New FAA Rule Re Harness and Open Door Flights
Thread Starter
New FAA Rule Re Harness and Open Door Flights
Okay - have a question for everyone, does the below new rule now mean that FAA have to approve any and all harnesses for use of professional photographers in the back shooting air to air images like many of us here do. From my research there is actually no FAA approved quick release harness out there. There are some options for quick release of the tether such as the ones that are sold by ARS but nothing I can find that is a proper quick release harness except for the one CASA approved one I also just bought. Thought and comments ??
4910-13
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2018-0243]
“Doors-off” and “Open-door” Flight Prohibition: Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notification of Emergency Order of Prohibition.
SUMMARY: This notification provides Emergency Order of Prohibition No. FAA-2018-0243, issued March 22, 2018 to all operators and pilots of flights for compensation or hire with the doors open or removed in the United States or using aircraft registered in the United States for doors off flights. The Emergency Order prohibits the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems that cannot be released quickly in an emergency in doors off flight operations. It also prohibits passenger-carrying doors off flight operations unless the passengers are at all times properly secured using FAA-approved restraints.
DATES: The Emergency Order of Prohibition is effective March 22, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Baker, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Safety Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20591; telephone: 202-267-3747; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of Emergency Order of Prohibition No. FAA-2018-0243, issued March 22, 2018 is as follows:
This Emergency Order of Prohibition is issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40113(a) and 46105(c). This Order is effective immediately. This order is issued to all operators and pilots of flights for compensation or hire with the doors open or removed (hereinafter, “doors off flights” or “doors off flight operations”) in the United States or using aircraft registered in the United States for doors off flights. This Order prohibits the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems (as defined below) that cannot be released quickly in an emergency in doors off flight operations. This Order also prohibits passenger-carrying doors off flight operations unless the passengers are at all times properly secured using FAA-approved restraints.
Upon information derived from investigation into a March 11, 2018, helicopter accident on the East River near New York City, New York, the Acting Administrator has found that an emergency exists related to aviation safety and safety in air commerce and requires immediate action. For more detailed information, see “Background/Basis for Order,” below.
SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THIS ORDER
This order applies to all persons (including, but not limited to, pilots) conducting doors off flights for compensation or hire in the United States or using aircraft registered in the United States to conduct such operations. “Operate,” as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, means to “use, cause to use or authorize to use” an aircraft, including the piloting of an aircraft, with or without right of legal control.
Supplemental passenger restraint systems, such as the harness system used by the operator of the helicopter involved in the March 11, 2018, accident, can significantly delay or prevent passengers from exiting the aircraft in an emergency. Effective immediately, the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems in doors off flight operations for compensation or hire is prohibited. The term “supplemental passenger restraint system” means any passenger restraint that is not installed on the aircraft pursuant to an FAA approval, including (but not limited to) restraints approved through a Type Certificate, Supplemental Type Certificate, or as an approved major alteration using FAA Form 337.
Persons may operate doors off flights for compensation or hire involving supplemental passenger restraint systems if the Acting Administrator has determined that the restraints to be used can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty and without impeding egress from the aircraft in an emergency. The ability of a passenger to quickly release the restraint with minimal difficulty must be inherent to the supplemental passenger restraint system. A supplemental passenger restraint system must not require the use of a knife to cut the restraint, the use of any other additional tool, or the assistance of any other person. A supplemental passenger restraint also must not require passenger training beyond what would be provided in a pre-flight briefing.
Applications for a determination as to whether a supplemental passenger restraint system can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty may be submitted to the FAA Aircraft Certification Service, Policy and Innovation Division, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Ft. Worth, Texas 76177, Attention: Jorge Castillo, Manager (email: [email protected]; tel: 817-222-5110).
The applicant bears the burden of clearly and convincingly demonstrating that the supplemental passenger restraint system can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty and without impeding egress from the aircraft in an emergency. In reviewing any such application, the FAA shall consider the design, manufacture, installation, and operation of the supplemental passenger restraint system.
