Proposed new flightseeing rule

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"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.

Fair enough, money and private certifcate are mutually exclusive except for
fair cost sharing.
And of course, money is always allowed to hemorrage OUT of your pocket!


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.

Still, cancelling exemptions for charities and not-for-profit organizations
doesn't sound productive (if I read this correctly)

Eric

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
t...
| "Ron Natalie" wrote in message
| m...
|
| "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.
|
| Fair enough, money and private certifcate are mutually exclusive except
for
| fair cost sharing.
| And of course, money is always allowed to hemorrage OUT of your pocket!
|
|
| 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.
|
| Still, cancelling exemptions for charities and not-for-profit
organizations
| doesn't sound productive (if I read this correctly)
|

You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (and did)
fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a type of airline
(an air tour operator), which will increase costs enormously and make
flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those biplane rides you used to be
able to get at airports you visit would be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI to
show you around the local area would be gone. No more flights on the
Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.

The only flightseeing would be expensive rides on organized trips in
airplanes like the Caravan. Nothing else would be cost effective.

"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

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (and
did)
fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a type of
airline
(an air tour operator), which will increase costs enormously and make
flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those biplane rides you used to
be
able to get at airports you visit would be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI to
show you around the local area would be gone. No more flights on the
Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.

The only flightseeing would be expensive rides on organized trips in
airplanes like the Caravan. Nothing else would be cost effective.

Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

Eric

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
t...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (and
did)
fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a type of
airline
(an air tour operator), which will increase costs enormously and make
flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those biplane rides you used
to
be
able to get at airports you visit would be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI
to
show you around the local area would be gone. No more flights on the
Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.

The only flightseeing would be expensive rides on organized trips in
airplanes like the Caravan. Nothing else would be cost effective.

Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

Eric

The way it reads, the "Barnstorming Rides" part would be over. The airshow
part would continue.

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

"Eric Miller" wrote in message t...

Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

It would put an end to the plane rides.

On 05 Nov 2003 07:36 AM, C J Campbell posted the following:

You do read it correctly, but until now any commercial pilot could (
and did) fly sightseeing flights. Now you will have to register as a
type of airline (an air tour operator), which will increase costs
enormously and make flightseeing almost impossibly expensive. Those
biplane rides you used to be able to get at airports you visit would
be gone. Forever. Hiring a CFI to show you around the local area would
be gone. No more flights on the Tri-Motor or Aluminum Overcast.

So, is there much left that a commercial pilot can actually do under
part 91? A few years ago they made all the lodge operators here in
Alaska move under part 135, for reasons I do not totally understand.

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

"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?

Eric

"Rick Pellicciotti" wrote in message
news:3fa95919$1@ham...

Ack! What might this do to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome?
http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

Eric

The way it reads, the "Barnstorming Rides" part would be over. The
airshow
part would continue.

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

Rick and Ron,

No argument about what the direct effect would be... but I suspect revenue
from the rides helps support the Aerodrome itself.

If you never heard a rotary engine blipping on and off, seen the cylinders
spinning and smelled castor oil in the air, you really owe it to yourself to
visit Old Rhinebeck!

They got an original Bleriot XI (oldest flying aircraft in the United
States, and the second oldest flying aircraft in the world) and a
wing-warping Demoiselle replica that they fly when the weather is right
(calm!). That's the best part about the Aerodrome... it's a *flying* museum!

Eric

"Eric Miller" wrote in message t...


They got an original Bleriot XI (oldest flying aircraft in the United
States, and the second oldest flying aircraft in the world) and a
wing-warping Demoiselle replica that they fly when the weather is right
(calm!). That's the best part about the Aerodrome... it's a *flying* museum!

And it would put a serious damper on many of the historical aircraft operations.

The FAA's impact justification is laughable "most Hawian and Grand Canyon
tour operators have 135 certificates already." That's not the major point
of impact (although it's where most of it's justification comes from).

Furhter, they present no statistical evidence that the part 91 vs part 135
operators are any less safe than the other. As a matter of fact, you could
use their data to argue part 91 is safer.