 FAA rule change for charity flights?
"Ron Natalie" <ron@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:4008068a$0$71336$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.co m...
>
> "Ben Haas" <benford2@> wrote in message
news:afcf2e7d.0401161223.652525e0@c om...
> > Hi Guys, Another one of our local EAA members emailed me with news the
> > FAA is wanting to increase the total time a pilot has from 200 hours
> > to 500 before they can give rides in a plane. This was brought up
> > because our chapter is really active the the Young Eagles program and
> > some of the newest members are under the 500 hour mark. The comment
> > period has supposeably been extended 90 days. Any body else heard of
> > such a thing. Also they are wanting to cut out sightseeing flights
> > too.
>
> There's not even a 200 hour limit for Young Eagles. All you need is the
normal
> pilot-in-command requirements for carrying passengers in general, EAA
membership,
> and minimal insurance. The current NPRM doesn't affect any of that.
>
> The rules that are talking about cover carrying passengers for hire,
either for sightseeing
> or charity fundraisers. Both of these currently enjoy relaxation of the
rules for commercial
> operators. The YE program doesn't fit in this in that nobody is getting
charged. Of course,
> the whole NPRM justification is flawed. The example cases that they use
to justify it happened
> by operators already subject to Part 135 rules. It's not clear what the
point of this
> rule is other than to put a lot of operators out of business and to
completely eliminate
> certain kinds of flying.
>
Ron,
I spoke to an active member of Angel Flight who said they were concerned
that they may get caught up in this ruling because it was so badly written.
Do you know anything about that?
| 
