STATEMENT OF ED BOLEN

PRESIDENT AND CEO

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION

SUBMITTED TO THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCUTURE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 
STATEMENT OF ED BOLEN

PRESIDENT AND CEO

NATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION ASSOCIATION

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) represents the 

interests of over 8,000 member companies who rely on the use of 

general aviation aircraft for a business purpose. General Aviation 

includes diverse operations, with business uses that range from 

agriculture, law enforcement, fire and medevac services, to varied 

government, educational, nonprofit and business organizations. 

NBAA’s members operate in every type of airspace and airport 

across the nation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the 

Aviation Subcommittee with our views for the hearing today on the 

Hudson River Airspace.

Aviation remains the safest mode of transportation, bar none. The 

number of safely completed operations continues to rise each year.

This impressive record is in large part due to the continued 

partnership between the aviation community and the government to 

pursue new technologies, enhanced procedures and implement new 

safety-based requirements that further improve aviation’s already 

impressive safety record.

As we all know—tragically--aviation accidents do happen. When they 

occur, the entire aviation community feels a sense of loss and pain. 

Every accident investigation provides insight and lessons as to how 

we can improve aviation safety. However, it is important to note that 

each incident involves a unique set of situations, causal elements and 

factors. In this area, the National Transportation Safety Board is 

tasked with analyzing accidents and determining the cause. 
Long History of Safety Partnership

NBAA and its member companies have a long, demonstrated history 

of partnering with the FAA to address safety issues and mitigate 

risks. It has been shown repeatedly, and again following the recent 

tragic midair collision over the New York City-Hudson River, that 

engaging affected parties to assist with the development of safety 

solutions produces better results. We commend FAA Administrator

Randy Babbitt for reaching out to the aviation community in the days 

immediately following this accident to identify cooperative steps that 

could be taken to enhance air safety in this busy and vital air corridor.

Specifically, the airspace and radio frequency changes proposed by 

the FAA will standardize existing procedures, provide greater 

knowledge of those local procedures to transient aircraft, and 

increase communication between FAA controllers overseeing those 

operations. 

While we do not yet know all the facts relating to the causes of the 

August 8, accident, NBAA believes that the actions proposed by the 

FAA will further enhance aviation safety in the New York City-Hudson 

River airspace. These announced steps take advantage of 

established industry practices already in place and well known to 

pilots that regularly operate within that busy airspace. The new 

safety procedures in the low-level airspace over the Hudson River are 

reasonable and workable and our members are committed to these 

efforts.

In addition to the important analysis work done on aviation accidents 

and incidents, it is also vital that we continue to maximize the vast 

operational data collected by the FAA, NTSB, aviation manufacturers 

and operators to drive future safety enhancements and improve 

accident prevention. This analytical data often contains trends which 

are important in identifying risks and capturing behaviors which can 

contribute to aviation accidents. This knowledge is vital in assisting 

industry and government efforts to improve aviation safety. 
Action Key to Improved Safety

The FAA will soon issue a detailed rulemaking proposal to 

incorporate these airspace safety proposals into regulation. We look 

forward to reviewing the proposed rulemaking and being an active 

and constructive stakeholder in the regulatory process.

NBAA would also like to take this opportunity to urge FAA to 

implement several pending proposals that we believe would further 

enhance aviation safety.

Nearly five years ago, an industry working group (The Part 135 and 

125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee) chartered by the FAA--and 

which I chaired--submitted extensive recommendations for regulatory 

changes that would update and strengthen safety for FAR Part 

135/125 industry. These recommendations covered a multitude of 

subjects including basic requirements for flying commercially, 

updates to pilot duty and rest requirements, enhanced training for 

commercial pilots, revised aircraft maintenance requirements and role 

of very light jets (VLJ’s) in on-demand charter operations--all of which 

that would significantly improve safety. Unfortunately, the Agency 

has not acted on those recommendations to date. A copy of those 

recommendations and the transmittal letter are attached to my 

testimony. 

