Proposed new flightseeing rule

NAFI sent this alert to their members. Thought some of the rest of you might
find it interesting.

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!

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!

One additional note:

The proposed appears to have dropped all the drug testing requirements for
sightseeing flights. No doubt this is because the writers of the rules
figure they have already consumed all available drugs. At least it appears
that way.

From: Christopher J. Campbell

5503 Turnberry Place SW

Port Orchard, WA 98367



To: FAA



NPRM 4521 “National Air Tour Safety Standards: Proposed Rule”



November 4, 2003



The proposed rule is unjustified and, on the whole, unsatisfactory. It is
also poorly written. The proposed Part 136 is so poorly written as to be
virtually unintelligible, containing many regulatory booby-traps.



Too many of the accidents used to justify the new rule occurred in Hawaii,
where the rule is already in effect. How are the proposed rules going to
improve safety elsewhere when they have not demonstrably improved safety
where they are already in effect?



The rule increases the hourly requirement for private pilots to conduct
charity flights. No justification for this increased hourly requirement is
given anywhere in the NPRM. The increased hourly requirement would severely
harm many charities, including those promoting aviation safety and
historical preservation. The net effect could be to actually reduce safety.



The rule proposes the new Part 136, which is wholly unjustified, imposes an
enormous burden on commercial pilots, flight schools, and other operators,
and is impossible for the FAA to implement and enforce.



Specifically, the rule requires a new type of air carrier charter, the “air
tour operator.” FSDOs do not have the staff and resources to handle the air
carrier applications they have now. Who in the FAA is going to process all
these new Part 136 charters? Where is the budget for processing these
charters going to come from? What procedure would be used to apply for a
charter? What documentation is required? Is a DOT certificate of financial
responsibility required? How will that be processed? The current NPRM
answers none of these questions.



The proposed definition of “air tour operator” and the conditions which are
to be considered in deciding whether a flight is an “air tour” are
completely unworkable. The current definition could be construed to include
flight instructors that point out potential emergency landing sites to their
students, aerial photography of any surface feature, or even parachute or
agricultural operations that might be cancelled if the ground surface is not
visible from the air. Even fish spotting, pipeline or power line patrolling,
and banner towing could be construed as “air tours” if the operator is
narrating what he sees over a radio. It is ludicrous to define “air tour” so
broadly that it could possibly include flights where there are no
passengers. Although numerous exclusions are supposedly provided in
revisions to Part 119, the new Part 136 requirements affect all flights of
which any component could possibly be construed as an air tour, effectively
negating all the exclusions.



No justification is given in any of the accidents for the proposed increased
visibility requirements in class G airspace below 1250 feet.



The proposed Part 136 requires that passengers wear inflatable life jackets
for any flight that crosses a shoreline as defined in Part 136. They are
also supposed to receive a passenger briefing on ditching. Inasmuch as any
flight that crosses a river, lake, or ocean shoreline requires these things,
it is difficult to imagine any air tour that does not require the water
landing safety provisions. Even flights over desert areas will almost
certainly cross a shoreline at some point.



The standoff distance is also unworkable. A strict reading of the standoff
distance would require an aircraft to remain 1500 feet horizontally from any
person or structure regardless of altitude.



I believe that this proposed rule cannot be salvaged in any form. It should
be discarded immediately.





Christopher J. Campbell

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
One additional note:

The proposed appears to have dropped all the drug testing requirements for
sightseeing flights. No doubt this is because the writers of the rules
figure they have already consumed all available drugs. At least it appears
that way.

My AME also administers a drug testing program for commercial air operators.
He hasn't offered to let me test any of the drugs.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
One additional note:

The proposed appears to have dropped all the drug testing requirements
for
sightseeing flights. No doubt this is because the writers of the rules
figure they have already consumed all available drugs. At least it
appears
that way.

My AME also administers a drug testing program for commercial air
operators.
He hasn't offered to let me test any of the drugs.

Bummer, dude!!

This just in from AvWeb:



-------------------------------------------------------------------
Business AVflash Volume 1, Issue 1 November 12, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------


AT WHAT PRICE SAFETY?
As the aviation industry is pummeled by a weak economy and staggered
by the 9/11 hangover, it might seem like curious timing for the FAA to
write regulations that it believes will cost $238 million over ten
years and drive 700 enterprises out of at least a portion of their
business. That's the agency's own assessment of the effect of
National Air Tour standards it is proposing and which are at the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) stage. Comments will be taken
until Jan. 20, 2004. The rule package, if adopted, would force Part 91
operators to upgrade to at least Part 135 status to continue
sightseeing flights. "The FAA estimates that about 700 Part 91
operators currently providing sightseeing flights would elect to stop
providing the service," the agency concludes in what it calls its
"Business Closure Analysis." The document goes on to say, however,
that sightseeing is a small part of their overall business, less than
10 hours per year, and that these operators would remain in business
and obtain revenues elsewhere.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186046

....HIGHER COSTS, MORE HASSLES...
Although it can be argued that Part 91 operators will be the hardest
hit, larger companies are also counting up the costs. Jim Cruson,
president of Air Vegas, one of the biggest air tour companies in the
country, says some of the proposed regulations will hit his firm
squarely in the bottom line. For instance, his company's fleet of 10
Beech 99s routinely flies over Lake Mead and the new rules would
require all passengers to be wearing an inflatable flight vest for the
duration of each flight. "It's ridiculous," said Cruson.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186047

....ALTITUDE MINIMUMS RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS
Cruson said new minimum altitudes for tour operators could actually
create safety problems. Currently, sightseeing aircraft operate
between 500 and 1,000 feet AGL depending on aircraft type and the
areas over which they are flying. The new rule would set the limit at
1,000 feet for all sightseeing aircraft. And since the essence of
sightseeing is to get as close to the sights as possible, that means
all aircraft will operate right on that limit. "It will decrease the
level of safety because it focuses more aircraft in less airspace," he
said. Cruson said his company is still studying the 62-page document
before sending its comments to the FAA. At least one industry group
has tried broaching the topic with the FAA, but with little success.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#186048

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...

This just in from AvWeb:

Nothing like timely news. AOPA and EAA have been talking about
it for weeks. We've even discussed it here (look around in the other
threads).

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:02:27 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote in Message-Id: :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ...

This just in from AvWeb:

Nothing like timely news. AOPA and EAA have been talking about
it for weeks. We've even discussed it here (look around in the other
threads).


Yep. It looks like AOPA is still hot on the trail:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Issue 46b November 13, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

AOPA CALLS FOR INPUT ON SIGHTSEEING, CHARITY FLIGHT PROPOSAL
AOPA on Wednesday formally called on the FAA to hold public meetings
on a proposed rule change that threatens to cause significant hardship
for small sightseeing/air tour operators and pilots who help charities
raise money. AOPA said in the letter, "We are concerned that the FAA
has failed to consider the true impacts of this proposal." AOPA
believes it is imperative that the FAA see face-to-face and hear
directly from the pilots who will be hurt if the rule is adopted. The
National Air Tour Safety Standards notice of proposed rulemaking 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 nautical miles of an
airport. See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...03-4-103x.html ).