FAA to End part 91 Sightseeing flights?

[Vaughn]

The below is from AOPA:
FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS
An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would
likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with
fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds
of small sightseeing operations out of business. The proposal would
raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots conducting charity
fundraising flights from 200 to 500, and remove an exemption that allows
FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport.
Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then
be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "This proposed
rule is a real slap in the face to Part 91 pilots who contribute their
time and services to worthy causes, and to small businesspeople just
trying to earn an income," said Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president.
"The FAA claims the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no
safety data or statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required
to conduct charitable fundraising flights."

The FAA proposal (all 20-some pages) is at:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p77/257434.pdf

This will cause the loss of lots of flying jobs, the FAA admits that few
sightseeing operations will be able to afford to operate under part 135, so
the government is going to keep us all safer by keeping us on the ground.
You have until Jan 20 to file your comments.

Vaughn

[Bart]

10 bucks says the *******s keep the exemption in place for politicians!


Bart

Vaughn wrote:
> The below is from AOPA:
> FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS
> An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would
> likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with
> fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds
> of small sightseeing operations out of business. The proposal would
> raise the minimum number of hours required for pilots conducting charity
> fundraising flights from 200 to 500, and remove an exemption that allows
> FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport.
> Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then
> be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "This proposed
> rule is a real slap in the face to Part 91 pilots who contribute their
> time and services to worthy causes, and to small businesspeople just
> trying to earn an income," said Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president.
> "The FAA claims the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no
> safety data or statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required
> to conduct charitable fundraising flights."
>
> The FAA proposal (all 20-some pages) is at:
> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p77/257434.pdf
>
> This will cause the loss of lots of flying jobs, the FAA admits that few
> sightseeing operations will be able to afford to operate under part 135, so
> the government is going to keep us all safer by keeping us on the ground.
> You have until Jan 20 to file your comments.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>

[Bart]

Ok, I just read the NPRM in its entirety. If enacted as is, you can
totally forget about the helicopter tour biz. There wont be one. The
proposed Part 136 amend. is a direct attack on the helicopters in
general and will remove every advantage that a helicopter provides over
an airplane for such operations. The float requirement will knock most
of the operators out of biz too. (I just spent a very painful 50 grand
putting them on my ship, but most operators dont have the budget to do
this in the crappy post 9/11 environment) Its not the adherence to 135
that is the danger to the Rotorcraft industry, but rather the additions
to more obscure part 136.

What's kind of ironic is the preamble to the NPRM cites a bunch of
incidents in Hawaii as justification, but buried deep within the
document they state that most of the operators were operating under part
135 anyway.

Some of the justifications continued within the NPRM are totally
legitimate, and should be mandated across all ops regardless of what
type of operation it is. An example is that passengers should be
_WEARING_ their lifejacket and briefed its use and water egress for over
water ops. I've never done otherwise, and can't imagine why anyone
ignores this simple easy safety measure today. Even though most of my
tour flights are conducted over very shallow water (2-5 ft), I've never
allowed anyone to ride without a jacket and a water egress briefing.

Im not sure how many real operators or pilots are in this group, but if
you give a rat's-ass at all about this industry, you should put some
effort into commenting on this. (it can be done anonymously btw)
See the link in the nprm for info on how to do it.

Bart



> The FAA proposal (all 20-some pages) is at:
> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p77/257434.pdf
>
> This will cause the loss of lots of flying jobs, the FAA admits that few
> sightseeing operations will be able to afford to operate under part 135, so
> the government is going to keep us all safer by keeping us on the ground.
> You have until Jan 20 to file your comments.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Bart > wrote:

> Im not sure how many real operators or pilots are in this group, but if
> you give a rat's-ass at all about this industry, you should put some
> effort into commenting on this. (it can be done anonymously btw)
> See the link in the nprm for info on how to do it.

The fact that the FAA explicitly bans helicopters from the new sport
and light sport catgory makes a bold statement that they are seriously
biased against helicopters for no good reason. The latest movement
against tour flights is no big suprise. Makes me wonder what's next.


