Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?




NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS

If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
new FAA rules
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
(http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117

Larry Dighera wrote:
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
> passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
> hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
> are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
> 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
> large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?

You could read it that way.

Applying a risk management viewpoint, another reading
might be that all sightseeing trips are frivolous and
unnecessary and as-such the pilot and passengers can
bear a greater burden of compliance or simply not fly.

OTOH, the non-availability of a medical flight might
have a very large negative consequences outweighing the
tiny risk of a drug-impaired pilot.

Wow, I just thought like a bureaucrat. I think I need
to go read a technical manual for awhile....

On May 4, 10:28 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
> passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
> hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
> are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
> 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
> large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?
>
> NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS
>
> If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
> new FAA rules
> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
> affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
> (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
> to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
> sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
> for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
> have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
> conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
> minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
> changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
> pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
> charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
> Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117

I assume there was a massive number of accidents on these sightseeing
flights where the pilot was found to be on drugs??
I assume that, like 135, the drug testing of the pilot is just the
begining. All the A&Ps, IA, the avioincs tech, the FBO manager who
arranges the maintenance, etc must ALL be on drug testing programs.

-Robert

On 4 May 2007 11:34:52 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in om>:

>On May 4, 10:28 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
>> passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
>> hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
>> are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
>> 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
>> large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?
>>
>> NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS
>>
>> If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
>> new FAA rules
>> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
>> affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
>> (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
>> to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
>> sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
>> for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
>> have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
>> conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
>> minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
>> changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
>> pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
>> charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
>> Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117
>
>I assume there was a massive number of accidents on these sightseeing
>flights where the pilot was found to be on drugs??

A search here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp with the keywords
"sightseeing drug" turned up no records.

>I assume that, like 135, the drug testing of the pilot is just the
>begining. All the A&Ps, IA, the avioincs tech, the FBO manager who
>arranges the maintenance, etc must ALL be on drug testing programs.
>

Perhaps. The new 91.146 regulation is here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f3c8860f06f6813ad27ffca0168f0aac&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.28

Here's what AOPA has to say:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf
Regulatory Changes
Pilots need to be aware of some significant changes to
the regulations governing charity fundraising flights.
Beginning March 15, 2007:
• Private pilots must have at least 500 hours total flight
time in order to participate (the previous minimum
was 200 hours).
• Before takeoff, pilots are required to brief passengers
on seatbelt use, aircraft egress, and (for overwater
flights) ditching procedures and use of life preservers.
• For overwater flights, passengers are required to wear
life preservers (unless the overwater operation is necessary
only for takeoff or landing).
• Limits are placed on the number of events in which
sponsors and pilots may participate (four per calendar
year for charitable or nonprofit causes; one per
calendar year for community events).
• Pilots are no longer required to submit to drug and
alcohol testing (previously, exemptions were handled
on an individual basis).

Although they’ve been incorporated into a new
regulation (FAR 91.146), the remaining requirements
are largely unchanged. Pilots are still limited to
nonstop, day VFR flights conducted within a 25
statute mile radius of the departure airport. For a
detailed guide to the new requirements, visit
www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/charity.html.

FAR Part 135 is here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=f3c8860f06f6813ad27ffca0168f0aac&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.4.23&idno=14#14:2.0.1.4.23.11.11.5.83

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
> Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
> passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
> hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
> are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
> 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
> large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?
>
>
>
>
> NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS
>
> If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
> new FAA rules
> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
> affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
> (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
> to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
> sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
> for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
> have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
> conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
> minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
> changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
> pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
> charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
> Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117


Young Eagle flights are in this category. If I remember right there is an exception for them also?

On May 5, 4:51 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in messagenews:7uqm33ppqgsqn4u61hkmrfordduulfv6nk@4ax .com...
>
> > Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
> > passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
> > hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
> > are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
> > 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
> > large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?
>
> > NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS
>
> > If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
> > new FAA rules
> > (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
> > affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
> > (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
> > to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
> > sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
> > for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
> > have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
> > conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
> > minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
> > changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
> > pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
> > charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
> > Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).
> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117
>
> Young Eagle flights are in this category. If I remember right there is an exception for them also?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The additional hours may apply to YoungEagles but the drug testing
wouldn't because there is no charge made to the passenger. I've always
flown YoungEagles for BSA, which has always had higher minimum hours
than EAA.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message ups.com...
> On May 5, 4:51 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in messagenews:7uqm33ppqgsqn4u61hkmrfordduulfv6nk@4ax .com...
>>
>> > Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
>> > passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
>> > hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
>> > are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
>> > 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
>> > large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?
>>
>> > NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS
>>
>> > If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
>> > new FAA rules
>> > (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
>> > affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
>> > (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
>> > to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
>> > sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
>> > for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
>> > have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
>> > conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
>> > minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
>> > changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
>> > pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
>> > charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
>> > Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).
>> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117
>>
>> Young Eagle flights are in this category. If I remember right there is an exception for them also?- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The additional hours may apply to YoungEagles but the drug testing
> wouldn't because there is no charge made to the passenger. I've always
> flown YoungEagles for BSA, which has always had higher minimum hours
> than EAA.
>
> -Robert
>

What about the limits in a calendar year? Only 4 events!

