Gang,
I'm intimately familiar with this incident and wanted to share my experience related
to it. Being the prominent L-39 dealer on the west coast, it is not unusual
to get a call from the FAA when an L-39 so much as overheats it's brakes
or violates controlled airspace. When this incident broke I was almost immediately
contacted by the FAA. I was also contacted by the reported and declined
comment as I didn't have all the facts at the time. Now I do have all the facts
as I've spent several hours discussing this with FAA investigators as we maintained
the aircraft and they eventually went looking for maintenance records,
etc....anything they could find to nail Riggs.
I have hopefully turned this negative into a positive as the writer has agreed
to meet me for lunch to discuss a much more positive article (the "other" side
of the story, if you will) on warbirds, the communities, and the passionate and
responsible people who fly our birds. My point in sharing all of this is to
demonstrate that it is only us whom can make a difference and help the media
with more informed reporting...they simply don't know what they don't know and
the only way that is going to change is if we take the time to educate them.
It is only in our best interest.
Below is parts my communication with/response to the writer...
========
Hi Barry, Thanks again for your e-mail. This has been a very good discussion. I
have received more than 70 e-mails mostly from pilots, including military pilots.
I have responded in some way to all of them. Some have supported the article,
while others say it was unfair to many good operators of EE aircraft. As
far as the FAA plan to review EE aircraft, there are few inspectors who specialize
in these planes. The FAA may have a hard time carrying out all the work within
the time frame. I don't know exactly how the agency plans to do it or what
organizations the FAA plans to work with, if any.
I have several stories to get out of the way before I can think about doing the
warbirds story we talked about. I also need approval from my editor. Let's keep
in touch on this. Also, would it be alright for me to contact you if I have
aviation related questions? You can speak on background if you want. That means
we don't have to use your name.
Dan Weikel
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Hancock [mailto:bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:58 AM
To: Weikel, Dan
Subject: Re: More Riggs
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply. See below.....
>On Nov 10, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Weikel, Dan wrote:
>Hello Barry,
>You are right. The FAA periodically inspects experimental aircraft. But a >July
FAA memorandum states, however, that the agency will step up its >inspections
of such aircraft, including checks of maintenance records, >operating limitations
and program letters. So, we are correct in saying >the FAA is taking a
closer look at this category of aircraft. The plan is to >have all experimental
exhibition aircraft in the Western Pacific Region >reviewed in two years. According
to the FAA, thats a lot more ambitious >than what they used to do. Are
FAA officials and their memo wrong?
I have not seen that memo and take your word for it. I also agree that's an ambitious
plan....in fact, if it is indeed for "all" EE aircraft, then there is
no possible way they can do it in two years with the resources they have. Have
they outlined a systematic approach for doing such a thing? Further, it would
seem to me that if they were doing such a thing they might want to coordinate
with the various associations to get cooperation in accomplishing their goal.
>Also, what court has ruled that Riggs has been complying with his >operating limitations?
I have all the NTSB hearing records and the FAA >enforcement packages
for Riggs. I dont believe there are any federal, >state, or NTSB court decisions
related to this.
It is my understanding that the FAA has tried to get Riggs for his "movie" business
and that he has been allowed to continue to operate because it meets the
standard for providing movie footage. Everyone knows that the ride is the primary
thing the passenger wants. That being said, he has done it for years and
the FAA knows about it. He did not have a commercial license, and that is another
issue. Look, Riggs is a renegade and a threat to public safety and I would
like to see him taken care of as bad as the next guy.
>The FAA cut short Sullivans and Erdels investigations into the >commercial use
of Riggs planes and maintenance problems without >taking any action. On the record,
the FAA says their investigations were >closed because they had already
revoked his license and the agency >believes Riggs finally resolved the maintenance
questions. Sullivan and >Erdel dispute this.
With all due respect, I know Sullivan and have worked with Erdel. Neither of these
guys know Part 43 (which is the regulation the covers EE aircraft) very well
and in many cases they are shooting in the dark. In fact, that can be said
of most FAA inspectors. It makes sense...the EE category is small and they
don't spend a lot of time there. I cannot tell you how many times I have had
to explain these regulations to the FAA inspectors. These are bureaucrats in
an underfunded and understaffed bureaucracy....but now I'm digressing into personal
bias.
>Nevertheless, their enforcement packages raise substantial questions >about taking
paying passengers for rides and making movies of the >flights. Have you seen
these records? Also, a federal Freedom of >Information Act request I made
shows that Riggs has no waivers for >anything and has never held a commercial
license. FAA officials tell me >you cannot sell a ride to someone in an experimental
exhibition aircraft >and film it unless you have a commercial license
and FAA permission. >The ride is the primary thing the passenger wants, not the
movie.
Agree.
>In the L-29 crash in Tehachapi, NTSB and FAA sources tell me that it >appears
the planes in formation were flown in violation of their operating >limitations.
How so?
>The crash investigation is still open and no conclusions have been >reached yet.
