Today, Tomorrow ONLY to Change FAA
ANN Columnist Jon Thornburgh wanted us to know:
"Presidential Executive Order 12866 requires the FAA to review its regulations every three years. The present comment period is open to the public until October 11, 2000. Here is your chance to propose changes to FAA regulations. The FAA requests that each person limit himself to three proposals."  
The proposals may be sent via the Internet at: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/BlankDSS.asp

Here are his three ideas, and an example of how to submit a proposal:
U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets
Docket No. FAA-2000-7623 
400 Seventh Street SW 
Room Plaza 401
Washington, DC 20590  [we believe you may also use E-Mail --ed.]

SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to FAA Regulations

Dear Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal to change specific Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The proposals in this document are submitted pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12866, which directs the FAA to review its regulations every three years to determine if they are in the public interest.
I commend the Department of Transportation and the FAA for providing a means for the general public to comment on FAA regulations. However, I lament that this opportunity was, in my opinion, not widely publicized. Although I am an airline pilot and professional flight instructor, I was unaware of Docket No. FAA-2000-7623 until very recently, despite my subscriptions to 14 aviation magazines. I know personally that none of my aviation colleagues are aware of this Docket Number.
My first comment is that I would request that the October 11, 2000 deadline for submitting a proposal to 7623 be significantly extended, and that the opportunity to submit proposals be more widely publicized.
My second comment is that interested parties be allowed to submit more than three proposals, which I believe is the current limit for each individual. I cannot understand why someone should be limited to three proposals if he has the expertise and initiative to make numerous suggestions.

Recognizing the three-proposal limitation, I submit the following suggestions:
1. FAR 61, Subpart F: Commercial Pilots
Several years ago, the FAA initiated a comprehensive change to FAR Part 61 (Certification: Pilots and Instructors). This change was preceded by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 95-11. The first page of NPRM 95-11 contained a General Aviation Policy Statement, which stated:
"...Accordingly, this rulemaking project was and is designed to meet these general aviation goals and provide economic relief from unnecessary, burdensome regulations."
With this statement in mind, I contend that the requirements for a commercial airplane pilot's license is an excellent example of an unnecessary, burdensome regulation.
When I began my flight instructor career in 1972 there were over 850,000 active pilots in the United States, and the combined sales of the several general aviation manufacturers were over 17,000 airplanes. Today there are less than 650,000 pilots, and the manufacturers who have survived sell approximately 500 light aircraft. I believe that this tremendous decrease in aviation activity is in some part due to the onerous prerequisites for the commercial airplane pilot's license.
I am referring to the requirement for an instrument rating [FAR 61.133(b)(1)], and 10 hours of so-called "complex" aircraft experience [61.129(a)(3)(ii).]
In the 1970s one could become a commercial pilot without these prerequisites. In fact, one could become a flight instructor without an instrument rating or complex experience.
There are many commercial uses of an aircraft which do not require complex experience or an instrument rating, including: banner towing, powerline patrol, traffic spotting, fire surveillance, crop dusting, animal round-up, aerial photography, and general sightseeing. Flight instructors who specialize in tailwheel transition training or aerobatics can spend their entire careers without needing complex experience or an instrument rating.
For those pilots and flight instructors who intend to fly complex airplanes, I agree that it is prudent that they be competent in those types of airplanes. In such cases it is appropriate that they have a logbook endorsement of competency as required by FAR 61.31(e).
But why must a pilot have ten hours of complex training to meet the commercial aeronautical experience, even if he never intents to fly anything other than a Cessna 172?
Why should a commercial pilot have an instrument license if all he intends to do is fly powerline patrol over a
hundred miles of desert in day, VFR conditions?
As previously mentioned, in the 1970s there were no instrument or complex requirements. I challenge the FAA to provide the statistics to show that the accident rate of non-instrument and non-complex commercial pilots mandated the change in the commercial aeronautical experience.
I can personally attest to the fact that the change had a devastating effect on my commercial student roaster. I had many students who flew their own non-complex aircraft, such as a Cessna 172 or Piper Warrior. Some of these owners had hundreds of flight hours in their airplanes, and were very competent private pilots. My students looked forward to obtaining a commercial license, training and taking their flight exams in their own aircraft.
Every single one of these students dropped out of their commercial curriculum when the complex requirement went into effect. Their reasoning was, "Why should I obtain 10 hours of "complex" flight training, renting another aircraft for hundreds of dollars, when I already have my own, non-complex airplane, which is the only airplane I intend to fly commercially?"
How many other flight instructors had the same experience, losing a multitude of students? How many students and prospective commercial pilots were lost because of the instrument rating requirement?
THEREFORE, I PROPOSE:
That FAR 61.129(a)(3)(ii) be deleted and that an applicant may apply for a commercial rating without complex aircraft experience. Subsequently, if he wishes to fly a complex aircraft commercially, he may be required to obtain 10 hours of complex aircraft experience and receive a logbook endorsement as proscribed by FAR 61.31(e).
That FAR 61.133(b)(1) be deleted and that an applicant may apply for a commercial rating without an instrument rating. Subsequently, if he wishes to fly in instrument conditions, he may obtain an instrument rating under FAR 61.65.
That a certified flight instructor need only a commercial rating as amended above, and not be required to have complex experience or an instrument rating, unless appropriate to the type of instruction he intends to give.

