Can Branson Charge For Flights In An Experimental Aircraft?

[Larry Dighera]

Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?



http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080124/NEWS/801240838/-1/HELP07
NEW YORK -- A select group of rich tourists may be blasting into
space within a few years in a craft that developers say is
about 70 percent complete.

British billionaire Richard Branson and the aerospace designer
Burt Rutan on Wednesday unveiled a model of SpaceShipTwo, the
vehicle they hope will be able to take passengers about 62 miles
above Earth for the fun of it, with test flights possibly
beginning this year. ...

About 200 prospective passengers from 30 countries have made
reservations, shelling out $200,000 each.

But:


http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGFAR.NSF/0/C71E4CB4B0E8D48186256EF4004B96D6?OpenDocument
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart D--Special Flight Operations

Sec. 91.319

Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate--
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was
issued; or
--> (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until
it is shown that--
(1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of
speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and
(2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or
design features.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special
operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has
an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a
congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating
limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and
landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a
congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions
specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air
commerce.
(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate shall--
(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the
aircraft;
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Administrator; and
(3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the
aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with
operating control towers.
[(e) No person may operate an aircraft that is issued an
experimental certificate under §21.191 (i) of this chapter for
compensation or hire, except a person may operate an aircraft
issued an experimental certificate under §21.191 (i)(1) for
compensation or hire to-
(1) Tow a glider that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered
ultralight vehicle in accordance with §91.309; or
(2) Conduct flight training in an aircraft which that person
provides prior to January 31, 2010.
(f) No person may lease an aircraft that is issued an experimental
certificate under §21.191 (i) of this chapter, except in
accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(g) No person may operate an aircraft issued an experimental
certificate under §21.191 (i)(1) of this chapter to tow a glider
that is a light-sport aircraft or unpowered ultralight vehicle for
compensation or hire or to conduct flight training for
compensation or hire in an aircraft which that persons provides
unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the
aircraft has-
(1) Been inspected by a certificated repairman (light-sport
aircraft) with a maintenance rating, an appropriately rated
mechanic, or an appropriately rated repair station in accordance
with inspection procedures developed by the aircraft manufacturer
or a person acceptable to the FAA; or
(2) Received an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness
certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
(h) The FAA may issue deviation authority providing relief from
the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section for the purpose of
conducting flight training. The FAA will issue this deviation
authority as a letter of deviation authority.
(1) The FAA may cancel or amend a letter of deviation authority at
any time.
(2) An applicant must submit a request for deviation authority to
the FAA at least 60 days before the date of intended operations. A
request for deviation authority must contain a complete
description of the proposed operation and justification that
establishes a level of safety equivalent to that provided under
the regulations for the deviation requested.
(i) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that
the Administrator considers necessary, including limitations on
the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.]

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

cavalamb himself wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>>
>>
>
> When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?

Damn now I have to back up Larry.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"cavalamb himself" > wrote in message
...
>
> When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?
>

From the start.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:31:55 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote in
>:

>cavalamb himself wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?
>
>Damn now I have to back up Larry.
>
>http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/

The regulations also establish requirements for crew notification,
medical qualifications and training, as well as requirements
governing environmental control and life support systems. They
also require a launch vehicle operator to verify the integrated
performance of a vehicles hardware and any software in an
operational environment. An operator must successfully verify the
integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in
an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight
participant on board. Verificatioin [sic] must include flight
testing.

So it would seem that the operator of an ostensibly uncertified
aircraft, that can truly be considered experimental in my opinion, is
authorized by the FAA to "verify" the spacecraft is safe for flight.

But that doesn't address Sec. 91.319's prohibition against flying
paying passengers in experimental aircraft, does it?

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "cavalamb himself" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?
> >
>
> From the start.
>
>

Did the Soviets check with the FAA when they launched Sputnik?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 28, 9:04*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?

I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the vehicle would
be certified as experimental when passengers were riding. I would
assume he would have the certificate before the paying pax arrived.

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:tHonj.10$9g.9@trndny07...
>
> Did the Soviets check with the FAA when they launched Sputnik?
>

Doubtful. Why do you ask?

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:tHonj.10$9g.9@trndny07...
> >
> > Did the Soviets check with the FAA when they launched Sputnik?
> >
>
> Doubtful. Why do you ask?
>
>

You stated the FAA has been involved 'since the start'.

The Start was in 1957.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:5Vonj.9$4f.8@trndny06...
>
> You stated the FAA has been involved 'since the start'.
>
> The Start was in 1957.
>

There was no US space program prior to the launch of Sputnik I? Is that
what you're saying?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?


