Editorial: Pilot in Command
By Ed Downs
Before I launch into a variety of viewpoints and opinions, please read the following news announcement that was recently received by In Flight USA from the EAA:
EAA Declines FAA Exemption for Young Eagles, Eagle Flights Pilots
EAA has notified the FAA that it is declining a partial grant of exemption that would have allowed Young Eagles and Eagle Flights pilots to obtain reimbursement for fuel costs and logging of flight time. While EAA welcomed the time the agency spent considering and formulating the partial exemption, its mandated record-keeping, coordination, and notification requirements would cause complete restructuring of the program with enormous time and expense burdens.
Sean Elliott, EAA’s vice president of advocacy and safety, stated in a letter to John S. Duncan, FAA director of Flight Standards Service, that, “EAA sincerely appreciates the substantial efforts of the FAA in reviewing, publishing for comment, analyzing, and finally granting an exemption in response to EAA’s petition dated April 17, 2012. Unfortunately, EAA is unable to accept the exemption because of the severe requirements imposed by the FAA grant.”
The FAA’s Partial Grant of Exemption 10841 would require EAA to maintain a record of all fuel disbursements under the exemption. The partial exemption would also require notification of all flight operations to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) in advance and provide a copy of the exemption to that FSDO no less than 72 hours prior to each event. Such requirements would end the ability for Young Eagles and Eagle Flights programs to operate in a decentralized and autonomous manner as is now done.
“Meeting this requirement would literally be impossible for EAA without a total restructure of the EF/YE programs and an unaffordable and questionable investment of assets in a brand new chapter monitoring, data gathering, and approval system,” Elliott wrote.
EAA also finds other aspects of the exemption requirements to be problematic, such as the prohibition on pilots of amateur-built aircraft from claiming the reimbursement even if they met all other requirements.
“EAA believes that the program conversion that would be required to meet the FAA’s record-keeping, coordination, and notification requirements would be unaffordable, disruptive, and counterproductive,” Elliott added. “Therefore, EAA regretfully will not exercise the privileges of exemption 10841, and does not intend to renew it.”
Did you take time to read between the lines? Let’s take a look at what is really going on here. The EAA Young Eagles program is a carefully structured effort to introduce youth to the wonders of flight and the educational opportunities and challenges afford by aviation. Each Young Eagles event is specifically sanction by EAA headquarters and conducted under the jurisdiction of local EAA chapters. The EAA maintains a dedicated staff to manage this program and insure continuity and safety. Volunteers offer up their skills and aircraft to participate, all at their own expense.
As the years have passed, fuel costs that were under two dollars per gallon when the Young Eagles program started, have now lurched beyond the six dollars per gallon mark. Given the worth of Young Eagles, it is fair to consider that some form of compensation be allowed to help cover fuel cost.
But here is the rub. The FAR’s make it very clear that a private pilot may not charge for flying. A non-commercial pilot may share the expense of flying, but only if on a pro-rated basis, in other words, the pilot kicks in some money. A non-commercial pilot may use a plane for the conduct of business, but only if it is incidental to the business at hand. A non-commercial pilot may fly a passenger that is paying for the flight service through an IRS approved charitable organization, but cannot be paid for the flight.
There is no doubt that receiving any form of compensation for the use of fuel in a Young Eagles flight does hit upon these restrictions, so allowance of such a payment would need to be done under a specific set of circumstances that allow for an “exemption’ to the regulations. Regulatory and aircraft operational exemptions are not unusual. In fact, FAR’s have, for many years, prevented the use of an amateur-built, experimental airplane for commercial (rent the plane and pay a CFI) flight instruction. That changed some years ago in keeping with the thought that training in specific experimental airplanes would be a great boon to safety. After a good deal of paperwork, a Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) can be issued that does permit such an operation. There are simply too many examples of approved exemptions to list in this editorial.
But apparently, this seemingly logical request for help with the Young Eagles program, intended to promote the education of our children, was just too much for the FAA to handle. The FAA came back with an incredibly complex structure that, amazingly enough, specifically excluded the use of amateur built, experimental aircraft. Such a response goes beyond the level of poor cooperation or lack of creativity – it is a directed insult.
I applaud the diplomacy of the EAA announcement. It avoided criticism and finger pointing, opting not to take on the look and feel of most politicians today. It can be assumed that the EAA is quietly looking for another approach as they, more than many other alphabet groups, wrote the book on recreational flying.
The founders of the EAA knew that aviation, as we know it today, did not develop under the umbrella of a massive federal bureaucracy. In fact, there were NO federal standards of any kind until the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which instructed the Department of Commerce to form a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). This advisory committee issued bulletins to states suggesting pilot training standards and provided early aircraft certification recommendations. It was not until 1938 that the aviation structure in the United States was federalized by the creation of the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA). Even then, many states retained their own standards.
The entire airline industry was established with a privatized airway system, using radio aids and lighted airways owned by oil companies and the Ford Motor Company. It is interesting to note that not one of the early aviation pioneers would have met the standards now required of a modern private pilot applicant. In other words, aviation in this country did quite well without the massive weight of the FAA. In fact, the FAA is a latecomer, having entered the picture with the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
Even today, approximately 85 percent of all public use airports are in Class G airspace –meaning uncontrolled. The word “uncontrolled” does not refer to the pilot, but means the FAA has no IFR jurisdiction.
One is compelled to ask, if so much of the success of this nation’s aviation heritage and industry was, and is, not dependent upon the FAA, why even bother asking for permission. The rhetorical answer to that question has already been mentioned – the FAR’s. But perhaps those decision makers within the FAA could learn a bit from history and understand that we, the pilots in command, are not a bunch of suicidal morons set on self-destruction or rule braking. Throughout the history of flying, pilots have done a great job of solving complex problems without the need of a bureaucracy that’s primary function seems to be … well … being a bureaucracy.
It is obvious to me that the FAA decision in this mater was based on the philosophy of “how do we deal with this reasonable request to support the Young Eagles program in a manner that prevents a reasonable solution.” Frankly, the ASTM group (sport pilot and LSAs) could have figured out a positive solution in just days. Instead, the entire weight of the federal government is employed to figure out how NOT get the job done. It is becoming increasingly apparent that current administration policies are being directed to inhibit private, recreational and business aviation, and this is just another example.
Remember, you the reader are the pilot in command, and must accept safety and good judgment as your ultimate responsibility. Recent FAA decisions make it clear that political agendas are at the top of their priority list. But let’s be fair, I am sure Administrator Huerta will address these issues at the next major GA or business aviation event…if he attends. Shall we hold our collective breaths?
