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.
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION!
- Thread starter rocketbob
- Start date
- Status
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.
Indiana Senator Supporting this Bill!!
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
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
Well Known Member
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?
"...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
Well Known Member
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
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
Well Known Member
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
Senior Curmudgeon
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??
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...
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...
Are these limitations only for a person flying without a medical? Ironic that's right around Bonanza territory.
rmartingt
Well Known Member
They never were, and under this proposal they still would not be. The difference is that under those limits you won't need a medical; above them, you still would (I guess under the premise that the bigger, faster aircraft poses a greater potential risk to people on the ground, and figuring that the majority of private/individual flying doesn't exceed those limits). So in other words, if this rule passes, and assuming the FAA doesn't do any backstabbing in revenge, we would lose absolutely nothing.
The weight, seat, and speed limits also coincide neatly with the proposals in the Part 23 draft and ASTM drafts for a light aircraft category that (presumably) would be certified more like an S-LSA is today, rather than full Part 23 standards.
roadrunner20
Well Known Member
I applaud this line.
Otherwise, we will continue with all the delay tactics we've experienced over the last few years.
I've contacted my senator & congressman.
My last comment got deleted, so I'll try to make this more proactive.
What ideas do people have to make this effort more effective than the last one? True, we are all writing and calling our representatives, but so are the opposing forces (think "follow the money").
I don't know how much influence the alphabet organizations have in the current political environment...what *exactly* are EAA and AOPA doing to help shepherd this through? Hopefully, it's more than they've been doing with the NPRM, because that got stuck and is going nowhere fast, but I've not seen any info that tells me they're being effective.
So let's try to use our resources effectively, including the membership here, because (and if we're talking honestly about this, we have to admit) this is no doubt very far down on the list of any legislation that is likely to be considered, let alone passed, in the current environment.
We know that emails count for very little, automated ones even less...phone calls are somewhat more effective, personally-written letters more so. What about personal visits to local offices of congresspersons? What about a *group* of people requesting a meeting with a Senator or Congressman when they're back in town (which seems to be often, since they take so many vacations )?
If we don't change our approach, this effort is, I fear, destined to the same fate as the previous one (and the current NPRM)...dead in the water.
What ideas do people have to make this effort more effective than the last one? True, we are all writing and calling our representatives, but so are the opposing forces (think "follow the money").
I don't know how much influence the alphabet organizations have in the current political environment...what *exactly* are EAA and AOPA doing to help shepherd this through? Hopefully, it's more than they've been doing with the NPRM, because that got stuck and is going nowhere fast, but I've not seen any info that tells me they're being effective.
So let's try to use our resources effectively, including the membership here, because (and if we're talking honestly about this, we have to admit) this is no doubt very far down on the list of any legislation that is likely to be considered, let alone passed, in the current environment.
We know that emails count for very little, automated ones even less...phone calls are somewhat more effective, personally-written letters more so. What about personal visits to local offices of congresspersons? What about a *group* of people requesting a meeting with a Senator or Congressman when they're back in town (which seems to be often, since they take so many vacations
)?If we don't change our approach, this effort is, I fear, destined to the same fate as the previous one (and the current NPRM)...dead in the water.
Jack Tyler
Well Known Member
Joe, here is my understanding of the relative impact different communication forms from a constituent have on a legislator:
Email - General: Swept daily by a junior staffer who summarizes numbers on issues being monitored. Your issue may not even be on the list and so tallied as 'other'. No points of view captured, little chance it effects change in how the issue is being viewed by the legislator. This why those automated email generators have only limited impact. They don't hurt but how the issue is framed for the legislator isn't accomplished unless the numbers are impressive.
Email - Specific Staffer: If you bother to first ID the staffer assigned to your issue area (e.g. transportation), you are corresponding with the person who may actually influence the legislator's perspective on the issue. (Get the email address from a phone call). More influence is possible with your follow-up email after considering the staff's reply (if s/he did reply). If you don't know your subject, you won't recognize how staffers can twist the facts to support the legislator's position, which is part of their job.
