CJAA members from Freedom 250 Jet Team in opening the Salute to America Airshow over our nation's capital!! All members of the team are FAST members of CJAA.  We are thankful for their support and proud to have them as members!

Freedom 250 Fly Over!

CJAA Members,

The FAA has released a new draft of Order 8130.2M (Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft) for public comment. This internal guidance document directs FAA personnel on enforcing regulations for experimental and special category aircraft. Comments are due by June 9, 2026.

Two major proposed changes would severely restrict operations of classic and experimental jets:

1. Unwarranted “High-Risk” Classification and Associated Restrictions

The draft proposes to properly mitigate risk by issuing the D-4(f) limitations in Table D-1 for certain aircraft, including:

“(2) Aircraft whose minimum safe airspeed for any particular operation below 10,000’ MSL is greater than 250 kts;”

It further states that aircraft meeting these criteria (along with other high-risk factors) are to be treated as follows:

“Restrict operations of aircraft having any of the very high-risk factors or safety of flight issues described in paragraph D-4.f as follows: (1) Prohibit the carriage of passengers, (1) Prohibit flight over densely populated areas for all phases of flight, (2) Prohibit flight at night, (3) Restrict operations under instrument flight rules (IFR) to visual meteorological conditions (VMC)…”

This “high risk” classification and the resulting broad operating restrictions are not supported by operational data or safety history.

Arguments against each proposed restriction:

• Prohibit the carriage of passengers: Speed has no demonstrated correlation with increased passenger risk in these aircraft. Many experimental jets have safely carried passengers for decades under existing limitations. This blanket prohibition ignores the pilot’s qualifications, the aircraft’s proven airworthiness, and the fact that passenger carriage is already permitted in other experimental aircraft without high-speed classifications. It unnecessarily restricts legitimate personal, training, and ferry operations.
• Prohibit flight over densely populated areas: This has no basis in safety data for high-speed experimental jets. Current operating limitations already require sufficient altitude for safe emergency landings. Maintenance facilities, fuel stops, and many viable routes are located near or over urban areas. Prohibiting such overflights would force inefficient routing, increase fuel consumption, and create more traffic conflicts without improving safety. Experimental aircraft have operated safely in this manner for decades after Phase I testing.
• Prohibit flight at night: Night operations are a standard and safe practice for these jets, which are often equipped with advanced lighting, instrumentation, and redundant systems. Prohibiting night flight would impose severe limitations on cross-country operations, forcing pilots into extended daytime flights with increased fatigue, weather exposure, and rushed decision-making. There is no evidence that experimental jets have higher night accident rates attributable to speed.
• Restrict operations under IFR to VMC only: These jets frequently and safely operate in IMC, particularly above 18,000 feet, where they perform most efficiently and safely. High-altitude IMC flight is routine and necessary for efficient cross-country routing. These aircraft are all equipped and regularly fly in all sorts of IMC conditions. Many, if not most, have been upgraded with the latest IFR equipment. They fall under the same rules as certificated aircraft, and it is in fact safer to operate in IMC than to try to avoid it. Forcing avoidance of clouds would mandate unnecessary deviations around weather systems, increasing exposure to traffic conflicts, controller workload, and fatigue—making operations less safe, not safer. ATC is fully capable of handling these aircraft in all conditions, just as they do with military jets.

Additional supporting points:

• Higher speeds improve safety and maneuverability. Faster aircraft often have superior climb performance, better energy management, and more effective control response.
• Many experimental jets have long operated safely at speeds well above 250 KCAS. Military aircraft routinely exceed this threshold in the National Airspace System, with ATC fully trained to handle them.
• There is no documented history of accidents or incidents attributable to experimental jets operating at these speeds.

These changes ignore decades of safe operation and the design characteristics of these aircraft, which are optimized for higher altitudes and speeds.

