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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Part 91 Commercial Glider Rides to be Outlawed?
The following is from an AOPA post and I have no further information yet. I
assume that they are talking about eliminating 135.1(5) which allows nonstop sightseeing flights within a 25-mile radius. This is bread & butter for a lot of soaring schools and would be a serious blow to our sport. Commercial glider rides are also an avenue that introduces thousands of people a year to our sport, including myself. I assume that the charity flight restrictions would also crimp some club operations. Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Vaughn (a guy who loves to give glider rides) FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds of small sightseeing operations out of business. 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 FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport. Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "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 Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president. "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." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
this would be an interesting one to discuss and to make sure that the SSA
and AOPA is involved.. obviously AOPA is.. Most of the language in Part 135 addresses "aircraft", which would include gliders.. but when it references the paragraphs covering drug/alcohol use and testing programs.. they refer to "Airplane" or "Rotorcraft", not gliders.. It's time to call your new SSA President and see if you are getting your money's worth. BT "Vaughn" wrote in message news The following is from an AOPA post and I have no further information yet. I assume that they are talking about eliminating 135.1(5) which allows nonstop sightseeing flights within a 25-mile radius. This is bread & butter for a lot of soaring schools and would be a serious blow to our sport. Commercial glider rides are also an avenue that introduces thousands of people a year to our sport, including myself. I assume that the charity flight restrictions would also crimp some club operations. Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Vaughn (a guy who loves to give glider rides) FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds of small sightseeing operations out of business. 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 FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport. Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "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 Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president. "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." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Vaughn" wrote in message news The following is from an AOPA post and I have no further information yet. I assume that they are talking about eliminating 135.1(5) which allows nonstop sightseeing flights within a 25-mile radius. This is bread & butter for a lot of soaring schools and would be a serious blow to our sport. Commercial glider rides are also an avenue that introduces thousands of people a year to our sport, including myself. I assume that the charity flight restrictions would also crimp some club operations. Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Vaughn (a guy who loves to give glider rides) FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds of small sightseeing operations out of business. 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 FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport. Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "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 Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president. "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." One would wonder if this would also spell the end to the EAA Young Eagles program. Our chapter has flown hundreds of kids and that would be a great shame..... Scott. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I pulled the NPRM from the FAA website. Relax. In
the introduction it states that this rule is for powered aircraft only, specifically NOT for gliders or hot air balloons. Ian At 03:30 27 October 2003, Scott Correa wrote: 'Vaughn' wrote in message news .. The following is from an AOPA post and I have no further information yet. I assume that they are talking about eliminating 135.1(5) which allows nonstop sightseeing flights within a 25-mile radius. This is bread & butter for a lot of soaring schools and would be a serious blow to our sport. Commercial glider rides are also an avenue that introduces thousands of people a year to our sport, including myself. I assume that the charity flight restrictions would also crimp some club operations. Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Vaughn (a guy who loves to give glider rides) FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds of small sightseeing operations out of business. 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 FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport. Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. '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 Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president. '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.' One would wonder if this would also spell the end to the EAA Young Eagles program. Our chapter has flown hundreds of kids and that would be a great shame..... Scott. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If you go to this document (right hand column on first page), you will
see that the proposal does not apply to commercial glider operations: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p77/257434.pdf Vaughn wrote: The following is from an AOPA post and I have no further information yet. I assume that they are talking about eliminating 135.1(5) which allows nonstop sightseeing flights within a 25-mile radius. This is bread & butter for a lot of soaring schools and would be a serious blow to our sport. Commercial glider rides are also an avenue that introduces thousands of people a year to our sport, including myself. I assume that the charity flight restrictions would also crimp some club operations. Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Vaughn (a guy who loves to give glider rides) FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds of small sightseeing operations out of business. 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 FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport. Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "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 Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president. "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." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
