Набираемся знаний:

There’s Only One Problem: the FAA Doesn’t Like An-2s
In February 1994, the EAA and the FAA cooperated in the issuance of a document intended to clarify the regulations controlling aircraft in the «experimental exhibition» category. That class is intended for uncertificated aircraft, or aircraft operating outside their original certification, that are approved only for use in air shows, competitions, exhibitions and other activities such as film and television use.

The rules basically allow such airplanes not only to be flown to and from such events but to be flown for «proficiency.» Unfortunately, an increasing number of owners had been using the «proficiency» catch-all to cover virtually any cross-country or pleasure flight they decided to make. Hence the FAA/EAA «clarification.»

Unfortunately as well for owners of Antonov An-2s brought into the U.S. since 1993 (earlier ones were exempt), the new interpretation of the rules specified a brand-new category within the experimental exhibition classification, called «category IV.» It covers a very strange assortment of bedfellows: Lockheed C-130s, Ilyushin IL-76s (a 375,000-pound C-141 lookalike), Antonov An-24s (a 48-passenger turboprop twin), all Cessnas with un-STCed auto-engine installations… and Antonov An-2s. The rules specified that these airplanes, if registered experimental exhibition, could operate within a 300-nm radius of their chosen base but could not land anywhere within that area. They had to return to home plate.

This, of course, makes the An-2 virtually useless in practical terms. And the spike through its heart was another stipulation outlined in the reg-interpreting paper: no intentional parachuting out of any experimental aircraft of any sort, thus divesting the An-2 of the sole mission that it might otherwise have flown superbly and profitably under a return-only-to-base limitation. (Oddly enough, experimental exhibition categorization does not preclude commercial activities, since warbird owners who provide their airplanes to movie- and commercial-makers certainly charge handsomely for their services.)

Aaron Newman, a 64-year-old New Jersey insurance agent who last May bought an An-2 from Bill Walker without tumbling to the limitations of the experimental exhibition category-«We didn’t fully understand what we could and couldn’t do,» he ruefully admits-is particularly incensed by the category IV stipulations. He even sees a bit of a conspiracy in it. «They’d love the An-2 in Alaska,» he says, «and that’s why all the trouble started. I believe there was pressure brought on the FAA by Cessna, which wanted to keep selling expensive Caravans. There are 20,000 An-2s being retired all over the Eastern Bloc, and I think Cessna imagined the sky black with An-2s over here. The FAA caved in to Cessna and GAMA when they wrote those category IV rules.»

The truth of the matter is almost certainly somewhat simpler. The FAA saw the prospect of 20,000 uncertificated six-ton, 1,000-horsepower airplanes that could be bought for the price of a used Skylane and flown by private pilots-soloed by students, even-since their gross weight was just 350 pounds under the 12,500-pound type-rating restriction. So they said, «If you simply want to own the world’s biggest biplane and display it at air shows or rent it to ad agencies, you’re welcome to it. And you can do all the proficiency flying you wish, but we’re going to make it impossible for you to do anything but proficiency flying, by limiting you to landing only back at your departure airport. Have a nice day.» Cessna never had to lift a finger.

Some Antonov enthusiasts have also pointed out that since the An-2 is currently manufactured by the Polish company PZL Mielec, and since Poland has a bilateral airworthiness agreement with the U.S., the airplane ought to simply be certificated and be done with it. However the U.S.-Poland bilateral agreement plainly states that it doesn’t cover airplanes originally designed in a country that does not have a bilateral agreement with the U.S. Such as the former Soviet Union, for example.

PS
FAA тупо выбило этот Ан-2 с рынка и пропихнуло своего производителя. А вы там кричите демократия, свобода, конкуренция, совок и прочая херь.

А в Америке Ан-2 вообще хоть как то присутствуют ? Интересно, что говорят о них их владельцы ?
Мы то тут сколько угодно можем «аргументировать». Но мы — «пикейные жилеты». а вот как обстоит дело на самом деле ? очень мне это любопытно. 🙂