ASC's Comments to the NPRM
The Real ROSE - Affect the NPRM now! by Jim Stephenson, CEO, ASC
I have talked about the "ROSE by any other name." Some people have asked
what this means. For me, the "ROSE" is the real regulatory relief needed for
the Ultralight Community. Many would state it as "Weight, Speed, and Fuel."
The real flying needs of the community are for about: 360 lb. empty weight,
75 knot max. speed, and 10 gal fuel.
Why not change 103?
The very next question is, "Why not change Part 103?" The answer is part
of our modern day heritage. If Part 103 were up for review today, it would
never pass. Why?... Because of the lawyers and the court system today.
When Lawyers out number doctors, law suits will out number surgeries. If
we open Part 103, it WILL be changed, but not to our liking. We need to keep
Part 103 intact!
What about a "real" license?
The alternate view is to consider changes to regular pilot licensing to
provide regulatory relief for the ultralight community. The current
licensing allows "weight, speed, and fuel". Why not just use it?...
The answers are in the "ROSE".
We need something like Recreational Pilot but with:
Self Certified Medicals,
no 50 mile limit,
reasonable required training,
reliable aircraft,
and available instructors.
Even Recreational Pilot has a medical requirement. To make it worse,
Recreational Pilot has a 50 mile limit from the home base of training.
Recreational Pilot certainly has weight, up to 2600 lb. Gross Takeoff
Weight (GTW). We only need 1200 lb. GTW. Everyone I have talked to agrees
that 30 hours should be required to fly a 2600 lb. GTW, 4 place plane. Yet,
that is asking far too much for the pilot of a 1200 lb. GTW, 2 place plane,
like the exempt training aircraft.
"N" numbering could work.
"N" numbering provides reliable aircraft. Now that the Primary Category
Sport Plane Class has been established, costs will be lower for
certification. In addition, Experimental Classification provides reliability
with its "flight test period".
Where will we get instructors?
Instructors are all too often caught in the "Rating Rush", headed for the
airlines. They just do not want to instruct in small, noisy, uncomfortable
aircraft. This is especially true when it doesn't promote ratings. We need
to look to the exemptions for instructors.
So where do we go from here?
The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) has been working hard to
bring about change. The latest proposals seemed very workable. That is, an
umbrella rule similar to the structure of the aircraft "Primary Category
Rule". This had common basic training and specialized training for each
unique vehicle. This was to be administratively adapted to our needs. Alas,
this too is meeting with resistance. The proposal would make a whole new
system of training unlike the currently accepted approaches. This is not
fairing well in the upper levels of the FAA.
How do we convey the message to the FAA?
The ARAC Part 103 Working Group reports to the ARAC General Aviation
Operations Issues group. Steve Brown of AOPA is the Assistant Chair and
chaired the August 9th meeting. At this meeting Tom Gunnarson presented the
current status of the Working Group. Tom indicated that the working group
would like to have a rule similar to the Primary Category rule but has not
decided on which rule to amend.
Mr. Brown said the group should consider the NPRM on Part 61 in anything they
recommend. Lou Cusimano of the FAA went further, saying that Mr. Broderick,
the assistant FAA Administrator, sees Part 61 as a continuum from the basic
types of flying to air transport pilots and would like to continue that
continuum. Mr. Brown stressed that the working group should work with the
FAA internal team to evaluate using Recreational Pilot to achieve the goals
of the group.
We have an opening.
These are strong implications that the umbrella approach will not meet with
favor. That means it will be slowed down, at best, and perhaps even fail
entirely. At the same time, the current NPRM action gives us a great
opportunity to speed change along.
Isn't there an answer in the "ROSE"?
That leads us back to the "ROSE". Before, I have said, "I don't care what
you call it." I was wrong! If the name given "OUR" solution slows it down,
than I care a great deal. Isn't there some way we can have the "ROSE" by a
name that will speed it along, rather that slow it down? I believe the
answer is "YES".
The ASC comments to the NPRM 25910.
By working with many leading individuals in the community and coordinating
with both the FAA and various other organizations, ASC has co-written
comments to the NPRM 25910. These recommendations are merely restatements of
the industry position in terms understood by the FAA. This recommendation
has now been approved by the members of ASC as our "Official Position".
How will this help you?
You may ask, "How does this 'ASC ROSE' help me? I'm a "fat" single place
ultralight flyer. I don't want a license! And I don't want to buy a
certified plane!"
It will help you! A student can fly solo in an "N" numbered aircraft with an
instructor endorsement. With the Self Certified Medical, you will be able to
fly, merely by demonstrating your current abilities to an instructor.
Your plane was built by someone. You can get an "N" number for it in the
Experimental Classification. If you show that you built the plane, you can
even get the "Repairman's Certificate" that will allow you to do all the
repairs and "Condition Inspections". Haven't we all said, "Why can't I be
legal and do the flying that I love?"... You can! It will take action on
your part.
Your action comes in two parts.
First, support the NPRM Recreational Pilot changes "as written". Second,
support the additional changes as outlined in the "ASC Comments to the NPRM"
to both the NPRM docket and to the ARAC.
Use both the NPRM and the ARAC.
Clearly, the members of ASC feel that this is a good approach and worthy of
action. If we move now, this may provide a solution directly out of the
current NPRM. That could mean cutting YEARS off the time it would otherwise
take. We need your help. You need to take action now! If you support the
ASC proposal, write the FAA at:
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-10) Docket 25910
800 Independence Ave. S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20591
Send your comments in. Send a total of three copies to the FAA. In your
own words, tell the FAA that:
1) You support the Self Certification Medical and the removal of the 50 mile
limit for Recreational Pilot.
2) You support the "ASC comments to NPRM 25910" for inclusion into this rule
change:
a) the creation of a Recreational Pilot class for 1200 lb. gross weight 2
place aircraft .
b) the creation of "Recreational Flight Instructors" requiring a Recreational
Pilots license, 80 hours, a written, and a flight test.
c) written agreements to bring BFI/AFI's into the "Recreational Flight
Instructor" program.
d) written agreements to accept existing instructional vehicles (under the
current exemptions) for 5 years for transition to certified planes.
Write today, the comment period on NPRM 25910 closes Dec. 11, 1995.
Also write your ARAC representative, or:
Tom Gunnarson
ARAC Working Group Chairman
%USUA
POB 667
Frederick, MD 21705
Click Back to the Ultralight home page
Jon N. Steiger / jon@ultralighthomepage.com