Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Sen. Inhofe wants comments on PBOR2

  1. #1
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365

    Sen. Inhofe wants comments on PBOR2

    Shamelessly stolen from AOPA website

    http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/pilots-bill-of-rights-2_discussion-draft



    http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroo...ll-of-rights-2

    Inhofe Seeks Comments on Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2
    Monday, June 30, 2014

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a member of the Senate General Aviation Caucus and certified flight instructor with more than 11,000 flight hours, today announced the outline for Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBOR2) and requested the aviation community to submit comments for the final Senate legislation.

    “The first Pilot’s Bill of Rights was a victory for the aviation community and made possible by the support of pilots and industry leaders across the nation,” said Inhofe. “Since its implementation, I have heard from the aviation community that more improvements still need to be made to cut red tape. The goal of Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 is to continue addressing unfair practices and regulations toward the aviation industry. Today I unveiled my draft legislation for how to accomplish this goal, and I am also requesting feedback from the aviation community on how this legislation can best meet their needs and ensure a safe and innovative industry that is free of heavy-handed bureaucracy.”

    “We can once again thank Senator Inhofe for bringing key general aviation issues before Congress,” said Mark Baker, president of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). “This new version of the very popular Pilot’s Bill of Rights comes at a time when the general aviation industry is actively engaged in actions aimed at protecting pilots’ civil liberties and the freedom to fly.”

    “This legislation would further enhance the pilot and general aviation reforms introduced in the first Pilot’s Bill of Rights, designed to support and grow the ability for more Americans to participate in flying,” said Jack Pelton, chairman of the board for EAA. “We are pleased to have worked with Sen. Inhofe and his staff to identify several key issues that are addressed within this bill, which would ease burdens on average Americans who participate in flying.”

    The aviation community is encouraged to submit edits and suggestions to PBOR2 by August 8 at www.inhofe.senate.gov/feedback/PBOR2

    Inhofe will also be hosting a forum at 10 a.m. on Aug. 2 at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh to discuss the legislation, receive feedback, and take questions.

    The following is a section-by-section summary of PBOR2 draft:

    Section 1 – Title. Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2

    Section 2 – Language expands the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 3rd class medical exemption for light sport aircraft to cover most small general aviation (GA) aircraft. It would also prohibit enforcement of violations if FAA has not complied with these provisions within 180 days of enactment.

    Section 3 – Language reigns in Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) stops and searches of GA by requiring CBP to follow general law enforcement standards when exercising its powers.

    Section 4 – Language provides local airport offices to manage the use of private hangars at airports. Current law gives federal officials and Washington the ability to dictate what does and doesn’t happen inside a hangar; this section changes that problem.

    Section 5 – Opens a dialogue on language that will make it easier to install new, safety enhancing equipment on existing aircraft without going through a lengthy, expensive certification process.

    Section 6 – Language expands on the Pilot’s Bill of Rights by:

    a. Subsections a-b. - Explicitly states that pilots facing an investigation by FAA can appeal the issue directly to a federal district court for a de novo trial. This provision of the original Pilot’s Bill of Rights has not operated as intended.

    c. Subsection c. - Expands the protections of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights to other certificate holders in the aviation community, such as charter operators or repair stations.

    d. Subsection d. - Requires FAA to provide notification to an individual once they become subject to an FAA investigation; if FAA does not provide notification, they cannot press charges.

    e. Subsection e. - Limits scope of FAA’s document requests of certificate holders to the pertinent issues being investigated.

    f. Subsection f. - Reinstates FAA’s expungement policy, preventing the agency from retaining records of enforcement against an airmen certificate holder after retaining it for 5 years. Also prohibits the retention of records beyond 90 days if the agency does not take enforcement action. Further prevents the FAA from publicizing pending enforcement actions against a covered certificate holder.

    Section 7 – Prohibits enforcement of NOTAM violations if FAA has not finished its NOTAM improvement program by the end of the year.

    Section 8 – Language requires contract towers and other outsourced FAA programs to be subject to FOIA requests.

    Section 9 – Language provides civil liability protection to aviation medical examiners and other FAA reps, treating them as government employees as the proscribed duties are carried out.

    A copy of the draft text as of June 30 can be viewed by clicking here.

    Background:

    On Aug. 3, 2012, Inhofe Pilot’s Bill of Rights (S.1335) was signed into law, which made FAA enforcement proceedings and NTSB review fair for pilots; streamlined the NOTAM Improvement Program; and required a GAO review of the FAA’s medical certification process and forms in order to help bring clarity and reduce instances of misinterpretation with medical forms for pilots.

    The legislation garnered 65 Senate cosponsors and the endorsement of pilot and actor Harrison Ford.


    (God bless Senator Inhofe)- tk
    Last edited by TedK; 06-30-2014 at 03:03 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    MMMM ... maybe this would be a good vehicle to sneak in a legislative requirement to enact a certain Part 23 ARC recommendation. What ya think Ted?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1
    Good idea, Scott.

    Quote Originally Posted by scottf View Post
    MMMM ... maybe this would be a good vehicle to sneak in a legislative requirement to enact a certain Part 23 ARC recommendation. What ya think Ted?

