Narrative:

A potentially dangerous situation exists today which is totally avoidable with the simple application of common sense and cooperation between the FAA and the civilian public as it applies to the certification and testing of retired military aircraft both foreign and domestic. Currently, proven and rigorously tested retired military aircraft, both foreign and domestic, are treated in the same category as untried or untested home-built experimental aircraft. Certification of these retired military aircraft is difficult and highly restr. The issue at hand in this report specifically examines the initial certification and flight testing of retired military aircraft newly made available to civilian registration. Current certification procedure in the USA prohibits the importer from adequately flight testing newly acquired aircraft. These are aircraft which though inherently safe and in good mechanical order, have been disassembled, crated, shipped overwater in open containers, reassembled and made ready for sale. It would seem only prudent and safe to insist that these aircraft be rigorously flight-tested prior to presentation to the civilian flying public. As it stands at this time, to adequately fly the aircraft through its entire regimen the aircraft must be fully registered and certified. This can be done within the system in the phase I section of the request for certification. When I first began importing this aircraft this is the procedure I followed. I was quickly informed by the FAA that they were not in the business of supporting the brokering of imported aircraft and that they did not wish to certify the aircraft at the point of assembly only to have to rectify it at its final destination. I concurred totally. However, because I feel strongly that my group is far more qualified to initially flight test these aircraft for safe operation in its phase I compliance due to our familiarity and competence with the aircraft over civilian individuals who, while licensed to fly this category aircraft, may not be nearly as well qualified for the purposes of flight testing. I asked how I could legally testthe aircraft prior to delivery. There was no clear answer available. It was suggested that the flight test be carried out while on a ferry flight from its point of reassembly to another point where we carried out extensive overhaul services. A specific flight or flts for the purpose of assuring the airworthiness of the aircraft near the assembly point was specifically forbidden. When I suggested that it sounded as if the FAA was saying I should consider the flight test within the ferry permit as a possible loop-hole I was told the FAA was not in the business of providing loop-holes, but no other answer was forthcoming. It was as close as I could ever determine that the FAA was winking while stating doctrine. A ferry permit is quite specific. It is issued for the purpose of moving an otherwise noncertified aircraft from one place to another for the objective of completing certain repair services. It is ludicrous to suggest that a flight specifically designed to determine if the aircraft will perform in flight in accordance with its flight manual could be considered legal under the clear guidelines of the existing ferry permit regulations. It was even suggested that I might file for a ferry permit, fly my intended testing regimen, 'claim' a mechanical problem and return to the point of origin, then reapply for a ferry permit when the aircraft was totally ready for its move for services or delivery. Again, if we are all in agreement that this is the best way to conduct the logical testing of the aircraft and that I would not be penalized for following these guidelines I would have no disagreement and would be quite willing to work within that system. This, however, is not how it works within a bureaucratic agency. I am currently, reportedly, being investigated, though I have not been officially served, for violations of the strict letter of the law which will not properly allow for flight testing of the aircraft I have brought into the country. The FAA has begun to call the various customers to whom I have sold this aircraft asking them to 'testify' against me to indicate I have flight tested these aircraft before they were properly certified. The investigation will undoubtedly harm both me