FAR 91.223, Terrain Awarenes Warning Systems

[tombuch 0]

Has anybody thought about the arrival of 91.233 on March 29, 2005? This new regulation requires a Terrain Awareness Warning System on every turbine powered airplane with more than six passenger seats. There is an exception for skydiving airplanes, but only when they are within 50 miles of the point where the operation began. That makes it easy to conduct skydiving operations without the TAWS, but what can an operator do about positioning flights? Has anybody put any thought into this issue?

§ 91.223 Terrain awareness and warning system.
(a) Airplanes manufactured after March 29, 2002. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)–C151.
(b) Airplanes manufactured on or before March 29, 2002. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, after March 29, 2005, unless that airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that as a minimum meets the requirements for Class B equipment in Technical Standard Order (TSO)–C151.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120–0631)
(c) Airplane Flight Manual. The Airplane Flight Manual shall contain appropriate procedures for—
(1) The use of the terrain awareness and warning system; and
(2) Proper flight crew reaction in response to the terrain awareness and warning system audio and visual warnings.
(d) Exceptions. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to—
(1) Parachuting operations when conducted entirely within a 50 nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operations began.
(2) Firefighting operations.
(3) Flight operations when incident to the aerial application of chemicals and other substances.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[quade 4]

Ferry waivers.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnMitchell 16]

How about doing some firefighting or cropdusting along the way?

Seriously, that will be a problem unless ferry waivers are easily available. Could you "deconfigure" the seating in the back, since it did say "configured' for six people or more? Guess this means no more riding in the jump plane to the boogies and all. How much is a GPWS?

I think new rule should apply only to aircraft operating IFR, but they don't listen to me at work. If you're daytime VFR, there should be enough visual references to avoid CFIT (controlled flight into terrain), although it does still happen. Nighttime VFR could be argued differently. Sometimes pilots crash planes no matter what you do to stop them. GPWS doesn't always prevent CFIT, either. I can think of three crashes, maybe more, where it was either ignored or was too late.

[Praetorian 1]

dont know about your otter but SDC's has no seats excluding the pilot/copilot

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[Patkat 0]

If it's got seatbelts, and it should, per the FARs, then it is configured seating. Just 'cause there ain't a chair don't mean it's not a seat. Now, if you can convince the FAA field agent those are cargo tiedowns for the purpose of ferrying a cargo of air molecules to another DZ...

Patkat
gotta exercise my demons!

[tombuch 0]

I did a bit of additional research this morning and tracked down the original NPRM, and the final rule with comments. The final rule was published in the Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 61) on March 29, 2000, and includes interesting comments along with FAA reasoning for the original rule, and the changes made in the final rule. (See: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=347845283939+6+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) While the published rule suggests that a turbine powered airplane used for skydiving should be covered by the rule when beyond 50 miles of the departure point, the FAA discussion of comments received from both the parachute industry and the cargo industry suggests otherwise.

The FAA received more than 200 unique comments, with half of those from the parachute industry, all expressing concern about the proposed rule. They also received 254 form letters from the parachute industry opposing the rule. Skydivers made a huge difference in the final rule, and special appreciation should be extended to USPA and PIA. Additional key comments were received from cargo operators, and while not directly related to parachuting, the changes generated by those comments helped us too.

The FAA agrees that skydiving should not be covered when within 50 miles of the airport of departure. So, when we are flying within 50 miles of our drop zone, we don’t need TAWS. The comments from the cargo industry related to “configured” with six or more passenger seats. The original rule applied to airplanes “type certificated” with six or more passenger seats, and was changed to “configured” so cargo operators could use airplanes certificated for passenger flight, but without seats. It appears that the intent of the regulation was to protect passengers, and not to protect airplanes. It is my interpretation of intent that the FAA would recognize a skydiving airplane on a ferry flight as a cargo airplane, as long as it is operated under part 91, and would not require TAWS.

We should understand that the final rule, as published, seems to prohibit ferry flights without TAWS, but that the intent of the rule, expressed in the FAA comments holds otherwise. It might be a good idea for operators to obtain a specific interpretation of this rule from their local GADO/FSDO as it pertains to ferry flights without passengers, but with installed seatbelts.

See selected FAA comments below, and the complete record in the Federal register.