Further, effective immediately, passenger-carrying doors off flight operations for compensation or hire are prohibited unless the passengers are at all times properly using FAA- approved restraints, such as at all times occupying an approved seat or berth and properly securedwith a safety belt and, if installed, a harness; or at all times secured by an FAA-approved supplemental passenger restraint system.
The prohibitions in this Order shall not be construed as authorizing doors off flight operations without supplemental passenger restraint systems. The operator of a doors off flight remains responsible for ensuring the safety of the aircraft and the passengers on board, and otherwise complying with all statutes, regulations, and safety standards concerning the flight. AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION
The FAA Administrator is required to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other things, prescribing minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).
The FAA Administrator has authority to take necessary and appropriate actions to carry out his aviation safety duties and powers under part A (“Air Commerce and Safety”) of subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code, including conducting investigations, issuing orders, and prescribing regulations, standards, and procedures. 49 U.S.C. 40113(a). When the Administrator determines that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce and requires immediate action, the Administrator may issue immediately effective orders to meet the emergency. 49 U.S.C. 46105(c).
BACKGROUND/BASIS FOR ORDER
Based on an initial investigation and the reliable and credible evidence presently available, the Acting Administrator finds that:
On March 11, 2018, civil aircraft N350LH, an Airbus Helicopters AS350B2 helicopter, was operated “doors off” on a flight in the vicinity of New York City, New York. All passengers on the flight wore harness systems that allowed the passengers to move securely within the helicopter and sit in the door sill while airborne. The harness systems were provided by the operator to ensure passengers did not fall out of the helicopter while moving around. Along with the supplemental passenger restraint systems, the operator provided knives to be used to cut through the restraints if necessary, and informed the passengers of the purpose of the knives.
During the flight, the aircraft experienced a loss of power, resulting in the aircraft impacting the East River. The aircraft subsequently rolled over, and all of the passengers perished. The supplemental passenger restraint systems worn by the passengers, while intended as a safety measure when the aircraft was in flight, may have prevented the passengers’ quick egress from the aircraft.
While the fatalities on March 11, 2018, involved an aircraft impacting the water, passengers could face a similar hazard in other emergency situations, such as an aircraft fire on the ground.
Under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) the Acting Administrator has determined that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce. This determination is based on the threat to passenger safety presented by the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems not approved by the FAA, which may prevent a passenger from exiting the aircraft quickly in an emergency. Accordingly, this Order is effective immediately.
DURATION
This Order remains in effect until the issuance of an applicable FAA order rescinding or modifying this Order. The Administrator will issue a rescission order when there is a change in an applicable statute or federal regulation that supersedes the requirements of this Order, or the Administrator otherwise determines that the prohibitions prescribed above are no longer necessary to address an emergency in air safety or air commerce.
While this Order remains in effect, the FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking that addresses operations using supplemental passenger restraint systems that have not been approved by the FAA.
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER
Any person failing to comply with this Order is subject to a civil penalty for each flight on which they are found to be in violation. See 49 U.S.C. 46302(a). Small business concerns and individuals (other than persons serving as an airman) are subject to a civil penalty of up to $13,066 per flight. See 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A)(ii); 14 CFR 13.301. Other entities are subject to a civil penalty of up to $32,666 per flight. See 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1)(B); 14 CFR 13.301. A person serving as an airman on a flight operated in violation of this Order is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,437 per flight or a certificate action, up to and including revocation. See 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1)(B), 44709(b)(1)(A); 14 CFR 13.301. An air carrier or commercial operator violating this Order is subject to certificate action, up to and including revocation. See id. Air tour operators and other persons are subject to the rescission of any FAA-issued waiver or letter of authorization. Any person failing to comply with this Order may be subject to a cease and desist order or a civil action in a United States district court to ensure compliance. See 49 U.S.C. 44103(a), 46106.
RIGHT TO REVIEW
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46110(a), a person with a substantial interest in this order “may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States in the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business.” The petition must be filed within 60 days after the date of this order. 49 U.S.C. 46110(a).