Letter: delivered many weeks (I've been told up to 7) later if addressed to the DC address due to physical screening mechanisms in place. Distributed to staffers based on the topic (e.g. 'transportation') who author standardized reply letters. Impact on how the issue is framed for the legislator by a senior staffer probably similar to general email - nil.
Phone Call - Automated: If you opt for the recorded message inviting you to voice a position on an issue and leave a voice mail, impact about the same as general email. Comments summed up daily, your issue may be lost in the noise level and rationale for your position certainly lost
Phone Call - Personal: General calls will go to an intern or low level staffer but the opportunity to actually influence someone is by talking with a staffer assigned to your issue area (e.g. transportation). These folks are busy, very mobile and it's hard to catch them...but worthwhile.
Visit to District Office: If dropping in, you'll catch the intern, support staff member or no one, depending on luck of the draw. Your view will be recorded (see email and letter comments above) but little else will occur. If you make an appointment (perhaps weeks in advance) to catch the relevant staffer (e.g. transportation), you will be having a dialogue with someone who matters. Takes more time, doesn't provide immediate gratification (like perhaps a letter or email) and by far is the most influential.
Staffers all but lie to protect their legislator's image and policy position. Treat them like the Uncle you respect but who you recognize is clueless about the topic being discussed. Be prepared for the deceptions or generalizations and respond with fact. Real examples: 'Our Congresswoman believes the FAA should make medical decisions about pilots, not the local DMV.' Answer: Does she know the FAA currently authorizes pilot privileges in multiple classes of aircraft with DMV verification or nothing at all? 'Neither the Chair or minority Co-Chair of the Subcommittee support GAPPA.' Answer: Actually, that's untrue. Neither Chair or Co-Chair have taken a position yet on GAPPA. And did you know a majority of the Subcommittee members have already voiced support for the Bill?
Jack
Email - General: Swept daily by a junior staffer who summarizes numbers on issues being monitored. Your issue may not even be on the list and so tallied as 'other'. No points of view captured, little chance it effects change in how the issue is being viewed by the legislator. This why those automated email generators have only limited impact. They don't hurt but how the issue is framed for the legislator isn't accomplished unless the numbers are impressive.
Email - Specific Staffer: If you bother to first ID the staffer assigned to your issue area (e.g. transportation), you are corresponding with the person who may actually influence the legislator's perspective on the issue. (Get the email address from a phone call). More influence is possible with your follow-up email after considering the staff's reply (if s/he did reply). If you don't know your subject, you won't recognize how staffers can twist the facts to support the legislator's position, which is part of their job.
Letter: delivered many weeks (I've been told up to 7) later if addressed to the DC address due to physical screening mechanisms in place. Distributed to staffers based on the topic (e.g. 'transportation') who author standardized reply letters. Impact on how the issue is framed for the legislator by a senior staffer probably similar to general email - nil.
Phone Call - Automated: If you opt for the recorded message inviting you to voice a position on an issue and leave a voice mail, impact about the same as general email. Comments summed up daily, your issue may be lost in the noise level and rationale for your position certainly lost
Phone Call - Personal: General calls will go to an intern or low level staffer but the opportunity to actually influence someone is by talking with a staffer assigned to your issue area (e.g. transportation). These folks are busy, very mobile and it's hard to catch them...but worthwhile.
Visit to District Office: If dropping in, you'll catch the intern, support staff member or no one, depending on luck of the draw. Your view will be recorded (see email and letter comments above) but little else will occur. If you make an appointment (perhaps weeks in advance) to catch the relevant staffer (e.g. transportation), you will be having a dialogue with someone who matters. Takes more time, doesn't provide immediate gratification (like perhaps a letter or email) and by far is the most influential.