and certain individuals inside the FAA and I ask, 'for what purpose.' I have communicated with the director of the mido in seattle suggesting certain recommendations. It is far too soon to know what his opinion might be. However, it is clearly logical that this situation could and should be rectified simply and without pain or suffering on the part of any individual inside or outside the FAA. I have suggested that a special airworthiness certificate (sac) be issued for the purposes of flight testing. This should be a time limited to the discretion of the tester and should be accomplished within 5 mi of the assembly point. This same sac would then allow for a ferry permit to additional points of overhaul or service and the final point of delivery. This sac should be available from either the mido or if they allow assistance, from the FSDO, without physical inspection. Because this is recommended to be a paperwork authority/authorized only, a minimum of time and manpower would be used. As always, the regional dar could be utilized if there is a more accessible relationship between the dar and the requesting civilian operator. In summary, presently I am suspected of unsafe operation of aircraft at a minimum, possibly malicious misuse of ferry permits at a maximum. This is patently unfair in as much as I was operating with the clear impression I was in total compliance with the 'accepted' method of dealing with the current restrictive rulings regarding the testing and certification of these aircraft. The current black and white rule regarding the operation of these aircraft places operators like me under duress if we are to keep in mind the ultimate safety of those to whom we market these aircraft. Our choice is to either risk the interpretation that we are breaking the current letter of the law or fail to properly test the aircraft leaving that task to potentially far less qualified individuals in flight areas not necessarily suitable for such testing. These aircraft, ie, retired military aircraft both foreign and domestic, need to have a new sub-category inside the experimental category. These are highly tested, proven aircraft which come out of the sky rarely for any reason. These aircraft should be able to fly with fewer restrs than something designed and built in a person's basement. This is a situation which should be rectified with the total cooperation of the government and the civilian population. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this reporter said that his primary interest was to deliver a safe aircraft to his customers, but now he has been told that he may not do test flts until further notice. The reporter said that he may be progressing toward an agreement with the FAA, but in the meantime several customers have reported that the enforcement personnel are still contacting them. The import program has been approved at the various federal and state government levels for this modified copy of the yak 18 trainer. Several importers have with varying success been reassembling and selling the aircraft in this country, but the different FAA regions apparently have different approachs to the certification and testing process. The reporter said that he understands the FAA's concern with both the process and its expenses and has offered to pay reasonable fees to the district office. The reporter assured the customers that he was going to have the aircraft tested before delivery. He said that in all of his dealings with the FAA he has emphasized that he wanted to accomplish the tests in accordance with the FAA's procedures and not in some unapproved manner.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN IMPORTER OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA'S CJ-6A MIL TRAINING ACFT IS DENIED FLT TEST PERMITS FOR THESE ACFT AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SHIPPED AND REASSEMBLED IN THIS COUNTRY. INSTEAD, THE ACFT WOULD BE SIMPLY FLOWN TO THE NEW OWNER AND THAT PERSON WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TESTING AND CERTIFICATION WITH THAT LCL FSDO.

