Rumsfeld and flying

362436 (Ron) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Evidently you haven't read the feds proposal? We're talking about
eliminating the grand old American tradition of commercial pilots
giving airplane rides in everything from Curtiss Jennys to Cessna
172's from their hometown airports under Part 91. You know,
eliminating the apple pie and U.S.A. stuff that brave Americans like
my Dad fought and died for. Most tour flights are conducted under
Part 91 NOT Part 135. This proposal, if passed, is just more post 9/11
nail in the coffin for GA.

Read it: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html

Yes, I just didnt state clearly what I meant.

I used to do part 91 tour flying in Hawaii. But the FAA wants to make it all
under part 135 it sounds like.

Exactly. This is one of the most draconian proposals since 1997, when
the FAA "modified" FAR Part 61 pilot training regulations.

I think it is bogus and the reasoning they are using is rather faulty.

Changing the sightseeing rules is not necessary and would not
enhance safety. Everyone will be effected by this rule, INCLUDING
military pilots. Why? Because most military pilots are also FAA
certified pilots and the more people whom are discouraged from
becoming pilots, the less military flying clubs there will be, less
flight instructors, fewer students, fewer airplanes sold (making each
one more expensive,) less insurance available (and, again, more
expensive,) fewer aviation accessories sold (like radios and GPS's
that warbirds use not to mention that neato TCAS unit in your 50-year
old DC-4) and more politicians and developers who want to sub-divide
"under-utilized airports." If you think it's bogus, don't hesitate to
tell the FAA but do it before the deadline on APRIL 19.

Once again, here is the link: http://nationalairtours.org/sight.html