Recommended Action for this section: Request the complete deletion of D-4(f)(2) (the “minimum safe airspeed greater than 250 kts” criterion) and the associated high-risk restrictions.

2. Increased Runway Length Requirements

The draft imposes stricter performance standards (quoted directly from the proposal) that exceed current practical limits for many jets:

“Takeoff is prohibited if the accelerate-stop distance exceeds the runway available for takeoff. For aircraft without accelerate-stop distance data, the airplane must be able to safely stop within the available runway after accelerating to the greater of: (a) 105 percent of VMCA; or (b) 115 percent of the power-off stalling speed in the takeoff configuration. The aircraft must be able to clear all obstacles by at least 50 feet vertically, or as required by an applicable published procedure, whichever is higher. Landing is prohibited unless a full stop landing can be made within 60 percent of the available runway length from a height of 50 feet above the runway. When calculating takeoff or landing performance, appropriate corrections (e.g., runway gradient, density altitude, runway surface condition, etc.) must be made. If performance data based on calm wind is used, not more than 50 percent of any reported headwind component and not less than 150 percent of any reported tailwind component may be calculated. Calculations may not include the use of reverse thrust or drag chute.”

Runway overrun incidents are primarily a function of pilot training, decision-making, and judgment—not aircraft performance. Further restricting access to runways will have the opposite of the intended effect: it will reduce operational flexibility, limit access to a wider range of airports, and fail to address the root cause. This issue is not unique to experimental jets.

Several recent US business jet accidents illustrate this reality, including:

• 2017 Teterboro Learjet 35A crash — Unstabilized approach, poor crew decision-making, and failure to go around led to a low-altitude stall and fatal crash.
• 2014 Gulfstream G-IV overrun at Bedford, MA — Rejected takeoff after high-speed decision, with contributing factors including inadequate pre-takeoff planning and crew resource management.
• 2020 Cessna Citation II/SP overrun at Lufkin, TX — Pilot’s decision to land on a wet runway that did not provide sufficient stopping distance.

Imposing more restrictive runway requirements on classic jets will not enhance safety—it will simply reduce options without improving pilot proficiency or training standards.

Recommended Action for this section: Request that no changes be made to the existing runway length/performance guidance.

Call to Action: The FAA requires comments to be submitted using their official Comment Matrix for proper tracking and review.

Visit the official draft orders page: FAA Aircraft Certification Service Draft Orders

• Download the Draft Order 8130.2M and the Comment Matrix (Excel spreadsheet).
• Use the Comment Matrix to structure your remarks clearly by section and paragraph.
• In the Comment Matrix, enter your own name in the “Reviewer / Router Number” field.
• Please modify and personalize the comments to reflect your own experience and perspective so the FAA does not receive multiple identical submissions.
• Email your completed comments (and the matrix) to: [email protected] by June 9, 2026.

Please reference the specific sections in the draft Order 8130.2M (particularly paragraphs D-4.f and D-4.g, and Table D-1). If you need talking points or assistance drafting comments, contact CJAA leadership.

Your detailed input is critical to preserving safe and practical operations for our aircraft.

It is a rare privilege that our services are needed for those who support space operations. But that is exactly what happened 28-29 MAR 26. CJAA is very proud to report that our ranks now include the members of Polaris that include our current NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman. This crew has been flying formation in jets for many years and several of their members are long time CJAA members. Polaris’ recent acquisition of F-5 aircraft in support of multiple efforts in both spaceflight and classic jets have let them to joining CJAA as a team and ultimately acquiring their FAST Cards through our organization.

Operations were conducted out of the Kennedy Space Center, Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF). And yes, the Artemis II stack can be seen in the background of the pictures. Of course, all of the Polaris pilots performed exceptionally during FAST training, recommendations and check rides. It is our pleasure and honor to have them among our ranks.