According to the NTSB hearing, somehow the check ride >document Gilliss prepared
and signed ended up in the truck of the airport >manager who died in crash.
Did Gilliss give it to him without doing the >check ride?
So did Gilliss' bag...which is where the certificate was.
>Gilliss has lost his first appeal, although he prevailed on the low altitude
>allegation. He has one more shot before the full NTSB board, then he can >sue
in federal court if he wants. Gilliss sounds like a fine pilot. I have >talked
to him several times. Perhaps he will prevail in the end. I dont >know.
It would a tragic overreach if he did not. He is more than a fine pilot. He is
a committed, generous check airman who is heavily involved in the jet warbird
community. The FAA is shooting themselves in the foot because he is one of
the designated examiners for jet warbirds....which are in short supply already.
>All airplane crashes are reported to the NTSB, but not all are >investigated by
the NTSB so there are very likely to be more crashes >than those listed in the
agencys public database.
I'm continuing to have trouble with this statement. Perhaps we need to define
"crash". Any accident that results in substantial damage, total aircraft loss,
or death will get an NTSB report. I can tell you as a well connected entity
of the community, that when a plane so much looses it's brakes and runs off the
runway (it's happened twice to my knowledge...something germane to jet aircraft
operations) we hear about it and get a call from the FAA asking us what we
know. Further, as a
community there is value in incidents and accidents. We discuss these things amongst
operators at venues like the Classic Jet Aircraft Association, Oshkosh,
All Red Star and other venues to learn from them. I don't see GA organizations
like the Cessna Pilots Association doing this.
Dan, a few years ago a pilot operating a Glasair III (experimental aircraft) was
doing aerobatics over his buddies house (his buddy was riding with him in the
airplane). They pilot botched a maneuver at low altitude and the plane crashed
into a house. Did the FAA dispatch the "3rd Brigade" on all experimental
home builts? No. One can easily demonstrate that the EE category aircraft are
better built and safer than the Experimental Homebuilt category. EE aircraft
are built in a factory (albeit foreign) and in the case of warbirds have seen
a hundreds of thousands, if not millions of operational hours as a fleet. What
this means is that the level of both operational knowledge and airframe integrity
is MUCH higher than it is in the Homebuilt category. Further, as the
builder of a homebuilt airplane, you can perform all your own maintenance on your
aircraft. The EE category requires a licensed mechanic to perform maintenance
on aircraft like the L-39. Warbirds are more visible and "sexy" than homebuilts.
Because of this they get a higher level of scrutiny...it is not rational
or "fair", but we all understand this and accept it as part of an "unwinnable"
fight against bureaucracy. What we can do is continue to educate and inform
people and the media.
>Also, several pilots, whom I talked to but didnt want to be quoted, say >that
some L-39 pilots as well as other owners of vintage jets have egos >larger than
their abilities and that they dont fly enough to be truly >proficient in their
aircraft. They wrong? Based on my reporting, I >believe, and my editors agree,
that we can say there are safety >concerns beyond David Riggs. You disagree.
I respect that.
Well, actually, I don't disagree. There are always safety concerns. HOWEVER,
it is true of ALL owner groups. Be it L-39's, P-51, Bonanzas, Cirrus', or corporate
(especially corporate jet owners) there are egos that exceed ability.
Proficiency is a concern for ALL of general aviation all the time, but especially
in tough economic times. I hope you take this in the vain that it is intended,
because I think this is a valuable discussion for both of us, but on this
point I think you are making a hasty generalization and singling out one group
when the evidence you provide is applicable to all pilot groups. Also, from
a psychoanalytic standpoint, there is a fair amount of jealousy from a lot of
pilots towards warbird operators.
>As far as a broader article on experimental exhibition aircraft, I think >there
is a good story in the growing interest in collecting and flying war >birds.
Where do you go to learn to fly a P-51, a B-17 or an F-86? That >kind of thing.
Other pilots who own vintage aircraft or war birds have e->mailed me suggesting
such a story. If you are willing, I would be glad to >meet with you in
the months ahead. Hopefully, you
>wont decline to comment.
Well, I would love that. My decision on declining to comment on the Riggs situation
was strictly business. Many among us are former military test pilots, Top
Gun instructors, airline check airman, etc. Many are long time general aviation
pilots that have found new life in warbirds. It's a great mix. sI've been
doing this for over 10 years (since the age of 30) and have taken a passion
and a hobby into a prominent business as well as being a safety consultant and
instructor pilot for the Red Star Pilots Association. We have a lot of great
stories...so do the airplanes.
The vast majority of us work very hard to be as safe as we can be, and are passionate
about maintaining a living history of military aviation. I would love
to meet with you and share the insights of this fascinating community with you.
I'm a former member of the press and think I can be helpful to you.
Respectfully,
Barry
From: Barry Hancock [mailto:bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:20 AM
To: Weikel, Dan
Subject: Re: Riggs article
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the reply regarding your recent Times article. I appreciate your input,
yet the article does not raise the issues you site in your reply, why? I
feel there are several things your statements below do not recognize.
