Collings Foundation Bombers

[Dale]

I've pasted in a copy of the email I received from the Collings
Foundation. If you have a moment to send an email/comment to the
addresses noted it would be worthwhile. I spent two years flying the
B-24 and B-17 and truly believe that having these airplanes on tour is a
great way to honor the sacrifices of our WWII veterans and also a great
way to educate people about the sacrifices of WWII. I was lucky to be
able to spend time with many veterans and know that from the way these
vets act around the bombers it is very worthwhile to keep them flying.

Thanks.

To Friends of the Collings Foundation:

HIGHEST LEVEL OF URGENCY: EFFORT TO KEEP THE B-17, B-24, & B-25 FLYING

Good evening everyone. You are getting this email because you signed up
for the Collings Foundation¹s eNewsletter and have shown an interest in
helping to keep our historic aircraft flying for many years to come. We
are sending this letter to you in the hope that you will find time to
help us fight the latest issue that would potentially devastate our
ability to fly the B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, and B-25
Mitchell.

These three aircraft operate under a Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Exemption letter that allows The Collings Foundation to fly these
aircraft for ³flight experiences² where you may actually fly in the
aircraft for 30 minutes. These flights are the primary fundraising
effort and are literally the driving force that keeps the bombers
flying.

These exemption letters are issued for two years and then are renewed at
the end of each term for the organization that wishes to continue it. We
have done so for many years without a problem.

Our current exemption letter expires on Oct 31, 2005 and we are reaching
a very high point of urgency. Despite having a request at the FAA Office
of Rulemaking for the past nine months for renewal of the exemption
letter that would continue allowing us to offer flights in the B-17,
B-24, and B-25, the FAA still has not issued a renewal or an extension
of the exemption letter. We are two weeks away from the expiration of
the letter and bureaucracy has tied the process up and no one has given
us an answer, nor has been able to give us the status of this request.

We need your help! Please contact anyone at the FAA that you feel
could/should help, including:

Marion Blakey * FAA Administrator *
Ida Klepper * Office of Rulemaking *
Or your local representatives or senators.

Make sure and reference the FAA Exemption Letter 6540F and note this is
for The Collings Foundations B-17 (N93012), B-24 (N224J), and B-25
(N3476G).

If you can help, we ask you to please carbon copy email your letter to
. Thank you for your help to ³Keep
Œem Flying!²



Best regards,
Bob Collings
Collings Foundation

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Brian Whatcott]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 15:45:15 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>I've pasted in a copy of the email I received from the Collings
>Foundation. If you have a moment to send an email/comment to the
>addresses noted it would be worthwhile. I spent two years flying the
>B-24 and B-17 and truly believe that having these airplanes on tour is a
>great way to honor the sacrifices of our WWII veterans and also a great
>way to educate people about the sacrifices of WWII. I was lucky to be
>able to spend time with many veterans and know that from the way these
>vets act around the bombers it is very worthwhile to keep them flying.
>
>Thanks.


It was quite a few years ago - a B24 was stopping off during its grand
tour. I was a member of the local EAA chapter at the time. Members
were asked to help out with keeping visitors safe.

When I arrived to help, somebody told me I was late, oh dear me!
I was stationed at the rear fuselage door, with the objective of
preventing people falling out of the steep steps in a heap.

At some point, a member of the flight crew saw that a person walking
through the aircraft had exited from the wrong door and felt obliged
to come and reprimand me for allowing it.

A trivial moment - but I haven't forgotten. And despite the debt I
owe to the WWII bomber crews, I could care less if these bombers never
tour again. That's all it takes to lose favor with the public, I
guess. A little to much attitude from the folks involved.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

[Dale]

In article >,
Brian Whatcott > wrote:


> It was quite a few years ago - a B24 was stopping off during its grand
> tour. I was a member of the local EAA chapter at the time. Members
> were asked to help out with keeping visitors safe.
>
> When I arrived to help, somebody told me I was late, oh dear me!
> I was stationed at the rear fuselage door, with the objective of
> preventing people falling out of the steep steps in a heap.
>
> At some point, a member of the flight crew saw that a person walking
> through the aircraft had exited from the wrong door and felt obliged
> to come and reprimand me for allowing it.
>
> A trivial moment - but I haven't forgotten. And despite the debt I
> owe to the WWII bomber crews, I could care less if these bombers never
> tour again. That's all it takes to lose favor with the public, I
> guess. A little to much attitude from the folks involved.


Brian,

It's unfortunate that you feel that way, seems you're going to punish
many for the mistake of one.

But each to his own.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Frank Stutzman]

Brian Whatcott > wrote:

> A trivial moment - but I haven't forgotten. And despite the debt I
> owe to the WWII bomber crews, I could care less if these bombers never
> tour again. That's all it takes to lose favor with the public, I
> guess. A little to much attitude from the folks involved.

My experiance isn't quite like yours Brian, but I'd have to say I've
somewhat simular sentiments.