Over the years, NBAA has consistently welcomed the opportunity to 

support FAA efforts that seek to improve aviation safety. We have 

committed significant time, energy and resources to these projects 

only to have the products of our effort languish with no improvements 

in safety. While we understand that the FAA faces resource 

limitations like the rest of us, it is frustrating to continue to support 

these FAA projects without any clear understanding whether the 

agency will implement the final recommendations.
In the interest of continued improvement in aviation safety, NBAA and 

our members will always strive to lead, not follow. We look forward to 

working with this Subcommittee, and the other government and 

industry stakeholders to keep safety as our number one priority. 

NBAA appreciates the opportunity to provide our comments to the 

Subcommittee today. Thank you.
Part 135 and 125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee

c/o J. Hennig (GAMA)

1400 K Street, NW Suite 801

Washington, DC 20005

Phone (202) 393-1500

September 7, 2005

The Honorable Marion C. Blakey

Office of the Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave., SW, Suite 1010

Washington, DC 20591

Dear Administrator Blakey:

I am writing you as the Chair of the Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC) and as the representative of the diverse group of close to 200 participants from the 

operator community, unions, trade associations, government, and manufacturers who 

supported the ARC. With this letter and the accompanying electronic material, the ARC 

submits its recommendations to you.

During the 27 months which the ARC worked we came to recognize the breadth of 

operations that are included in Parts 135 and 125 ranging from traditional passenger 

charter flights, to operators that support rural Alaska with fuel, those who transport 

professional sports teams, all-cargo carriers, aeromedical flights, and more. Each of these 

operations represents an important segment of the air transportation industry, but also 

unique needs and requirements from a safety and regulatory perspective. When reviewing 

the ARC’s recommendations you will see that we have accommodated all communities 

and provided targeted safety improvements tailored to their operating structure, aircraft, 

size and environment. 

We also looked at the possible future operating environments. For Part 135 this includes 

the entry into service of very light jets (VLJ), use of advanced cockpit equipment to 

improve safety and enhance aircraft utility, and the use of airships for transportation of 

cargo. Our recommendations address the operation and certification requirements to 

support the scenarios that are envisioned. 

The ARC was also tasked with streamlining regulations. Our biggest initiative in this 

area focused on training regulations. Our recommendations provide an opportunity for 

the FAA to propose a new process for timely updates of training standards to make them 

applicable to current and future operations. 
The ARC additionally provides a complete rewrite of subpart F, which covers 

crewmember flight time and duty periods as well as rest requirements. Unlike the 

scheduled environment, Parts 135 and 125 include dynamic operations with unique 

requirements to ensure the safety of crews and passengers. We believe that our majorityendorsed recommendation will accomplish our goal of improving the safety of ondemand operations while providing both the operator and crew opportunity to proactively 

manage fatigue.

Included with this letter you will find a CD which contains over 140 recommendation 

documents addressing Parts 1, 23, 25, 61, 91, 119, 125, and 135. These documents 

capture group discussion and decisions on key issues affecting this industry. 

Additionally, the CD contains draft NPRM documents which include preamble and 

proposed rule language to support the recommendations.

I would also like to recognize the hard work and leadership of the workgroup chairs. The 

groups and workgroup chairs are:

- Aero Medical Workgroup, Ken Javorski of CJ Systems Aviation

- Airships Workgroup, Ron Hochstetler

- Airworthiness Workgroup, Walter Desrosier of GAMA, and Brian Finnegan 

of PAMA

- Equipment and Technology, Dick Solar of Honeywell

- Flight Duty and Rest Subgroup to Operation, Doug Carr of NBAA

- Operations Workgroup, Dave Hewitt of NetJets, Inc

- Rotorcraft Workgroup, Mike Hurst of Petroleum Helicopters

- Training Workgroup, Bill Campbell of CAE SimuFlite

Finally, I want to communicate that the members of the ARC are available to assist you 

and your staff as you consider the material. I would also like to thank you for again 

showing leadership in creating this Aviation Rulemaking Committee to conduct a 

regulatory review of Parts 135 and 125.

