Having read the proposed Part 136, I have a few problems with it.

First of all, it appears totally unnecessary. Basically, all flights that
are now conducted under Part 91 as commercial sightseeing flights would be
banned and would now have to be conducted by chartered "air tour operators"
under Part 136. The air tour operator would have to submit a charter with
rules of flight operations to be approved by the local FSDO, probably along
with a DOT certification of financial responsibility.

Secondly, many of the requirements are more stringent than for Part 135
operators.

Certifying Part 136 operators is going to be an enormous burden on FAA and
FSDO resources.

All flights that pass a 'shoreline' (defined as the shore of any ocean,
lake, or river), require all passengers to wear an inflatable vest
regardless of whether you are ever out of gliding distance of land.
Passengers must also receive a ditching briefing. It is difficult to imagine
any air tour that would not cross a shoreline as defined.

Part 136 specifically defines air tours in such a way that a flight
instructor could not even point out a potential emergency landing field to a
student without it being considered an air tour. Almost all aerial
photography of the ground could also be considered an air tour.

A strict reading of the wording of Part 136 forbids flight within 1500 feet
horizontally of any person or structure, regardless of altitude. The
language of this section needs so much work it is probably unsalvageable.

The cloud clearance limits below 1250 feet in class G airspace are increased
to 1000 feet above, 500 feet below, and 2000 feet horizontally for Part 136
air tour operators. The justification for this is murky.


--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


For the Homeland!