Staffers all but lie to protect their legislator's image and policy position. Treat them like the Uncle you respect but who you recognize is clueless about the topic being discussed. Be prepared for the deceptions or generalizations and respond with fact. Real examples: 'Our Congresswoman believes the FAA should make medical decisions about pilots, not the local DMV.' Answer: Does she know the FAA currently authorizes pilot privileges in multiple classes of aircraft with DMV verification or nothing at all? 'Neither the Chair or minority Co-Chair of the Subcommittee support GAPPA.' Answer: Actually, that's untrue. Neither Chair or Co-Chair have taken a position yet on GAPPA. And did you know a majority of the Subcommittee members have already voiced support for the Bill?
Jack
Last edited:
3rd class medical
This may finally happen on or about May of this year.
http://www.aopa.org/sitecore module...n=945412&pid=NzU1MDFiOTZhNTZlYTZhMjg5NTU1MDkz
This may finally happen on or about May of this year.
http://www.aopa.org/sitecore module...n=945412&pid=NzU1MDFiOTZhNTZlYTZhMjg5NTU1MDkz
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
Pilot?s Bill of Rights 2 ? now THAT?S what I?m talking about!!
More Information:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/February/26/Medical-reform-legislation-introduced-in-House-and-Senate?tid=QyTJGK1ZaU2N7dNnpR4y2g
Not just reform of the Third Class Medical, which is sorely needed, but a host of other reforms that actually begin to take back rights for pilots that have been usurped over time by self aggrandizing government bureaucrats.
Empowering pilots and GA via legislation is the right process because its wistful blue sky to believe that the FAA will volunteer to relinquish ANY control/power on their own. [I don?t consider the FAA?s watered-down version of Third Class Medical Reform to be voluntary, whatever that reform actually turns out to be, because without the Third Class Medical Reform legislation introduced in the last Congress the FAA would not have taken any action at all.] The Pilot?s Bill of Rights 2 builds on the previous Pilot?s Bill of Rights Act passed in 2012, and passage/enactment will significantly reinforce this legislative pathway as a means for future improvements. Let?s rally support from all quarters to make this happen - PLEASE support this legislation in the House & Senate!
More Information:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/February/26/Medical-reform-legislation-introduced-in-House-and-Senate?tid=QyTJGK1ZaU2N7dNnpR4y2g
Not just reform of the Third Class Medical, which is sorely needed, but a host of other reforms that actually begin to take back rights for pilots that have been usurped over time by self aggrandizing government bureaucrats.
Empowering pilots and GA via legislation is the right process because its wistful blue sky to believe that the FAA will volunteer to relinquish ANY control/power on their own. [I don?t consider the FAA?s watered-down version of Third Class Medical Reform to be voluntary, whatever that reform actually turns out to be, because without the Third Class Medical Reform legislation introduced in the last Congress the FAA would not have taken any action at all.] The Pilot?s Bill of Rights 2 builds on the previous Pilot?s Bill of Rights Act passed in 2012, and passage/enactment will significantly reinforce this legislative pathway as a means for future improvements. Let?s rally support from all quarters to make this happen - PLEASE support this legislation in the House & Senate!
wirejock
Well Known Member
Podcast
Good audio podcast with Jack Pelton.
http://www.avweb.com/podcast/Podcast-Jack-Pelton-on-Pilots-Bill-of-Rights-2-223636-1.html
Good audio podcast with Jack Pelton.
http://www.avweb.com/podcast/Podcast-Jack-Pelton-on-Pilots-Bill-of-Rights-2-223636-1.html
The third class medical will not go away entirely for the private pilot.
Only for the operations listed.
Third class medical will still be required for private pilots flying in Class A airspace, flying aircraft over 6K lbs. gross wt., aircraft with more than 6 seats, etc.
Only for the operations listed.