(Page 1637-FAA Review of Comments)“…Parachute operators and parachutists say that they should be exempt from the proposed rule. They state that the nature of parachute operations makes GPWS and TAWS unnecessary. The U.S. Parachute
Association (USPA) and the Parachute Industry Association strongly object to the mandatory installation of TAWS for airplanes used in parachute operations. The following arguments are presented by the parachute industry: Parachuting is primarily a visual flight rules (VFR) activity, conducted during the day, during which terrain is always
visible and weather conditions are good. Occasionally, parachute operators fly in instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions, e.g., to ferry an airplane, but these
operations are performed with no passengers. Parachuting is primarily done in the proximity of the departure airport (usually within a 10-mile radius) and the pilots are
familiar with the obstacles and terrain features around their home fields. Parachutists are the passengers in these airplanes (not the traveling public, which the proposed rule is seeking to protect). These airplanes are used only as a means for the parachutists to get to altitude for jumping. Parachute operations have not been associated with CFIT accidents. Some commenters state that the NPRM cites no such accidents in parachute operations. Therefore, the commenters do not believe GPWS
or TAWS would have made a difference in the outcomes of any accidents involving parachute operations. USPA and other commenters from the parachute industry go on to say that since TAWS would provide no safety benefit to parachute operations, they should not have to bear the cost of installing TAWS on these airplanes. Some commenters add that these costs would be especially burdensome to small operators who already have a very small profit margin, which could result in their going out of business. Several commenters believe that the cost of installing TAWS on turbine-
powered airplanes used in parachute operations could result in some operators switching back to using older and smaller non-turbine airplanes, which would have a negative effect on the growth and safety of the parachute industry.
The FAA agrees with the commenters. Parachute and skydiving operations are unique in that operations are conducted under VFR conditions, in close proximity to the home field, with constant reference to the ground. Furthermore, there are only a small number of airplanes involved in these types of operations. The FAA has changed Sec. 91.223 in the final rule to exclude airplanes when used for parachute operations and operated within 50 miles of the home airport…”


(Page 1638-FAA Review of Comments)“…Federal Express believes that airplanes type-certificated as cargo airplanes that do not carry passengers should not be required to
install TAWS as proposed by the NPRM. Federal Express also believes that the Fokker airplanes, which were converted from a passenger to a cargo-only configuration, should not have been covered by the NPRM. Federal Express requests the FAA to amend the NPRM to expressly exclude cargo-only airplanes.
The FAA agrees with the commenters' recommendations that the equipment requirements be determined by the number of seats. The FAA has changed the final rule in Secs. 91.223 and 135.154 so that the words ``type-certificated to have six or more passenger seats'' are changed to ``configured with six or more passenger seats.''
In response to Federal Express and others who state that passenger-carrying planes converted to cargo planes should not have to comply with the rule, the FAA partially agrees in that if the airplane (cargo carrying or not) is configured with fewer than 6 passenger seats and is operating under part 91, then TAWS is not required. However, for operations conducted under part 121 (cargo carrying or not), TAWS is required regardless of the number of passenger seats. Under existing rules, the FAA requires GPWS for part 121 regardless of the number of seats and is continuing to maintain the same safety standard….”

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[quade 4]

Quote

It might be a good idea for operators to obtain a specific interpretation of this rule from their local GADO/FSDO as it pertains to ferry flights without passengers, but with installed seatbelts.

But then you end up with a patchwork of local interps.

Why not just write up your opinion in the form of a question to the FAA Office of Legal Counsel (I believe that's Air Worthiness Law Branch, AGC-210 in this instance) and get an official and nation-wide interp?

http://www.faa.gov/agc/AGC%20Regulations.htm

Or are we better off not contacting anyone and waiting until the first guy gets busted?

Probably, but I hate the concept of it just floating out there.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

We should understand that the final rule, as published, seems to prohibit ferry flights without TAWS, but that the intent of the rule, expressed in the FAA comments holds otherwise.

I've seen two types of "ferry" flights, those that are for repositioning an aircraft, and those that are to take an aircraft with a mechanical problem back to a maintenace facility. The second type of ferry flight would indicate that not having a certain piece of equipment, or not having it in working condition, is permissable on a non revenue ferry flight. Whether or not this will be permitted for the repositioning of jump aircraft is my question.

Thanks for the info on this, Tom. I do agree that this needs to be addressed at a national level. We don't need a bunch of local FSDO's giving their "interpretation" to something. Sometimes they'll just say "no" because it's the easiest.