A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Proposed new flightseeing rule



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 5th 03, 06:17 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Proposed new flightseeing rule

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!



  #2  
Old November 5th 03, 10:35 AM
Eric Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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


  #3  
Old November 5th 03, 01:57 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Eric Miller wrote:


"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!


There's a _whole_lot_ of Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Lake
Huron that meets _that_ requirement. *snicker*


Of course, I'm not sure how you'd get a flight off the ground, without coming
within 25nm of an airport. A compliant *landing*, OTOH, _is_ possible -- but
*not* recommended. snort
  #4  
Old November 5th 03, 02:15 PM
sean trost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
originate and terminate at an airport ?
hmmmnnnn.
Sean

  #5  
Old November 5th 03, 03:51 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #6  
Old November 5th 03, 03:52 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"sean trost" wrote in message ...

Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
originate and terminate at an airport ?


They must originate and terminate at the same airport and not go beyond
25 miles of that airport.


  #7  
Old November 5th 03, 04:10 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
|
| "sean trost" wrote in message
...
|
| Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
| originate and terminate at an airport ?
|
| They must originate and terminate at the same airport and not go beyond
| 25 miles of that airport.

They must also not land at any other airport.


  #8  
Old November 5th 03, 04:18 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #9  
Old November 5th 03, 04:38 PM
Eric Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
|
| "sean trost" wrote in message
...
|
| Just a Thought but do not most of all "flight-seeing" operations
| originate and terminate at an airport ?
|
| They must originate and terminate at the same airport and not go beyond
| 25 miles of that airport.

They must also not land at any other airport.


Oh, well that's different, that just sounds like regular "you can't fly
someone from point A to point B for recompense on just a Private
certificate"

Eric


  #10  
Old November 5th 03, 04:44 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eric Miller" wrote in message t...

Oh, well that's different, that just sounds like regular "you can't fly
someone from point A to point B for recompense on just a Private
certificate"


It's got nothing to do with that. You can't even fly someone from point
A to Point A for recompense on a private certificate.

You can't fly sightseeing (other than this local exception) with a comercial
pilot certificate either UNLESS you have a comercial operators certificate
issued under one of the Part 119-related sections.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New proposed electronics merger Jerry Wass Home Built 4 August 26th 03 01:25 PM
51% rule Robert Bates Home Built 12 August 1st 03 09:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.