Protect your Job! FAA PART 91 ONLINE MTG TODAY!

[Bart]

The FAA's online meeting regarding the massive changes to part 91 tours as
well as many helicopter related changes. is being held today. If youre a
pilot or operator you should consider commenting on this NPRM. It
dramatically changes the rules regarding helicopter tour and sightseeing
ops. ( eg: 1500 ft minimums and floats required overwater, 135 cert. will be
required... etc )

Go here and voice your opinion directly to the FAA:

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/arm/forum/Hypertextedintroductorypage.htm

They refused to have a public meeting on this important issue, and chose
this online thing as a "better way."

Bart

[Bart]

Oh, yeah,

In case you have not seen the NPRM, or can't find it at the FAA, I've made a
copy available at: http://www.igor.com/tmp/air_tour_nprm.pdf


"Bart" > wrote in message
...
> The FAA's online meeting regarding the massive changes to part 91 tours as
> well as many helicopter related changes. is being held today. If youre a
> pilot or operator you should consider commenting on this NPRM. It
> dramatically changes the rules regarding helicopter tour and sightseeing
> ops. ( eg: 1500 ft minimums and floats required overwater, 135 cert. will
be
> required... etc )
>
> Go here and voice your opinion directly to the FAA:
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/avr/arm/forum/Hypertextedintroductorypage.htm
>
> They refused to have a public meeting on this important issue, and chose
> this online thing as a "better way."
>
> Bart
>
>

[Stan Gosnell]

"Bart" > wrote in :

> The FAA's online meeting regarding the massive changes to part 91
> tours as well as many helicopter related changes. is being held today.

First, you people are way late on this. The NPRM is almost at the end of
the second, extended comment period.

Second, I'm in favor of the changes. Tour operators are killing too many
people, and I would never get on one, nor allow my family on one. Part 135
compliance is certainly the least that should be required, and in most
cases scheduled 135 compliance should be required. Hovering inside
volcanoes, beside waterfalls, and inside the Grand Canyon with no forced
landing area is simply idiotic. There is no reason to fly at the altitudes
many operators do, because you can't see as much and because a recovery
from an engine failure is difficult at best. Plus, using low-time pilots
and grossly overworking them is unsafe at any altitude.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Steve R.]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> "Bart" > wrote in :
>
> > The FAA's online meeting regarding the massive changes to part 91
> > tours as well as many helicopter related changes. is being held today.
>
> First, you people are way late on this. The NPRM is almost at the end of
> the second, extended comment period.
>
> Second, I'm in favor of the changes. Tour operators are killing too many
> people, and I would never get on one, nor allow my family on one. Part
135
> compliance is certainly the least that should be required, and in most
> cases scheduled 135 compliance should be required. Hovering inside
> volcanoes, beside waterfalls, and inside the Grand Canyon with no forced
> landing area is simply idiotic. There is no reason to fly at the
altitudes
> many operators do, because you can't see as much and because a recovery
> from an engine failure is difficult at best. Plus, using low-time pilots
> and grossly overworking them is unsafe at any altitude.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan
>

As much as I loath seeing "more" restrictions being placed on aviation (or
any other aspect of our lives), I can see Stan's point.

One incident that I personally witnessed, happened in Branson, MO. I was
riding through the area with some friends on our motorcycles. We were
sitting in heavy traffic at a red light. A tour helicopter (Aerospatiale
A-Star or Twin Star) came over our heads at about 200 feet. The aircraft
pulled up sharply to (I'm guessing) about a 40 degree nose up attitude, came
to a stop, performed a 180 tail turn, and leveled to a hover condition.
They then descended vertically to the helipad that was located approximately
500 yards off the main thoroughfare that we were driving on. The entire
maneuver was very impressive, especially considering that it happened
virtually on top of our heads. I got a big kick out of it but afterwards
considered that it was probably one of the most irresponsible acts of flying
I've witnessed in a long time.

If we, as pilots, aren't going to show any more consideration to safety than
that, the government "will" step in, sooner or later.

Fly Safe,
Steve R.