EMERGENCY CONTACT OFFICIAL
Direct any questions concerning this Emergency Order of Prohibition, to Jodi Baker, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Safety Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20591 (email: [email protected]; Tel: 202-267- 3747).
4910-13
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2018-0243]
“Doors-off” and “Open-door” Flight Prohibition: Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notification of Emergency Order of Prohibition.
SUMMARY: This notification provides Emergency Order of Prohibition No. FAA-2018-0243, issued March 22, 2018 to all operators and pilots of flights for compensation or hire with the doors open or removed in the United States or using aircraft registered in the United States for doors off flights. The Emergency Order prohibits the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems that cannot be released quickly in an emergency in doors off flight operations. It also prohibits passenger-carrying doors off flight operations unless the passengers are at all times properly secured using FAA-approved restraints.
DATES: The Emergency Order of Prohibition is effective March 22, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Baker, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Safety Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20591; telephone: 202-267-3747; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The full text of Emergency Order of Prohibition No. FAA-2018-0243, issued March 22, 2018 is as follows:
This Emergency Order of Prohibition is issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40113(a) and 46105(c). This Order is effective immediately. This order is issued to all operators and pilots of flights for compensation or hire with the doors open or removed (hereinafter, “doors off flights” or “doors off flight operations”) in the United States or using aircraft registered in the United States for doors off flights. This Order prohibits the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems (as defined below) that cannot be released quickly in an emergency in doors off flight operations. This Order also prohibits passenger-carrying doors off flight operations unless the passengers are at all times properly secured using FAA-approved restraints.
Upon information derived from investigation into a March 11, 2018, helicopter accident on the East River near New York City, New York, the Acting Administrator has found that an emergency exists related to aviation safety and safety in air commerce and requires immediate action. For more detailed information, see “Background/Basis for Order,” below.
SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THIS ORDER
This order applies to all persons (including, but not limited to, pilots) conducting doors off flights for compensation or hire in the United States or using aircraft registered in the United States to conduct such operations. “Operate,” as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, means to “use, cause to use or authorize to use” an aircraft, including the piloting of an aircraft, with or without right of legal control.
Supplemental passenger restraint systems, such as the harness system used by the operator of the helicopter involved in the March 11, 2018, accident, can significantly delay or prevent passengers from exiting the aircraft in an emergency. Effective immediately, the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems in doors off flight operations for compensation or hire is prohibited. The term “supplemental passenger restraint system” means any passenger restraint that is not installed on the aircraft pursuant to an FAA approval, including (but not limited to) restraints approved through a Type Certificate, Supplemental Type Certificate, or as an approved major alteration using FAA Form 337.
Persons may operate doors off flights for compensation or hire involving supplemental passenger restraint systems if the Acting Administrator has determined that the restraints to be used can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty and without impeding egress from the aircraft in an emergency. The ability of a passenger to quickly release the restraint with minimal difficulty must be inherent to the supplemental passenger restraint system. A supplemental passenger restraint system must not require the use of a knife to cut the restraint, the use of any other additional tool, or the assistance of any other person. A supplemental passenger restraint also must not require passenger training beyond what would be provided in a pre-flight briefing.
Applications for a determination as to whether a supplemental passenger restraint system can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty may be submitted to the FAA Aircraft Certification Service, Policy and Innovation Division, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Ft. Worth, Texas 76177, Attention: Jorge Castillo, Manager (email: [email protected]; tel: 817-222-5110).
The applicant bears the burden of clearly and convincingly demonstrating that the supplemental passenger restraint system can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty and without impeding egress from the aircraft in an emergency. In reviewing any such application, the FAA shall consider the design, manufacture, installation, and operation of the supplemental passenger restraint system.
Further, effective immediately, passenger-carrying doors off flight operations for compensation or hire are prohibited unless the passengers are at all times properly using FAA- approved restraints, such as at all times occupying an approved seat or berth and properly securedwith a safety belt and, if installed, a harness; or at all times secured by an FAA-approved supplemental passenger restraint system.
The prohibitions in this Order shall not be construed as authorizing doors off flight operations without supplemental passenger restraint systems. The operator of a doors off flight remains responsible for ensuring the safety of the aircraft and the passengers on board, and otherwise complying with all statutes, regulations, and safety standards concerning the flight. AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION
The FAA Administrator is required to promote the safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other things, prescribing minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5).
The FAA Administrator has authority to take necessary and appropriate actions to carry out his aviation safety duties and powers under part A (“Air Commerce and Safety”) of subtitle VII of Title 49 of the United States Code, including conducting investigations, issuing orders, and prescribing regulations, standards, and procedures. 49 U.S.C. 40113(a). When the Administrator determines that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce and requires immediate action, the Administrator may issue immediately effective orders to meet the emergency. 49 U.S.C. 46105(c).
BACKGROUND/BASIS FOR ORDER
Based on an initial investigation and the reliable and credible evidence presently available, the Acting Administrator finds that:
On March 11, 2018, civil aircraft N350LH, an Airbus Helicopters AS350B2 helicopter, was operated “doors off” on a flight in the vicinity of New York City, New York. All passengers on the flight wore harness systems that allowed the passengers to move securely within the helicopter and sit in the door sill while airborne. The harness systems were provided by the operator to ensure passengers did not fall out of the helicopter while moving around. Along with the supplemental passenger restraint systems, the operator provided knives to be used to cut through the restraints if necessary, and informed the passengers of the purpose of the knives.
During the flight, the aircraft experienced a loss of power, resulting in the aircraft impacting the East River. The aircraft subsequently rolled over, and all of the passengers perished. The supplemental passenger restraint systems worn by the passengers, while intended as a safety measure when the aircraft was in flight, may have prevented the passengers’ quick egress from the aircraft.
While the fatalities on March 11, 2018, involved an aircraft impacting the water, passengers could face a similar hazard in other emergency situations, such as an aircraft fire on the ground.
Under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) the Acting Administrator has determined that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce. This determination is based on the threat to passenger safety presented by the use of supplemental passenger restraint systems not approved by the FAA, which may prevent a passenger from exiting the aircraft quickly in an emergency. Accordingly, this Order is effective immediately.
DURATION
This Order remains in effect until the issuance of an applicable FAA order rescinding or modifying this Order. The Administrator will issue a rescission order when there is a change in an applicable statute or federal regulation that supersedes the requirements of this Order, or the Administrator otherwise determines that the prohibitions prescribed above are no longer necessary to address an emergency in air safety or air commerce.
While this Order remains in effect, the FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking that addresses operations using supplemental passenger restraint systems that have not been approved by the FAA.
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER
Any person failing to comply with this Order is subject to a civil penalty for each flight on which they are found to be in violation. See 49 U.S.C. 46302(a). Small business concerns and individuals (other than persons serving as an airman) are subject to a civil penalty of up to $13,066 per flight. See 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A)(ii); 14 CFR 13.301. Other entities are subject to a civil penalty of up to $32,666 per flight. See 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1)(B); 14 CFR 13.301. A person serving as an airman on a flight operated in violation of this Order is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,437 per flight or a certificate action, up to and including revocation. See 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1)(B), 44709(b)(1)(A); 14 CFR 13.301. An air carrier or commercial operator violating this Order is subject to certificate action, up to and including revocation. See id. Air tour operators and other persons are subject to the rescission of any FAA-issued waiver or letter of authorization. Any person failing to comply with this Order may be subject to a cease and desist order or a civil action in a United States district court to ensure compliance. See 49 U.S.C. 44103(a), 46106.
RIGHT TO REVIEW
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46110(a), a person with a substantial interest in this order “may apply for review of the order by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or in the court of appeals of the United States in the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business.” The petition must be filed within 60 days after the date of this order. 49 U.S.C. 46110(a).
EMERGENCY CONTACT OFFICIAL
Direct any questions concerning this Emergency Order of Prohibition, to Jodi Baker, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Safety Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20591 (email: [email protected]; Tel: 202-267- 3747).
