SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION!

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by Arlen

Go to the EAA site and send letters to your Congress people: http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/

Done

Please add a personal couple of sentence at the very beginning to explain why YOU want their support. Not sure how much it helps but it ought to catch their attention more then if it all just a canned letter.

[Squeak]

Got this today after emailing supporting this legislation..

February 26, 2015
Dear Mr. Schnarr,
I am writing to update you on my efforts in support of general aviators. Like you, I believe that federal regulations should protect the safety of general aviators and their passengers while not being overly burdensome.
With the goal of simplifying regulations for individual aviators, I helped introduce S. 573, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2015 on February 25, 2015. If enacted into law, this legislation would allow pilots of small aircraft in the United States to operate without medical certification or proof of health if they possess a valid driver's license and adhere to aircraft size, weight, altitude, speed, and passenger capacity restrictions. This bill is pending before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I am hopeful that it will soon reach the Senate floor for a vote.
In addition, on September 2, 2014, I joined ten colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx and Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan urging the Administration to carry out an expedited review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to modernize third-class medical requirements for small aircraft pilots, based on the lessons learned from the 2004 sport pilot rule. The letter asks that the review quickly be completed so that the proposal can be released for public comment as soon as possible and urges the Administration to prioritize and expedite this reform and others, which would lower unnecessary barriers to the general aviation community.
It is a privilege to represent you and all Hoosiers in the Senate. Your continued correspondence is welcome and helps me to better represent our state. I encourage you to write, call, or email if my office can ever be of assistance. You can also check out my Facebook page and follow me on Twitter by visiting my website.
Joe Donnelly
United States Senator

[flyingriki]

Here is another wording on the 180 days:

"...there is also a provision to allow pilots to fly under the new rules 180 days after enactment if the agency fails to update its policies."

Wonder which one is correct?

[Jack Tyler]

An aviation lobbyist recently pointed out to me that, with special interest legislation, emails and letters won't hurt but they won't have much impact unless the author is 'well known' and has some influence. The reason is that they just get tallied on some staffer's daily correspondence report.

For our opinions to have impact, the two ways to express support are to a) call the legislator's District or Washington office and speak to a staffer (not just leave a recorded message, which also gets 'tabulated' and forgotten) and/or b) drop by the District office, register on the Visitor's Log and speak with a staffer. The lobbyist bet me $5 that, if I did either, I wouldn't find a staffer who knew more about GA than I did, and I'm just a PPL and airplane owner. So far, I owe him $5...

Either a) or b) will take more of our time. But how many aviation-related issues deserve more of a pilot's time & effort?

Jack

[Don]

Originally Posted by flyingriki

Here is another wording on the 180 days:

"...there is also a provision to allow pilots to fly under the new rules 180 days after enactment if the agency fails to update its policies."

Wonder which one is correct?

That wording is what I believe the Bill intends to accomplish. Congress is saying to the FAA, either you implement this within 180 days or by default it becomes the law of the land. The only additional comment I'd add to this is, drafting regulations, getting public comments (even if you plan to ignore them) and going through all the hoops often takes more than 180 days. So, regulations could come latter and Mike's fear could be realized - folks with SI could be able to fly 180 days after the Bill passes (assuming it passes) and then not be able to fly when the FAA's regulations come in to effect, if those regulations prevents covering folks with SI medicals.

My advice would be push for the legislation to pass congress and then watch carefully for any FAA "Notice of Intended Regulatory Action". If the FAA publishes a NOIRA, then read the regulation carefully and comment accordingly. My guess is the FAA won't single out SI medicals...but that's just a guess.

[Mike S]

Originally Posted by Don

My guess is the FAA won't single out SI medicals...but that's just a guess.

I happen to remember when sport pilot was enacted, and how the FAA snuck in the rotten egg at the last moment--------if you had had a medical denied, then no sport pilot for you. Thousands of pilots were betrayed by the FAA at the last second, and without any warning or chance to discuss/derail this vile action of the FAA making a last desperate grab to hold onto whatever shred of power they could..

They ------the FAA------have shown that they can not be trusted to act in our favor, and I firmly believe that the case of SI could become the rotten egg of the current proposed legislation.

If it is left out that SI pilots will also be able to fly without the medical, then there is no way to actually know what the FAA will do, and I for one do not trust them to pass up this particular piece of low hanging fruit.

So, how much do you trust the FAA bureaucrats go let go of their power??

[Sig600]

Someone educate me... (third class medical not withstanding... yay!)

Unless something has changed over the years that I didn't notice, when were private pilots ever restricted from operating an aircraft >6K #'s, with more than 6 seats, or capable of >250 knots?

This sounds like a step back unless I'm missing something...

[Mike S]

The original proposal (s) limited a few things, like speed and weight, and passengers-------and left out IFR.

The new proposal addresses these items.

[Sig600]

Originally Posted by Mike S

The original proposal (s) limited a few things, like speed and weight, and passengers-------and left out IFR.

The new proposal addresses these items.

Are these limitations only for a person flying without a medical? Ironic that's right around Bonanza territory.

[Mike S]

Or, RV 10