FAR Part 136

[vertrefadmin]

FAR PART 136

 

(d) Commercial air tour operation--

(1) Means any flight, conducted for compensation or hire in a powered aircraft where a purpose of the flight is sightseeing over a national park, within 1/2 mile outside the boundary of any national park, or over tribal lands, during which the aircraft flies--

(i) Below 5,000 feet above ground level (except for the purpose of takeoff or landing, or as necessary for the safe operation of an aircraft as determined under the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration requiring the pilot-in-command to take action to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft);

(ii) Less than 1 mile laterally from any geographic feature within the park (unless more than 1/2 mile outside the boundary); or

(iii) Except as provided in §136.5.

(2) The Administrator may consider the following factors in determining whether a flight is a commercial air tour operation for purposes of this part--

(i) Whether there was a holding out to the public of willingness to conduct a sightseeing flight for compensation or hire;

(ii) Whether a narrative that referred to areas or points of interest on the surface below the route of the flight was provided by the person offering the flight;

(iii) The area of operation;

(iv) The frequency of flights conducted by the person offering the flight;

(v) The route of flight;

(vi) The inclusion of sightseeing flights as part of any travel arrangement package offered by the person offering the flight;

(vii) Whether the flight would have been canceled based on poor visibility of the surface below the route of the flight; and

(viii) Any other factors that the Administrator and Director consider appropriate.

(3) For purposes of §136.5, means any flight conducted for compensation or hire in a powered aircraft where a purpose of the flight is sightseeing over a national park.

 

Sec. 136.5

 

Prohibition of commercial air tour operations over the Rocky Mountain National Park.

 

All commercial air tour operations in the airspace over the Rocky Mountain National Park are prohibited regardless of altitude.

 

 

Comments anyone, especially those in Hawaii or the Grand Canyon?

 

Read more about FAR 136 NPRM

[HelliBoy]

GRRRR!!!! I Love how the FAA cites several accidents as the reasoning for this change. They seem afraid to admit the actual reason for this: fringe left wing environmental groups. This kind of thing just goes to show that the faa doesnt give a flying F@$#% about anything (or bisiness) that doesnt fly at 30,000'.

Edited December 2, 2006 by HelliBoy

[PhotoFlyer]

This is still a proposed change, so if you disagree SEND YOUR COMMENTS! Tell them why you disagree with the change, and how it will hurt businesses. Check your spelling, and use proper grammar, it matters!

[vertrefadmin]

Last I heard, FAR 136 will happen for all tour operations. The exemptions were temporary. HAI and others have tried to change it but sounds like it will go through unless some miracle happens.

[Wally]

I can't wait until the FAA "fixes" the problems EMS has...

[arotrhd]

Rey,

 

I especially liked the paragraph in section III (PROPOSAL) of the NPRM regarding Alaska.

 

Just wondering if the Medallion Foundation hasn't made enough of a difference for the shield, star and GA participants? It's already nice that Alaska is the smallest state in the union which is surrounded by the largest government land reserve, so, most likely this rule will effect all commercial operations up there. And, regarding the last couple of sentences:

 

"Alaska has a number of air tour operators that conduct commercial air tours over national parks, water, and rugged, remote terrain. Because of its remoteness, the terrain in Alaska is more difficult to reach and thus, persons may need to rely on their survival skills for a longer period of time prior to rescue. Passengers on Alaskan air tours would benefit from increased safety like passengers elsewhere. This rule would not negatively impact the ability of the average Alaskan to travel by air to remote villages since the proposed rule would only apply to passengers on commercial air tours."

 

I understand that aircraft operating in Alaska are required to have supplemental survival equipment onboard, comm & GA folks (Alaska state law AS 02.35.110. Emergency Rations and Equipment), but I also recall reading other FAA requirements specific to Alaska. Am I wrong about this? I understand the intent of the NPRM regarding AK ops, but I have to scratch my head and wonder if the FAA doesn't understand that flight operations already have this in effect (but perhaps not on a Federal level of control).

 

BTW: what happened to section II in the NPRM? Is it just me and I can't see it's buried somewhere? I read section I (OVERVIEW, A-D), then bam, there's section III. I wonder if this was this the section that had the "lost" transcripts from the Las Vegas public meeting a couple years back, and now it's lost as well.

 

And yes Wally, I'm interested in watching where the EMS rules are going to end up. Perhaps as a start, they should require 2 IFR certified (and current) pilots + multiengine helos only + TAWS/EGPWS, and then flight can only happen in day VFR with +5 vis and 2000' ceiling while in comms with company/FAA certified flight dispatcher. We won't even need to discuss the benefits of NVG then. Just wait 'til nationalized healthcare discussions begin...

 

-WATCH FOR THE WIRES-