Narrative: A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT EXISTS TODAY WHICH IS TOTALLY AVOIDABLE WITH THE SIMPLE APPLICATION OF COMMON SENSE AND COOPERATION BTWN THE FAA AND THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC AS IT APPLIES TO THE CERTIFICATION AND TESTING OF RETIRED MIL ACFT BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. CURRENTLY, PROVEN AND RIGOROUSLY TESTED RETIRED MIL ACFT, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, ARE TREATED IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS UNTRIED OR UNTESTED HOME-BUILT EXPERIMENTAL ACFT. CERTIFICATION OF THESE RETIRED MIL ACFT IS DIFFICULT AND HIGHLY RESTR. THE ISSUE AT HAND IN THIS RPT SPECIFICALLY EXAMINES THE INITIAL CERTIFICATION AND FLT TESTING OF RETIRED MIL ACFT NEWLY MADE AVAILABLE TO CIVILIAN REGISTRATION. CURRENT CERTIFICATION PROC IN THE USA PROHIBITS THE IMPORTER FROM ADEQUATELY FLT TESTING NEWLY ACQUIRED ACFT. THESE ARE ACFT WHICH THOUGH INHERENTLY SAFE AND IN GOOD MECHANICAL ORDER, HAVE BEEN DISASSEMBLED, CRATED, SHIPPED OVERWATER IN OPEN CONTAINERS, REASSEMBLED AND MADE READY FOR SALE. IT WOULD SEEM ONLY PRUDENT AND SAFE TO INSIST THAT THESE ACFT BE RIGOROUSLY FLT-TESTED PRIOR TO PRESENTATION TO THE CIVILIAN FLYING PUBLIC. AS IT STANDS AT THIS TIME, TO ADEQUATELY FLY THE ACFT THROUGH ITS ENTIRE REGIMEN THE ACFT MUST BE FULLY REGISTERED AND CERTIFIED. THIS CAN BE DONE WITHIN THE SYS IN THE PHASE I SECTION OF THE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION. WHEN I FIRST BEGAN IMPORTING THIS ACFT THIS IS THE PROC I FOLLOWED. I WAS QUICKLY INFORMED BY THE FAA THAT THEY WERE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPORTING THE BROKERING OF IMPORTED ACFT AND THAT THEY DID NOT WISH TO CERTIFY THE ACFT AT THE POINT OF ASSEMBLY ONLY TO HAVE TO RECTIFY IT AT ITS FINAL DEST. I CONCURRED TOTALLY. HOWEVER, BECAUSE I FEEL STRONGLY THAT MY GROUP IS FAR MORE QUALIFIED TO INITIALLY FLT TEST THESE ACFT FOR SAFE OP IN ITS PHASE I COMPLIANCE DUE TO OUR FAMILIARITY AND COMPETENCE WITH THE ACFT OVER CIVILIAN INDIVIDUALS WHO, WHILE LICENSED TO FLY THIS CATEGORY ACFT, MAY NOT BE NEARLY AS WELL QUALIFIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FLT TESTING. I ASKED HOW I COULD LEGALLY TESTTHE ACFT PRIOR TO DELIVERY. THERE WAS NO CLR ANSWER AVAILABLE. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE FLT TEST BE CARRIED OUT WHILE ON A FERRY FLT FROM ITS POINT OF REASSEMBLY TO ANOTHER POINT WHERE WE CARRIED OUT EXTENSIVE OVERHAUL SVCS. A SPECIFIC FLT OR FLTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT NEAR THE ASSEMBLY POINT WAS SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN. WHEN I SUGGESTED THAT IT SOUNDED AS IF THE FAA WAS SAYING I SHOULD CONSIDER THE FLT TEST WITHIN THE FERRY PERMIT AS A POSSIBLE LOOP-HOLE I WAS TOLD THE FAA WAS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LOOP-HOLES, BUT NO OTHER ANSWER WAS FORTHCOMING. IT WAS AS CLOSE AS I COULD EVER DETERMINE THAT THE FAA WAS WINKING WHILE STATING DOCTRINE. A FERRY PERMIT IS QUITE SPECIFIC. IT IS ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MOVING AN OTHERWISE NONCERTIFIED ACFT FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER FOR THE OBJECTIVE OF COMPLETING CERTAIN REPAIR SVCS. IT IS LUDICROUS TO SUGGEST THAT A FLT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DETERMINE IF THE ACFT WILL PERFORM IN FLT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS FLT MANUAL COULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL UNDER THE CLR GUIDELINES OF THE EXISTING FERRY PERMIT REGS. IT WAS EVEN SUGGESTED THAT I MIGHT FILE FOR A FERRY PERMIT, FLY MY INTENDED TESTING REGIMEN, 'CLAIM' A MECHANICAL PROB AND RETURN TO THE POINT OF ORIGIN, THEN REAPPLY FOR A FERRY PERMIT WHEN THE ACFT WAS TOTALLY READY FOR ITS MOVE FOR SVCS OR DELIVERY. AGAIN, IF WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO CONDUCT THE LOGICAL TESTING OF THE ACFT AND THAT I WOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR FOLLOWING THESE GUIDELINES I WOULD HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT AND WOULD BE QUITE WILLING TO WORK WITHIN THAT SYS. THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT HOW IT WORKS WITHIN A BUREAUCRATIC AGENCY. I AM CURRENTLY, REPORTEDLY, BEING INVESTIGATED, THOUGH I HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY SERVED, FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STRICT LETTER OF THE LAW WHICH WILL NOT PROPERLY ALLOW FOR FLT TESTING OF THE ACFT I HAVE BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY. THE FAA HAS BEGUN TO CALL THE VARIOUS CUSTOMERS TO WHOM I HAVE SOLD THIS ACFT ASKING THEM TO 