling the fence right now, so to speak. I apologize if this makes it difficult.

[dvddude]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

AirDOGGe, there are many flaws with your line of thinking and reasoning. I don't have time to list them all here, as there are several people from the Collings foundation who post here regularly, including at least 2 of their pilots.

Suffice it to say, this is EXTREMELY important that the Collings foundation win this. It is critical for the survival of those airplanes. If they don't win, these airplanes won't be able to make money on their "experience flights" and it will be a hugely losing financial proposition for them. In fact, they might have to permanently ground those airplanes or sell them off. Do you really not want to ever see the F-4, A-4 and Me 262 fly again with Collings?

There is a lot more to the story than what has been made public, including the fact that the FAA is not even adhering to their OWN rules that THEY wrote! They are interpreting their own rules differently in regards to the Collings foundation than they are to other organizations. The bottom line is that the FAA really doesn't want the Collings foundation to fly high performance jet aircraft. Neither does the Air Force, especially in regard to the F-4.

I can't believe you would side with the FAA, instead of supporting a well-established warbird museum with a highly regarded safety program.

People from Collings, please jump in here and tell AirDOGGe how wrong he is!

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

Please, I have not sided with anyone, especially the FAA (I'm straddling the fence, remember?). Please don't assume otherwise. I just am not informed enough to make the choice yet. The flaws in this argument are not mine.

True, these aircraft may or may not not get to fly before us in the meantime, but that doesn't mean an "end to their survival" as you say. The aircraft will still exist. It just means we don't get to see them fly personally by Collings pilots, and the Collins foundation won't get the pleasure/honor of demonstrating them. There is a difference here.

After all, If things don't go well and the foundation has to sell them in the worse case as you say, that would be bad, but if they instead went to someone who COULD afford to bring them to airshows, would that not be better for all? Only the foundation staff would miss out, not the spectators. It doesn't mean they would go straight to the scrappers as so many precious birds have done.

Likewise, a museum doesn't sound like the place for such flyable aircraft, but it could mean they may still be around to fly in the future if the means are found to support such endeavors.



THIS is why I ask for more information before I add my name to the hat of such a risky proposal. For instance:

--> How much does one airshow flight cost in fuel and the necessary preparation ahead of which and maintanence afterwards for a Phantom? I know it's not cheap. Any idea?


--> How much can be charged for a single back-seat ride in an F-4? I know the Soviets charged or still charge mega-bucks for a supersonic ride in a Mig-29, but they have the financial backing of the military to cover unfortunate circumstances. Obviously many civilian groups and individuals do not.


--> if the Collings folk are being treated badly in comparision to "other organizations", then who are these other groups you speak of and are they flying passengers in F-4s and A-4s? I'd like to know who, how and why they are getting preferred treatment if this is so. Do they have more money/ insurance to back their efforts? Do they know someone in the FAA granting favoritism? What's the story here?


Believe me, I'm with you wanting to see the Collings group demo these machines, but I DON'T want to see the foundation lose ALL their aircraft for the sake/risk of flying a precious few due to one bad-luck happening. THAT would be a real disaster to all.

Understand?

My greatest concern is for the entire foundation's health, not a few jets, and losing those few precious aircraft to new owners will not mean the end of everything.


So please, don't make such quick judgement of my position. My concerns are just like yours, but I prefer to have sufficent info to make a truly informed decision, not just a blind "OK, I'm in" without considering the potential unwanted circumstances that could come from hasty choices. I don't live my life that way.

The foundation as a whole is too important to me.

If you haven't this info AND/OR the time to give it, I'll patiently wait until one of those informed Foundation personal who frequent the AAFO forum you speak of chime in and can open my/our eyes with informative text. If they convince me (and that's not hard to do), then I'm all in. I have no love for the FAA, so don't misunderstand, please. The info requested will go a long ways to convince others as well if forthcoming, I'm sure.


I welcome other's opinions on this subject. If you want to call me wrong, please include an explaination and not just an accusation or exaggerations of facts, I ask of you. If you haven't the time, then make time when you can.


Just the facts, Ma'm

It's all good.

[evanflys]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

My friend Hunter at the Collings Foundation told me this...

"Currently, the FAA has denied our petition for exemption - meaning, the only people we can take flying would be certified pilots with multi engine rating and complex endorsements. This means we will not be able to generate enough money to cover its operational expenses. - this also applies to our F-4 and A-4 jets......"

there is a lot of comments here about it here

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32751

and here

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32485

Evan

[stuntflyr]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

If the Collings come up with a flyable Saturn V, I think they should be able to sell rides in it just like they do in the P-51.

[goldfinger]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

I've worked with Collings for 15 years or so. I don't represent them, but the Foundation runs the aircraft tours to be self supporting from the flight revenues. I don't see why, if the maintenance and training are solid, that any organization should face case by case justification to the FAA. The rules are presently overly restrictive, and don't make much sense. Rather than fighting this on their terms, we should be calling for a rollback of unnecessary restrictions. What about Virgin Galactic selling rocket rides? If the aircraft is safe, airworthy, and in highly qualified hands, let 'em fly. Isn't this the United States?

Chris Goldfinger
Extra 300

[AirDOGGe]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

Evanflys, please allow me to apologize if I seem to have been making this hard on you. That wasn't my intention.

Even though I myself still require more info to decide what to do, I may have been making myself a real pain in the posterior to you. I'm going through my own health battle with "the big C" these days, and my pain killers + lack of sleep may have been assisting me in answering in an annoying and difficult manner. I didn't mean to do so.


I hope all goes well and you get the FAA to reconsider in the Collings favor. Best of wishes, and no hard feelings I hope.

[evanflys]

Re: Collings Foundation Me-262, F-4, A-4

hey AirDOGGe,
It's ok. I hope your fight with the big C is going ok.
I just want the FAA to play fair.

Evan