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