Consider that the experimental exhibition category is a much broader stroke than
the L-39, or even jet warbirds. In fact, the jet warbird community makes up
just a small percentage of the experimental exhibition category. Further, the
FAA has not "launched" any program of ramp checks, this has been going on for
as long as the category has existed. The FAA was pissed, and rightfully so,
at Riggs. They did everything in their power to prosecute him (I know, I spoke
at length with investigators who contacted me looking for anything to hang
Riggs on), which included a review of the aircraft airworthiness (i.e. maintenance
records, etc.). I am glad that they did so. However, that this incident
or the behavior and character of Mr. Riggs is somehow reflected in the community
at large is a stretch of Herculean proportions. As a member of the community
for over 10 years and one of the most prominent
operators and dealers of these airplanes in the country, I speak from a sound foundation
when I say that the vast majority of EE aircraft, pilots, and operators
maintain their planes to the highest standards, and just as importantly, fly
more regularly than the average General Aviation pilot.
As to your comment that there are "indications that some of these planes are being
flown outside of their operating limitations...." Mr. Riggs was found in the
court of law to be within the bounds of his Operating Limitations. Although
admittedly a loophole, because he was a legitimate movie maker he could reasonably
claim the money was collected as a result of providing the footage. I
want to make it clear that I do not support Mr. Riggs or his activities. However,
we need to be careful to be accurate in the stories we portray to a very
impressionable general public.
Outside of this loophole that Riggs has exploited, I do not know of another entity
operating outside of their Ops Limits for commercial purposes. Do you?
I'm fully aware of the Tehachapi incident. I know the pilot who has had his license
revoked. Are you aware of the circumstances around that? Are you aware
that Gilliss is one of the most active, honest, and helpful check airman in the
US with a spotless safety record? Are you aware that the FAA was looking for
someone to blame and found evidence that they thought supported their claims
that Gilliss falsified documents....what Gilliss did was print and sign the
form at his home prior to leaving for Tehachapi for the check ride to cut down
on his administrative time on
site...something he does all the time as a courtesy and in no way presented even
an intent to falsify documents. My point here is that any crash gets the attention
of the FAA and the NTSB. In this case they have misunderstood the facts,
and the judge misunderstood the evidence. I'm confident that the appeals
process will reverse the ruling and reinstate one of the most valuable assets
the jet warbird community has had over the years.
As to another pilot loosing his license, can you please explain to me why someone
should loose their license over the mistake of a dead person? BTW, Bob Chamberlain,
a long time USAF test pilot was the one who screwed up and crashed the
plane, not the guy who supposedly got a pencil whipped checkride by Gilliss.
Additionally, are you aware that if there is a "crash" the NTSB will have record
of it, period. How can the FAA possibly state that there are more crashes
than the NTSB reports indicate? It is impossible. If there is a crash, the
FAA knows about it. You don't have "fender benders" in the air that don't get
reported. If there is a crash that results in major damage or destruction
of the aircraft, the NTSB is involved. Further, they say "that the number may
be as high as 10%..." Let's stick to the facts as reported, not the speculative
musings of inspectors with an agenda. During the period in which the 16 incidents
with L-39's have been reported, how many vintage fighter (P-51, P-47,
etc.) accidents have their been? How many vintage trainer (T-6, T-28, T-34,
etc.) accidents have their been? How many airshow crashes have their been? My
point here is that the L-39 is no more prone to accidents than any other high
performance experimental exhibition category aircraft....and none of those approach
10%. Further, the L-39 is new to US operators...look at the trend instead
of just raw numbers. The loss rate has steadily been declining. One point
on "experimental exhibition". You are correct that the planes were not built
in the US and thus put in this category by the FAA. Consider in the case of
the L-39 that it is the single most successful military jet trainer in aviation
history with over 4,000,000 operational hours and counting. There is nothing
"experimental" about it - it simply wasn't built with FAA inspectors standing
around. They are about as experimental as a T-38 or T-45 that the US Military
flies.
Then you need to ask yourself, if there truly is a problem with EE type aircraft,
then why is it only the Western Region that is ostensibly upping the scrutiny?
I'll tell you why, and I've seen it over and over again. This is sexy stuff
and the motivation goes beyond the rational. I spent a lot of time, along
with a close friend of mine, discussing this case with 2 of the investigators...now
both no longer working for the FAA. You can't make a career out of one
case, which is what at least one of the two was trying to do. These distinctions
are important, Dan. There is simply no evidence that the issues created
by Mr. Riggs irresponsible and reckless behavior, while real, are an indicator
of some larger problem that the FAA or the general public ought to be concerned
with. The sub-title skews the article to a particular bent that is, I feel,
inappropriate. Several thousand people safely operate Experimental aircraft
and maintain them to very high standards. I would be happy to have you do an
article that looks at the
other side of your story...namely the passion of responsible people that keeps
the heritage of military flight alive, and the dedication of those who flight
foreign military aircraft safely and honorably in the US.
Respectfully,
Barry Hancock
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273304#273304