You are dead inside, Larry.


Dead

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:31:55 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>cavalamb himself wrote:
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?
>>
>>Damn now I have to back up Larry.
>>
>>
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_spac
>>e_flight_reqs/
>
> The regulations also establish requirements for crew notification,
> medical qualifications and training, as well as requirements
> governing environmental control and life support systems. They
> also require a launch vehicle operator to verify the integrated
> performance of a vehicles hardware and any software in an
> operational environment. An operator must successfully verify the
> integrated performance of a vehicle's hardware and any software in
> an operational flight environment before allowing any space flight
> participant on board. Verificatioin [sic] must include flight
> testing.
>
> So it would seem that the operator of an ostensibly uncertified
> aircraft, that can truly be considered experimental in my opinion, is
> authorized by the FAA to "verify" the spacecraft is safe for flight.
>
> But that doesn't address Sec. 91.319's prohibition against flying
> paying passengers in experimental aircraft, does it?
>
>
Oh you better get out to Mojave and warn Burt about this, Lar.

Don't forget to bring your speed gun.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:57:53 -0800 (PST), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Jan 28, 9:04*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>
>I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the vehicle would
>be certified as experimental when passengers were riding.

That was a presumably erroneous assumption on my part.

>I would assume he would have the certificate before the paying pax arrived.
>

It would appear that Part 91 may not apply in the case of space
flight, as the FAA seems to have implemented new Parts for that:


http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/
Commercial Space Transportation Regulations

Regulations
Part 400 — Bases and Scope
Part 401 — Organization and Definitions
Part 404 — Regulations and Licensing Requirements
Part 405 — Investigations and Enforcement
Part 406 — Investigations, Enforcement, and Administrative Review
Part 413 — License Application Procedures
Part 414 — Safety Approvals
Part 415 — Launch License
Part 417 — Launch Safety
Part 420 — License to Operate a Launch Site
Part 431 — Launch and Reentry of a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
Part 433 — License to Operate a Reentry Site
Part 435 — Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle Other than a Reusable
Launch Vehicle (RLV)
Part 437 — Experimental Permits
Part 440 — Financial Responsibility
Part 460 — Human Space Flight Requirements
Complete FAA/AST Regulations, 14 CFR Chapter III (PDF, 4.4 MB)
Miscellaneous Changes to Commercial Space Transportation
Regulations; Final Rule (PDF) (8/31/2006)



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e11cee34fe5087a8cba8d252ec7327b3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:4.0.2.9.24&idno=14
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

PART 460—HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REQUIREMENTS

Subpart A—Launch and Reentry with Crew

§ 460.1 Scope.
§ 460.3 Applicability.
§ 460.5 Crew qualifications and training.
§ 460.7 Operator training of crew.
§ 460.9 Informing crew of risk.
§ 460.11 Environmental control and life support systems.
§ 460.13 Smoke detection and fire suppression.
§ 460.15 Human factors.
§ 460.17 Verification program.
§ 460.19 Crew waiver of claims against U.S. Government.
§§ 460.20-460.40 [Reserved]


Subpart B—Launch and Reentry with a Space Flight participant

§ 460.41 Scope.
§ 460.43 Applicability.
§ 460.45 Operator informing space flight participant of risk.
§ 460.47 [Reserved]
§ 460.49 Space flight participant waiver of claims against U.S.
Government.
§ 460.51 Space flight participant training.
§ 460.53 Security.


Without having digested all the new regulations, I presume it is the
"§ 460.49 Space flight participant waiver of claims against U.S.
Government" that permits commercial operations. It's probably clearly
buried somewhere in here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e11cee34fe5087a8cba8d252ec7327b3&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:4.0.2.9.22&idno=14

[Steve Hix]

In article <tHonj.10$9g.9@trndny07>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "cavalamb himself" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?
> > >
> >
> > From the start.
> >
> >
>
> Did the Soviets check with the FAA when they launched Sputnik?

Wasn't manned, was it?

[Steve Hix]

In article <5Vonj.9$4f.8@trndny06>,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> > news:tHonj.10$9g.9@trndny07...
> > >
> > > Did the Soviets check with the FAA when they launched Sputnik?
> > >
> >
> > Doubtful. Why do you ask?
> >
> >
>
> You stated the FAA has been involved 'since the start'.
>
> The Start was in 1957.

A bit previous to passenger flight, that.