Short answer...the Operator has to seek and obtain FAA Approval.
This is an Emergency Order and will no doubt be superseded by a Rule at some point in the future.
The Order deals with Operations and not the status/profession of the SLF’s .
Sorry Ned.... that includes you!
This is an Emergency Order and will no doubt be superseded by a Rule at some point in the future.
The Order deals with Operations and not the status/profession of the SLF’s .
Sorry Ned.... that includes you!
SASless is correct. Here is thee controlling sentence:
As far as I am aware, there are no FAA approved harnesses.
The applicant bears the burden of clearly and convincingly demonstrating that the supplemental passenger restraint system can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty and without impeding egress from the aircraft in an emergency. In reviewing any such application, the FAA shall consider the design, manufacture, installation, and operation of the supplemental passenger restraint system.
Thread Starter
Gordy - I see it says "system" so the way I interpret that is that the harness and tether are a "system" which would mean that if the harness is attached to a quick release tether then that would mean the "system" is a quick release system. Your thoughts ??.
I have a call into the FAA person so will see what they tell me also
Also there are two FAA approved harnesses, one from ARS and also one from Priority 1 which I do have also.
I have a call into the FAA person so will see what they tell me also
Also there are two FAA approved harnesses, one from ARS and also one from Priority 1 which I do have also.
Regulation vs. Common Sense - Paul Bertorelli
Aviation regulation theory couldn’t be simpler. The freckle-necked masses aren’t expert enough to assess the relative risks in boarding a flying machine so we, as a society, allow the government to establish certain standards and rules designed to eliminate the most egregious practices that people trying to make money in the flying game will, quite naturally, engage in. Then, as predictably as the sun rising tomorrow, we bitch and moan about government interference.
Yet regulation is why, in part, modern aviation—even the relatively wild west of general aviation—is as safe as it is. The worst practices are kept at bay by the long arm of the FAA. Except, sometimes not. That’s why the NTSB issued an urgent safety recommendation Monday urging the FAA to prohibit commercial flights in aircraft where passengers aren’t equipped with quick-release restraints. This seems intuitively obvious, but it apparently wasn’t to FlyNYON, the operator of doors-off helicopter tours around New York city. Five people drowned last week when the helicopter they were riding autorotated into the East River after an engine failure and non-quick release harnesses kept them from egressing after the helo inverted.
The NTSB’s investigation soon revealed that the aircraft was equipped with harnesses of the tour operator’s own design that had not been inspected by the FAA. This raises some sticky regulatory issues. Did that constitute an unauthorized modification of the aircraft or will the attorney for the IA who signed off the annual argue that it was some kind of supplemental restraint not subject to FAR 27.785, which requires restraints with a single-point release? Technically, the harnesses had a single-point release, it just happened to be inoperable by the passenger without a knife. I won't wade into the swamp of TSOs.
How could this slip through the regulatory cracks? One reason is that tour companies operate under Part 91, in a netherworld somewhere south of Part 135. For-hire tour operators are required to have pilot drug testing programs, but they don’t need defined op specs like other for-hire businesses. They operate under specific Letters of Agreement, the FAA’s all-purpose catchall strategy when both the industry and agency agree that more forceful regulation isn’t needed.
So far, so good. But this means the tour operators are on their own to exercise good judgment and common sense in a relatively unfettered commercial air business. One unavoidable question is this: Would an FAA inspector examining that harness rig put the kibosh on it? I’m gonna go with yes.
And thus the regulatory gap and the basis of the NTSB’s urgent safety recommendation. Here we reach a philosophical divide. On Monday, we put up a Question of the Week asking if more regulation is needed, specifically banning doors-off flights. Neither the FAA nor the NTSB have gone quite that far. Yet. More than a third of readers said such flights shouldn’t be banned and that passengers are on their own to assess risk based on informed consent.
