New NPRM

[Fr8Dog]

Vote on a Proposed NPRM as follows:
Dr. BW Creighton, an aviation lecturer at Butte College in Northern California (community education dept.), the author of IFR Made Easy, and a flight instructor, sent us the following proposed NPRM:

"Abstract:
Certified Flight Instructors will be allowed to carry passengers for compensation or hire on VFR only flights of up to 300 nautical miles from the point of origin of the flight, and disembark those paying passengers at a destination airport other than the original departure airport. A Certified Flight Instructors must be a Citizen of the United States of America, have logged at least 1,000 hours of Pilot in Command time, must have been a Certified Flight Instructor for a minimum of two years, must have logged over 200 hours as a flight instructor in the aircraft category and type, if required, to be used to carry passengers, and would be limited to flying paying passengers in an aircraft not to exceed 12,500 pounds in gross weight and carrying no more than 6 passengers. The flight instructor to exercise these rights must possess a valid and current commercial pilot's license with instrument rating, a current flight instructor's rating, and a current second class medical certificate. Possession of the Certified Flight Instructor's rating and a second class medical will automatically authorize commercial-rated flight instructor to operate the above referenced, limited air taxi service as long as he/she remains an active flight instructor. Eligible persons would be exempted from the Part 135 checkride requirements for air taxi operations while working as a Certified Flight Instructor logging a minimum of 10 hours of instructor time every six months.

Comment:

We need to keep Certified Flight Instructors (CFI) in the occupation, and make the profession more "desirable" as a terminal career choice for those considering a career in aviation. I respectfully propose a new rule be adopted by the FAA allowing an exemption for CFIs to operate an air taxi service automatically under FAR Part 135."



I found this at Landings.com and just wondered what you guys think of this. I think it is total BS and should never happen and I doubt it ever will. Feel free to comment.

 

[TurboS7]

Sounds like it is time for all of us to go and get a 172. Sounds great but it has a long way to go.

 

[Frac Daddy]

I disagree with the professor's claim that this would detract from CFI's wanting to make it a terminal career. Quite the contrary. If something like this was around, maybe I would have flight instructed longer. We all have had days that were slow or that had lots of cancellations. If we could have done this instead of sitting around the FBO and playing Solitaire on the computer between students, we could have made a little more money. Also, an occasional charter would have been a nice change of pace. This would have made the job more interesting.


My question(s) is/are this: Who is supplying the aircraft? And to what standards will the aircraft maintained? Can any Joe Blow CFI that meets the qualifications go out and buy ANY aircraft and fly it himself on a "charter"?

 

[Frac Daddy]

Oops

Ok, so my reading comprehension stinks. I re-read the original post and it turns out I actually AGREE with the professor at Butte College. My other questions still stand.

 

[de727ups]

I'm for it

It ain't gonna happen though....

I've always thought current 135 rules were....overly protective. A reg like this would be a good was to stimulate the lower end of the general aviation industry but I don't see the FAA going for it. What kind of aircraft requirements would there be? Would the airplane have to meet current 135 regs or would 91 do?

 

[cvsfly]

You will find a great lobbying effort against it. Legitimate 135 companies have spent a lot of money to attain and maintain their certificates and aircraft. The regs are there to protect the paying public. It seams most FSDOs (at least ours) are strapped for inspectors. Who is going to oversee all the yahoos who think they are their own airline. I can see all the holding out advertisements. Many consumer groups would be all over this like flies on $hit at the first inpropriety or accident.