Sincerely,

Ed Bolen

President and CEO, NBAA

Enclosures (provided electronically):

Executive Summary

Recommendation Documents

Draft NPRM Documents
Cc: Nicholas A. Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, AVS-1

James J. Ballough, Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1

Anthony F. Fazio, Director, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1

Katherine Perfetti, National Resource Specialist Part 135

Jens C. Hennig, ARC Coordinator/Manger of Operations, GAMA
Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee

Overview of ARC Process and Activities

The Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) was chartered by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on February 3, 2003 when the agency issued a Notice of 

Regulatory Review. The notice solicited membership and also requested comments to 

be submitted to the docket by June 3, 2003. In response to the first request for 

comments and requests for membership 97 issue documents were submitted by the 

public. On July 17, 2003 the FAA reissued the request for comment with a deadline of 

November 18, 2003 for submission of comments to be considered by the Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee.

The issues submitted to the docket were divided up among eight workgroups 

organized around aeromedical operations (AER), airworthiness and maintenance 

(AWG), applicability (APP), airships (AIR), equipment and technology (EQU), operations 

(OPS), rotorcraft operations (ROT), and training (TRA). 

The ARC met as a full committee three times in 2003 and four times in 2004. 

Each meeting lasted three days and took place in the Washington, DC area. In addition 

to the full ARC meetings, a number of the workgroups also held separate meetings. 

These meetings included multiple meetings of the operations committee’s subgroup on 

flight, duty and rest; meetings by the airworthiness group addressing certification 

standards for high-performance part 23 airplanes; and extra meetings by the applicability 

group to look at large airplane operations in parts 135 and 125. 

The aviation rulemaking committee’s work was facilitated by using an on-line 

Knowledge Sharing Network (KSN) that enabled all ARC participants to review and 

comment work performed by the ARC both within its own group and in other group. 

In addition to holding meetings in concurrence with each full ARC meeting, the 

Steering Committee held a three-day meeting in February 2005. Following the final 

Steering Committee meeting, the workgroup chairs coordinated the final document 

during the spring and early summer 2005 using E-mail and the KSN. The final 

documents were circulated to the full ARC using the KSN and then submitted to the FAA 

on September 7, 2005. The final recommendation included a letter of submission from 

the ARC Chair and accompanying CD-ROM with the ARC Recommendations and draft 

NPRM material. 
ARC Tasking and Decisions

The tasking from the FAA to the ARC was to:

(a) Resolve current issues affecting this part of the industry.

(b) Enable new aircraft types, size and design and new technologies in air 

transportation operations.

(c) Provide safety and applicability standards that reflect the current industry, 

industry trends and emerging technologies and operations.

(d) Address international harmonization and ICAO standards.

(e) Potentially rescind part 125 from 14 Code of Federal Regulations.

Each workgroup submitted recommendations to the FAA which were coordinated 

through the Steering Committee, which had final approval on each document. Each 

recommendation received a vote which resulted in one of the following 

recommendations: 

(1) full consensus recommendation: All committee members approved of the 

recommendation; 

(2) a general consensus: All committee members approved or could live with the 

recommendation; 

(3) no consensus: One or several committee members disagreed with the 

recommendations and these committee members were given an opportunity to provide a 

dissenting opinion to the recommendation. All dissenting opinions were the 

responsibility of the individual dissenting committee member to draft and provide for 

inclusion in the final recommendation to the FAA. 

Prior to the final submission to the FAA, the complete recommendation package 

was distributed to the full Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee for comment to 

ensure that all issues had been properly captured and that all dissenting opinions had 

been submitted. 

A summary of each workgroups set of recommendations follows. However, all 

decisions and discussions should be referenced to the Recommendation Documents 

which hold the final and complete recommendation. In this Executive Summary, the 

workgroups are listed in order: Applicability, Aeromedical, Airships, Airworthiness, 

Equipment and Technology, Operations, Rotorcraft, and Training:

Applicability Workgroup
The applicability workgroup was made up of over 60 active participants. The 

committee’s main focus was the proposal to rescind part 125 and respond to issues 

concerning the type of operation permitted in parts 135 and 91. 

