The problem is, I'm visible in that lead-in photo. I think it scared folks off.....Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Ron Wanttaja
The problem is, I'm visible in that lead-in photo. I think it scared folks off.....
Ron Wanttaja
So the EAA and the FAA are in agreement on third class medical reform. OK, big hug and everyone goes home to sit and wait for DOT to move the NPRM along.
I see no action by EAA to get the DOT moving on this issue. I see the letter that AOPA sent to Anthony Foxx at the DOT on January 13th. They posted it on their web site for all members to see. EAA, no visible action in Washington. Someone in Sean Elliott's (V.P. Advocacy) office should be sitting on the front steps of the DOT every morning when they open the doors. I would like to know where the paperwork is sitting at DOT. Who's desk is it sitting on and what is their phone number.
Also, what is happening with Congress? AOPA has already started working with the new Congress and the new leaders of the GA Caucus in the House and Senate. Nothing heard from EAA. Click here Medical certificate reform update to see a video update from the AOPA interview with Sam Graves (R-MO) on February 13th.
Thanks for directing me to the correct webpage. I have been looking at the Advocacy webpages (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-advocacy). What fooled me was that there is an entire suite of pages devoted to Top Advocacy Initiatives, with Aeromedical Reform being the Top of the Top (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-a...medical-reform).
I figured that those pages would be where I could find news about, you know, Aeromedical Reform Advocacy.
(*runs for cover*)
Thanks for directing me to the correct webpage. I have been looking at the Advocacy webpages (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-advocacy). What fooled me was that there is an entire suite of pages devoted to Top Advocacy Initiatives, with Aeromedical Reform being the Top of the Top (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-a...medical-reform).
I figured that those pages would be where I could find news about, you know, Aeromedical Reform Advocacy.
(*runs for cover*)
OK, so now I've read the News page. Sorry to say, but the one paragraph devoted to aeromedical reform is pretty weak beer. Like, Bud-Lite weak. I has ta sadz.
The other topics, which actually rose to the level of being included in the subtitle, are of interest.
ADS-B: I have yet to have anyone at EAA explain to me why this wasn't fought tooth-and-nail from the outset. There is nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g, it offers that will help me or any of the other people I fly with every weekend. In fact, the whole thing just adds cost and restriction to our activities. I think our little group is somewhat representative of REAL sport aviation. It includes a Pietenpol, two Pitts S1Cs, a Sopwith replica, a Titan Tornado II, a Pup, a Mustang II, a Zenair 601HD, a Cougar, an M-Squared Breese, a Cessna 170, two Cessna 175s, two Cessna 172s, a Cessna 185, a Piper Cub, and a Piper Cherokee. These planes and pilots are all very active, most flying at least monthly (and many every weekend day that is flyable). None of them feel that ADS-B is worth the expense and trouble. Total failure on the part of EAA, IMO, as I never heard that promulgation was even questioned.
Electric LSA: Very nice that FAA "welcomes" a petition for using electric propulsion in LSAs. It is heartening to hear that they want to improve the rules as reality changes. However, their statement may be like saying "we will accept getting wet when we shower." I was not aware that FAA could NOT accept a petition, even if only to circular file it. Is EAA drafting such a petition? Now that would have been a win.
Ultralight training: I couldn't figure out from the phrasing what was actually going on here: "...FAA is willing to find a solution to the ultralight training situation that keeps potential ultralight pilots from finding specific instruction in ultralight category machines." Again, sort of like saying that water is wet. Specifics will be much appreciated by the membership.
I've been a member since 1985, chapter NL editor (award winning - you could look it up!), I'm not leaving EAA or anything b!tchy like that, just commenting on the News.
Just got my EAA e-Hotline for Feb. 19. The third-class medical reform is not mentioned even once. No visible activity from the EAA on this issue, which they claim is a hot topic. Turn to the AOPA to get the latest information.
Strongly suspect that, when the topic IS included in the e-Hotline, the information probably won't exceed the content of the press release which Hal posted the link to.
Strangely enough, the link to the e-Hotline for Feb 12 is bad....that should have included the information.
Ron Wanttaja
OK folks, we can finally announce some significant news on this front - The Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 has been filed.
News release here
The bill was authored by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) with significant input by EAA. Representative Graves (R-MO) introduced the House version. The medical-related provisions of the bill are as follows:
-6,000 gross weight or less
-Includes both VFR and IFR flights
-Raises altitude limitation up to 14,000 feet
-Prohibits FAA enforcement for 3rd class medical certificate violations unless the FAA has issued regulations as described within 180 days of enactment
So, similar to last year's GA Pilot Protection Act except it INCLUDES IFR and has the additional teeth of taking away the FAA's enforcement authority if not acted upon right away (GAPPA's original lead sponsors Sen. Boozman and Rep. Rokita are cosponsoring PBOR2). Not to be lost in the medical issue, the bill also expands the due process provisions of the first PBOR for airmen and other certificate holders under investigation and gives FAA designees and volunteer pilots some liability protection. A big thank you to the EAA Legal Advisory Council for helping with this language.
This doesn't take away any of our support for the still-forthcoming NPRM from the FAA, but we absolutely back the legislative effort as an equally important avenue to reform.
EAA has been instrumental in lining up support for the bill, which already has 13 Senate cosponsors, representing broad bipartisan support. As I have mentioned here before, we are hard at work at this issue even if you don't see updates from us on a frequent basis. We will provide ample updates as work on the PBOR2 progresses.
You have asked when and how the community can become involved, and now is the time since we have filed bills that legislators can back. Head over to our Rally Congress site and be among the first to send an email. We have loaded it with suggested language that you are free to edit. You may also send a personal letter or phone call to your delegation on your own, which can oftentimes be more effective than a form letter. Let's get this thing passed!
Last edited by Tom Charpentier; 02-26-2015 at 12:08 PM. Reason: Clarity
Tom Charpentier
Government Relations Director
EAA Lifetime #1082006 | Vintage #722921
Great news, Tom!
I have sent my letters to my delegates.
An important aspect of the PBR II that isn't discussed in your suggested letter is safety. I would think that the number one reason a legislator would shy away from signing on is that he or she would take some heat the first time a self-certified pilot augered into the proverbial orphanage. Here's what I added at the beginning of the letter (it's not well-crafted, but I hope it makes sense):
This bill will increase safety. It removes previous regulations that have never been supported by data with regards to medical fitness. This will allow pilots to maintain proficiency in aircraft with which they have the most experience. Current regulations are forcing pilots out of these aircraft into smaller, lighter aircraft that, while safe in and of themselves, possess flight characteristics that differ substantially from those of the rest of the general aviation fleet.
Congratulations on helping push this,
Jeff
Sure, EAA can support the "still-forthcoming NPRM from the FAA," but there's a big difference. These bills: We know what's in 'em. The NRPM: We haven't a clue. Not the original one as it left FAA and certainly not what it will look like after DOT gets through with it. If, in fact, it ever does.
Write your representative and both of your senators. I suggest stating explicitly that this is not a partisan issue.
The thing that bothers me is that the liberal media will get wind of this and twist it around to being unsafe and get the general public into opposing it and cause their congress reps & senators to vote against it. Of course, then Obama might veto it even if it does pass. Hopefully that won't happen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
