Isn't the NASA 747 Carrier plane 'experimental'?

[gsengle]

Did they get some sort of waiver to fly it over populated areas?  Isn't this part of the experimental rules?  Just curious if anyone had thoughts...

[PTK]

I'm sure for an historic event like that a waiver would (should) easily be granted! It's NASA! They can fly the shuttle over my house anytime and for as long as they want!

I don't think we can get a waiver to mount another plane on top of the Mooney and fly around though!

[201er]

Guess it didn't work out between your and your neighbors plane then? Thwarted by FAA bureaucracy!

[Parker_Woodruff]

I'm sure it's probably "Public Use" category.

[jetdriven]

I think its public use.  NASA is a government agency, they don;'t necessarily conform to FAR's. 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

I think its public use.  NASA is a government agency, they don;'t necessarily conform to FAR's. 

[Becca]

Quote: jetdriven

I think its public use.  NASA is a government agency, they don;'t necessarily conform to FAR's. 

[gsengle]

Quote: Becca

Exactly.  For the most part, one government agency cannot regulate another.  Thus NASA certifies its planes and pilots for airworthiness (not in so many words) rather than the FAA and flies under their own rules.  This becomes very interesting when you need to be a passenger in a NASA aircraft, you have to sign a waiver that says you understand the plane and pilots may not conform to any FAA standards.  I've had to sign these waivers before flying on the Vomet Comet.  Interestingly, there is an additional wrinkle.  Now NASA contracts to the private "Zero G" corp for microgravity flights.  When it flies tourists it flies under its own FAA certificate, but technically when it is flying for NASA, its off the certificate, as a result, the plane could be equipped differently if NASA requires than what is allowed by the FAA.  Anyway.

As for flying over public areas, I am certain hazard analysis was done ad naseum as well as many many discussions with FAA, DC authorities, DoD, etc. before determining route of flight.  Its a giant bureacracy, this is how things are done.

[Becca]

Quote: gsengle

Exactly.  For the most part, one government agency cannot regulate another.  Thus NASA certifies its planes and pilots for airworthiness (not in so many words) rather than the FAA and flies under their own rules.  This becomes very interesting when you need to be a passenger in a NASA aircraft, you have to sign a waiver that says you understand the plane and pilots may not conform to any FAA standards.  I've had to sign these waivers before flying on the Vomet Comet.  Interestingly, there is an additional wrinkle.  Now NASA contracts to the private "Zero G" corp for microgravity flights.  When it flies tourists it flies under its own FAA certificate, but technically when it is flying for NASA, its off the certificate, as a result, the plane could be equipped differently if NASA requires than what is allowed by the FAA.  Anyway.

As for flying over public areas, I am certain hazard analysis was done ad naseum as well as many many discussions with FAA, DC authorities, DoD, etc. before determining route of flight.  Its a giant bureacracy, this is how things are done.

[jetdriven]

All they are out is fuel.  The rest is already paid for and depreciated out.

BTW a 747-100SR with those Pratts is going to burn around 30K LB an hour at 250kt, 10k feet.   So, 16 gal per mile.   LOP of course

[aviatoreb]

Quote: jetdriven

All they are out is fuel.  The rest is already paid for and depreciated out.

 

[DaV8or]

Quote: jetdriven

All they are out is fuel.  The rest is already paid for and depreciated out.

BTW a 747-100SR with those Pratts is going to burn around 30K LB an hour at 250kt, 10k feet.   So, 16 gal per mile.   LOP of course

[aviatoreb]

Quote: DaV8or

What's the point? To show America what we used to have? To starkly contrast the innovation of the past to the duldrums of our present with nothing to look forward to? Put 'er in the museum and let's move on.

Sigh.

[Becca]

Quote: aviatoreb

What's the point? To show America what we used to have? To starkly contrast the innovation of the past to the duldrums of our present with nothing to look forward to? Put 'er in the museum and let's move on.

Sigh.

[PTK]

That escort plane in the background with the charactreristic "backwards" tail...what model Mooney is that??

[201er]

Quote: allsmiles

That escort plane in the background with the charactreristic "backwards" tail...what model Mooney is that??

[Bolter]

Quote: allsmiles

That escort plane in the background with the charactreristic "backwards" tail...what model Mooney is that??

[aviatoreb]

Quote: tomcullen

This inspired me.  Why can't a Mooney be used to ferry planes around, too?  So I mounted a 182 on the back of my 201.  Have not started the flight testing yet...

(a tall amphib was parked behind me)