Bill Overview
Title: Helicopter Passenger Protection Act
Description: This bill requires that certain rotorcraft manufactured before April 5, 2020, comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements relating to fuel system crash resistance. The requirement does not apply to an unmanned aircraft that does not carry occupants. The bill also allows a tax credit equal to 10% of the costs of making changes to a fuel system in an emergency medical rotorcraft to comply with certain requirements for fuel system crash resistance.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: Helicopter passengers globally
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The primary target population is helicopter passengers. This includes individuals using helicopters as a means of transportation, such as tourists, business travelers, or public service users.
- The bill specifically targets rotorcraft manufactured before April 5, 2020, which implies it affects an older segment of the helicopter fleet.
- Changes must be made to comply with crash resistance standards, impacting those on board in terms of safety enhancements.
- Owners and operators of these helicopters will also be affected, as they are responsible for updating their fleet to comply with the new fuel system standards.
Reasoning
- The Helicopter Passenger Protection Act aims to enhance the safety of helicopter flights by enforcing crash-resistant fuel systems in older rotorcraft. The policy is designed to affect passengers who use helicopters across various sectors, particularly those engaged in regular flights such as urban commuters, medical patients using air ambulances, and tourists. With a significant budget, it allocates funds both for compliance and to ease the financial burden on operators through tax credits.
- Given that the U.S. has a substantial number of helicopters and flights, approximately 1 million Americans could be directly impacted. This includes improvements in safety perceptions and actual risk mitigation for passengers, which can improve their well-being and security on flights.
- We have accounted for diversity in helicopter usage - from recreational flights to essential public services like medical transport. The policy emphasis on pre-2020 manufactured rotorcraft means there will likely be a larger impact on businesses operating older fleets, including potential financial pressures for modernization.
- Our interviews reflect a range of potential effects, including individuals who are lightly impacted due to infrequent helicopter use, and those who are deeply impacted such as frequent travelers and industry stakeholders. Additionally, since not all rotorcraft may be feasibly updated, some interviews illustrate scenarios of no impact.
- Finally, our simulated interviews reflect median and extreme scenarios within the American demographic that uses helicopter services, based on usage patterns, occupation, and possible changes in public perception of helicopter safety.
Simulated Interviews
Tourist Guide (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for improving safety standards, but I worry about the costs for small tour operators.
- I hope the tax credit will offset enough of the cost that it won't affect ticket prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a really important move to ensure that air ambulances are as safe as possible.
- I feel more comfortable knowing that safety measures are improved even if unseen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Oil Rig Transport Coordinator (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety enhancements sound good, but operational costs are a concern for our company.
- The tax credits might help, but there's a lot to upgrade in our fleet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Recreational Pilot (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to hear about safety improvements, even if it affects older models.
- Hopefully, this policy won't increase rental costs significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Helicopter Fleet Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s a significant financial burden but vital for safety.
- My concern is the upfront cost even with tax credits. We'll have to budget tightly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Business Executive (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds reassuring for those managing older fleets.
- I'm less directly impacted since I prefer newer helicopter models.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Student (Denver, CO)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is good for safety, though I’m curious how it’ll affect rental prices.
- Ultimately improved safety is a positive step regardless.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Helicopter Mechanic (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act should increase business for us, which is good for job security.
- I feel positive about enhancing safety, especially since I work on these systems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Hospital Administrator (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy enhancing patient safety is welcome, even if it means higher costs.
- We will apply for those tax credits to help with budget constraints.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
City Tour Coordinator (Orlando, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm encouraged by the focus on safety, which is great for customer trust.
- We'll need to manage costs carefully to upgrade older models.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $840000000, High: $1260000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $880000000, High: $1320000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1440000000)
Year 10: $1400000000 (Low: $1120000000, High: $1680000000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2400000000)
Key Considerations
- The wide range in estimated costs and savings reflects the variability in helicopter models and existing certification status, which could lead to different levels of required modification.
- Significant compliance costs may be unduly burdensome for small operators, leading to potential consolidation in the industry.
- The tax credit specifically for emergency medical rotorcraft may incentivize early compliance among essential service providers.