How can Rutan, Virgin, et al legally sell rides to space? IIRC (not enough caffeine to look it up), aircraft registered in the Experimental or Restricted category cannot be used for hire.
I don’t have an answer for you but I wondered that too. It seems like the number of regulations that would have to be amended for that type of space for hire operation to work would have to be pretty extensive. I suppose someone has already thought about it/is working on it. But I agree, evn if they had the larger version of their plane all set and ready to go, it appears that they could not take up the first passenger until that is straightened out. Maybe they don’t even plan to operate out of the U.S. at all.
The legislation on this is pending. In fact, there was a bill working its way through congress a while back that would have legalized commercial passenger-carrying suborbital flight, allowing the passengers to accept the risk with a waiver. As I recall, it passed the house and Senate, and then in conference some senator added a poison pill that said something like, “passenger safety standards must meet FAA requirements” or something. The same people who promoted the bill then had to backpedal like mad and beg their senators to kill it, because it would have destroyed the industry.
The bill was cancelled, and now we’re back to square one. Stupid politicians.
Surely if the US won’t let them take off, they’ll take off from somewhere more congenial?
&#*~! nanny-state! I believe the excuse for that late addition was “we have to protect the public”. Give me a break - anyone who hasn’t figured out that space travel is dangerous probably shouldn’t be allowed in the gene pool anyway.
There is one exception to the “experimental aircraft not for hire rule”, and that is gyrocopters. There are no factory-built gyrocopters at present, thus, they and they alone are pemitted to use home/kitbuilt gyrocoptors for instructional purposes.
Either they allow an exception for spacecraft, or they come up with certfication standards, or yes, Rutan will go elsewhere. The fact that his system does not require some sort of specialized launch facility gives him the advantage. There are thousands of airports around the world he could launch from. Or perhaps Branson could simply buy an island for that purpose.
Not necessarily. Is the prohibition against using experimental aircraft for hire a law or a regulation? Regulations like the FARs are written and approved by a federal agency (in the case of the FARs, the FAA), not by Congress.
If i recall correctly, the space tourists have all taken off from Russia.
Maybe Rutan can superglue a propellor beanie to the top of SpaceShipOne? 
Or slightly less frivolously, what’s the definition of a “member of the public”? Obviously, the pilots are allowed to go up. Would it be prohibitive to get a paying passenger listed as a member of the crew?
That hasn’t been true for some time now. The PRA obtained exemption #5309 for flight training in gyroplanes, which is the exemption I started my training under. Now we have Exemption #7162, which applies to far more experimentals. Manufacturers such as Van’s and Lancair offer flight training in experimental aircraft that you rent from them, as well as various other individuals.
Rutan will get a waiver, I’m sure.
Right now there is neither law nor regulation regarding space travel itself, at least as far as paying passengers. Thing is, SpaceShipOne is registered as an experimental aircraft, N328KF, approved/limited strictly to research and development (It’s also listed as a glider, thus I used the term “aircraft” and not “airplane”. Click on the “316” next to “model”). When he says it will not be used for commercial purposes it’s in part because, legally, he can’t. At least not without going back to the FAA and changing the approved operations.
Anyhow - the FAR’s may be “just” regulations, but they are not easy to change - it practically takes an act of Congress to do so.
It’s really a gray area - we’ve never had the potential of fare-carrying spacecraft before, it’s a lot like where airplanes were in, say, 1910 or 1915. The rules aren’t written yet. I don’t think he could legally charge for the privilege, but as far as I can see the only bar on passengers is the “research and development” category, where normally you’re allowed only essential crew members. If he built another and registered it experimental under a different category that allowed for passengers he could certainly give free rides - IF he could convince the FAA to give him such a category.
As a general rule, crew don’t have to pay for their ride, the presumption is that they’re doing something to earn their ride. (I’m sure someone can dig up an exception if they try hard enough, I’m just feeling a tad lazy this morning after my workout - calm winds my @$$, the husband was retching all the way down final. Anyhoo… )
The only situation I’m aware of where a pilot/crew pays for the ride is on training flights - that is, if you’re taking lessons. Presumably, at least a few of the prospective $200,000 pasengers would be willing to take the ride in the form of a flight lesson (I certainly would - if I had $200K to spare). But the FAA might take it as a back-door way to give people rides, which they tend to frown on. It will also arouse suspions if a bunch of people all take just one lesson. Again, I’m sure some would be more than willing to become an official sub-orbital pilots (never mind the rating hasn’t been invented yet) after which they can buy a kit to make their own, much as people have been buying and building many other Rutan designs over the past 30 years.
Somehow, though, I don’t think the general public (that is, those that are on the ground with no desire to leave it) will be at all overjoyed at the notion of homebuilt or kitbuilt spaceships assembled in garages across the nation being launched and flying overhead. They barely tolerate the airplanes of that sort (and mostly because we keep a low profile, even at high altitude)
It’s long been the case that a CFI could provide training to someone in their own experimental aircraft and charge for it - but the justification was that the CFI was being paid for the training, not for the airplane. As I understood it, the concern was that unsuspecting/unknowledgable members of the public might pay for a joyride on an experimental aircraft neither knowing nor understanding that they aren’t built and maintained to the exact FAA specifications as other aircraft, and that typically there is a higher risk with such aircraft. If someone is taking lessons they’re engaged in education about the aircraft in question, but that’s a different situation than a tourist.
But could *any * CFI with a Lancair or Van’s use one of their homebuilt designs for profit, or is that exemption limited to just the manufacturer? And is it limited to striclty flight lessons, or are they permitted to entertain the tourists as well? Because Rutan and Branson aren’t talking about flight lessons, they’re talking about tourist flights strictly for … well, for entertainment, really. The original “fun and profit” motive.
Anyone with the exemption, yes. It’s not limited to manufacturers.
It’s limited to training and flight reviews.
Rutan’s flights will be (and have been) regulated by the FAA/AST. They will take a long hard look and if they approve, they will let him give rides. They aren’t going to make him do things like get a waiver to fly above FL240 without DME. or any of that silly crap. They will, in all likelyhood, simply let him do it.
Before SS1/White Knight took off, thet had to search the runway/airport for desert tortoises, even tho SS1/WK takes off extactly like any other plane (and regular planes DO NOT have to search for tortoises)
However, when asked directly the Administrator stated that the role of the FAA is to 1) ensure the saftey of the univolved public and b) Make sure potential passengers have enogh safety information to make an informed decision.
Brian
All of which sounds fair enough.
I am wondering who decides what “informed decision” is - I work with people who don’t feel I am capable of making an “informed decision” about leaving the ground despite my license and experience. That’s how we get things like the “poison pill” mentioned earlier.
Personally, I’d go for something like: "Space travel carries a certain inherent level of risk. We want this flight to be successful, and since some of us will be flying this ship we have just as much interest as you in returning safely to Earth. However, if something goes wrong you could be killed or maimed. In fact, parts of you may rain down on 4 or 5 different states which may cause distress to your heirs if the are the sort of folks who require a complete body for “closure”. Please think carefully before stepping aboard.
If you have read and understood this, please sign on the line below."
And then something about survivors not being able to sue in the event a Bad Thing happens.