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:5Vonj.9$4f.8@trndny06...
> >
> > You stated the FAA has been involved 'since the start'.
> >
> > The Start was in 1957.
> >
>
> There was no US space program prior to the launch of Sputnik I? Is that
> what you're saying?
>
>

No. I'm saying that your statement regarding the FAA's involvement with
space craft systems "From the Start" is wrong.

"The Start" was in the Soviet Union.

The FAA Was not involved.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Jan 28, 12:40 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
>
> No. I'm saying that your statement regarding the FAA's involvement with
> space craft systems "From the Start" is wrong.
>
> "The Start" was in the Soviet Union.
>
> The FAA Was not involved.
>
> Is that clear enough for you?
>

I see.

Because the FAA was not involved with the Soviet space program you've
concluded there was no FAA involvement in the US space program prior
to October 4, 1957.

Your conclusion is incorrect.

[Steve Foley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 28, 12:40 pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> >
> > No. I'm saying that your statement regarding the FAA's involvement with
> > space craft systems "From the Start" is wrong.
> >
> > "The Start" was in the Soviet Union.
> >
> > The FAA Was not involved.
> >
> > Is that clear enough for you?
> >
>
> I see.
>
> Because the FAA was not involved with the Soviet space program you've
> concluded there was no FAA involvement in the US space program prior
> to October 4, 1957.
>
> Your conclusion is incorrect.
>

I made no such statement.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:Lwpnj.9$eg.1@trndny01...
>
> I made no such statement.
>

I didn't say you did.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>
>

When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> cavalamb himself wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When has FAA ever been involved space craft systems?
>
>
> Damn now I have to back up Larry.
>
> http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/human_space_flight_reqs/
>
>

Ahh! Just last year...

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Jan 28, 12:04 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?

I believe the FAA has issued rules allowing private suborbital
spacecraft to carry paying passengers using a launch license rules
rather than aircraft certification. Essentially, launch licenses only
require the operator to certify that the uninvolved public will not be
unduly put in danger by the flight- they do *not* require the operator
to prove that the passengers will not be endangered. I believe
there's a requirement that the pax sign releases saying that they
understand the terms under which the flight is being conducted, but I
could be wrong.

There was actually a fairly big argument in the nascent suborbital
passenger community a few years ago as to whether suborbital
operations should be covered under certification or launch licenses.
Burt Rutan (designer of the WK/SS1 system) actually wanted to
implement something akin to certification, arguing that the new
industry had to be safe for passengers or it would never get off the
ground. Most other would-be suborbital operators disagreed, arguing
that there was not enough data currently available on suborbital ops
to even define what certification standards should be in that regime,
let alone determine whether or not their vehicles met those standards,
and that if they were required to certify their vehicles it would
effectively strange the industry in its cradle by delaying revenue-
producing flights for too long. The launch license guys have won out
for the moment, although I believe there's a Congressman who keeps
trying to legislatively change the rules.

-JTD

[[email protected]]

On 28 Jan, 18:25, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>
> You are dead inside, Larry.
>
> Dead
>
> Bertie

Pure class!

You are of course a right Royal Pain in the Ass.

But worth it:-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_22_]]

wrote in
:

> On 28 Jan, 18:25, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>>
>> You are dead inside, Larry.
>>
>> Dead
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Pure class!
>
> You are of course a right Royal Pain in the Ass.
>
> But worth it:-)
>
>
>

I wouldn't have it any other way.


Bertie

[Dale[_3_]]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:


>
> But that doesn't address Sec. 91.319's prohibition against flying
> paying passengers in experimental aircraft, does it?

You just have to get a letter authorizing the carrying of paying
passengers. The Collings Foundation B-24J is licensed in the
experimental category yet is allowed to carry paying passengers.

[cavalamb himself[_2_]]

Dale wrote:
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>
>>But that doesn't address Sec. 91.319's prohibition against flying
>>paying passengers in experimental aircraft, does it?
>
>
> You just have to get a letter authorizing the carrying of paying
> passengers. The Collings Foundation B-24J is licensed in the
> experimental category yet is allowed to carry paying passengers.


Passengers can pay for fuel and maintenance costs.

The rest goes for training.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:18:27 -0800, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> So it would seem that the operator of an ostensibly uncertified
>> aircraft, that can truly be considered experimental in my opinion, is
>> authorized by the FAA to "verify" the spacecraft is safe for flight.
>
>Yes, with a substantial amount of FAA/AST oversight and signoff of the
>analysis/verification.
>
>> But that doesn't address Sec. 91.319's prohibition against flying
>> paying passengers in experimental aircraft, does it?
>
>While the aircraft (mothership) is certificated in the experimental
>R&D category, no paying passengers will be carried.
>
>Once the Launch License is granted (after testing as Exp. R&D and
>further testing with a Launch Permit) the paying passengers can be
>carried ONLY WHILE ON A LAUNCH MISSION under the Launch License - NOT
>under the Exp. R&D certificate.

