testimony - Helicopter Association International

1635 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2818 Telephone: (703) 683-4646 Fax: (703) 683-4646 www.rotor.com
HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL
Federal Aviation Administration
Proposed National Air Tour Rule
68 Federal Register 60572
May 11, 2004 Public Meeting
Washington, DC
Good Morning. My name is Ann Carroll. I am the Director of Legislative Affairs for the
Helicopter Association International (HAI). HAI welcomes this opportunity to express
the views and concerns of our members with regard to the proposed national air tour rule.
We concur with the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA) that the
proposed rule will likely have a significant economic impact on air tour activities.
Industry strongly supports the SBA recommendation that the rule be withdrawn until the
FAA has obtained adequate data on the operators affected by the proposed rule.
Deficiencies noted in the April 2, 2004 SBA comment to the FAA NPRM Docket
include: inadequate explanation of the reasoning for the proposed rule, underestimation
of the number of small entities affected by the proposal, and inaccurate calculation of the
proposed rule’s economic impact upon small entities.
In sworn testimony before the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals nine years ago, the FAA
promised that a national air tour rule was imminent and would offer relief for the
Hawaiian air tour operators from SFAR 71. Now, nine years after the fact, the entire air
tour industry in all of the United States is now subject to a proposed one-size fits all rule
that simply will not work in every region where air tours are conducted. Industry
implores the FAA to take a common sense approach and implement localized restrictions,
where necessary and applicable, to meet the safety of air tour passengers.
The Federal Aviation Administration has largely based the proposed national air tour
safety rule on recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) and Special Federal Aviation Regulation 71 (SFAR71) in Hawaii. SFAR 71 was
originally issued as an emergency final rule on September 26, 1994 and it was renewed
twice without serious consideration of industry input. It is impossible for industry to
comprehend how an ineffectual regional regulation such as SFAR 71 could possibly be
safely applied across the United States.

The NTSB and industry have failed to identify a reliable basis for the FAA’s conclusion
that SFAR 71 resulted in a decrease in air tour accidents in Hawaii. No reliable basis was
identified by the NTSB or the SBA for the FAA’s conclusion since no accurate,
verifiable FAA method of collecting and tracking flight activity data for specific
segments of nonscheduled Part 135 flight operations exists. Clearly, this substantiates
industry’s assertion that the FAA is unaware of the number of operators affected by the
proposal. The SBA recommended that the FAA clarify whether higher accident rates,
differences in data, or other changed circumstances, even warrant new rules
An analysis of accident statistics in Hawaii by aviation consultants, Conklin and de
Decker, confirmed that the 1,500-foot altitude restrictions within SFAR 71 did not
accomplish the intended result of reducing accidents and injuries due to a loss of power
in cruise. Moreover, many HAI members conducting sightseeing operations in Hawaii
contend that the rule does more harm than good from a safety standpoint. Industry
believes that the Hawaiian accident reductions are due to vastly improved engine
technology, increased training, the adoption of voluntary in-house safety programs and
the creation of TOPS, a professional air tour safety organization.
The NTSB clearly cautioned the FAA to improve the methods it uses to estimate
nonscheduled Part 135 activity, noting that a revision may not be considered an
improvement unless it is validated against some known information. On numerous
occasions, the Safety Board has recommended to the FAA that nonscheduled Part 135
operators be required to report revenue flight-hour activity, at least annually. Without an
accurate, verifiable activity measure, such as data reported from nonscheduled Part 135
operators or a full census survey, neither the FAA nor the Safety Board can calculate
safety data for the various segments that comprise nonscheduled Part 135 operations
(e.g., passenger, air cargo, air ambulance).
The FAA recently began a comprehensive regulatory review of 14 CFR Parts 135. In
August of 2003, the NTSB issued Safety Recommendations A-03-37 through 39 to the
FAA, suggesting that the Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee offered a timely
opportunity for the FAA to address both the need and the method for more accurate flight
activity estimates for nonscheduled Part 135 operations. The FAA should adhere to the
recommendation offered by the SBA, withdraw the proposed rule, and immediately
convene an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) or Aviation Rule Advisory
Committee (ARAC). Modification to applicable sections of Part 135 or the adoption of
operations specs to conform to the safety needs of specific regions is preferred over the
creation of new more stringent regulations.
While the FAA recognized some economic impact upon Part 91 and existing Part 135
operators, industry and the SBA believe the estimates to be too low. The NPRM failed to
even consider costs associated with additional insurance requirements for new Part 135
operations and lost business opportunities for operators awaiting certification once the
Part 119 six-month exemption expires. Implementation of this rule is likely to cost
commercial air tour companies nearly $4 million dollars for new and unnecessary
equipment purchases, labor costs, and lost revenue due to decreased passenger-carrying
2

capability. Clearly, there is no recognition of other business sectors such as
manufacturing and maintenance repair stations that would be affected. The air tour
industry is largely comprised of small business operations, and many of the costs
associated with this rule simply cannot be absorbed by any segment of the sightseeing
and air tour industry.
There is no significant accounting in the NPRM for the economic repercussions from lost
business opportunities due to the overly restrictive weather criteria that would be imposed
under this proposed rule, nor an FAA accounting of increased budgetary burdens that
would befall the agency in processing additional Part 135 certificates, much less the
number of enforcement inspectors that would be required.
Thus, an extensive and thorough scientific analysis of this issue is needed, taking into
consideration the unique design characteristics of helicopters. Final approval of this
proposed rule without significant changes would effectively shut down a major portion of
the commercial helicopter sightseeing industry and deprive the public of a service that is
needed and enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of passengers.
Unless the FAA is willing to undertake an objective analysis of this rule from a true
safety perspective, this is nothing but the appearance of yet another layer of federal
regulations. The majority of commercial air tours are conducted over national parks.
Congress has already mandated that air tour management plans be developed, SFAR 50-2
already exists in the Grand Canyon, and no consideration has ever been given to revising
SFAR 71 in Hawaii.
The government should be actively trying to create new jobs, not eliminate them. This
proposed rule will result in operators and manufacturers laying off employees and
shutting down businesses that are vital to our economy. The helicopter sightseeing
business flies in hundreds of thousands of international tourists each year, and a
helicopter sightseeing tour is the only opportunity for some to enjoy the scenic beauty of
our great country. Is the FAA willing to drive 1,000 or more small companies out of
business by way of a hastily issued and ill-conceived rule that evolved from a noise
abatement restriction?
1635 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-2818 Telephone: (703) 683-4646 Fax: (703) 683-4646 www.rotor.com
3