Third class medical will still be required for private pilots flying in Class A airspace, flying aircraft over 6K lbs. gross wt., aircraft with more than 6 seats, etc.
send an email
If you want to help to get this legislation through congress then send an email to your congressmen or congresswomen. EAA has made this super easy. Just click the link below. Everyone on this website needs to do this to support our rights as pilots.
http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/
If you want to help to get this legislation through congress then send an email to your congressmen or congresswomen. EAA has made this super easy. Just click the link below. Everyone on this website needs to do this to support our rights as pilots.
http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Just got this from AOPA.
We need your help NOW to get third class medical reform through Congress this year! Elected officials like to hear directly from their constituents about issues that are important to them, so your voice matters.
On February 25th, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Senate GA Caucus Co-Chairmen Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) along with nine bipartisan Senators introduced S. 571, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBR2).
In the House of Representatives, identical legislation, H.R. 1062, was introduced by Reps. Sam Graves (R-Missouri), Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois), Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota).
These bills would provide long overdue third class medical reform and give general aviation pilots more rights when dealing with FAA enforcement actions.
At this time, I urge you to contact your elected officials in the United States Senate and in the U.S. House of Representatives and urge them to cosponsor the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 by clicking here.
Use this to find the congress critters in your area. http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/
We need your help NOW to get third class medical reform through Congress this year! Elected officials like to hear directly from their constituents about issues that are important to them, so your voice matters.
On February 25th, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Senate GA Caucus Co-Chairmen Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) along with nine bipartisan Senators introduced S. 571, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBR2).
In the House of Representatives, identical legislation, H.R. 1062, was introduced by Reps. Sam Graves (R-Missouri), Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois), Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota).
These bills would provide long overdue third class medical reform and give general aviation pilots more rights when dealing with FAA enforcement actions.
At this time, I urge you to contact your elected officials in the United States Senate and in the U.S. House of Representatives and urge them to cosponsor the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 by clicking here.
Use this to find the congress critters in your area. http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/
Last edited:
Rep McClintock, Sen Feinstein and Sen Boxer
I used the identified EAA web link: http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/ entered my zip code and using the EAA letter provided gave notification to Rep Tom McClintock, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer.
In support of this legislation, I've done this at least three times in the past. Once using AOPA, once a personal letter and now again with the EAA.
In the past only Rep McClintock and Sen Feinstein responded positively.
I'm skeptical if this helps in todays government. If you don't have big money, no one's listening.
You can't win if you don't play.
Charlie
I used the identified EAA web link: http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/ entered my zip code and using the EAA letter provided gave notification to Rep Tom McClintock, Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer.
In support of this legislation, I've done this at least three times in the past. Once using AOPA, once a personal letter and now again with the EAA.
In the past only Rep McClintock and Sen Feinstein responded positively.
I'm skeptical if this helps in todays government. If you don't have big money, no one's listening.
You can't win if you don't play.
Charlie
Done! Hope it does some good!
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Email address request
Does anyone have a direct email address for the folks who are listed below??
It would be great if we could get messages about the Pilot Bill of Rights to the folks who are responsible for the action in the first place.
Thanks.
On February 25th, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Senate GA Caucus Co-Chairmen Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) along with nine bipartisan Senators introduced S. 571, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBR2).
In the House of Representatives, identical legislation, H.R. 1062, was introduced by Reps. Sam Graves (R-Missouri), Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois), Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota).
Does anyone have a direct email address for the folks who are listed below??
It would be great if we could get messages about the Pilot Bill of Rights to the folks who are responsible for the action in the first place.
Thanks.
On February 25th, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Senate GA Caucus Co-Chairmen Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR) along with nine bipartisan Senators introduced S. 571, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBR2).
In the House of Representatives, identical legislation, H.R. 1062, was introduced by Reps. Sam Graves (R-Missouri), Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois), Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), and Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota).
Last edited:
logansc
Well Known Member
Just "googled" our favorite legislation and found that on this site:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s571
they are giving this legislation a 4% chance of passage. Anyone else see that?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s571
they are giving this legislation a 4% chance of passage. Anyone else see that?
