FAA rule change for charity flights?

[Ben Haas]

Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
too.

Ben Haas

[Ron Natalie]

"Ben Haas" > wrote in message om...
> Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
> FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
> to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
> because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
> some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
> period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
> such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
> too.

There's not even a 200 hour limit for Young Eagles. All you need is the normal
pilot-in-command requirements for carrying passengers in general, EAA membership,
and minimal insurance. The current NPRM doesn't affect any of that.

The rules that are talking about cover carrying passengers for hire, either for sightseeing
or charity fundraisers. Both of these currently enjoy relaxation of the rules for commercial
operators. The YE program doesn't fit in this in that nobody is getting charged. Of course,
the whole NPRM justification is flawed. The example cases that they use to justify it happened
by operators already subject to Part 135 rules. It's not clear what the point of this
rule is other than to put a lot of operators out of business and to completely eliminate
certain kinds of flying.

[Ben Haas]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Ben Haas" > wrote in message om...
> > Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
> > FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
> > to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
> > because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
> > some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
> > period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
> > such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
> > too.
>
> There's not even a 200 hour limit for Young Eagles. All you need is the normal
> pilot-in-command requirements for carrying passengers in general, EAA membership,
> and minimal insurance. The current NPRM doesn't affect any of that.
>
> The rules that are talking about cover carrying passengers for hire, either for sightseeing
> or charity fundraisers. Both of these currently enjoy relaxation of the rules for commercial
> operators. The YE program doesn't fit in this in that nobody is getting charged. Of course,
> the whole NPRM justification is flawed. The example cases that they use to justify it happened
> by operators already subject to Part 135 rules. It's not clear what the point of this
> rule is other than to put a lot of operators out of business and to completely eliminate
> certain kinds of flying.

Ya, thats what I thought too. I am sooo busy gettin ready to make Sun
and Fun I had little time to follow up on that. Gotta see Alexis Park
Inn too on the way. I had to get that plug in for Jay. <g> Thanks,
Ron for the answer.

Ben Haas N801BH.

[Dude]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Ben Haas" > wrote in message
om...
> > Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
> > FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
> > to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
> > because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
> > some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
> > period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
> > such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
> > too.
>
> There's not even a 200 hour limit for Young Eagles. All you need is the
normal
> pilot-in-command requirements for carrying passengers in general, EAA
membership,
> and minimal insurance. The current NPRM doesn't affect any of that.
>
> The rules that are talking about cover carrying passengers for hire,
either for sightseeing
> or charity fundraisers. Both of these currently enjoy relaxation of the
rules for commercial
> operators. The YE program doesn't fit in this in that nobody is getting
charged. Of course,
> the whole NPRM justification is flawed. The example cases that they use
to justify it happened
> by operators already subject to Part 135 rules. It's not clear what the
point of this
> rule is other than to put a lot of operators out of business and to
completely eliminate
> certain kinds of flying.
>


Ron,

I spoke to an active member of Angel Flight who said they were concerned
that they may get caught up in this ruling because it was so badly written.

Do you know anything about that?

[James M. Knox]

> I spoke to an active member of Angel Flight who said they were
> concerned that they may get caught up in this ruling because it was so
> badly written.
>
> Do you know anything about that?

Here's the piece I just wrote for our Angel Flight South Central
members:

Angel Flight SC Volunteers:

Some of you have become aware of a new Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) from the FAA entitled "National Air Tour Safety Standards NPRM."
This proposal has changes that impact not only pilots and organizations
that operate sightseeing flights, it also has major changes to what are
called "charitable fundraising" flights. Reasonably, many have inquired
as to how this might impact Angel Flight.

The short answer is, not directly at all. The flights discussed within
the body of the NRPM refer not to Angel Flight type operations, but
rather to flights where the proceeds of the flight go to charity.
Examples of these would be events where a non-profit raffles off a
flight, or where a siteseeing flight is donated a charity for auction.
While Angel Flight welcomes the donations of any money contributed by
any pilot wishing to personally perform such a flight, Angel Flight
itself does not currently utilize such a method to raise funds.

Clearly, our regular flight "missions" in support of medical and
humanitarian needs do not fall within the realm of this NPRM and we are
not directly affected.

Regardless, many pilots and pilot groups have come out opposed to the
NPRM in its present form, feeling that it unreasonably burdens small
siteseeing operations and charitable fundraising with substantial costs
and paperwork for little if any real improvement in safety. AOPA has
written several articles on the matter. An example can be viewed at

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-4-069.html

The FAA has invited comments through 20-January-2004 on this NPRM.
While Angel Flight does not, as an organization, involve itself in any
political process, you as a pilot may wish to view this NPRM and make
comments, pro or con. You can view the entire NRPM and comment on it
via links from the above AOPA web site article, or by means of the
Federal Document Management System:

http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

From there, just enter the number 4521. You will be able to view the
entire proposal, see comments made by other pilots and organizations,
and enter your own comments if you wish.

