As the 2012 U.S. election campaign season begins ramping up, industry leaders are concerned about what they believe will be an unprecedented number of temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) as candidates spread out to press the flesh. Given the number of states up for grabs in what looks to be an extremely close and contentious presidential election, private aviation is bracing for the inevitable travel interruptions.
Federal Aviation Regulations
A high-level Transportation Security Administration (TSA) official told a group of NBAA operators last month that a revised Large Aircraft Security Program (Lasp) will have a new name when it is re-released for comment, ideally by the end of the year.
The House Homeland Security Committee was expected to take action last month on the “Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2011,” which will establish an industry committee within the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to advise the assistant secretary of Homeland Security on aviation security matters.
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) welcomed news yesterday that the FAA is forming a Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that will update design and manufacturing rules for entry-level certified airplanes. GAMA expects these streamlined regulations–once enacted–to result in lower certification costs for entry-level airplanes and increased safety for all Part 23 general aviation airplanes.
Operators that subscribe to Goodrich-Messier publications must sign an agreement that precludes the use of FAA-approved wheel and brake parts manufactured under FAA parts manufacturer approval (PMA) regulations.
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.
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 a
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.