One of the main tasks given to the ARC by the FAA was to determine whether to 

rescind part 125. The committee started by familiarizing itself with the type of operators 

that currently reside within Part 125. These include private operations of large airplanes 

(which often operate under an exemption under 91), corporations flying large airplanes 

for sports teams, companies that transport parts for automotive manufacturers, fuel 

haulers in Alaska, and several other unique communities. The applicability group 

determined that this diverse group of operators does not fit into any other operating part, 

which is similar to statements made in the preamble to the original part 125 rulemaking 

in 1978. Therefore, the applicability group recommended, and the steering committee 

agreed, that it would not be appropriate to rescind part 125, but instead the applicability 

group should define the applicability of 125 and improve the safety regulations that 

apply. The resulting recommendation defines applicability of part 125 by providing set 

economic and scope limits to private carriage for hire operations and provides changes 

to 91 subpart F to accommodate completely private operation of large airplanes and also 

provides targeted safety improvements for both sections.

The group also considered a proposal for increasing the payload capacity of part 

135 cargo-only operations from the current 7,500 pounds to 18,000 pounds, which would 

enable moving certain current operators from part 125 into 135. A recommendation was 

developed for increased payload capacity and is being submitted to the FAA without full 

consensus. 

The applicability group also considered the expected emergence of very light jets

(VLJs) as an important segment within the part 135 on-demand community and possibly 

even the part 135 scheduled operator community. Based on these two possible market 

entries, the applicability group felt it important that it follow FAA’s guidance to the ARC 

and ―[e]nable new aircraft types, size and design and new technologies in air 

transportation operations.‖ The applicability group provided a consensus proposal for the 

introduction of scheduled turbojet operations by aircraft with less than 9 seats under part 

135. However, there was no consensus on whether scheduled operations under part 

135 in turbojet airplanes should by with a single or dual crew, but a majority proposal 

was provided. The group did provide extensive recommendations on how on-demand 

operations in very light jets should be conducted single pilot, which is currently permitted 
under 135.105 regulations. Additional recommendations were provided by the 

Airworthiness group on certification standards for part 23 jets and high performance 

airplanes.

The applicability group also worked to address the issue of brokers acting as 

charter operators and define scheduled operations. The group worked closely with the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) and based on early recommendations by the ARC, 

the DOT issued broker guidance titled ―Notice on the Role of Air Charter Brokers in 

Arranging Air Transportation‖ on October 18, 2004. 

Aero-medical Workgroup

The aero-medical workgroup defined the status of medical crew during operations. The 

proper definition of medical crew is critical, since one of the most common scenarios in 

aero-medical operations is the transportation of patients from outlying hospitals to higher 

care facilities for which helipads the industry has developed several hundred private 

GPS approaches. With the exception of two of these pads, none are served by an 

approved weather source. The generally accepted method of accessing these facilities 

is for an air-ambulance to depart the metropolitan area under part 91 and conduct the 

GPS approach to the hospital pad. (Part 91 does not require weather reporting at the 

destination.) The air-ambulance then departs the helipad with a patient under Part 135 

utilizing exemption 6175 (permitting the departure to be made under IFR provided the 

pilot’s observations indicate the prevailing weather is above VFR minima). The 

approach to the metropolitan area may be conducted to an airport with approved 

weather reporting or more likely to a hospital helipad within the class D airspace of an 

airport with weather reporting and for which the operation is approved by operations 

specification.

There are several current interpretations that require the outbound leg to be 

conducted under Part 135 and thereby preclude the inherently safer IFR operation. The 

aero-medical group’s proposal would modify 119.4 to exclude from Part 135 airambulance operations without a patient on board by changing the status of medical 

crew.

The group also expanded the applicability of eligible on-demand, making it 

applicable to more air-ambulance operations, since most do not support two-pilot crews. 