  4. #4
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by scottf View Post
    MMMM ... maybe this would be a good vehicle to sneak in a legislative requirement to enact a certain Part 23 ARC recommendation. What ya think Ted?
    Scott, I think you are spot-on. I already sent a comment to the good Senator suggesting that PBOR2 should amplify SARA to require implementation of PNC.

    Suggest everyone pile onto that comment site and put your two cents in.

    Break transmission.

    i have been trying to get EAA to engage in a dialogue on PNC at Airventure but EAA seems to be acting as if they are terrified of FAA. I think the FAA Bill for Airventure scared EAA and they keep telling me they don't want to do anything to antagonize FAA. Pretty hard to be an advocacy organization if you are afraid to engage.

    i think EAA's engagement strategy ought to be a discussion topic at the annual meeting. Thoughts please?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    [QUOTE=TedK;42332]Scott, I think you are spot-on. I already sent a comment to the good Senator suggesting that PBOR2 should amplify SARA to require implementation of PNC.

    I am with you IF you quit calling it that terrible PNC name- It is ANV

  6. #6
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365
    [QUOTE=scottf;42333]
    Quote Originally Posted by TedK View Post
    Scott, I think you are spot-on. I already sent a comment to the good Senator suggesting that PBOR2 should amplify SARA to require implementation of PNC.

    I am with you IF you quit calling it that terrible PNC name- It is ANV

    I dont care care what we call it just so long as we get it. You want ANV, works for me.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,230
    Okay, I'll play the dummy: what is PNC and/or ANV? Or for that matter, SARA?
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  8. #8
    TedK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Pax River MD
    Posts
    365
    Hi Frank - PNC(Primary Non-Commercial) and ANV (Antique Non-Commercial Vintage) are two terms, essentially synonymous, in the Part 23 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations. That ARC proposed that owners of older aircraft (20 years +) could, if they desired, essentially treat their airplane as an Experimental-Amateur Built (E-AB) if they desired and did not use their airplane for hire. ScottF is one of the participants at that ARC and should be treated with all of the respect due to a Founding Father.

    So, for instance, if you wanted to take your 1977 factory produced spam can and put in a non-TSO'd Autopilot or Glass Instruments, you could do so in the same manner that an E-AB can. The ARC made this recommendation because they believed that this is a way to provide significant safety improvements to a fleet that is stagnating.

    Now, PNC/ANV is actually only a small Part of the Part 23 rewrite recommendations. The grand majority of the Recommendations were to make it easier to design, test, build and produce factory airplanes under an updated Part 23. Sort of LSA for bigger airplanes if you will.

    Congress (to my surprise given the gridlock in DC...but I digress) has been wholely supportive. The Part 23 ARC was convened by the FAA because Congress had directed that in Law. Congress then passed a Bill signed into Law in Dec 2013 called the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act aka SARA directing FAA to implement the ARC Recommendations. And as only bureaucracies can react, it appears that FAA is dragging their feet on implementing the entire set of recommendations. (You didn't tell me I had to implement all of this...)

    The above is factual and ScottF can correct me if I made an error. If you read on from this point you are reading my opinions.

    IMO EAA, AOPA and any one else who supports GA should strongly support and advocate for the entire ARC recommendations to be implemented, including PNC/ANV. I believe we (EAA, etc) should encourage the Subcommittee on Transportation (the FAA's oversight) to write a Letter to FAA indicating that THEIR intent in writing SARA was that the FAA should implement the whole thing. That would make it pretty hard for FAA to pick and choose their way thru the recommendations. However, from what I see our advocacy organizations are reluctant to engage on PNC/ANV.

    One last thing. See Mac McClellan's Left Seat blog on PNC. The comments are very enlightening (if I do say so myself) http://macsblog.com/2014/03/could-yo...lane-be-a-pnc/

    Also see http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=91031 on the Red Board.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm just the grain of sand trying to irritate the oyster into making the pearl...
    Last edited by TedK; 07-04-2014 at 07:51 AM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,230
    Thanks for unravelling the acronym knot for me - I'm aware of the efforts to allow for certified aircraft to change category, just not the official verbiage. I actually got a chance to talk to both of our prospective Congressmen (they're in a run-off for the nomination, and in our district it means one of them is going to be elected, which is a different subject) about two things - the 3rd class medical and the certified aircraft issues.

    Mostly to educate them that they are issues, and that both point to improving safety and efficiency....and that they should join the aviation caucus and support keeping GA alive, as extracting a promise from a campaigning political candidate during a quiet handshake meeting is worth the paper it isn't written on.

    In a side note, Mac's blog is greatly improved, IMHO. He's writing more to his audience (us regular ol' pilots versus high end aviators) and it really allows his experience and insight to come out. He even admitted to flying VFR - next thing we know he might actually get behind the stick of a Champ or Cub with a sectional map folded on a kneeboard!

    I'm one of the guys that always respected his skills as a pilot and writer even if I haven't always agreed with the focus of either of them. However, getting another perspective that's well thought out and presented is invaluable.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •