contacting current and past employ- ers for new-hire pilot records, which may be incomplete or unavailable. The Consistency of Regulatory Interpretation ARC addressed the problem of FAA regulatory interpretations, which are often inconsistently applied by the Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) throughout the country. The com- mittee developed comprehensive recommendations to reform the guidance process to limit variation and establish protocols to quickly address inconsistencies when they oc- cur. The Flight Crew Training Hours ARC, concentrated on optimal pilot training methods, hours and testing/ checking requirements, made numer- ous recommendations to improve training for Part 135 air carrier pilots, while remaining mindful of the varied size, scope and types of operations conducted by on-demand carriers. Also on the regulatory front, NATA successfully prevented the FAA from upending years of prior legal inter- pretations by applying FAR Part 121 crew rest requirements to charter operators. NATA successfully ex- plained to Members of Congress that the one-size-fits all solution sought by the FAA would be incompatible with the operational differences between a scheduled carrier and an air taxi, which flies only on-demand. This was accomplished as part of FAA Aviation Business Journal | 4th Quarter 2015 reauthorization legis- lation in 2012, which required the agency to maintain the prior interpretations spe- cific to Part 135 and to pursue via rulemaking any desired changes to FAR Part 135 rules. Since 9/11, NATA has worked with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to enhance security, yet maintain the freedom to fly. NATA announced an agree- ment with the TSA in December 2014 to expand its “Known Crewmember Program” to include pilots and flight attendants at FAR Part 125 and Part 135 charter operations. Originally established in 2011 to speed FAR Part 121 airline crews through the airport security screening process, the Known Crewmember Program literally cuts the screening times to an average of 15 seconds thanks to a web-based system that provides updated information on each crew- member’s current employment status, along with an electronic photo ID, on a 24/7 basis. Together with the Airline Pilots Association and Airlines for America, NATA accomplished this significant change for charter carriers. Another security-related issue of concern to NATA has been the continued restricted access to DCA by general aviation since 9/11. While access by general aviation aircraft has gradually improved with the addi- tion of more authorized “gateway” airports, some restrictions remain in place. Among the more onerous is the requirement for aircraft to fly directly from a gateway airport and carry an armed law enforcement person. To make further access improvements, NATA works with the TSA under the agency’s DCA Access Security Program (DASSP), part of its Aviation Security Advisory Committee. NATA Regional & Local Partner As vigorous as NATA’s ad- vocacy for general aviation has been on the national government level, the association continues to work tirelessly for its mem- bers at the state and local level. In 2011, NATA scored a major victory when Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation to continue to exempt flight schools in California from regulation by the state’s Bureau of Private Post-Secondary Education. State legislation, as proposed in 2010, would have ended the exemption of flight training providers from regula- tion by the bureau. NATA, however, convinced the legislature that flight training was a unique business, and differed sharply from the for- profit brick and mortar vocational schools the bureau was established to regulate. Had the exemption ended, the flight schools would have been saddled with huge regulatory compliance costs, and, according to NATA’s testimony, as many as 80-90 percent would have shut down. In another development unfold- ing at the same time, a lawsuit was launched in 2011 against FBOs and fuel distributors in California regard- ing leaded aviation gasoline (avgas) sales. The suit, brought by a group called the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), cited potential health hazards from the use of avgas, and sought to impose penalties and fines Continued on page 26 25
