Today's AvWeb email. Important!

[Timebuilder]

It's becoming the most despised piece of proposed legislation ever to come from the FAA for some and now it's being blamed for the imminent demise of barnstorming. In case you didn't know, barnstorming is alive and threatened by the proposed National Air Tour Safety Standards, according to the folks who organized last summer's popular National Air Tour. In an impassioned letter to aviation enthusiasts, Greg Herrick, president of the Aviation Foundation of America (AFA), said the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), if adopted, could turn dozens of flyable
vintage aircraft into museum pieces because owners won't be ble to subsidize their upkeep by charging for rides. Herrick said at least four aircraft on the National Air Tour, which re-created an annual publicity tour sponsored by Ford in the 1930s, were used to fly paying customers. "If the FAA adopts this new proposed rule, these types of rides will become a thing of the past," he wrote.

link

Send a letter.

Letter link.

Got time? Send a letter.

 

[ShawnC]

Wows thats kind of gay. Part 91 commercial ops are how many glider fields operate.

 

[pilotyip]

Yankee Air Force

The YAF, which operates a B-17, B-25, C-47 and V-77, has already sent out there request for explicit language to exclude historic aircraft from the NPRM. These aircraft are already covered by an FAA exemption.

 

[Timebuilder]

Apparently, exemptions would no longer exist and these flights would require a 135 certificate, and all the training, parts records, manual, and COSTS that go along with it.

 

[A Squared]

Typical legislative stupidity .... and that's an insult to stupid people everywhere.

THe NPRM quotes 12 accidents as justification for forcing air tours into certification. Here's hte freaking absurd part: 9 out of the 12 mentioned were 135 operations!!!!!

WTF, OVER????? 79 percent of the air tour fatalities were on 135 flights, so we're going to solve the problem by making the 91 operators get certificated???? It has kind of an Alice-in-wonderland unreality to it. Is the FAA really that stupid?, or are they just hoping no-one will notice that their statistics don't support their proposal?

The 3 part 91 air tour accidents quoted were as follows:

A flight seeing helicopter collided with a canadian helicopter over Niagra falls.

(yeah, a 135 certificate prevents midairs)


A Waco lost control and spun in on a flight seeing flight in Maryland.


A helicopter autorotated into the ocean in Hawaii low altitude, lack of floats and pax not wearing life vests were factors.

(ironically the NPRM lists at least one 135 accident which is almost identical to this one, and several 135 accidents which share one or more of the factors, so obviously a certificate does not prevent this sort of accident. )


I don't know how many total part 91 flightseeing accidents there have been, but 3 over a 15 year period doesn't strike ma as a raging epidemic. It would be interesting to see the fatal accidents per flight hour of part 91 air tours compared to the same statistic for part 135 air tours. I bet that it doesn't show any support for the NPRM. If it did, the FAA would have shown those statistics as proof that the legislation was necessary. It is conspicuous in it's absence

 

[Flying Illini]

a classic case of over-governing. This is rediculous. How is the AOPA Waco winner going to pay for the taxes on that airplane when they win it???! By giving rides!

 

[Timebuilder]

bump

 

[ShawnC]

Typical legislative stupidity .... and that's an insult to stupid people everywhere.

THe NPRM quotes 12 accidents as justification for forcing air tours into certification. Here's hte freaking absurd part: 9 out of the 12 mentioned were 135 operations!!!!!

WTF, OVER????? 79 percent of the air tour fatalities were on 135 flights, so we're going to solve the problem by making the 91 operators get certificated???? It has kind of an Alice-in-wonderland unreality to it. Is the FAA really that stupid?, or are they just hoping no-one will notice that their statistics don't support their proposal?

The 3 part 91 air tour accidents quoted were as follows:

A flight seeing helicopter collided with a canadian helicopter over Niagra falls.

(yeah, a 135 certificate prevents midairs)


A Waco lost control and spun in on a flight seeing flight in Maryland.


A helicopter autorotated into the ocean in Hawaii low altitude, lack of floats and pax not wearing life vests were factors.

(ironically the NPRM lists at least one 135 accident which is almost identical to this one, and several 135 accidents which share one or more of the factors, so obviously a certificate does not prevent this sort of accident. )


I don't know how many total part 91 flightseeing accidents there have been, but 3 over a 15 year period doesn't strike ma as a raging epidemic. It would be interesting to see the fatal accidents per flight hour of part 91 air tours compared to the same statistic for part 135 air tours. I bet that it doesn't show any support for the NPRM. If it did, the FAA would have shown those statistics as proof that the legislation was necessary. It is conspicuous in it's absence

Send that in A Squared, maybe some cooler heads will prevail.