Can Branson Charge For Flights In An Experimental Aircraft?

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

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:-)

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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/.../ast/regulatio
ns/ supercede the Part 91 regulations, or augment them?



DEAD!

Bertie

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.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:



This is interesting information. Thank you for your input.


Dead and cold in the ground.....

Soooo cold.

Bertie