Don
Well Known Member
I read the information on the site you mentioned. It appears to be strictly a statistical evaluation not any sort of actual thoughtful analysis. Of 100 Bills introduced 11% make it out of committee and 3% are passed according to that website. I don't share Senator Inhofe's analysis that this will happen but I think there's a good chance if everyone does their part. There does seem to be pretty broad support. The trick will be to get it out of committee and on to the floor for debate and a vote. If Inhofe is right that he thinks he has the votes to over come a presidential veto (that's a big if) then I think the Bill has a good chance if it gets out of committee. Opponents of the Bill will try and get it stalled in committee.
DaleB
Well Known Member
Have we identified any opponents, other than a small handful of doctors and the FAA? One group makes money doing medical exams and tends to think they should be making decisions for people anyway... and the other group is concerned with retaining and expanding power. I don't think we're going to change the viewpoint of either of those groups. Do we know of others who oppose the bill, that maybe we could work on getting to see the light?
Pure politics. As noted, there's no reason to think it would be vetoed given that the President signed the earlier bill into law.
But if he doesn't need to let it leave the committee AND he gets to blame the President, it's a win-win for him from a political standpoint.
"I tried, but you know 'this administration' and they just wouldn't let me pass this bill..."
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Little update from todays AOPA email.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-support?WT.mc_id=150320epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-support?WT.mc_id=150320epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv
no medical
So if they do get rid of the third class medical what will happen to the people that have lost there third class medical? Is it the same as light sport where you still cant fly? Sorry if this has been answered in another post , if it has I did not see it. Thanks
So if they do get rid of the third class medical what will happen to the people that have lost there third class medical? Is it the same as light sport where you still cant fly? Sorry if this has been answered in another post , if it has I did not see it. Thanks
And the DOT slips the date of the NPRM yet again; now over a year late:
Milestone Originally Scheduled Date New Projected Date Actual Date
To OST 07/03/2014 08/14/2014 07/24/2014
To OMB 08/04/2014 04/13/2015
OMB Clearance 11/04/2014 07/13/2015
Publication Date 11/10/2014 07/20/2015
End of Comment Period 01/09/2015 09/20/2015
Of course, everyone is now looking at the new shiny object (a bill that will die in committee) and forgetting about the NPRM.
And what is EAA doing? Well, not much, from the looks of it...no news, no emails, no information. But they're "in contact" with congressional leaders, no doubt.
Here's a prediction...the bill in Congress will not get out of committee, and the NPRM will stay stuck at DOT for many more months, after which they'll kick it back to FAA for various *to start the whole process all over again*.
Follow the money...
Milestone Originally Scheduled Date New Projected Date Actual Date
To OST 07/03/2014 08/14/2014 07/24/2014
To OMB 08/04/2014 04/13/2015
OMB Clearance 11/04/2014 07/13/2015
Publication Date 11/10/2014 07/20/2015
End of Comment Period 01/09/2015 09/20/2015
Of course, everyone is now looking at the new shiny object (a bill that will die in committee) and forgetting about the NPRM.
And what is EAA doing? Well, not much, from the looks of it...no news, no emails, no information. But they're "in contact" with congressional leaders, no doubt.
Here's a prediction...the bill in Congress will not get out of committee, and the NPRM will stay stuck at DOT for many more months, after which they'll kick it back to FAA for various *to start the whole process all over again*.
Follow the money...
Where is EAA and AOPA?
I am less than satisfied with AOPA and EAA on how they are "pushing" this along. In my opinion they are not doing nearly enough or they don't have the influence they claim to have. This is a total joke. There is NO reason the 3rd class medical should still be required. The AOPA update reads like they are going for every possible thing in one bill. GET RID OF THE MEDICAL, THEN DO THE REST!
We are losing pilots and prospective pilots everyday because they fear the medical. Why would a person buy or build a plane they may not be able to fly?