Dennis.



Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
To find out what an H-1B is and how they are putting
Americans out of work, visit the following web site
and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news video:
http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I just read the NPRM in its entirety. If enacted as is, you can
> totally forget about the helicopter tour biz. There wont be one. The
> proposed Part 136 amend. is a direct attack on the helicopters in
> general and will remove every advantage that a helicopter provides over
> an airplane for such operations. The float requirement will knock most
> of the operators out of biz too. (I just spent a very painful 50 grand
> putting them on my ship, but most operators dont have the budget to do
> this in the crappy post 9/11 environment) Its not the adherence to 135
> that is the danger to the Rotorcraft industry, but rather the additions
> to more obscure part 136.
>
> What's kind of ironic is the preamble to the NPRM cites a bunch of
> incidents in Hawaii as justification, but buried deep within the
> document they state that most of the operators were operating under part
> 135 anyway.

I think you are preaching to the choir here. Their analysis of costs
is just wild. For example, they figure that the costs for the average
operator to leave the tour industry, develop a new business plan, and go
into some other line of work is $600.00! And that includes lost income from
loss of business! They also give an estimated cost for floats which is
considerably less than what you paid.


> Some of the justifications continued within the NPRM are totally
> legitimate, and should be mandated across all ops regardless of what
> type of operation it is. An example is that passengers should be
> _WEARING_ their lifejacket and briefed its use and water egress for over
> water ops. I've never done otherwise, and can't imagine why anyone
> ignores this simple easy safety measure today. Even though most of my
> tour flights are conducted over very shallow water (2-5 ft), I've never
> allowed anyone to ride without a jacket and a water egress briefing.

I agree, and this need not be confined to the tour industry.


> Im not sure how many real operators or pilots are in this group, but if
> you give a rat's-ass at all about this industry, you should put some
> effort into commenting on this. (it can be done anonymously btw)
> See the link in the nprm for info on how to do it.

Again, I agree. If you sit back and let them screw you, you deserve
what you get.

Vaughn


>
> Bart
>
>
>
> > The FAA proposal (all 20-some pages) is at:
> > http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p77/257434.pdf
> >
> > This will cause the loss of lots of flying jobs, the FAA admits that few
> > sightseeing operations will be able to afford to operate under part 135,
so
> > the government is going to keep us all safer by keeping us on the
ground.
> > You have until Jan 20 to file your comments.
> >
> > Vaughn
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[John Roncallo]

Vaughn wrote:

> "The FAA claims the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no
> safety data or statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required
> to conduct charitable fundraising flights."
>

I read a significant amount of statistics based on the success of SFAR
71 which only applies to Hawian tours at this time.

[John Roncallo]

wrote:

>
> The fact that the FAA explicitly bans helicopters from the new sport
> and light sport catgory makes a bold statement that they are seriously
> biased against helicopters for no good reason. The latest movement
> against tour flights is no big suprise. Makes me wonder what's next.
>

I disagree. As both a rotorcraft and fixed wing pilot, leaving
helicopters out of the sport and light sport catagory is probably more
benificial to helicopter pilots than allowing it.

John Roncallo

Opinions posted here are my own and do not reflect the opinions of the
company I work for.

[Vaughn]

"John Roncallo" > wrote in message
...
> Vaughn wrote:
>
> > "The FAA claims the change is for safety reasons, but they provide no
> > safety data or statistics to justify the jump in flight hours required
> > to conduct charitable fundraising flights."
> >
>
> I read a significant amount of statistics based on the success of SFAR
> 71 which only applies to Hawian tours at this time.

Actually I didn't write that, I was quoting AOPA. The increase in
flight hours pertains only to private pilots conducting charitable
fundraising flights, so SFAR 71 would not apply as a basis of comparison.
As I recall (that means don't expect me to produce a reference);
statistically, a 500-hour pilot is more dangerous than a 100-hour pilot.

Vaughn (a 500-hour pilot)


>