Close “loopholes” for part 91 revenue operations

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Of course the regulator’s solution is always to regulate the operations out of existence - rather than perhaps educating people about the possible greater risk. Is there any good evidence these have been a problem at an increased rate recently?

NTSB Chair Homendy Calls for Closing 'Loopholes' Surrounding Part 91 Passenger-carrying Operations | AIN

NTSB's Jennifer Homendy expressed concerns to lawmakers about the need to strengthen safety requirements for Part 91 revenue passenger-carrying flights.

www.ainonline.com

 

[Jim Logajan]

Of course the regulator’s solution is always to regulate the operations out of existence - rather than perhaps educating people about the possible greater risk. Is there any good evidence these have been a problem at an increased rate recently?

NTSB Chair Homendy Calls for Closing 'Loopholes' Surrounding Part 91 Passenger-carrying Operations | AIN

NTSB's Jennifer Homendy expressed concerns to lawmakers about the need to strengthen safety requirements for Part 91 revenue passenger-carrying flights.

www.ainonline.com

Jennifer Homendy is also a well known critic of Tesla's Autopilot feature and its Full Self Driving system. Her philosophy on regulations appears consistent for all modes of transportation, alas.

 

[anonflyer1]

Is there any good evidence these have been a problem at an increased rate recently?

This has been an ongoing issue for years. Part 91 tour, etc. fatal rates have always been higher for various reasons with the most common being lack of oversight. Unfortunately, there have been a number of high profile accidents over recent years that has driven this issue forward again. I can only speak to the helicopter side but from what I've seen the concern is warranted for at least a basic level of oversight as there's basically none at this point. I believe the other types listed suffer from the same issues as well.

As to "regulating them out of exist" doubtful. The changes needed wouldn't put a financially viable entity out of business. For those not viable then perhaps they need to be out of business?? Regardless, the same cry was used when they moved Part 135 tours into their own regulatory category with Part 136. Same when Part 135 EMS ops were given their own subpart in 135. Most said they would have to close due to the added costs. Some did but most didn't. That said, Part 135 ops kill people too but not directly for the same reasons Part 91 ops do. If that makes sense. For example, the Part 91 TX balloon crash that killed 16 had a "legal" pilot that couldn't legally drive a car due to his 4 DUIs and various arrests. Yet he could legally fly a balloon with pax. Those are the loopholes they're talking about, however, this particular hole I believe has been fixed.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Well I think you know my general opinion about the ability of government regulations to improve safety and outcomes. See Mises' "Bureaucracy" if not. (https://mises.org/library/bureaucracy)

 

[anonflyer1]

Well I think you know my general opinion about the ability of government regulations to improve safety and outcomes.

I'm aware of your stance, however, IMO overly regulating is different when there is a lack of regulation. But since the article is quoting the NTSB they tend to comes from an "overly" position as they have no skin in the game when it comes to getting those wishful rules passed. This is why for every 15-20 recommendations the NTSB makes FAA and other agencies may only act on one or two. But in the case of the TX balloon crash a lack of a medical certificate requirement for this type operation was a leading root cause to this accident. For example, the chart below is what they found in the pilot during toxicology tests. He wouldn't have been able to legally fly himself around outside of balloon ops. Regardless even with rules there is a select group who will not follow them. But having at least the basics apply to all for hire ops will level the playing field.

 

[TexasTailwheel]

We do aerial photography. Technically, even though one of us is a pilot, and we both work for the same company, the FAA would view one of us as a "passenger" for the purposes of flight since the aircraft we fly only requires one pilot. Closing this kind of so-called "loophole" would significantly negatively impact us and other small businesses providing valuable market opportunities for low-time pilots.

 

[anonflyer1]

Closing this kind of so-called "loophole" would significantly negatively impact us and other small businesses providing valuable market opportunities for low-time pilots.

Unless you've seen something I haven't, this hasn't been about a rewrite of Part 91 as its only directed to certain operations mainly "commercial" operations involving the general public. The article above lists a few types. When they issued Part 136 the intent was to include these specific tour/sightseeing ops however they were not included. With the balloon accident I mentioned, along with the Colling B-17, the Logan County Huey crash, and a number of other smaller events it became front page news again. For all intents I don't see where your ops and others will be affected as this is an old discussion in the big picture.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

But in the case of the TX balloon crash a lack of a medical certificate requirement for this type operation was a leading root cause to this accident.

I think that shows pretty clearly that the pilot's foolishness in choosing to fly with all those drugs in his system was a leading root cause. As noted, who knows if such a person would have obeyed any regulation. He was clearly already violating 61.53 and several other regulations as well as arguably committing a number of serious torts.

The tradeoff between the intended effect, in this case, prohibiting people from operating under the influence of impairing medications, and negative unintended consequences, such as making it more difficult to run a commercial balloon operation, is essentially an empirical question. Not one often seriously examined by those in the legislature or regulatory bodies that make these sort of rules.

I think that von Mises makes a rather good case that since the negative consequences of regulation are not personally borne by the regulators, it is just human nature that the decision won't reflect a rational tradeoff.