'TESTIFY' AGAINST ME TO INDICATE I HAVE FLT TESTED THESE ACFT BEFORE THEY WERE PROPERLY CERTIFIED. THE INVESTIGATION WILL UNDOUBTEDLY HARM BOTH ME AND CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS INSIDE THE FAA AND I ASK, 'FOR WHAT PURPOSE.' I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE MIDO IN SEATTLE SUGGESTING CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS FAR TOO SOON TO KNOW WHAT HIS OPINION MIGHT BE. HOWEVER, IT IS CLRLY LOGICAL THAT THIS SIT COULD AND SHOULD BE RECTIFIED SIMPLY AND WITHOUT PAIN OR SUFFERING ON THE PART OF ANY INDIVIDUAL INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE FAA. I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT A SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE (SAC) BE ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FLT TESTING. THIS SHOULD BE A TIME LIMITED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TESTER AND SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN 5 MI OF THE ASSEMBLY POINT. THIS SAME SAC WOULD THEN ALLOW FOR A FERRY PERMIT TO ADDITIONAL POINTS OF OVERHAUL OR SVC AND THE FINAL POINT OF DELIVERY. THIS SAC SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM EITHER THE MIDO OR IF THEY ALLOW ASSISTANCE, FROM THE FSDO, WITHOUT PHYSICAL INSPECTION. BECAUSE THIS IS RECOMMENDED TO BE A PAPERWORK AUTH ONLY, A MINIMUM OF TIME AND MANPOWER WOULD BE USED. AS ALWAYS, THE REGIONAL DAR COULD BE UTILIZED IF THERE IS A MORE ACCESSIBLE RELATIONSHIP BTWN THE DAR AND THE REQUESTING CIVILIAN OPERATOR. IN SUMMARY, PRESENTLY I AM SUSPECTED OF UNSAFE OP OF ACFT AT A MINIMUM, POSSIBLY MALICIOUS MISUSE OF FERRY PERMITS AT A MAX. THIS IS PATENTLY UNFAIR IN AS MUCH AS I WAS OPERATING WITH THE CLR IMPRESSION I WAS IN TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE 'ACCEPTED' METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE CURRENT RESTRICTIVE RULINGS REGARDING THE TESTING AND CERTIFICATION OF THESE ACFT. THE CURRENT BLACK AND WHITE RULE REGARDING THE OP OF THESE ACFT PLACES OPERATORS LIKE ME UNDER DURESS IF WE ARE TO KEEP IN MIND THE ULTIMATE SAFETY OF THOSE TO WHOM WE MARKET THESE ACFT. OUR CHOICE IS TO EITHER RISK THE INTERP THAT WE ARE BREAKING THE CURRENT LETTER OF THE LAW OR FAIL TO PROPERLY TEST THE ACFT LEAVING THAT TASK TO POTENTIALLY FAR LESS QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS IN FLT AREAS NOT NECESSARILY SUITABLE FOR SUCH TESTING. THESE ACFT, IE, RETIRED MIL ACFT BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, NEED TO HAVE A NEW SUB-CATEGORY INSIDE THE EXPERIMENTAL CATEGORY. THESE ARE HIGHLY TESTED, PROVEN ACFT WHICH COME OUT OF THE SKY RARELY FOR ANY REASON. THESE ACFT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FLY WITH FEWER RESTRS THAN SOMETHING DESIGNED AND BUILT IN A PERSON'S BASEMENT. THIS IS A SIT WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED WITH THE TOTAL COOPERATION OF THE GOV AND THE CIVILIAN POPULATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS RPTR SAID THAT HIS PRIMARY INTEREST WAS TO DELIVER A SAFE ACFT TO HIS CUSTOMERS, BUT NOW HE HAS BEEN TOLD THAT HE MAY NOT DO TEST FLTS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. THE RPTR SAID THAT HE MAY BE PROGRESSING TOWARD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FAA, BUT IN THE MEANTIME SEVERAL CUSTOMERS HAVE RPTED THAT THE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL ARE STILL CONTACTING THEM. THE IMPORT PROGRAM HAS BEEN APPROVED AT THE VARIOUS FEDERAL AND STATE GOV LEVELS FOR THIS MODIFIED COPY OF THE YAK 18 TRAINER. SEVERAL IMPORTERS HAVE WITH VARYING SUCCESS BEEN REASSEMBLING AND SELLING THE ACFT IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT THE DIFFERENT FAA REGIONS APPARENTLY HAVE DIFFERENT APCHS TO THE CERTIFICATION AND TESTING PROCESS. THE RPTR SAID THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE FAA'S CONCERN WITH BOTH THE PROCESS AND ITS EXPENSES AND HAS OFFERED TO PAY REASONABLE FEES TO THE DISTRICT OFFICE. THE RPTR ASSURED THE CUSTOMERS THAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE THE ACFT TESTED BEFORE DELIVERY. HE SAID THAT IN ALL OF HIS DEALINGS WITH THE FAA HE HAS EMPHASIZED THAT HE WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE TESTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAA'S PROCS AND NOT IN SOME UNAPPROVED MANNER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.