Proposed new flightseeing rule

Is the exemption still 50 nms like it used to be?

--
Dan D.



..
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
|
| "Eric Miller" wrote in message
. ..
|
| I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport,
especially
| East of the Mississippi!
|
| Not "an airport" the "airport of departure". The exemption is for
non-stop
| sightseeing flights that stay with 25 miles of their departure point.

At first I was astonished that any pilots would not know this, but as a
flight instructor I should have known better. I did not know it myself until
I began to study for my commercial certificate.

Every time I hear it I think of all the old movies where the 'reds' would talk about their home. Definitely too bad they
didn't think of a different term...

--
Dan D.



..
"Eric Miller" wrote in message . ..
"C J Campbell" wrote
NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:

Instructional News


FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule

The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
it
claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, 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 Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
airport.

I'd like to see a map of what *isn't* within 25 nm of an airport, especially
East of the Mississippi!

For the Homeland!

The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I wanna
call home.

Eric

Thanks for the connection. I have voiced my disagreement with this NPRM to the AOPA and EAA. Everyone else should
also...

--
Dan D.



..
"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote in message news:3fa924b9$1@ham...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
NAFI sent this alert to its members. Note the EAA concern about charity
flights with vintage aircraft such as Aluminum Overcast:

Instructional News


FAA Proposes Flight-seeing Rule

The FAA published on Oct. 22 a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
it
claims will improve national air tour safety. Among other things, 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 Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nm of an
airport. Commercial sightseeing flights will fall under a new FAR Part
136,
and some current Part 91 operations may require either Part 121 or 135
certification. Only eligible charity/community events will remain under
Part
91.

NAFI is reviewing the rule and developing its response as to how the rule
will affect flight instructors' and flight schools' ability to provide
general aviation flight experiences to people in their communities.

"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 AOPA Senior Vice
President of Government and Technical Affairs Andy Cebula. "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 proposed rule is modeled on Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
71, which governs the Hawaiian commercial air tour industry. FAA credits
this SFAR with lowering the air tour accident rate in that state from a
high
of 3.46 per 100,000 flight miles (1989-1994) to 1.48 (1995-2000). FAA now
seeks to apply the regulations throughout the country.

The data used to justify lifting the sightseeing exemption and require the
operators to be certified as Part 135 are a jumble of Part 135 and Part 91
accident reports, according to AOPA. But of the 11 accidents cited in the
NPRM, eight occurred in Hawaii, and most were apparently already operating
as Part 135 flights, AOPA says.

According to EAA, the NPRM would adversely affect the operations of these
vintage aircraft used in flight-seeing operations. That could force
grounding of the association's Ford Tri-Motor and B-17 Aluminum Overcast,
because income derived from flights provides the resources with which
owners
preserve and maintain them.

To comment on the NPRM, visit the Federal Docket Management System at
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm. The NPRM is Docket No.
4521.
The comment period ends on January 20, 2004.



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


For the Homeland!

I am glad that this has finally turned up on the newsgroup. There seems to
be some confusion so let me guide you to the actual document and you all can
read it for yourself:

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...&docketid=4521

Those of us in the flight-seeing business that would like to fight this rule
change have started a discussion group for it he

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/airtourNPRM/

Anyone that is interested in fighting this rule change with us is welcome to
participate.

The reader's digest version of it is this:

Commercial sightseeing operations (even small ones that have one plane and
one pilot and operate a vintage aircraft) will be required to operate under
Part 135, the same as companies that charter airliners. By the FAA's own
estimates, more than 700 businesses in the United States will be put out of
business if the rule passes.

In order for someone to fly a plane ride for a charity fund raiser, you will
have to have at least 500 hours total time and with few exceptions, have a
commercial license. You as a pilot will be limited to doing 4 charity fund
raiser events per year.

Please take a few minutes to read the NPRM. Formulate a comment on it and
post it.

Thanks,

Rick Pellicciotti, Belle Aire Tours, Inc.
http://www.belleairetours.com

"Eric Miller" wrote /+
For the Homeland!

The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
wanna
call home.

Eric


Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.

Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

:"Morgans" wrote in message
...
:
: "Eric Miller" wrote /+
: For the Homeland!
:
: The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
: wanna
: call home.
:
: Eric
:
:
: Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
:
: Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
: --
: Jim in NC
:
:I knew someone would take offense
:
:Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
:government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
:
:And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
:Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
:effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?

How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
years?
.........................

You're welcome.

Richard
If you gauge the effectivness of "Homeland Security" on a measly two
years I fear you will be rudely brought to your senses eventually. It is
my humble opinion that the TSA is all show and no go.
I pray I am incorrect.
all the best
Sean

Richard Riley wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

:"Morgans" wrote in message
...
:
: "Eric Miller" wrote /+
: For the Homeland!
:
: The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
: wanna
: call home.
:
: Eric
:
:
: Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
:
: Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
: --
: Jim in NC
:
:I knew someone would take offense
:
:Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
:government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
:
:And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
:Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
:effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?

How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
years?
........................

You're welcome.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:39:29 GMT, sean trost
wrote:

:Richard
:If you gauge the effectivness of "Homeland Security" on a measly two
:years I fear you will be rudely brought to your senses eventually. It is
:my humble opinion that the TSA is all show and no go.
:I pray I am incorrect.
:all the best
:Sean

You are incorrect. You will never know about most of the successes.

Yes, in time there will be a successful attack on US soil, and you
will know about a failure. In the meantime, TSA will have been 99%
successful, and there will be people calling for it to be dismantled.

Do you really think the bad guys haven't tried in the last two years?

Sorry for the thread drift.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:34:06 GMT, Richard Riley
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

:"Morgans" wrote in message
...
:
: "Eric Miller" wrote /+
: For the Homeland!
:
: The more I hear the word "homeland" lately, the less this is a land I
: wanna
: call home.
:
: Eric
:
:
: Don't let the screen door hit you, where the good lord split you.
:
: Guess than means we won't be hearing from you for a while.
: --
: Jim in NC
:
:I knew someone would take offense
:
:Consider that remark equivalent to: A democracy is the worst form of
:government on the face of the Earth... except for every other one!
:
:And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
:Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
:effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?

How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
years?

Homeland Security has also protected us from crocidile attacks and are
entirely responsible for the lack of bald eagle attacks.

What a specious argument.

........................

You're welcome.

--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:05:57 GMT, "Eric Miller"
wrote:

:And besides, that statement was more a play on words directed at all the
:Homeland Security nonsense, which is high on nuisance factor and low on
:effectiveness. Do you claim otherwise?

How many terror attacks have there been on US soil in the past 2
years?

And how many terror attacks took place before 2 years ago?

........................

You're welcome.

No thanks!

Eric

On 05 Nov 2003 05:13 PM, Richard Riley posted the following:
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 01:39:29 GMT, sean trost
wrote:

:Richard
:If you gauge the effectivness of "Homeland Security" on a measly two
:years I fear you will be rudely brought to your senses eventually. It
:is my humble opinion that the TSA is all show and no go. I pray I am
:incorrect. all the best Sean

You are incorrect. You will never know about most of the successes.

How convenient.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/