The presidents of six general aviation associations have asked the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to help soften the financial impact of temporary flight restrictions (TFR) on general aviation businesses during the presidential campaign season.
Federal Aviation Regulations
Six aviation associations–NBAA, AOPA, NATA, GAMA, EAA and HAI–in a joint letter asked TSA Administrator John Pistole for his agency to “work with industry to minimize the impact of temporary flight restrictions (TFR) created to support presidential travel on general aviation businesses.” The associations note that this is a continuing issue, “And we believe that we
In yet another case of local interpretation of federal regulations, at the Long Beach, Calif., Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) FAA inspectors have decided that contract pilots cannot fly for different Part 135 operators without undergoing full initial training on each aircraft that they fly.
The FAA is seeking comments on a proposed legal interpretation of Airworthiness Directive (AD) regulations. The interpretation comes from the FAA’s Organization/Procedures Working Group of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). Issues identified by the ARC are mostly a result of the FAA’s 2002 plain-language revision of 14 CFR Part 39, which governs the AD process.
One of the problems with the aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) process is that it gives people, and especially FAA lawyers, too much time to think. And too much thinking often leads to onerous interpretations of what seem like simple regulations.
There are varying perspectives on whether general aviation (GA) is declining or poised for a renaissance generated by new interest in light sport aircraft (LSA) and avionics technology. When attending the annual EAA AirVenture extravaganza in Oshkosh, Wis., for example, it is always interesting to see the contrast between those who complain about the cost of flying and those who embrace every new development.
This month marks the six-year anniversary of one of the most infamous accidents in the history of business aviation–the crash of a chartered Challenger 600 at Teterboro Airport. Six years later, has the FAA incorporated the lessons learned into its regulations?
The Aeronautical Repair Station Association is taking the FAA’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) to task over comments made during committee discussions.
There is an irony apparent in the events following the February 2005 Challenger accident at Teterboro. Investigators nearly ignored the primary cause of the crash, as the NTSB focused primarily on 14 CFR Part 135 operational control issues and the lack of FAA oversight as the secondary causes.
The Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA) recently sent a letter to the FAA’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) taking it to task for misrepresentations regarding repair stations. “When the Department of Transportation formed the FAAC it brought together individuals from what it thinks of as the aviation powerhouses: the airlines, unions, some major corporations and a few academics.