Legislation Seeks to Allow Driver's License Medical

[WLIU]

"We don't need these people fooling with it when it's stuck in an omnimus bill with bridges to nowhere and bicycle paths under the Mississippi River (sarcasm icon here). It needs to be debated on its merits and any fooling with it will be in the open. Being buried in a bill as large as the Transportation monster would not be a good thing."

Why not. When you move into the political arena, and you have a clear goal, why is the vehicle for your legislation important? The goal is to win, not just talk. Having this buried in a "must pass" bill, with the language we want, is a common way to achieve success in legislation.

If you show up for a fair fight, you are grossly unprepared....

Wes
N78PS

[David Pavlich]

"We don't need these people fooling with it when it's stuck in an omnimus bill with bridges to nowhere and bicycle paths under the Mississippi River (sarcasm icon here). It needs to be debated on its merits and any fooling with it will be in the open. Being buried in a bill as large as the Transportation monster would not be a good thing."

Why not. When you move into the political arena, and you have a clear goal, why is the vehicle for your legislation important? The goal is to win, not just talk. Having this buried in a "must pass" bill, with the language we want, is a common way to achieve success in legislation.

If you show up for a fair fight, you are grossly unprepared....

Wes
N78PS

I understand the logic and if we were trying to get the under the Mississippi River Bike Path money to my state of Louisiana, we might want it hidden in the omnibus bill. However, I'll just copy and paste from Jim Rice's post:

"The Small Airplane Revitalization Act was introduced May 7, 2013. It was introduced into the Senate July 17, 2013. The President signed into law November 27, 2013. That is just under seven months. It can move quickly, but who knows if it will.

The Small Airplane Revitalization Act was unanimously supported in the House, 410-0. Couldn't find the Senate vote, but don't recall it having any opposition."

This bill was passed and signed very convincingly on its merits. I'm confident that once this new bill is out of committee, it'll sail through just as the above bill did. This isn't a "bridge to nowhere" kind of bill. This has real substance and will have minimal effect on the taxpayer. In fact, there are several states that produce airplanes that just may see good things happen to their manufacturing base if this passes. Same for reducing the ranks of the unemployed. It's easily shown to be a winning combination. Besides, with more airplanes flying, it means more fuel taxes for our cause. :-)

David

[Frank Giger]

Outstanding!

I was actually wondering about this path the other day! There are two tracks to rules in government - by law (actual legislation) and by regulation (which isn't law, it's rules laid down by an agency). The latter is how most of the rules we live by are made - and sometimes the only way to change a regulation from a stubborn agency is to pass a law to change it, which is pretty weird when one thinks about it.

I'd actually rather it get stuck in a large bill that has nothing to do with transportation at all - like a farm bill or one on education or as a rider to NASA's budget. Vote Yea on the big bill and give us a break with no fuss, no muss, and - most importantly - no real debate that could turn it into a wedge issue.

I've grown a bit cynical, you see, and don't trust in the slim possibility of reasoned debate on any issue in politics.

[Joe LaMantia]

Outstanding!

I was actually wondering about this path the other day! There are two tracks to rules in government - by law (actual legislation) and by regulation (which isn't law, it's rules laid down by an agency). The latter is how most of the rules we live by are made - and sometimes the only way to change a regulation from a stubborn agency is to pass a law to change it, which is pretty weird when one thinks about it.

I'd actually rather it get stuck in a large bill that has nothing to do with transportation at all - like a farm bill or one on education or as a rider to NASA's budget. Vote Yea on the big bill and give us a break with no fuss, no muss, and - most importantly - no real debate that could turn it into a wedge issue.

I've grown a bit cynical, you see, and don't trust in the slim possibility of reasoned debate on any issue in politics.

Frank,
I totally get your feelings, here's a few more thoughts. It looks like the House is actually coming together to pass a budget bill against the wishes of the "Tea Party". The environment maybe changing a bit to get the public opinion of the House in a more positive light in time for next falls' election. One could imagine a number of bills passing that are small things that most people see as reasonable. The large bills that get all the Xmas tree ornaments get a lot of attention and a lot of fighting. If you roll this up into any funding bill it will get lost in another "numbers" fight. This bill on it's own would provide everybody a chance to take credit for a little improvement without a fight that ends in gridlock. Even sending it out on it's merits it will get some "hostile fire" from some quarters, but it has a good chance of getting through given the climate and timing.

