After some rich New Yorkers got killed on a helicopter sightseeing flight in Hawaii, Hillary Clinton leaned on the FAA to tighten regulations regarding such tours. In particular she wants the FAA to eliminate the ability of flightseeing companies to operate under “Part 91” (simple) and force them to operate under Part 135 of the regulations, which is designed for small airlines basically. This will put about 700 companies out of the air tour business by the FAA’s estimate. It is unclear that it will increase safety because (a) most of the big helicopter flightseeing operations are already Part 135 (gives them the ability to take people farther than 25 nautical miles), (b) most of the people who’ve been killed on air tours were killed by Part 135 operators, and (c) helicopters tend to be unsafe, even when piloted by experts.
Basically because some rich people got killed in a $1 million Part 135 helicopter Hillary Clinton wants to wipe out mom-and-pop air tour operators who fly little float planes or biplanes under Part 91. The FAA has no statistics to show that the proposed regulations will make anyone safer and indeed hardly anyone gets killed on fair-weather airplane tours. Here’s a comment that I submitted to the FAA via their Web site:
It would be nice if all aviation could be as safe as taking a Boeing 747 from one ILS-and-radar-equipped 12,000′ runway to another. If we were to wrap additional regulations (Part 135 versus Part 91) around helicopter tours could they become as safe, per passenger-mile, as a ride in a 747? From an engineering point of view, this doesn’t seem like a realistic short-term goal. The NASA research report “U.S. Civil Rotorcraft Accidents, 1963 Through 1997” by Harris, F.D., Iseler, L. and Kasper, E. (NASA/TM-2000-209597, USAAMCOM-TR-00-A-006) concluded essentially that helicopters were impossible for human beings to control reliably without a lot of help from computers, computers that aren’t available until you get to helicopters that cost $5-10 million, 10 times the price of the helicopters that are typically used by air tour operators.
A pilot operating an air tour of any kind is already subject to more regulation than almost any American doing anything. She needs to follow rules regarding visibility minimums, airspace, weight/balance, etc. She needs to make sure that her aircraft is maintained at 100-hour intervals by federally certificated mechanics. She needs to follow whatever rules are imposed by her insurance carrier. She and her colleagues for the last 100 years have achieved a remarkably good safety record, partly because most pilots take the regulations seriously but perhaps mostly due to the fact that it is tough to get killed in a well-maintained airplane on a clear VFR day and if you take off and land at the same airport the weather isn’t likely to change from clear VFR to dangerous IMC.
Layering on Part 135 regulations might make people who love regulation feel good but it is tough to see what it will do for the public. If all the existing Part 91 rules are followed, air tours are already very safe. Instead of putting resources into processing reams of Part 135 paperwork, why not put those resources into (1) more ramp checks to make sure that air tour operators are actually following the existing rules, and (2) certifying inexpensive helicopter autopilots and stability augmentation systems?
In the United States an incumbent Senator is basically immune to electoral challenge. Hillary Clinton seems to be in good health. So we can probably expect to remain in office for at least another 40 years. That’s a sobering thought for America’s aviators.
You never know what you might do with a little help from your friends.
I don’t think we’ll be stuck with Hillary Clinton in the Senate for 40 years, because she pretty obviously wants to be President. People who run for political office often don’t run for other, lower, offices later, especially if they actually win.
Of course there’s no rule that says she couldn’t get back into the Senate later…
Senators aren’t immune from electoral challenge, Congressmen are. That’s because Senators haven’t yet figured out a way to gerrymander state lines, while both parties have conspired to make their sure their incumbents’ districts are safe in the House. A quick lookup of 2002 election results shows 3/27, or 11%, of incumbent Senators lost their seats in that election. If you have an 11% chance of losing each election, that gives you about an even chance to win reelection the 6 times necessary to make 40 years.
I find it hard to believe that a 96 year old Hillary Clinton in the Senate is inevitable. But hopefully her attack on Mom and Pop will go nowhere.
For anyone that cares to complain to the source…
http://clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html
Isn’t it nice when the limosuine liberals get all concerned and screw the common folk as per usual while “protecting” us.
Maybe all she needs is a few more hours in an ultralight… just a few more, hon…
PS: Just curious phil, of all the helicopter pilots you’ve met, how many of them were a “she”?
So what is it about the computers that assist in flying those mega-expensive helicopters that makes the helicopters so expensive? Computers are cheap. Why can’t cheap (relatively) helicopters have adequate computer support?