By the current definition, a single pilot crew may not be considered as ―eligible‖. For the 

same reasons as stated above, the workgroup proposed to allow, under certain 
circumstances, a single-pilot air-ambulance crew to be included in the 135.4 definition of 

eligible on-demand crew.

The committee also believes that increased use Night Vision Goggles (NVGs) in 

aero-medical operations will provide a significant benefit to safety. Part 61 does not 

recognize ―aided‖ as a condition of flight nor does it impose any currency requirements 

on these operations. The aero-medical group’s proposal incorporates in Part 61 

currency requirements for the use of NVGs and defines in Part 135 the conditions under 

which they may be used to meet the requirements of 135.207 (helicopter lighted surface 

reference) and 135.229 (lighted helipad requirement).

Finally, the aero-medical group proposed a clarification to 135.128 for approved 

child restraint systems specifically applicable to air-ambulance patients under the age of 

two.

Airships Workgroup

The airship working group provided a proposal for how airships can better be 

integrated into the NAS and how those types of operations, especially those by possible 

future large cargo airships should be regulated by the FAA. The airship workgroup 

provided a complete set of recommendations to part 1, 61, 91 135 to enable these types 

of operations.

Airworthiness and Maintenance Workgroup

The Airworthiness and Maintenance workgroup (AWG) was tasked to review the 

maintenance regulations and airworthiness certification requirements as related to parts 

125 and 135 for currency, applicability, safety, and adequacy for ―large‖ airplane 

operations such as intercontinental business jets and airplanes with modified payload 

capacity. It was also tasked to look at new airplane operations proposed by the ARC 

such as all-cargo airplanes with payload in excess of 7,500lbs and turbine-powered 

airplanes in commuter scheduled service.

When reviewing current maintenance requirements, the AWG determined that 

part 125 and part 135.411(a)(2) continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP) 

requirements for large aircraft are appropriate and adequate based on their technical 

merit and the overall safety record. However, the group determined that airplane 

passenger seating configuration is no longer an appropriate method of differentiating 

between complex and less complex airplanes. Current business airplanes are not
configured with the maximum passenger seating potential and the correlation between 

aircraft size and aircraft complexity is not likely to hold true as new technologies and 

performance capabilities are introduced into a broader range of general aviation 

airplanes. In addition, 135 accident data raises questions regarding the adequacy of 

maintenance requirements for piston and turboprop airplanes which are nearly all small 

‖less-complex‖ airplanes. From a strategic perspective and considering the entire Part 

135 regulation and scope of current and future operations, the AWG recommends that a 

single flexible maintenance program standard for Part 135 be established which could 

address the multiple of levels and factors that comprise aircraft complexity as well as 

operational complexity. Since the membership of the 135ARC and AWG did not include 

operators of small piston and turboprop airplanes, the AWG recommends that FAA form 

a 135 Maintenance Aviation Rulemaking Committee (135MARC) with the appropriate 

membership required to develop a new 135 maintenance program standard. 

From a tactical perspective and to address the specific tasking to consider

maintenance and inspection program requirements appropriate for ―large‖ airplanes as 

well as new airplane operations proposed by the ARC, the AWG recommends that all 

aircraft with a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 50,000lbs or more be maintained in 

accordance with a CAMP. The AWG also recommends that the two new types of 

operations that the ARC proposes to introduce into part 135; all-cargo airplanes with a 

payload in excess of 7,500lbs and turbine-powered airplanes in commuter scheduled 

service; be maintained in accordance with a 135.411(a)(2) CAMP which is consistent 

with the requirements of equivalent operations currently conducted under part 121.

Regarding Maintenance Training Requirements – Part 135 operators with a 

CAMP currently ―have a training program‖ for persons performing maintenance 

functions. However, current regulations and guidance do not adequately establish the 

minimum standards for maintenance training programs which have resulted in significant 

variations in the level of training provided among operators. The NTSB has repeatedly 

recommended that air carrier maintenance training programs be approved by FAA to 

ensure that they are appropriate for the type of aircraft and type of operation. The AWG 

recommends that all part 135 air carriers have a maintenance training program and that 

operators with a CAMP must have an FAA approved training program. This would be 

consistent with the recent re-write of part 145 which requires all repair stations to have 

an employee training program approved by the FAA. In fact, a recent report supporting 

the new part 145 training requirement which discusses changes in the quality and 
background of mechanics, changes in industry, changing technology and inconsistency 

in FAA oversight would be equally applicable to part 135 operations.