I agree they shouldn’t be banned, but given what I view as a serious safety breach, either the LOAs should be hardened to require inspections or tour operators need to be held to a higher basic regulatory standard. There’s always a danger in knee-jerking toward new regulation on the basis of a single occurrence and regulation has to balance the public interest against chilling commercial vitality. But as I mentioned in last week’s blog, it’s unrealistic to think those passengers could have reasonably assessed the risk they were about to take. So how Darwinian do you want to be?
Every Saturday morning in the U.S., thousands of unsuspecting passengers sign up for tandem skydives. The perceived risk is so high that they sign multi-page waivers and the FAA allows the industry to exist in its own laissez-faire bubble. The demonstrated risk is rather lower. Still, inspectors do show up to have a look at these operations, examine the airplanes and look over the maintenance logs. Even though minimal, these inspections are sometimes capricious and intrusive because FAA inspectors can do that if they want. It appears to me that air tour operators don’t even get that much attention. If they did, maybe someone would have squawked those harnesses.
Aviation regulation theory couldn’t be simpler. The freckle-necked masses aren’t expert enough to assess the relative risks in boarding a flying machine so we, as a society, allow the government to establish certain standards and rules designed to eliminate the most egregious practices that people trying to make money in the flying game will, quite naturally, engage in. Then, as predictably as the sun rising tomorrow, we bitch and moan about government interference.
Yet regulation is why, in part, modern aviation—even the relatively wild west of general aviation—is as safe as it is. The worst practices are kept at bay by the long arm of the FAA. Except, sometimes not. That’s why the NTSB issued an urgent safety recommendation Monday urging the FAA to prohibit commercial flights in aircraft where passengers aren’t equipped with quick-release restraints. This seems intuitively obvious, but it apparently wasn’t to FlyNYON, the operator of doors-off helicopter tours around New York city. Five people drowned last week when the helicopter they were riding autorotated into the East River after an engine failure and non-quick release harnesses kept them from egressing after the helo inverted.
The NTSB’s investigation soon revealed that the aircraft was equipped with harnesses of the tour operator’s own design that had not been inspected by the FAA. This raises some sticky regulatory issues. Did that constitute an unauthorized modification of the aircraft or will the attorney for the IA who signed off the annual argue that it was some kind of supplemental restraint not subject to FAR 27.785, which requires restraints with a single-point release? Technically, the harnesses had a single-point release, it just happened to be inoperable by the passenger without a knife. I won't wade into the swamp of TSOs.
How could this slip through the regulatory cracks? One reason is that tour companies operate under Part 91, in a netherworld somewhere south of Part 135. For-hire tour operators are required to have pilot drug testing programs, but they don’t need defined op specs like other for-hire businesses. They operate under specific Letters of Agreement, the FAA’s all-purpose catchall strategy when both the industry and agency agree that more forceful regulation isn’t needed.
So far, so good. But this means the tour operators are on their own to exercise good judgment and common sense in a relatively unfettered commercial air business. One unavoidable question is this: Would an FAA inspector examining that harness rig put the kibosh on it? I’m gonna go with yes.
And thus the regulatory gap and the basis of the NTSB’s urgent safety recommendation. Here we reach a philosophical divide. On Monday, we put up a Question of the Week asking if more regulation is needed, specifically banning doors-off flights. Neither the FAA nor the NTSB have gone quite that far. Yet. More than a third of readers said such flights shouldn’t be banned and that passengers are on their own to assess risk based on informed consent.
I agree they shouldn’t be banned, but given what I view as a serious safety breach, either the LOAs should be hardened to require inspections or tour operators need to be held to a higher basic regulatory standard. There’s always a danger in knee-jerking toward new regulation on the basis of a single occurrence and regulation has to balance the public interest against chilling commercial vitality. But as I mentioned in last week’s blog, it’s unrealistic to think those passengers could have reasonably assessed the risk they were about to take. So how Darwinian do you want to be?
Every Saturday morning in the U.S., thousands of unsuspecting passengers sign up for tandem skydives. The perceived risk is so high that they sign multi-page waivers and the FAA allows the industry to exist in its own laissez-faire bubble. The demonstrated risk is rather lower. Still, inspectors do show up to have a look at these operations, examine the airplanes and look over the maintenance logs. Even though minimal, these inspections are sometimes capricious and intrusive because FAA inspectors can do that if they want. It appears to me that air tour operators don’t even get that much attention. If they did, maybe someone would have squawked those harnesses.