Again, this proposal in its present form does not impact Angel Flight
America or Angel Flight South Central. It does, unfortunately, show an
increasing tendency to regulate (some would say "over regulate")
charitable organizations involved with flying.

James M. Knox
Chairman - AFSC




-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Dude]

Thanks James, that is a well done letter.





"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I spoke to an active member of Angel Flight who said they were
> > concerned that they may get caught up in this ruling because it was so
> > badly written.
> >
> > Do you know anything about that?
>
> Here's the piece I just wrote for our Angel Flight South Central
> members:
>
> Angel Flight SC Volunteers:
>
> Some of you have become aware of a new Notice of Proposed Rule Making
> (NPRM) from the FAA entitled "National Air Tour Safety Standards NPRM."
> This proposal has changes that impact not only pilots and organizations
> that operate sightseeing flights, it also has major changes to what are
> called "charitable fundraising" flights. Reasonably, many have inquired
> as to how this might impact Angel Flight.
>
> The short answer is, not directly at all. The flights discussed within
> the body of the NRPM refer not to Angel Flight type operations, but
> rather to flights where the proceeds of the flight go to charity.
> Examples of these would be events where a non-profit raffles off a
> flight, or where a siteseeing flight is donated a charity for auction.
> While Angel Flight welcomes the donations of any money contributed by
> any pilot wishing to personally perform such a flight, Angel Flight
> itself does not currently utilize such a method to raise funds.
>
> Clearly, our regular flight "missions" in support of medical and
> humanitarian needs do not fall within the realm of this NPRM and we are
> not directly affected.
>
> Regardless, many pilots and pilot groups have come out opposed to the
> NPRM in its present form, feeling that it unreasonably burdens small
> siteseeing operations and charitable fundraising with substantial costs
> and paperwork for little if any real improvement in safety. AOPA has
> written several articles on the matter. An example can be viewed at
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-4-069.html
>
> The FAA has invited comments through 20-January-2004 on this NPRM.
> While Angel Flight does not, as an organization, involve itself in any
> political process, you as a pilot may wish to view this NPRM and make
> comments, pro or con. You can view the entire NRPM and comment on it
> via links from the above AOPA web site article, or by means of the
> Federal Document Management System:
>
> http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
>
> From there, just enter the number 4521. You will be able to view the
> entire proposal, see comments made by other pilots and organizations,
> and enter your own comments if you wish.
>
> Again, this proposal in its present form does not impact Angel Flight
> America or Angel Flight South Central. It does, unfortunately, show an
> increasing tendency to regulate (some would say "over regulate")
> charitable organizations involved with flying.
>
> James M. Knox
> Chairman - AFSC
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> James M. Knox
> TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
> 1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
> Austin, Tx 78721
> -----------------------------------------------

[C J Campbell]

"Ben Haas" > wrote in message
om...
| Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
| FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
| to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
| because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
| some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
| period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
| such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
| too.

The problem EAA has with the proposed rule is not so much the Young Eagles
program but with a lot of other charity flights that EAA and other groups
do. Many groups, including EAA and the Heritage Air Force, take people for
rides on experimental or military aircraft and charge a fee. The new rules
would require all pilots giving these rides to have at least 500 hours and
there is some question as to whether you could use restored aircraft such as
the Ford Trimotor or the Aluminum Overcast for such flights.

There is more than just that, too. There would be severe limits on the
number of charitable flights you can do in a year, which would just about
put an end to national tours of old aircraft. No more flights in the B-17
for $200.

Sightseeing flights under the new rule could be conducted only by
sightseeing tour operators chartered by the FAA. Sightseeing tour operators
would be similar to part 135 charters, only some restrictions are even
tighter. For example, any flight over water, even if it remains within
gliding distance of land, would require the passengers all wear life
preservers while in the airplane. This would include any flight that crosses
a river. I can imagine the ridiculous look on everybody's face the first
time some Grand Canyon tour operator tells his passengers that they will
have to wear their life jackets throughout the flight.

[Vaughn]

Here is the latest from AOPA on this subject:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/04-1-032x.html

Vaughn


"Ben Haas" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
> FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
> to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
> because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
> some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
> period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
> such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
> too.
>
> Ben Haas