I suppose the rational for this policy of somewhat lower standards for
spacecraft is due to the limited technical information available to
would be certifiers and their limited experience in this field, the
uniqueness of each vehicle, and the desirability to foster growth in
the fledgling, domestic space flight marketplace. Also, it would
appear that Sec. 91.319 is concerned with the safety of those over
whom experimental aircraft fly. Spacecraft operations obviate that
issue, as they are restricted to spaceports, IIUC.

Thank you for your input. Are you affiliated with the space flight
industry?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:38:27 -0800, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> ... Are you affiliated with the space flight industry?
>
>I work for Scaled on the Spaceship/Mothership project, currently.


So do the Commercial Space Transportation Regulations
<http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/>
supercede the Part 91 regulations, or augment them?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:38:27 -0800, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> ... Are you affiliated with the space flight industry?
>>
>>I work for Scaled on the Spaceship/Mothership project, currently.
>
>
> So do the Commercial Space Transportation Regulations
> <http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulatio
> ns/> supercede the Part 91 regulations, or augment them?
>
>

DEAD!

Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:22:05 -0800 (PST), Jeff Dougherty
> wrote in
>:

>On Jan 28, 12:04 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Is Branson going to certify White Knight Two and SpaceShipTwo?
>
>I believe the FAA has issued rules allowing private suborbital
>spacecraft to carry paying passengers using a launch license rules
>rather than aircraft certification. Essentially, launch licenses only
>require the operator to certify that the uninvolved public will not be
>unduly put in danger by the flight- they do *not* require the operator
>to prove that the passengers will not be endangered. I believe
>there's a requirement that the pax sign releases saying that they
>understand the terms under which the flight is being conducted, but I
>could be wrong.
>
>There was actually a fairly big argument in the nascent suborbital
>passenger community a few years ago as to whether suborbital
>operations should be covered under certification or launch licenses.
>Burt Rutan (designer of the WK/SS1 system) actually wanted to
>implement something akin to certification, arguing that the new
>industry had to be safe for passengers or it would never get off the
>ground. Most other would-be suborbital operators disagreed, arguing
>that there was not enough data currently available on suborbital ops
>to even define what certification standards should be in that regime,
>let alone determine whether or not their vehicles met those standards,
>and that if they were required to certify their vehicles it would
>effectively strange the industry in its cradle by delaying revenue-
>producing flights for too long. The launch license guys have won out
>for the moment, although I believe there's a Congressman who keeps
>trying to legislatively change the rules.
>
>-JTD


This is interesting information. Thank you for your input.

It would seem that Sir Branson has found a way to generate revenue
with suborbital flights despite Mr. Rutan's admonition. It will be
interesting to see how commercialized suborbital recreational
operations progress.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:


>
> This is interesting information. Thank you for your input.


Dead and cold in the ground.....

Soooo cold.

Bertie

[Andreus[_2_]]

I haven't followed this argument and I'm not going to go back and read it so
if this has been mentioned before please ignore this comment.

The FAA is an American regulatory agency. They have absolutely no say in
anything the rest of us might do, thank God. If Branson is interested in
investing huge quantities of cash into making something like this happen I
doubt some piddly little American agency will stop him.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Andreus wrote:
> I haven't followed this argument and I'm not going to go back and read it so
> if this has been mentioned before please ignore this comment.
>
> The FAA is an American regulatory agency. They have absolutely no say in
> anything the rest of us might do, thank God. If Branson is interested in
> investing huge quantities of cash into making something like this happen I
> doubt some piddly little American agency will stop him.
>
>

Well, considering Mr. Branson wants to launch those aircraft from a spot
out in the USAian desert the FAA will have a say in it.

[Charles Vincent]

Andreus wrote:
> I haven't followed this argument and I'm not going to go back and read it so
> if this has been mentioned before please ignore this comment.
>
> The FAA is an American regulatory agency. They have absolutely no say in
> anything the rest of us might do, thank God. If Branson is interested in
> investing huge quantities of cash into making something like this happen I
> doubt some piddly little American agency will stop him.
>
>

No matter where you launch an object into space, the local government is
going to have an interest and is likely to intervene. And if you do
find someplace where this is not in fact true, then I expect the rest of
the world will take an acute interest and feel the need to police your
activities when you do start to hurl stuff into orbit.

Charles