- 30 -
Aviation Regulations defines exhibition, in part, as "exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at airshows." Testimony during the public hearing in Sacramento on October 16-18 revealed that neither the pilot nor the operations inspector of the General Aviation District Office involved were aware of the extent of the flying activities covered by this definition. The operations inspector who prepared the pilot's letter of authority stated that the pilot could legitimately have flown this aircraft to a bona fide airshow for exhibition purposes following his first flight in it.
Based on this and similar testimony, the Board concludes that the guidelines dealing with the issuance of authorization to operate this type aircraft were too broad to provide adequate guidance for General Aviation District Office inspectors with regard to pilot qualification and proficiency and the formulation of safeguards in the special conditions and limitations
The Board is aware of the GENOT (General Notice) distributed to your regional, district, and field offices on November 9, 1972, entitled: "Future Civil Certification, Operation, and Maintenance of Military Surplus Jet Airplanes." These supplemental guidelines should help in the interpretation of existing instructions with regard to the safe utilization of surplus military jets. However, the Board is of the opinion that similar consideration should be given to all high-performance military surplus airplanes, reciprocating as well as turbine engine powered. Unless a pilot receives his transition training from an organization or club that imposes its own safeguards, there appear to be no constraints on a private pilot with minimum experience who wishes to operate an F-51, for example. The establishment of reasonable minimum standards in this area would serve to promote aviation, rather than inhibit it.
In view of the variety of purposes for which experimental certificates can be issued, it appears that separate classification of those activities which are not truly experimental would facilitate the exercise of more selective regulatory control for the benefit of the operator as well as the general public.
The Board is also concerned about the airshow waiver provisions, although they did not have a bearing on this accident. The special provisions dealing with the separation criteria between spectator areas and aircraft performing acrobatic maneuvers took into consideration only the safety of designated spectator areas. At Sacramento Executive Airport, residential encroachment extended to within about 500 feet of the demonstration runway. In addition, the Board questions the adequacy of the