The last time they were at the The Dalles, OR I asked one of the crew when
they were departing as I wanted to take a few photos from my Bonanza. I
got a snippy (to put it politely) response about how there can be no other
planes in the air (?!?) when they are flying because they as they
passengers. The guy was obviously unfamilar with the FARs, which I'm ok
with, but his attitue was unacceptable.

I have since taken my charitable aviation dollars elsewhere.

And whats with the three different paint jobs (each more lurid than the
last) on the B-24?


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Dale]

In article >,
Frank Stutzman > wrote:


>
> My experiance isn't quite like yours Brian, but I'd have to say I've
> somewhat simular sentiments.
>
> The last time they were at the The Dalles, OR I asked one of the crew when
> they were departing as I wanted to take a few photos from my Bonanza. I
> got a snippy (to put it politely) response about how there can be no other
> planes in the air (?!?) when they are flying because they as they
> passengers. The guy was obviously unfamilar with the FARs, which I'm ok
> with, but his attitue was unacceptable.

While there was no reason for the guy to be snippy with you there are a
lot of folks who slide up and fly formation with the bombers without
talking to us before which raises a couple of issues. It is a violation
to fly formation with paying passengers, it is a violation to conduct a
formation flight without a pre-formation brief, and it's not comfortable
or safe to have every tom, dick and harry that thinks he's a formation
pilot coming up on your wing.


> And whats with the three different paint jobs (each more lurid than the
> last) on the B-24?

All the paintjobs on the B-17, B-24 or B-25 depict actual airplanes that
flew during WWII. I didn't see anything lurid about the current scheme
as "Witchcraft" for the B-24.

There are a couple of flaming assholes that fly or travel with the
bombers. Sadly they are the memory that stays with people.

I think of the veterans that come out to see the airplanes. You can
literally see the years melt away from these guys. They get a spring in
their step, they stand just a bit taller, they relive an important time
in their lives. I just want them, the veterans, to continue to have the
oppurtunity to see, touch, hear and ride in the airplanes.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Gord Beaman]

Brian Whatcott > wrote:
snip
>
>It was quite a few years ago - a B24 was stopping off during its grand
>tour. I was a member of the local EAA chapter at the time. Members
>were asked to help out with keeping visitors safe.
>
>When I arrived to help, somebody told me I was late, oh dear me!
>I was stationed at the rear fuselage door, with the objective of
>preventing people falling out of the steep steps in a heap.
>
>At some point, a member of the flight crew saw that a person walking
>through the aircraft had exited from the wrong door and felt obliged
>to come and reprimand me for allowing it.
>
>A trivial moment - but I haven't forgotten. And despite the debt I
>owe to the WWII bomber crews, I could care less if these bombers never
>tour again. That's all it takes to lose favor with the public, I
>guess. A little to much attitude from the folks involved.
>
>Brian Whatcott Altus OK

I know the feeling, I guess the poor sod hasn't mellowed enough
yet to show some tolerance. I'd say that an info letter to the
Pres. of your chapter (cc to the outfit administering the
bombers) might be in order. I'm sure they don't want this kind of
advertisement...not too bright of the crewmember....
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Bob Moore]

Dale > wrote
> While there was no reason for the guy to be snippy with you there are
> a lot of folks who slide up and fly formation with the bombers without
> talking to us before which raises a couple of issues. It is a
> violation to fly formation with paying passengers, it is a violation
> to conduct a formation flight without a pre-formation brief, and it's
> not comfortable or safe to have every tom, dick and harry that thinks
> he's a formation pilot coming up on your wing.

How close do I have to be to be "flying in formation"?
Yeah, I know.....FAA lawyers.

Bob Moore

[Frank Stutzman]

Dale > wrote:

> While there was no reason for the guy to be snippy with you there are a
> lot of folks who slide up and fly formation with the bombers without
> talking to us before which raises a couple of issues. It is a violation
> to fly formation with paying passengers, it is a violation to conduct a
> formation flight without a pre-formation brief, and it's not comfortable
> or safe to have every tom, dick and harry that thinks he's a formation
> pilot coming up on your wing.

Well, the "formation" word was never in the conversation. In fact, my
intentions was to sit in my Bonanza while on the ramp shoot a picture of
the B-17 in the run-up area. The rant this guy went off on was
impressive.

Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree with
you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the appropriate
ones?

> All the paintjobs on the B-17, B-24 or B-25 depict actual airplanes that
> flew during WWII. I didn't see anything lurid about the current scheme
> as "Witchcraft" for the B-24.

I agree. And the "All American" was fine. But "Dragon and His Tail" is
nothing if not lurid. There are lots of paintjobs from WWII that would
be much easier to explain to my 5 year old than that one.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Dale]

In article >,
Frank Stutzman > wrote:


>
> Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree with
> you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
> PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
> FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the appropriate
> ones?

91.111 (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangment with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

91.111 (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Jon A]

Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:48:43 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>In article >,
> Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree with
>> you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
>> PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
>> FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the appropriate
>> ones?
>
>91.111 (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
>by arrangment with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
>formation.
>
>91.111 (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
>hire, in formation flight.

[Dale]

In article >,
Jon A > wrote:

> Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
> fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

Well, a formation can have thousands of feet seperating the
aircraft...depends on what you're doing.