Unfortunately, regardless what any FAA person tells you, the final decision on what harness can be used in an N reg aircraft will fall to the owner/operator who operates the aircraft.
Individual FAA opinions can be different within the same FSDO let alone from different states. All emergency orders (except ADs) have to go through a defined process before that order becomes a permanent rule. And this would include public comment. So there still is more to come.
However, even after the permanent rule is adopted, I would doubt any operator would allow a pax to supply any required safety equipment that is not under the operators OpSpec inspection program or controlled/supplied by the owner/operator as all other equipment currently is.
But we need to see how this works out first.
Individual FAA opinions can be different within the same FSDO let alone from different states. All emergency orders (except ADs) have to go through a defined process before that order becomes a permanent rule. And this would include public comment. So there still is more to come.
However, even after the permanent rule is adopted, I would doubt any operator would allow a pax to supply any required safety equipment that is not under the operators OpSpec inspection program or controlled/supplied by the owner/operator as all other equipment currently is.
But we need to see how this works out first.
Thread Starter
Wrench - So explain to me how then we are supposed to accomplish upcoming air to air photo shoots in the USA with various operators in various heli types. Curious ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so in laymans terms:
1) supplemental restraints are banned UNLESS installed under an approval (form 337, STC etc)
2) doors off operations where a passenger occupies a seat using an approved restraint (seatbelt) are still legal and allowed
3) to operate with a supplemental restraint (e.g. 'monkey harness') it must be of a quick-release type and approved on a case-by-case basis in the interim (no doubt until FAA can come up with a new reg)
Seems straightforward and sensible enough in the circumstances.
1) supplemental restraints are banned UNLESS installed under an approval (form 337, STC etc)
2) doors off operations where a passenger occupies a seat using an approved restraint (seatbelt) are still legal and allowed
3) to operate with a supplemental restraint (e.g. 'monkey harness') it must be of a quick-release type and approved on a case-by-case basis in the interim (no doubt until FAA can come up with a new reg)
Seems straightforward and sensible enough in the circumstances.
Quick release attachment not approved
It is the operator who must comply with this order, not you the pax. I'm sure everyone who is affected by this order is working on a solution. Or will simply temporarily decline those types of flights until something more permanent comes up.
Unfortunately, there is no other alternative that I can see at the moment.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Gordy, correct if it is not FAA approved, it would need to be progressed as a VSTC to become approved by FAA, although worth checking the regulations as CASA/FAA may have a working/technical arrangement whereby they may directly accept STCs from each other
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@KiwiNedNZ the answer is very simple, if you are doing various air-to-air flights with different types you'll have to use an approved supplemental harness for that aircraft type (337/STC) or you will have to apply to FAA for an approval for each job or you will have to occupy a passenger seat with its approved FAA restraint or go home and have tea and biscuits instead....
Thread Starter
Okay after speaking to one of the senior FAA Safety Inspectors we discussed what I and other professional photographers do. I explained to him about the two harnesses that I have and the tethers. He told me (after discussions with people back east) that as long as I am using a harness with either a quick release system such as the CASA approved one I mentioned previously that I can manually action myself without the involvement of anyone else and it must be within reach of myself, OR I have on a harness with a quick release device on the tether system that is also within reach of myself and not operated by anyone else, then as far as FAA is concerned I am ok to fly.
He explained that some within FAA were surprised at that notice coming out as a lot of the key FAA people had not been consulted about who would be caught up in this ruling and who wouldn't be. I asked him did each operator we flew with have to get specific approval by the FAA/FSDO and he said no, as long as the operator is comfortable with the quick release mechanisim I am using they are ok with it. He told me he looks at it as long as the "system" has a quick release option not just a harness.