Special thanks to Bill “Sparty” Shortt, CJAA Board Member and Lead Pilot, Mark “Gizmo” Peterson, CJAA Lead Pilot, Charlie “V+12” Vandenbossche, CJAA Check Pilot and Scott “Gomex” Glaser, CJAA President and Check Pilot for their contribution in making this event possible.     

6 jets had registered for the KJBR Jet Blast PLUS the host L-39 (Mickey’s jet) for a total of 7 aircraft.  The forecast for the weekend in Arkansas was not ideal with wide-spread storms predicted in the area and daily rain forecasted north of 50% coverage.  Based on the weather forecast, the consensus was to move to Plan B.  

Sparty and Mother both needed a 61.58 and Mother needed a Lead check-ride  Sparty, Neo & Mother wanted to get together if they could find a 4th jet to join the group.  They considered KSLR but further conflicts precluded that.  So much for Plan B.

Plan C was to go to KAPS (Port of South Louisiana in Reserve, LA) where Sonny was based.  Sonny & Holly were in New Jersey seeing their son Victor graduate from Stevens Institute of Technology (congrats Victor!!) but was scheduled to get home late Thursday.   Mother contacted Zach to see if he could fly to KAPS over the weekend and he said he could on Saturday morning.   The decision was made to head to Louisiana.  The weekend forecast was great down south.

 Neo & Mother (with Steve Jones) arrived KAPS on Thursday morning.   They found a great restaurant (Frenier Landing on the South Shore of Lake Ponchartrain ) for dinner Thursday.  Matthew Armstrong, Mother’s son, operates a banner-towing company out of KAPS. Steve & Mother met Matthew out at the airport at 0615 to assist with the first Banner that was picked up at 0700 and then all headed to pick up Neo from the hotel and have breakfast.  Sonny arrived at the airport Friday morning about the time Sparty made it in.  Sparty was unable to get out of MI Thursday due to low level icing.   The group was able to get up one flight on Friday and then Sparty had a run in with the local law enforcement for doing 355 mph in a 55 mph zone  After the friendly photo shoot, an unexpected thunder storm popped up and it was time to batten down the hatches & call it a day.  Sonny fired up the grill at VICS (Sonny’s hangar) and cooked some massive filet’s & twice-baked potatoes for dinner.  It was topped off with a pie that Sparty brought in from Dickson, TN (M02) at his fuel stop in route to KAPS.  Top off with Jet-A….get a frozen pie !  Matthew joined the group for steaks on Friday.

Saturday’s first brief was at 0745 before Z Arrived and both Sonny and Sparty were able to get their Lead FPR’s knocked out.  Zach arrived around 1100 Saturday and following Mother’s flight brief, Z jumped in the back of Mother’s jet for his Lead check-ride and then flew with him for the 61.58.  A local flight instructor at KAPS (Steve Petit, Jr.) was able to ride with Neo during this 4-ship flight.  

 Sparty then took a flight with Z for his 61.58.  After a short post-flight visit and lunch from Jimmy Johns, Z flew back to KCQF.  The final 4-ship on Saturday was led by Sonny down the Blind River over a Poker Run (hundreds of boats barhopping down the river to pick up a playing card at each bar.  The best hand after 5 cards won a nice prize).  Matthew rode with Mother and his banner pilot, Austin Folse, rode with Neo.  Steve rode with Sparty.  Back at Vics, the group was treated to awesome grilled 3/4 lb burgers, grilled onions with all the fixings.  Entertainment on Saturday night was the newly released  ‘Air Force Elite: Thunderbirds’ movie.

Sunday morning was departure day.  Sparty departed first for Michigan and made it after a fuel stop at Sparta, TN (KSRB).  Mother & Steve departed for KSLR and then Neo departed for KRFD by way of Sparta, TN (KSRB) - Rochester, IN (KRCR) - Rockford, IL (KRFD).  Wide spread storms prevented Neo from making a direct flight to Rockford.  He had to fly the last leg at 4,500 under the clouds (freezing levels).

Great time. Great Friends. Lots accomplished.