I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.

My definition doesn't matter...the FAA is the one you have to worry
about. <G>

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Scott Skylane]

Dale wrote:

/snip/
> I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
> was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
> out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.
/snip/

Just curious, Dale. Did that happen here (ANC)?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Stubby]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Dale > wrote
>
>>While there was no reason for the guy to be snippy with you there are
>>a lot of folks who slide up and fly formation with the bombers without
>>talking to us before which raises a couple of issues. It is a
>>violation to fly formation with paying passengers, it is a violation
>>to conduct a formation flight without a pre-formation brief, and it's
>>not comfortable or safe to have every tom, dick and harry that thinks
>>he's a formation pilot coming up on your wing.
>
>
> How close do I have to be to be "flying in formation"?
> Yeah, I know.....FAA lawyers.

Our language seems inadequate. During a glider tow you are flying in
formation. So if you are getting instruction in the glider and the tow
plane has a passenger, it must be illegal.

[Dale]

In article >,
Scott Skylane > wrote:

> Dale wrote:
>
> /snip/
> > I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
> > was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
> > out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.
> /snip/
>
> Just curious, Dale. Did that happen here (ANC)?

No. It was back east, involved the B-24 and a Northwest 747. It was
the 747 Captains last flight (and he also flies the B-17 and B-24), they
worked it out with approach to get the -24 and the the 74- on final at
the same time. Minneapolis-St Paul maybe...not sure.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Dale]

In article >,
Stubby > wrote:


>
> Our language seems inadequate. During a glider tow you are flying in
> formation. So if you are getting instruction in the glider and the tow
> plane has a passenger, it must be illegal.

hehe I hadn't thought of that one. I fly skydivers. We fly in
formation all the time with other jump aircraft and have people on board
paying to make the skydive. FAA decided they're not passengers since
they are getting out, or something like that.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[[email protected]]

Stubby > wrote:
> Bob Moore wrote:
> > Dale > wrote
> >
> >>While there was no reason for the guy to be snippy with you there are
> >>a lot of folks who slide up and fly formation with the bombers without
> >>talking to us before which raises a couple of issues. It is a
> >>violation to fly formation with paying passengers, it is a violation
> >>to conduct a formation flight without a pre-formation brief, and it's
> >>not comfortable or safe to have every tom, dick and harry that thinks
> >>he's a formation pilot coming up on your wing.
> >
> >
> > How close do I have to be to be "flying in formation"?
> > Yeah, I know.....FAA lawyers.

> Our language seems inadequate. During a glider tow you are flying in
> formation. So if you are getting instruction in the glider and the tow
> plane has a passenger, it must be illegal.

Gee, not if it is a club operation (not a commercial operation).


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

[[email protected]]

Jon A > wrote:
> Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
> fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

Air Force definition: "same course, same day".


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Jon A > wrote:
> > Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
> > fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?

> Air Force definition: "same course, same day".

OOPS... should be:
Air Force definition: "same way, same day".


> Best regards,

> Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard



Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

[Al]

SFO has parallel runways a couple of hundred feet apart. I've flown just off
the wing of several airliners into the Right, while they used the Left.
Al




"Jon A" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, while I check these FAR #'s, how close do you think one needs to
> fly in order to be in "formation"? 36", 9 ft., 15 ft.? 1000 ft.?
>
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:48:43 -0800, Dale > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Having done some minor bit of formation work, I will certainly agree
>>> with
>>> you that an unplanned formation is way comfortable (heck, I find a
>>> PLANNED formation a little unconfortable). However, I am unaware of any
>>> FARs covering your other statements. Can you refer me to the
>>> appropriate
>>> ones?
>>
>>91.111 (b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
>>by arrangment with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
>>formation.
>>
>>91.111 (c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
>>hire, in formation flight.
>

[Daniel Roesen]

* Al >:
> SFO has parallel runways a couple of hundred feet apart. I've flown just off
> the wing of several airliners into the Right, while they used the Left.

I guess you mean the ILS PRM approach for 28L/R?


Regards,
Daniel

[Brian Whatcott]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:25:06 -0800, Dale > wrote:

>In article >,
> Scott Skylane > wrote:
>
>> Dale wrote:
>>
>> /snip/
>> > I know of two aircraft that were on parallel approaches and each pilot
>> > was violated for formation flight with passengers onboard. As it turned
>> > out after many dollars being spent, and much time it all went away.
>> /snip/
>>
>> Just curious, Dale. Did that happen here (ANC)?
>
>No. It was back east, involved the B-24 and a Northwest 747. It was
>the 747 Captains last flight (and he also flies the B-17 and B-24), they
>worked it out with approach to get the -24 and the the 74- on final at
>the same time. Minneapolis-St Paul maybe...not sure.


I flew into Tulsa International weekly for a year or so, in a light
plane, solo. From Rockwall (nr Dallas, Texas)

I remember an approach hand off to tower, then an alert that another
flight would be making finals for the left runway, while I was on the
right approach. A passenger plane soon overtook me - I could see
the passengers looking out.....
But that was unpremeditated and unremarked.

Brian Whatcott