At 02:18 27 October 2003, Vaughn wrote:
Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Well, sorta... the NPRM to which AOPA refers is online at: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p77/257434.pdf This NPRM and its potential impact on soaring are being studied by SSA's Government Liaison committee and staff - and we'll have more details on the SSA website ASAP. In the meantime, please note: The focal points of this rather complex proposal are - 1) 'Commercial Air Tour' operators using airplanes and helicopters - most particularly those involving aircraft with up to 30 seats and a payload weight of up to 7500 pounds. 2) NTSB recommendations which call for national certification & operating rules for 'Air Tour' operators 3) new rules outlining limitations on rides offered for compensation or hire in connection with community or charitable 'airlift' events, including instances when such rides are given per 61.113(d) by private pilots. Notably, with respect to items 1 & 2, the background section of the NPRM indicates, 'While some air tour operations are conducted in hot air balloons and gliders, this proposal is intended to regulate commercial air tours conducted in powered aircraft only.' Unfortunately, the proposed definition of 'commercial Air Tour' operator refers to 'powered aircraft' and makes no mention of an exclusion for motorgliders... calling into question whether the new rules targeting airplanes and helicopters would be mis-applied to them. In terms of item 3, NPRM wording describes the targeted community/charitable events as infrequent fundraising pursuits which are or may be open to abuse by pilots or corporate entities actually operating on a for-profit basis.Through its discussion of regulatory intent, the NPRM appears geared toward special-event types of activities, not the on-going activities of a club which offers introductory flights in order to draw new member/students. Finally with respect to item 3, note that neither Part 135 certification (a rather complex procedure) nor drug and alcohol testing per certain sub-sections of Part 135 are proposed for community or charitable 'airlift' events, for instruction including introductory flights given by a CFI or for 'demonstration flights' of various types. Again, however, the proposal contains no exclusion specifically referring to introductory or demonstration flights conducted in gliders or balloons by commercial pilots. Judy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
based on the information provided.. your pilots will need more hours to fly
them.. not cancel the program.. just more stringent restrictions on the pilots who fly them.. "Scott Correa" wrote in message ... "Vaughn" wrote in message news The following is from an AOPA post and I have no further information yet. I assume that they are talking about eliminating 135.1(5) which allows nonstop sightseeing flights within a 25-mile radius. This is bread & butter for a lot of soaring schools and would be a serious blow to our sport. Commercial glider rides are also an avenue that introduces thousands of people a year to our sport, including myself. I assume that the charity flight restrictions would also crimp some club operations. Someone please tell me I have this wrong. Vaughn (a guy who loves to give glider rides) FAA PROPOSAL WOULD SQUEEZE CHARITY FLIGHTS, SIGHTSEEING OPS An FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published this week would likely shrink the pool of pilots able to help local charities with fundraising flights and, by the FAA's own admission, drive hundreds of small sightseeing operations out of business. 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 FAR Part 91 sightseeing flights within 25 nautical miles of an airport. Operators currently conducting flights under this exception would then be subject to the operational requirements of Part 135. "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 Andy Cebula, an AOPA senior vice president. "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." One would wonder if this would also spell the end to the EAA Young Eagles program. Our chapter has flown hundreds of kids and that would be a great shame..... Scott. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Judy Ruprecht" wrote in message ... At 02:18 27 October 2003, Vaughn wrote: Notably, with respect to items 1 & 2, the background section of the NPRM indicates, 'While some air tour operations are conducted in hot air balloons and gliders, this proposal is intended to regulate commercial air tours conducted in powered aircraft only.' Unfortunately, the proposed definition of 'commercial Air Tour' operator refers to 'powered aircraft' and makes no mention of an exclusion for motorgliders... calling into question whether the new rules targeting airplanes and helicopters would be mis-applied to them. I don't think this is a problem. Motorgliders are not "powered aircraft" anymore than Gliders are "powered aircraft". According to the reg's, Motorgliders are a subset of Gliders and need a glider license with an endorsement for motorization. Scott. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
At 05:54 27 October 2003, Scott Correa wrote:
According to the reg's, Motorgliders are a subset of Gliders and need a glider license with an endorsement for motorization. Actually, the word 'motorglider' is completely absent from FAR Parts 61 and 91 dealing with pilot certification and basic Operating Rules. The two FAA references to 'motorgliders' with which I am acquainted lie in an advisory circulars, which are non-regulatory. Judy |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Judy Ruprecht" wrote in message ... At 05:54 27 October 2003, Scott Correa wrote: According to the reg's, Motorgliders are a subset of Gliders and need a glider license with an endorsement for motorization. Actually, the word 'motorglider' is completely absent from FAR Parts 61 and 91 dealing with pilot certification and basic Operating Rules. The two FAA references to 'motorgliders' with which I am acquainted lie in an advisory circulars, which are non-regulatory. Judy The FAA uses the term "self-launch" - FAR 61.31(j)(1)(iii) Ivan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Another Addition to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 125 | February 1st 04 05:57 AM |
Another Addition to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery! | Jay Honeck | Owning | 116 | February 1st 04 05:57 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |