Back in April I wrote “FAA punches a hole in the U.S. economy today” about how the FAA was forcing American helicopter charter operators to spend money on radar altimeters, which actually reduce safety in a helicopter intended for visual flying (as opposed to instrument flying). The regulation was drafted with an exception for light helicopters, such as the Robinson R44, but the FAA decided that they wouldn’t give an exception unless “will not fit on the instrument panel without removing equipment required by regulation” (FAA Notice 8900.405).
A lot of R44 operators should still have been entitled to an exception because the panel of an R44 is small and typically full of required stuff. The FAA began interpreting the above guidance, however, to demand that R44 operators add an extra hump on top of the existing instrument panel (essentially taping it to the top of the dashboard, like you might do with a radar detector in a 1970s Camaro).
Here’s Maria Langer, a pilot and charter operator, on the subject of the Robinson R44 and radar altimeters: “The FAA’s Irrational Application of a Rule”
Obviously this is going to seem pretty obscure to most people who aren’t pilots or aren’t charter operators, but I think it is illustrative of what happens as an economy winds down and ever more resources are devoted to regulations and regulatory compliance.
I was recently given a ride in an airbus ec130 helicopter was less than a year old and had only about 100 hours on it. The owner uses the helicopter as a hobby but still takes training and safety very seriously. He is not IFR rated. His helicopter had a fancy glass panel display with a radar altimeter. He says he never looks at it. On a side note it was my first time flying in a helicopter and I thought it was very fun.
I find it a very useful tool: My passengers always ask me “how high are we flying?” My routes are set by altitude above sea level which is not what they want to know… but the radar altimeter provides instant answers! So it seems very useful in 135 operations -thanks FAA!!!
Seems odd that Maria wasn’t aware of the change until time was nearly up. I’d would have thought an operator would have been more aware of upcoming reg changes.
Mark: The FAA didn’t decide how they were going to interpret and handle requests for deviation until a couple of months before the deadline. So there was no way for anyone to know what the “reg changes” actually were.
Baloney, Phil.
Requests for deviation? This is a request to change or make an exception to a new or pending rule. So one would have to know what the upcoming rules were gonna suggest. Also, what’s the open comment period for if no one knew anything about the upcoming changes?
It seems like you’re making excuses for the lady not even bothering to comment on the upcoming reg changes. It’s right there, in black and white. There was clearly no guarantee that light helicopters would be exempt, so the least she could have done is complain BEFORE the regs were set in stone.
So no, the regs were up for comment, hence one had to have an idea what they were intended for.
The part that is perplexing is one FSDO has a different interpretation of the regs than another FSDO. That seems ludicrous.
PS
I read her blog and she made very foolish comments about HAI. They are THE most valuable group devoted to rotorcraft.
If I were her I’d take those comments down. She comes off as being an angry female who’s mad at everything involving the male species.
She calls her ex-husband a wasband. I’d love to know what he calls her!
Mark: Have you read FAR 135.160? Most of the FAR is a section about “deviation authority” for “rotorcraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight no greater than 2,950 pounds” This is not like asking for a deviation from some other FAR.
“The part that is perplexing is one FSDO has a different interpretation of the regs than another FSDO.” — another reason why she couldn’t have known what the regulations were going to be, since they may in fact be different in every region of the U.S.
It is the same with RVSM! If 10 people each buy a factory-new Embraer Phenom 300 jet and want to operate the plane as designed, each could get a different answer from his or her local FSDO as to what is required for flying at FL290 and above.
The FAA provides a proposal and permits comments from interested parties. Since you and Maria are clearly experts in this field, why didn’t either of you comment on the prosed regulation that would require a radar altimeter?
Particularly the deviation needed for light helicopters?
PS
I’ve read the FAA proposals for the various main rotor blade ADs on Robinson helicopters and although the proposal wasn’t in blood, they were relatively clear as to what they were gonna implement and they had many responses and comments from interested parties.
There’s no excuse for Maria not commenting. If nothing else, she could have demonstrated in writing how radio altimeters were not needed in VFR helis.
Lastly, she claims the expenditure could put small helicopter ops out of business. If 15 or 20 grand puts you out of business then obviously the helicopter charter business was never suited for those operators. $15,000 or $20,000 puts an aviation business out of service, seriously? And she said her helicopter was only gonna be down a week.
Mark: What makes you think that Maria and I didn’t comment back in 2014?
If you think of HAI as dominated by the largest and wealthiest operators it makes sense that they would support a rule that would make it tougher for R44 operators to compete. Adding a $20,000 radar altimeter and disfiguring the panel of an R44 would put most operators out of the charter business (since typically charter is a small fraction of an R44’s total hours), thus channeling customers into Eurocopters and Bell 407s.
Maria admits she didn’t comment on the proposed regs.
And again I say, if $20,000 puts a helicopter operator out of business they were in the wrong business to begin with.
How much is an R44 selling for now? How about hull and liability insurance for same? About about the absurd main rotor blade ADs? And all the ancillary costs.
And an extra 20K is gonna put someone out of business? Sounds like that operator was in over their head to begin with. Aviation is not for paupers.
Phil,
In a mid June posting on her blog this year your friend Maria admits these regs got implemented while she “wasn’t paying attention.”
If I’m an operator, I would hope that I’d pay attention.
Where in that article (or elsewhere) does Maria say that she didn’t comment some years ago? I searched for the word “comment” and couldn’t find it.
Separately, your financial analysis is a brilliant one for an R44 that is exclusively used for charter. However, I’m not aware of any R44 in the U.S. that is exclusively used for charter. The R44 might be used 200 hours per year for training, 100 hours per year for the owner’s business, 50 hours per year for agricultural (e.g., cherry-drying), 40 hours per year for aerial photography, 30 hours per year for local sightseeing (does not require Part 135 cert) and 25 hours per year for 135 charter. If we assume a $100/hour profit for each of those Part 135 hours, net of drug-testing, checkride, and other compliance-related expenses, the $20,000 cost of a radar altimeter will take 8 years to pay back (probably longer because there will be maintenance costs associated with the radalt). So the sensible business practice is to exit the 135 business and leave those customers to the heavy helicopter operators (who are HAI members!) while keeping the helicopter as is and the Part 91 hours.
Mark: I’m sure that Maria’s business would be far more successful if you were running it! (That said, 135 charter is, I believe, only a portion of her revenue hours.)
(However, that she “wasn’t paying attention” when the regs were actually scheduled for adoption doesn’t mean that she didn’t comment during the comment period (a year before the FAA made a decision and maybe 4 years prior to the effective date). Anyway, as the practical effect of the regulations wasn’t known or knowable until February 2017 (since the FAA itself hadn’t developed that 8900.405 policy that I linked to), I’m not sure that Maria was late to the party.)
Phil,
The comment section is available online. Unless she used an alias, she didn’t comment.
She also has repeatedly claimed this new reg will put small R44 operators out of business.
Not sure what my intellect has to do with running Maria’s business, but you clearly demonstrate a high IQ intellectual’s inability to admit when they’re wrong.
PS
Since we all are aware that there are very few R44s operating on entirely a 135 charter income, this whole financial drama is much ado about very little.
@Phil,
You’re beginning to sound like Maria. Take that as you may!
Phil,
Very sorry for the repeated posts, but one last point:
Your suggestion that due to the onerous rule changes that could force an R44 operator out of the charter business and thus “channel” the customer to a 407 Bell or Eurocopters is seriously stretching reality.
That’s like saying a guy chartering a 172 Cessna would opt for a King Air if the said 172 wasn’t available. There’s a big customer difference between $500 per hour in an R44 versus $1,800 an hour in a Bell 407.
Maria and I were separated at birth!
Anyway, you’re analyzing the financials from a “what if a person set up an R44 solely for 135 charter operations” point of view. So of course you get a different answer than someone who looks at the “what if a person operating an R44 needs to decide whether or not to invest $20,000 to continue getting 30 hours/year of charter business on top of whatever else the helicopter is doing.” It is not a matter of “Mark is right and Philip is wrong” (or vice versa) but rather “Mark and Philip are looking at completely different questions.”
[Separately, we compete with turbine helicopter operators all the time. If we weren’t available at $600/hour plus $450 for each additional hour (see http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/boston-aerial-photography ), the people who need to get the camera up in the air would hire a turbine ship at whatever the going rate was. We know this because they tell us that this is what they do in regions where there aren’t R44s available (they may need only an hour or two of helicopter time so it wouldn’t make sense to ferry an R44 in from 4 hours away).]
(Finally, the FAA FSDO regulators that I have talked to say privately that this rule doesn’t make any sense for VFR-only helicopter operators (i.e., they agree with Maria). But they also say that it doesn’t matter how nonsensical a rule is, their job is to enforce it. Certainly it would be economically irrational for any of them to risk losing their job for any reason. The pay per hour of required work at the FAA is considerably higher than at private aviation enterprises.)
No. I am not analyzing anything. I’m merely saying her ground pounding over a trivial 20K that SHE claims will put small R44 operators out of business is bogus. Phil, YOU pointed out the folly of such a complaint by noting that there are very few 135 charter only R44 helicopter businesses in the US. What few 135 ops that consist of R44s also do myriad other income producing stuff, LIKE YOU POINTED OUT.
Hey, I think it’s a crazy rule but I also think if a 20 grand cost will put you out of the helicopter business then maybe you were undercapitalized to begin with.
Go back and actually read my posts instead of trying to be cute and glib.
I don’t think that she was saying the $20,000 cost (plus ongoing MX for this item) will put an R44 operator out of the helicopter business. She says that it will put an R44 operator out of the 135 business. Your point of view is that the $20,000 cost is “trivial” compared to the profit available from flying 20 or 30 hours/year of 135 and you’re entitled to that point of view. However, Maria actually does have a 135 certificate and you haven’t said whether or not you do. Maybe the $20,000 cost would be “trivial” compared to the profits from operating under 135 for 20 or 30 hours per year if you were managing her business.
(Assuming that you were willing to disfigure the panel of your R44, make the helicopter less safe overall (due to the added weight and reduced visibility through the bubble), and you wanted to earn back that $20,000 over a four-year period, you would need to make at least $200/hour in profit for each 135 hour (assume 25/hours per year 135 use times 4 years). I’m not aware of any R44 operator who makes that kind of net profit on 135 operations. Your idea that this decision relates to being “undercapitalized” doesn’t make sense to me. Even if you had $1 billion in capital, why would you want to do something that was, on the margin, unprofitable?)
My God, Phil. Are you on drugs?
No, I didn’t say the 20 grand was trivial compared to the profit made from flying 20 to 30 hours of 135. You’re amazing. When you can’t win you simply misquote the other party. Do you work for the New York Times?
And yes, Maria did intimate that the cost would put small operators like herself out of business. Maybe she meant to say it would put them out of the 135 business. But she didn’t equivocate that very clearly. Again, read her blog. It’s right there.
All I’ve ever said in these multiple posts is that if 20k puts an owner dangerously close to going out of business, not just the 135 business, but the helicopter business in general, that operator was undercapitalized to begin with.
Now if you want to misquote me again, have at it. It’s your blog.