New FAA Rule Changes - Impact to O-Flights?

Started by A.Member, February 25, 2007, 06:23:00 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

A.Member

Is anyone aware of CAP exemptions granted by the FAA (specifically as it relates to part 91 operations) and where I might find them (I've got the info from 60-1, looking for more)?  I was listening to the following from AvWeb and it got me thinking about whether anyone has reviewed these changes to determine if there is any impact from a CAP perspective:
QuoteThe FAA February 13 published in the Federal Register a new Air Tour rule that introduces several elements that seem to target commercial operators, but provisions in the preamble appear to limit aircraft type, pilot qualifications, and frequency of flights for any pilot who may seek to frequently take passengers aloft. The Experimental Aircraft Association is particularly concerned that the intent of the rule is misrepresented in its preamble and that if the language is not clarified (or changed), the result will be a very direct and adverse impact on the very successful Young Eagles program.

The actual rule changes can be found here:
FAA Federal Register - Feb. 13, 2007

Key items of note with this change are as follows (from the FAA link above):
  • A private pilot operating a flight described in this section must have 500 hours. This is increased from the previous requirement for 200 hours.
  • Operations under this section are limited for sponsors and pilots. No sponsor or pilot may exceed 4 charitable or non-profit events per calendar year, or exceed 1 community event per calendar year.
  • All flights under this section must be non-stop, beginning and ending at the same airport, and flown within a 25-mile radius of the airport. This has always been the case, but not as easy to find.

My guess (hope) is that we have an exemption but I really don't know that for a fact.  I wouldn't have probably even considered it an issue were it not for the fact that the EAA was very concerned with the ruling as it appeared to curtail their Young Eagle flights,  a program which offers an incentive that is nearly identical to our o-flights.  Seems they are working closely with the FAA to clarify the rule.   Anyone able to provide evidence of to this for CAP? 

As I mentioned, I've got the following from 60-1 but I don't know that they addresses this specific issue (it doesn't appear so to me but perhaps it does):
Quote2-13. FAR Exemptions. CAP has two exemptions granted by the FAA. An exemption to FAR 61.113 allows our pilots to obtain reimbursement as a private pilot and an exemption to FAR 91.501 provides a tool for CAP to comply with specific FAR requirements regarding certain transportation flights. See attachment 2 for details...
Attachement 2 goes on to explain in more detail as it relates to reimbursement for flights.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

DNall

The CAP exemption doesn't have much to do with o-flts. It just allows non-commercial pilots to do what is basically commercial flying & be reimbursed & even paid a per diem not to exceed expenses for the mission.

The rule change doesn't seem to have nay real effect. I can see why it would be a concern, but EAA seems convinced it's just worded poorly & FAA doesn't intend to shut down orientation flying. I didn't read the full text, but this seems to relate to air tours specifically. Including the type you might provide as a charitable donation to a raffle, not what you do in a non-profit org like CAP. I think it'll be cleared up, and I do hope HQ is on the ball to ensure they at least get a letter from FAA stating what we do is still cool.

I know there have been some issues over the last several years with under-qual'd tour pilots crashing in. There's also data out that shows pilot numbers in the US under 600k, which means programs like ours & young eagles are critical in the eyes of FAA. I think you can find their intention from the motivations.

A.Member

#2
Quote from: DNall on February 25, 2007, 06:40:56 AM
I think it'll be cleared up, and I do hope HQ is on the ball to ensure they at least get a letter from FAA stating what we do is still cool.
This is my ultimate concern.  Unfortunately, when it comes to some issues that are actually kind of important (as opposed to all this uniform b.s.) NHQ sometimes appears to be asleep at the wheel. 

The potential impact to us would be a limitation on the number of pilots able to perform o-flights (minimum hours are more than double the current requirement and can only be performed 4 times per year by a single pilot).
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

DNall

It won't come down on us as a limitation. I'd say there's safely nothing to worry about. However, they should see that jsut as quick as you did, also have concerns to clarify, and be on top of it. And all that may well be the case, we wouldn't hear about it till later if at all. The best thing I can say to do is just forward the article to a couple people at HQ & ask if they're taking & look at this & working w/ FAA to ensure it isn't an issue.

I won't comment on leadership (or lack thereof). You have to give them the benefit of the doubt initially. Fact is you wouldn't hear anything about this till well after the fact if at all. You'd hope they'd be on the ball, and there's nothign wrong with bringing the issue to their attention if need be.

BillB

The rule doesn't seem to affect cadet O-rides, but it does seem to affect flying Red Cross, news media County Emergency managers or other CAP authorized flights carrying non-CAP members.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

ZigZag911

Quote from: BillB on February 25, 2007, 12:17:44 PM
The rule doesn't seem to affect cadet O-rides, but it does seem to affect flying Red Cross, news media County Emergency managers or other CAP authorized flights carrying non-CAP members.

The way the rule is worded certainly gives this impression....if other posters are correct, this is not the intent of the rule, and hopefully it will be edited fairly quickly to reflect that.