Finally, the group recognized that existing part 23 regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards for turbojet airplanes which, up until now, have 

been addressed through special conditions, exemptions, and equivalent levels of safety.

The AWG therefore recommends changes to part 23 airworthiness standards 

appropriate for turbojet airplanes with consideration of operation in part 135 commuter 

service and Very Light Jets.

Equipment and Technology Workgroup:

The Equipment and Technology workgroup was tasked with making recommendations 

regarding part 135 and 125 equipment issues. The group made recommendations in the 

following areas:

Regarding Mode S – The workgroup reviewed whether Mode S requirement was

still needed for efficient air traffic management. The workgroup agreed that the FAA 

continues to make slow, but nonetheless, steady progress regarding the use of Mode S 

in the future Air Traffic Network. The workgroup initially considered eliminating the 

requirement for Mode S in aircraft not required to be equipped with TCAS II, however, it 

felt this position ignored the fact that the FAA is continuing to make progress integrating 

Mode S into the ATN. The workgroup reached a consensus that the current rules 

pertaining to Mode S should remain as written. The FAA should continue to provide 

exemptions to operators of aircraft not required to be equipped with TCAS II until such 

time that Mode S/ADS-B is integrated into the ATN and can offer safety and operational 

benefits to operators and the FAA.

The Equipment and Technology also group worked closely with the Rotorcraft 

and Aero-medical groups to mature a recommendation on Night Vision Goggles 

resulting in the consensus recommendation submitted by the Aero-medical working 

group. 

The committee was also asked to review a request for use of combination 

recorders CVR-FDR in rotorcraft instead of the current requirement for dedicated 

(individual) CVR and FDR units. The workgroup provided a proposal for permitting the 

use of combi-recorders on rotorcraft.

The workgroup also conducted a thorough review of terminology. This review 

showed that some of the terminology needed to be updated to reflect current technology 
and operations. The Equipment and Technology workgroup reviewed parts 23, 25, 27, 

29, 91, 121, 125, and 135 and recommended changes as described in the 

recommendation document.

Finally, the Equipment and Technology workgroup was asked by the 

Airworthiness workgroup to look into the feasibility of permitting datalink weather 

information in place of traditional weather radar and thunderstorm detection systems. 

Datalink weather is a rapidly growing technology and in the future may offer the same 

level and quality of weather information to the pilot as traditional weather radar and 

thunderstorm detection systems. The workgroup proposed enabling language in a 

recommendation item that would permit the use of datalink weather systems in place of 

traditional weather radar and thunderstorm detection systems. 

Operations Workgroup:

The Operations workgroup (OPS) was comprised of approximately 70 members at the 

beginning of the process and was well represented from all facets of industry and also 

included several FAA personnel. The workgroup considered 80 issue papers during its 

meetings and all but one were resolved in some manner.

Regarding Flight, Duty, and Rest Requirements – This subject required the 

development of a subgroup which held four meetings and reaching majority approval of 

draft language to replace Subpart F of Part 135. The proposed language permits three 

options to ensure that crewmembers are provided adequate opportunity for sleep. 

Option one is a prescriptive set of rules similar to those currently in force. 

However, significant effort was made to modify those rules, generally to be more 

restrictive in nature, and to recognize the latest fatigue science and to close ―loopholes‖ 

in the current rules.

Option two is a rule set that permits the certificate holder to vary when a duty 

assignment may be made but ensures that crewmembers are given an opportunity for 

sleep at the same time every day. The subgroup believes this is a significant 

breakthrough in how to treat fatigue in a business that is by definition ―on-demand‖.