On May 5, 10:39 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 4:51 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> >> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in messagenews:7uqm33ppqgsqn4u61hkmrfordduulfv6nk@4ax .com...
>
> >> > Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry sick or injured
> >> > passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing and minimum
> >> > hours requirements. But those conducting short sightseeing flights
> >> > are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing, and must now have
> >> > 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So the public at
> >> > large is better protected, but the sick and injured are not?
>
> >> > NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING FLIGHTS
>
> >> > If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity or for profit,
> >> > new FAA rules
> >> > (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
> >> > affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety Brief
> >> > (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf)," posted free online,
> >> > to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools that give
> >> > sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception must now apply
> >> > for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show proof that they
> >> > have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program. Private pilots who
> >> > conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity now must have a
> >> > minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200. However, the rule
> >> > changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying. Volunteer private
> >> > pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and take a
> >> > charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the Air Care
> >> > Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).
> >> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117
>
> >> Young Eagle flights are in this category. If I remember right there is an exception for them also?- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > The additional hours may apply to YoungEagles but the drug testing
> > wouldn't because there is no charge made to the passenger. I've always
> > flown YoungEagles for BSA, which has always had higher minimum hours
> > than EAA.
>
> > -Robert
>
> What about the limits in a calendar year? Only 4 events!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought the 4 events only applied to situations where the pax paid
for the ride (not Young Eagles) i.e. charity lifts. I've donated rides
to the PTA, who then auctions them off. I had to use the drug test
exemption from AOPA at the time. Sounds like now I would get 4
freebies w/o having to fill out the drug test exemption.
In all of this, what really sucks *%# is the poor CFI at the FBO who
has to turn away the guy who shows up asking to take pictures of his
property. Today CFI's often get hours by taking people up for local
revenue rides (not just instruction).


-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> In all of this, what really sucks *%# is the poor CFI at the FBO who
> has to turn away the guy who shows up asking to take pictures of his
> property. Today CFI's often get hours by taking people up for local
> revenue rides (not just instruction).

I would think the CFI would say, " I can take you up for an introduction
instructional flight, but I can't take you up just to take pictures."
--
Jim in NC

On May 5, 3:02 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>
> > In all of this, what really sucks *%# is the poor CFI at the FBO who
> > has to turn away the guy who shows up asking to take pictures of his
> > property. Today CFI's often get hours by taking people up for local
> > revenue rides (not just instruction).
>
> I would think the CFI would say, " I can take you up for an introduction
> instructional flight, but I can't take you up just to take pictures."
> --
> Jim in NC

The problem is that if the FSDO thinks what you are doing is wrong
(even if you are rigtht) they can make your life very difficult.
Personally, as a CFI, I won't do any such flights anymore unless we
get guidance from AOPA. Its just not worth not being able to fly while
the FSDO fights with you (regardless if you end up winning or not).

-Robert, CFII

There is a clarifying letter on the EAA's Young Eagle web
site. The link is below:

http://www.youngeagles.org/volunteers/resources/content/FAA%20Air%20Tour%20Letter.pdf

My interpretation is that if Young Eagle ride is free and no
money is raised or donated, then the rule does not apply.
If funds raised, then rule applies. Read it see if you come
to the same conclusion.

Jerry in NC


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 5, 4:51 am, "Blueskies"
> > wrote:
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in
>> messagenews:7uqm33ppqgsqn4u61hkmrfordduulfv6nk@4ax .com...
>>
>> > Let me see if I've got this right. It's okay to carry
>> > sick or injured
>> > passengers without the pilot meeting the drug testing
>> > and minimum
>> > hours requirements. But those conducting short
>> > sightseeing flights
>> > are no longer able to get a waiver for drug testing,
>> > and must now have
>> > 500 hours instead of the former 200 hour minimum. So
>> > the public at
>> > large is better protected, but the sick and injured are
>> > not?
>>
>> > NEW AOPA PUBLICATION OUTLINES RULES FOR SIGHTSEEING
>> > FLIGHTS
>>
>> > If you conduct sightseeing flights, whether for charity
>> > or for profit,
>> > new FAA rules
>> > (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070426airtour.html)
>> > affect you. AOPA has updated its "Charity Flying Safety
>> > Brief
>> > (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/SB05.pdf),"
>> > posted free online,
>> > to reflect those changes. For example, flight schools
>> > that give
>> > sightseeing rides under the Part 91 25-mile exception
>> > must now apply
>> > for a "Letter of Authorization" from the FAA and show
>> > proof that they
>> > have an FAA-approved anti-drug and alcohol program.
>> > Private pilots who
>> > conduct sightseeing flights to raise funds for charity
>> > now must have a
>> > minimum total flight time of 500 hours, up from 200.
>> > However, the rule
>> > changes don't affect all forms of charitable flying.
>> > Volunteer private
>> > pilots still may transport a sick or injured person and
>> > take a
>> > charitable tax deduction for their expenses, says the
>> > Air Care
>> > Alliance (http://www.aircareall.org/news.htm).
>> >http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/859-full.html#195117
>>
>> Young Eagle flights are in this category. If I remember
>> right there is an exception for them also?- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The additional hours may apply to YoungEagles but the drug
> testing
> wouldn't because there is no charge made to the passenger.
> I've always
> flown YoungEagles for BSA, which has always had higher
> minimum hours
> than EAA.
>
> -Robert
>