He explained that some within FAA were surprised at that notice coming out as a lot of the key FAA people had not been consulted about who would be caught up in this ruling and who wouldn't be. I asked him did each operator we flew with have to get specific approval by the FAA/FSDO and he said no, as long as the operator is comfortable with the quick release mechanisim I am using they are ok with it. He told me he looks at it as long as the "system" has a quick release option not just a harness.
If you ask me
ARS does sell a TSO'ed harness but the tether does not appear to have any aviation type approvals. It would seem that the need is for a harness AND tether that is made to work together. I think the Rostan type release buckle that ARS uses is in fact a quick release but good luck trying to get to the one attached to your back or the one on the floor or wall as you are rolling over in the water or seeing smoke and flames( even with a short lanyard on the small ring). A three ring release with the handle attached to the front of the harness is probably the best out there and the 3 ring should be on your back, or better yet on your shoulder like a sport parachute rig so you can actually see it, not the floor. You don't want to be draging your tether behind you. Sorry but the whole thing just isn't right for the non-professional public. It would be awesome to bungee jump off the Empire State building but nobody needs to do that. Be happy with a helicopter ride with doors on and charge less for a non window seat. Why don't you just remove the door windows if you need to put the lense in the slipstream. It's only a matter of time before someone's " well tied sneaker" says hello up close to a tail rotor blade....yeah I know I am a curmudgeon. There is another thread on the forum about words of wisdom related to flying helicopters, good stuff. I always like to ask the question, " what's the worst that could happen".
Thread Starter
Roscoe - Am not talking about whats right or wrong for the general public, I am discussing what the options are for those of us who spend most of our time in various machines around the world shooting air to air images. No doubt they will come up with rules dedicated to the pax flights - me I am just making sure that what I do, and for the benefit of fellow industry photographers is right.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay after speaking to one of the senior FAA Safety Inspectors we discussed what I and other professional photographers do. I explained to him about the two harnesses that I have and the tethers. He told me (after discussions with people back east) that as long as I am using a harness with either a quick release system such as the CASA approved one I mentioned previously that I can manually action myself without the involvement of anyone else and it must be within reach of myself, OR I have on a harness with a quick release device on the tether system that is also within reach of myself and not operated by anyone else, then as far as FAA is concerned I am ok to fly.
He explained that some within FAA were surprised at that notice coming out as a lot of the key FAA people had not been consulted about who would be caught up in this ruling and who wouldn't be. I asked him did each operator we flew with have to get specific approval by the FAA/FSDO and he said no, as long as the operator is comfortable with the quick release mechanisim I am using they are ok with it. He told me he looks at it as long as the "system" has a quick release option not just a harness.
He explained that some within FAA were surprised at that notice coming out as a lot of the key FAA people had not been consulted about who would be caught up in this ruling and who wouldn't be. I asked him did each operator we flew with have to get specific approval by the FAA/FSDO and he said no, as long as the operator is comfortable with the quick release mechanisim I am using they are ok with it. He told me he looks at it as long as the "system" has a quick release option not just a harness.
Applications for a determination as to whether a supplemental passenger restraint system can be quickly released by a passenger with minimal difficulty may be submitted to the FAA Aircraft Certification Service, Policy and Innovation Division, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Ft. Worth, Texas 76177, Attention: Jorge Castillo, Manager (email: [email protected]; tel: 817-222-5110).
In the application, I would state what you have stated that you have multiple jobs in different types arranged but will use the same harness type in each case that ensures consistency and should enable a blanket approval for that harness type.
At least then you cover your own arse and have a piece of paper to prove it.
That's just my $0.02 but given the nature of your business Ned, I would be very cautious about falling foul of the FAA, they'll be scrutinising the **** out of this over the coming months no doubt.
Thread Starter
Actually he is not my "Mate" as you call it. I never met him before today and his official title is "FAA Principal Operations Inspector". And the person I said he contacted back east to discuss the conversation with was the person you mentioned in your message above (Jorge Castillo). And yes I already have things underway to get in writing what I need to give to any operator that I have shoots planned with. While making sure I am safe in what I do, and legal, I also want to make sure that any operator I fly with is also legal.