Option three is an allowance for a certificate holder to develop and implement an 

―Alertness Management Program‖ in lieu of the requirements of Subpart F. The 

subgroup recognizes that no guidance material exists to describe the requirements of 

this type of program and recommends that a separate ARC be convened specifically for 

that issue as it applies to Part 135 operations.
A minority opinion was provided to the flight duty and rest proposal. The minority 

believes the proposal would unacceptably increase the hours of availability and the 

hours of work assignable to pilots employed by on-demand operators resulting in a 

degradation of safety compared to the existing rule. The minority position is that 

additional training on fatigue dangers provided to flight crews through mechanisms such 

as ―Alertness Management Initiatives‖ has the potential to increase safety, provided that 

information and any such procedures are used only as a supplement to prescriptive 

limits and not as a replacement or means to extend or circumvent quantitative maximum 

regulatory limits. The minority offered an alternative proposal for Subpart F.

Regarding Part 135 Flight Attendants – The operations workgroup recognized 

that the current Part 135 rules do not address current practice by industry of the use of 

flight attendants (nomenclature varies) in aircraft that are not required to have a flight 

attendant per the rule. This has created a significant void on how to treat these 

individuals from a regulatory perspective and has lead to diverse interpretation by the 

FAA at the field level. To address this issue, and to recognize the unique nature of the 

Part 135 industry and the individuals involved, the operations workgroup proposes to 

create two categories of crewmembers that are assigned duties in the cabin. The first is 

a Cabin Safety Crewmember (CSC), a position that is analogous to a flight attendant but 

specifically recognizes that individual’s safety contribution to a flight. The CSC must be 

trained and tested per an approved training program. The second is a Passenger 

Service Specialist (PSS). This individual would not be permitted to perform safety 

related functions and training would be specific to the duties assigned. The passenger 

briefing requirements of Part 135 would be modified to require that the briefing include 

the status of a CSC or PSS.

Regarding the Use of Child Restraints – With dissenting opinions, the operations 

workgroup provided a recommendation that, for infants under 24 months of age not 

provided a passenger seat, the parent or guardian may utilize any kind of restraint 

(except the use of the same seat belt) to assist in protecting the child. A great deal of 

quality research was done regarding this issue and it is seen as an incremental increase 

in safety with minimal cost. In short, some protection, while not perfect, is far better than 

no protection at all. The workgroup reviewed previous FAA positions on this issue, 

specifically the ―diversion principle‖ and finds that this is not applicable to Part 135 

operations. The necessity to restrain an infant will not result in the child being 
transported by a less safe means (automobile) due to the nature and expense of typical 

Part 135 operations.

The operations workgroup was asked to review an NTSB recommendation 

regarding Part 135 activity reporting and provide a recommendation to the FAA for its 

implementation. The primary barrier to resolution was the detail required to be reported. 

Industry was quite concerned that the requirements to report would become overly 

burdensome and result in ―guesstimates‖ rather than useful data. Others felt that very 

detailed data was required to produce a meaningful picture of Part 135 activity. All did 

agree on one thing – the level of detail proposed by NTSB was overly onerous and 

reflected limited knowledge of the Part 135 industry. Therefore, the committee 

recommended, with one dissenting opinion, that the FAA require that operators provide 

total hours flown to the FAA at a frequency of one time per year with some additional 

fidelity of the type of operation.

Regarding the requirements for the ―exclusive use‖ of an aircraft currently 

prescribed in the regulations, the operations workgroup recommended that this 

requirement be modified to allow an aircraft management or lease agreement to meet 

the requirements of ―exclusive use‖ of an aircraft. The current rule was designed to 

inhibit new certificate holders and is based on the business model of the 1970’s wherein 

certificate holders typically owned or exclusively leased their aircraft. That is the 

exception to the rule in the current business environment where most aircraft are owned 

by other companies and leased to a Part 135 certificate holder for Part 135 flights.

Finally, regarding pilot oxygen requirements the workgroup recommended that

this rule be modified to bring it into harmony with Part 91 and Part 121 requirements.