Joe

[gdskoog]

“...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson

I take my role as PIC very seriously and on my determining my fitness to fly and the repercussion of that decision on my passengers and those who are on the ground along my route. That is why I sought out the best training and instructors in my area. My recurrent training is one of choice, not obligation. If I decide I am fit to fly... I fly. I use FAA FARs as a source of procedural consistency, not as an entity of approval. Congressional action, State statute or any other form of governmental entity is also referenced as a source of procedural consistency of my flying not as a permitting entity. Should I fail to be granted a Third Class medical in the future I will still go out to the airfield, stand in front of my aircraft and decide if I am capable of operating my aircraft safely. My decision to take a machine off the ground and into the sky has always been, is now, and always will be one of ethics and honor. What plastic or paper forms I have in my possession are of little relevance. If the sitting government decides to take my plastic and paper forms and I still determine I am of sound health to fly... I will fly. If the government becomes aware of my flying without benefit of plastic and paper documents and places me in confinement; on the day I am released from that confinement IF I DETERMINE I am safe to operate an aircraft... I will fly. My consent to be governed is now and will always be overt, NOT tacit. Every decision in life, major or minor is a function of ethics and risk management. If you choose to live your life in fear of what a government entity MAY DO to you... you have already forfeited that which is of most important in this life.

[nrpetersen]

I'm a little nervous that including such a broad spectrum of lower end aviation (including 6 place and light twins except IFR), this may be so radical that the FAA will be able to point out a thousand reasons "why not". It seems a lot of the more serious accidents involving a 3rd party (i. someone on the ground) are a result of a lot of fuel present in bigger light planes.

[cub builder]

I'm a little nervous that including such a broad spectrum of lower end aviation (including 6 place and light twins except IFR), this may be so radical that the FAA will be able to point out a thousand reasons "why not". It seems a lot of the more serious accidents involving a 3rd party (i. someone on the ground) are a result of a lot of fuel present in bigger light planes.

Yes, but the FAA doesn't get a vote on a congressional bill. Per their advice/testimony, the bill could be modified or killed, but they don't get to play any more of a roll than to testify in favor or against it. The ball was in their court for the last 2 years with the EAA/AOPA proposal. They refused to act. Now congress is taking away their ball. Should this bill actually see the light of day and be voted into law, the FAA only has one choice. Compliance.

-CubBuilder

[jjhoneck]

“...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson

I take my role as PIC very seriously and on my determining my fitness to fly and the repercussion of that decision on my passengers and those who are on the ground along my route. That is why I sought out the best training and instructors in my area. My recurrent training is one of choice, not obligation. If I decide I am fit to fly... I fly. I use FAA FARs as a source of procedural consistency, not as an entity of approval. Congressional action, State statute or any other form of governmental entity is also referenced as a source of procedural consistency of my flying not as a permitting entity. Should I fail to be granted a Third Class medical in the future I will still go out to the airfield, stand in front of my aircraft and decide if I am capable of operating my aircraft safely. My decision to take a machine off the ground and into the sky has always been, is now, and always will be one of ethics and honor. What plastic or paper forms I have in my possession are of little relevance. If the sitting government decides to take my plastic and paper forms and I still determine I am of sound health to fly... I will fly. If the government becomes aware of my flying without benefit of plastic and paper documents and places me in confinement; on the day I am released from that confinement IF I DETERMINE I am safe to operate an aircraft... I will fly. My consent to be governed is now and will always be overt, NOT tacit. Every decision in life, major or minor is a function of ethics and risk management. If you choose to live your life in fear of what a government entity MAY DO to you... you have already forfeited that which is of most important in this life.

Well put!

[nrpetersen]

Should this bill actually see the light of day and be voted into law, the FAA only has one choice. Compliance.

-CubBuilder

I'm very much in favor of it, but the general public would be quick to blame Congress again, and would listen to the outcry from the "experts" at FAA. And I can't imagine Obama signing it.

[Jeff Boatright]

... And I can't imagine Obama signing it.

Why not? He signed into law the Pilot's Bill of Rights in 2012 and the Small Airplane Revitalization Act in 2013. Why wouldn't he sign a bill in 2014 that fits that record in terms of general aviation?

Beyond that focused view of the issue, it's also unlikely Obama would veto this bill or one like it because Obama tends to not use the veto. Obama has vetoed 2 bills during his presidency, with neither overridden. GW Bush vetoed 12; 4 overridden. Clinton vetoed 37; 2 overridden. GWH Bush vetoed 44; 1 overridden. Reagan vetoed 78; 9 overridden. You'd have to go all the way back to Garfield to find a president who vetoed fewer bills than Obama, and Garfield was president for only 6.5 months.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, Obama has pushed pretty hard to get Congress, whether run by his party or by Republicans, to do it's job of legislating, and he hasn't second-guessed them much with vetoes. Now, whether Congress has really been doing it's job is another matter…