2. FAR 61.123(h): Commercial Pilot: Eligibility Requirements: General
FAR 61.123(h) states that an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate must "hold at least a private pilot certificate."
The required number of flight hours to be eligible for a commercial airplane rating is 250 hours. Likewise, commercial rotorcraft ratings require a large number of flight hours. Therefore, airplane and helicopter pilots will always have a private pilot certificate before upgrading to commercial pilot.
However, the requirement for a commercial glider rating is only 25 hours of flight time. The requirement for a private glider rating is 10 hours.
It is very feasible that a glider student who is studying for a private pilot glider certificate may actually accumulate 25 hours before he feels confident enough to apply for the flight check. It is quite probable that a student, in the process of obtaining the experience to become a private pilot glider, may actually meet the prerequisites for commercial glider. In that case, why is a student precluded from going directly to commercial pilot?
Why must the student take the written, oral, and flight test for private pilot glider, if he meets the skill and flight time requirements for commercial? Under 61.123(h) the student in this circumstance must first obtain a private pilot certificate, and then take another series of written, oral, and flight tests for the commercial license. In the case of the commercial glider rating, 61.123(h) does not seem to meet the intent of the General Aviation Policy Statement to "provide economic relief from unnecessary, burdensome regulations."
The same may be said for the requirement for commercial balloon, which requires only 35 hours of flight time. (Private balloon requires 10 hours.)
THEREFORE, I PROPOSE:
That FAR 61.123(h) be amended to exclude gliders and balloons from the requirement that an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate must first hold a private pilot certificate.
3. FAR 61.101(d)(7): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations
FAR 61.101(d)(7) specifies that a recreational pilot "may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft in airspace in which communication with air traffic control is required."
FAR 61.101(h) and (i) modify 61.101(d)(7) to the extent that a recreational pilot may fly in such airspace if: the pilot flies solo, he intends to obtain a higher rating, and each flight is supervised and approved by an authorized flight instructor.
What 61.101(d)(7), (h) and (i) mean in plain language is that a recreational pilot, who has taken an FAA written exam (now called a "knowledge exam") and a flight check, and been certificated by a fight examiner, cannot fly unsupervised out of a tower-controlled (Class D) airport.
The anomaly here is that a student pilot, who has not taken an FAA written exam or flight check, may fly in Class D airspace without the instructor's immediate supervision, if so endorsed by the instructor.
The question is: why does a licensed recreational pilot have a LESSER PRIVILEGE than a mere student pilot?
I understand that the recreational pilot's aeronautical knowledge requirement under FAR 61.97 does not require proficiency in radio communications (unlike the requirement for private pilots under 61.105(b)(5)). I also recognize that the recreational pilot applicant may have taken his flight test from a rural airfield with no control tower.
However, when the recreational pilot has obtained radio communication proficiency, why can't a flight instructor endorse a recreational pilot for unsupervised solo flight out of a specific Class D airport, exactly as he may presently endorse a student pilot?
THEREFORE, I PROPOSE:
That FAR 61.101(d)(7), (h), and (I) be amended to provide that a recreational pilot may fly solo from a Class D airport (if so endorsed by an authorized flight instructor) without the requirement that the instructor endorse the pilot's logbook for each flight.

Speaking of Class D airspace, I would like to make another proposal, although it may not exactly address a specific regulation.
In the 1970s, the regulations were much less complex, and consequently there were many more active pilots. In those days, for example, all Class D airports, (which were then referred to as "Airport Traffic Areas") were identical; that is, the airspace under tower control was 5 statute miles in diameter and extended up to 2,000 feet AGL.
All ATA airspace was identical: "5 miles and 2,000 feet." It was pretty easy to know how far out to call the control tower.
In the 1980s, the ATA was changed to 5 miles and 3,000 feet AGL. It was never adequately explained why the ATA needed to be extended up to 3,000 feet from 2,000 (especially since the tower controllers never even requested the change), but at least, once again, all ATAs were uniform: "5 miles and 3,000 feet."
Now with the advent of "Class D" airspace, which replaces the Air Traffic Area, the airspace is NOT uniform. The Class D airspace is nominally, 4 nautical miles and 2,500 feet AGL. However, the small print says, "or as depicted on the aeronautical charts."
Increasingly, the charts are showing more and more Class D airspace which is not "4 miles and 2,500 feet", but has numerous extensions, cut-outs, and altitude differences. It is now impossible to approach an airport without consulting a chart for all the variations and exceptions.
Is this matrix of Class D airspace in conformity with "relief from unnecessary, burdensome regulations?" Is this Alice in Wonderland mad hatter mix-mash of Class B, C, D, and E airspace conducive to acquiring prospective students? I certainly think not.
THEREFORE, I PROPOSE:
That FAR 71.61 (Class D Airspace) be amended to state that in visual meteorological conditions, the requirement to be in radio contact with the airport control tower be limited to a radius of 5 statute miles from the airport, and extend to an altitude of 2,000 (two thousand) feet AGL (above ground level.)

Respectfully submitted,

Jon Thornburgh Pilot License No. XXXXXX

[Whether or not you agree with these proposals is not the point. The point is, if you've been griping about something for years, and think you have a solution, put it in writing today and get it in to the FAA! --ed]

 

This article was published by Aero News Network on October 10, 2002. It is a copy of a document I submitted to the FAA in regards to proposed changes to FAA regulations.

I am posting it on this site because the need for regulatory change is the same today as it was in 2000. As of today, almost two years later, the FAA has still not responded to the proposed changes.

 

Jon Thornburgh