I guess I am just frustrated at the EAA, AOPA, and our government that allows an agency of un-elected employes make rules that end up being laws that have no facts to back up the need for those rules. What a bad joke.
I am losing hope that this will ever happen.
I am less than satisfied with AOPA and EAA on how they are "pushing" this along. In my opinion they are not doing nearly enough or they don't have the influence they claim to have. This is a total joke. There is NO reason the 3rd class medical should still be required. The AOPA update reads like they are going for every possible thing in one bill. GET RID OF THE MEDICAL, THEN DO THE REST!
We are losing pilots and prospective pilots everyday because they fear the medical. Why would a person buy or build a plane they may not be able to fly?
I guess I am just frustrated at the EAA, AOPA, and our government that allows an agency of un-elected employes make rules that end up being laws that have no facts to back up the need for those rules. What a bad joke.
I am losing hope that this will ever happen.
DaleB
Well Known Member
In my letters to my Congresscritters, I tell them that the need for Congressional action is clear because the FAA/OMB/DOT bureaucratic cabal has shown no interest whatsoever in moving the "super-secret" NPRM, which apparently no one has actually seen, forward as promised.
Of course expecting Congress to do anything better is a faint hope at best, but we do what we can.
Of course expecting Congress to do anything better is a faint hope at best, but we do what we can.
FAA is way behind the power curve on drone rules and they are under real pressure from very large and powerful corporations while there is an abundance of people ignoring the FAA authority and doing whatever they want. Still the FAA is moving at the pace that proseal drips off the stir stick.
Anybody really think 3rd class medical reform can be pushed through by a few thousand private pilots backed only by the EAA and AOPA? FAA will bury this without a thought without congress involvement.
Anybody really think 3rd class medical reform can be pushed through by a few thousand private pilots backed only by the EAA and AOPA? FAA will bury this without a thought without congress involvement.
Last edited:
WhiskeyMike
Well Known Member
I believe that the Pilot?s Bill of Rights 2, which was introduced in the Senate (S. 571) and House (H.R. 1062) earlier this year, has more than a statistical likelihood of becoming law for the following reasons:
1) The bill is being pushed hard by Senator James Inhofe, who as recently as yesterday (Monday) kicked off budget week with a floor speech advocating for the new bill.
2) Inhofe is the Senator that introduced the first Pilot?s Bill of Rights and successfully shepherded it into law. He?s a strong advocate for the new bill, and has a recent track record of delivering (not merely introducing) pro-pilot legislation.
3) Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) has agreed to take up the measure. Frederick Hill, Thune?s communications director on the committee, stated in and email??As the Commerce Committee moves forward with hearings that will lead to a reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, we look forward to working with Sen. Inhofe and the cosponsors of S. 571 on reforms to reduce regulatory burdens on general aviation pilots and ensure the transparent dissemination of critical flight data.?
4) The bill has bipartisan support from top lawmakers, with 16 senators and 30 members of the House signing on as co-sponsors.
5) AOPA states that as of March 19th, 32,434 of its members had sent letters asking their members of Congress to co-sponsor the bill.
6) More Republican members in both the House and Senate, which means more support for the broad principles of reducing government intrusion in the lives of citizens.
Time will tell, but I think this legislation has an excellent chance of getting the level of attention and support that is required to carry it through the process. Let?s hope so?
I was with you right up until that point...
IF, and it's a big if, this does get passed, yes, it will likely be because of Inhofe and his antagonism towards the FAA.
It pains me that the guy who busted rules that would have resulted in any of us having our license revoked, while he got a slap on the wrist, is who we have to rely on to push anything through. And even then, it's a very dicey proposition...remember, the last one had broad bipartisan support, also.
Inhofe...ugh.
pkill
Well Known Member
C Span video of Sen. Inhofe speech starts at 6:46:46
http://www.c-span.org/video/?324954-1/us-senate-senator-joni-ernst-ria-maiden-floor-speech
pk
He forgot to mention that the runway was, in fact, closed and marked with the big X's, as well as having people and equipment on it, when he landed; he also must have forgotten about the remedial training he took "to avoid enforcement action".
