June 25, 2009
Mr. J. Randolph Babbitt
Administrator
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20591
Dear Administrator Babbitt:
The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the voice of aviation business, is the public policy group representing the interests of aviation businesses before Congress, federal agencies and state governments. NATA’s 2,000 member companies own, operate and service aircraft. These companies provide for the needs of the traveling public by offering services and products to aircraft operators and others such as fuel sales, aircraft maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, fractional aircraft program management and scheduled commuter operations in smaller aircraft. NATA members are a vital link in the aviation industry providing services to the general public, airlines, general aviation and the military.
We write to you today to express our deep concern with information we are receiving regarding the FAA’s intention to address flight crewmember flight, duty and rest regulations.
Previously, we had been informed that our industry was not included in the recent “Regional Airline Safety Plan” discussions because the focus was solely on regional airline operations conducted under Part 121 and, therefore, Part 135 on-demand operations and fractional programs regulated under Part 91K would not be addressed. This was the message we consistently received until yesterday.
Much to our dismay, yesterday we began to hear that the FAA intends to form an ARC to create new flight, duty and rest regulations and that this new ARC may be all-encompassing and impose a single regulatory standard on all pilots. This is an unacceptable position for our industry. It’s been said that “There is only one level of safety, but there are multiple ways to get there.” We wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, and urge you to apply this concept to the newly proposed ARC.
We ask you to consider the vast differences between the operations of scheduled airlines and on-demand carriers or fractional ownership programs and the dramatic differences this creates for the pilots who work for these operators. Among the many scientifically supported facts regarding fatigue is that the operational conditions experienced can have a direct impact on fatigue. The on-demand nature of our industry is the polar opposite of the scheduled carriers, and it is why the FAA has these operations regulated under different parts within the CFR.
In 2003, the FAA convened a different ARC, the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee. This ARC had the monumental task of conducting a comprehensive review and update to the regulatory system governing on-demand operations. Among the most in-depth parts of that ARC was the Flight, Duty and Rest Working Group. The working group comprised members from FAA Flight Standards and Chief Counsel’s Offices and nearly every segment of the Part 135 industry, as well as representatives from organized labor, even though only one of those participants actually represented a pilot community within Part 135.
The ARC Working Group developed a comprehensive, sound proposal that addressed every one of the FAA’s stated concerns with the current regulations. It established predicable rest cycles (which like today’s Part 135 rule may not be reduced under any circumstances), tightened restrictions on contacting crew members during rest, defined duty time (for the first time in regulations) and imposed hard limits on duty as well as many other beneficial safety improvements. Recognizing the good work that many other regulators have accomplished regarding flight, duty, and rest, outside of the United States, the ARC recommended that the new rule also incorporate the ability for an operator to develop a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) to use in lieu of the prescriptive limits currently in place. As you are aware, FRMS principles involve the application of the best fatigue science available to ensure that only adequately rested pilots fly a flight – which is everyone’s goal.
The rule proposed was thorough, and tough but fair for all sides. While this rule accomplishes much, the one thing on which every member of the group would agree is that it did not address the needs of the scheduled airlines and their pilots. While not perfect, the proposal significantly improves the current regulation and does so in a way that addresses the unique nature of on-demand and fractional ownership operations.
Due to the highly compressed timeline you have laid out for this new ARC, and the recognized differences between these groups, we contend it is in the best interest of all parties for the new ARC to exclude Part 91K and Part 135. We would welcome the opportunity to brief you on the 125/135 ARC recommendations, and we encourage you to initiate rulemaking based upon those recommendations for our industry.
Sincerely,
James K. Coyne
President
Cc:
Ms. Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, FAA
Mr. John Hickey, Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, FAA
Mr. John Allen, Director, Flight Standards Division, FAA
Mr. John Duncan, Air Transportation Division Manager, FAA
Mr. Dennis Pratte, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, FAA