Stinky Rule

(mthurber@pbimedia.com)

The Namby-Pambies are targeting aviation again, this time trying to force a segment of aviation into a stricter regulatory framework. The FAA is proposing that short-distance passenger-tour operations be shifted into Part 135-type regulations.

Under existing regulations (Part 119 and 91), any commercial pilot is permitted to fly passengers no further than 25 miles from the point of departure and must return to the same airport, without a lot of regulatory restrictions. Flying more than 25 miles requires certification to Part 119, which further ties operators to requirements in Parts 135 and 121. These rules make it relatively simple for operators to offer sightseeing flights and local aerial photography flights within 25 miles, without the complexity of complying with regulations that are intended to cover longer flights or air-taxi flights from point to point. More than one commenter, in response to the proposed rule, noted that the new rules would severely restrict an ancient (in aviation terms) pastime: barnstorming, or offering airplane rides to the general public.

The FAA is concerned about 38 fatalities that it says occurred during seven years in Part 91 passenger-flying operations. Of course, deaths in aviation are always tragic, and we don't want to suggest that any aviation-related fatality is ever acceptable. But are new rules always the answer to a problem in aviation? Not necessarily.

According to the FAA, the 38 fatalities occurred as a result of 75 accidents between 1993 and 2000, all during Part 91 commercial air tours. During the same period there were more fatalities involving Part 135 operators; 53 accidents and 72 deaths.

Right away, the proposed rules don't make any sense. There is no fundamental reason to enact a new rule. In fact, logic could be used to show that applying Part 135 rules to 25-mile-or-less operations will result in increased fatalities, because that's what the statistics show. Only the number of accidents increased, but the number of fatalities should be a critical factor.

The FAA's proposed rule goes on to detail 11 accidents, but curiously, the FAA doesn't say whether these were conducted under Part 91 or 135, so we have no way to judge whether the regulatory environment under which these companies operated was a factor in the accidents. In fact, according to one commenter, nine of the eleven accidents were flights under Part 135, so there is more ammunition to support my conclusion above, that Part 135 sightseeing operations are more dangerous than Part 91 sightseeing flights. The accidents, as usual, include typical causes, most of which do not appear to be fixable via the application of more stringent rules. There are flights into a canyon, into bad weather, mishandled helicopters, and one mechanical failure.

Even more curious, the proposed rule offers to exempt charitable 25-mile-or-less flights from the Part 119 certification requirements, although safety rules in Part 136 would apply. Why the exemption? It doesn't make sense. Are charity flights safer?

Who would be affected by this rule? The FAA says that there are an estimated 1,672 Part 91 sightseeing operators with 3,100 aircraft and 453 Part 135/121 tour companies with 1,300 aircraft. The FAA thinks that 700 of those Part 91 operators would stop providing sightseeing services, while those that remain in business will each incur costs of $11,200 (single pilot operation) to $75,000 (multiple pilot ).

This proposed rule is a waste of time and effort and taxpayer money. All this rule does is increase costs and drive more small companies out of business. And that means more maintenance jobs out the window, and probably many fewer opportunities for the general public to get a taste of aviation in some neat old airplanes.

With all due respect to FAA people who are really trying hard, I'd like to suggest that FAA inspectors get out of their offices and go to the airport and monitor more closely all types of aviation operations. Go ask questions, check records, look at some actual aircraft to see if they are being maintained properly. The good operators will welcome input from truly professional FAA inspectors. The bad operators will act like they are trying to hide something, a sure indicator that more surveillance is needed.

But not more rules. We're already choking on the existing rules, and if everyone complied with all the rules that we now have to deal with, there would automatically be fewer accidents.

Sorry, FAA, but this proposal stinks. Save us all some time, money, and unendurable hassle and make it go away.