ETA: I can't help but think that if someone with less of an axe to grind were to champion the bill, the FAA might not oppose it (as vigorously).
wirejock
Well Known Member
DaleB
Well Known Member
Worked for me. It's an AOPA interview with Sen. Rokita. Nothing new of substance regarding medical certification, he just says keep talking to your Congress-critters. He did mention (about 8 minutes in) that they are talking about taking the ATC system out of the control of the FAA and spinning it off to its own entity. Unfortunately, given the manifest destiny of federal bureaucracies I suspect this would result no decrease in the size (or budget) of the FAA, just a new agency with a voracious and insatiable appetite for tax dollars and user fees.
OK, I'll step off my soap box now.
I also have not heard the faintest whisper of the long-lost FAA NPRM. That sucker is like the SS Minnow. I doubt it will give us what we've been asking for, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were completely ineffective, but I sure would like to see it. As a taxpayer, it kind of ticks me off that the work product of our employees is being hidden from us.
OK, I'll step off my soap box now.
I also have not heard the faintest whisper of the long-lost FAA NPRM. That sucker is like the SS Minnow. I doubt it will give us what we've been asking for, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were completely ineffective, but I sure would like to see it. As a taxpayer, it kind of ticks me off that the work product of our employees is being hidden from us.
Received my Letter Today from Senator Feinstein
I sent Senator Feinstein a letter about 3-4 months ago. I received this letter today in my inbox.
Please write your representatives today.
Dear Mr. Chkaharyer99 :
Thank you for writing me regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) medical requirements for pilots' certificates. I appreciate the time you took to write me and welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand that you support the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" because you believe that the costs associated with mandatory medical examinations required for certification may deter people from recreational flying.
As you discussed in your letter, on February 25, 2015, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" (S. 571), which is intended to expand the 2012 Pilot's Bill of Rights (Public Law 112-153). The "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" would extend FAA's third-class medical exemption ? currently available only to sport pilots ? to all pilots flying small aircraft up to 6,000 pounds, provided they comply with any medical requirement associated with a valid State driver's license. It would also establish additional criteria FAA must meet during safety violations investigations and enforcement, as well as require FAA to expedite updates to its Notice to Airman Program. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which I am not a member.
I agree that we should take steps to ensure the fair treatment of individuals in aviation and other industries. Please know that I have made careful note of your concerns and will be sure to keep them in mind should this legislation come before me for consideration in the full Senate.
Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
I sent Senator Feinstein a letter about 3-4 months ago. I received this letter today in my inbox.
Please write your representatives today.
Dear Mr. Chkaharyer99 :
Thank you for writing me regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) medical requirements for pilots' certificates. I appreciate the time you took to write me and welcome the opportunity to respond.
I understand that you support the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" because you believe that the costs associated with mandatory medical examinations required for certification may deter people from recreational flying.
As you discussed in your letter, on February 25, 2015, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" (S. 571), which is intended to expand the 2012 Pilot's Bill of Rights (Public Law 112-153). The "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2" would extend FAA's third-class medical exemption ? currently available only to sport pilots ? to all pilots flying small aircraft up to 6,000 pounds, provided they comply with any medical requirement associated with a valid State driver's license. It would also establish additional criteria FAA must meet during safety violations investigations and enforcement, as well as require FAA to expedite updates to its Notice to Airman Program. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which I am not a member.
I agree that we should take steps to ensure the fair treatment of individuals in aviation and other industries. Please know that I have made careful note of your concerns and will be sure to keep them in mind should this legislation come before me for consideration in the full Senate.
Once again, thank you for your letter. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at www.feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
I received the exact same reply from Senator Feinstein today that you did. I haven't heard anything from my congressman or Senator Boxer, the other California senator.
- Status
