What is actual text of PBOR2?

[miket52]

Well, I don't know where to begin. I have been looking around the Internet and there seems to be a lot of people that have lost sight of the reason so many pilots supported the pilot's Bill of Rights 2. The reason for all the support was the language of the medical reform in its original form. It has been proven by the track record of sport pilot rules and through historical statistical data that a medical exam by the FAA is not required for safety. So let us look at the real reasons why your Senators and Congressmen as well as the FAA insist on you having some sort of medical exam associated with the privilege of flying an airplane in the skies over the United States.
1. The Chicken Little syndrome. The problem with the public's perception of the flying public, is the general public thinks an airplane is going to fall out of the sky on top of their house at any moment; after all they see it on TV day after day. So who can blame them for believing that the sky is falling. Your government officials are not willing to take the heat if some small plane piloted by a non-medical certified pilot falls on somebody's house. The lack of the medical exam will be sensationalized by the media immediately. Yet, if that same person was to drive their car into that same house it would never make it to the nightly news. Plus only the possibility of negligence would be looked at in the case of the automobile driver .
2. These government officials are getting a lot of heat from several different sources to not allow the driver’s license medical to pass in its original form. These sources are medical examiners, pilot associations and other individuals with personal agendas.
The medical examiner's along with the FAA does not want to lose control. An the case of the medical examiner it is the income and control.
The pilots associations don't want those pesky little general aviation people to get anymore freedoms in “their airspace”. What a nuisance these little taxpayers put on commercial aviation.
Many of the individuals that have personal agendas range from people who think that because that's the way it's always been so that is the way it should stay, to those that honestly think it is less safe without the medical rule, which as stated above has been proven to be false.
3. Politics never changes. My own Sen. Angus King of Maine responded to my original request the support the medical reform. He stated very plainly that he didn't believe it was a good idea because of the safety issue. He said he might support some kind of legislation that included an examination by your doctor. It strikes me as kind of strange that he now supports the bill while the language has been changed.
If I had to guess I would say that the majority of the political professional people that have signed on to this reform, did so because of the rewording and never intended to see it pass in its original form. Again the Chicken Little syndrome strikes at the heart of America. These folks are not about to take the heat when some small plane makes the nightly news sticking out of the side of a house and the pilot had no medical certificate. It will not matter that the reason the crash occurred was bad weather, or a bad decision, or just plain ran the plane out of gas. The focal point will be the no medical issue.
Of course all of this is bull crap because of the fact that the statistical data proves that the medical certificate is not necessary for safety. It's the perception of safety which is nothing more than a political issue that is being addressed by your Senators and Congressmen. It is human nature to take the easy route that allows you to claim victory and be a hero.
This is a bait and switch operation from the beginning. It appears now that no one in the official capacity of negotiating the end result ever had any intention of passing this in its original form or anything like it.
Let me be the first to warn everyone about what's going to happen when you go to your own doctor for a medical exam. There will be a form of some kind rather it be online will come directly from your doctor that you will have to fill out. Your doctor knowing this, will scrutinize your medical conditions the matter what they are to the extreme. Unlike the FAA's medical examiners your doctor has no protections against liability for allowing you to fly. And even more, you never tell the FAA medical examiner all the little stuff that your doctor already knows. Your doctor would be his mind to sign you off to fly because of the liability it will heap upon him or her. Don't think this won't happen, because it will.
This is not the time to fold and allow AO PA and EAA to knuckle under to the political pressures at hand. Everyone needs to write directly to their congressmen and senators and tell them that you appreciate them being signed on to the pilot's Bill of Rights 2 in its original form only. Explain to them that you do not want them to support the variation that is being sold at this time.
What happened to the driver’s license medical. I have a commercial driver’s license that allows me to drive an 80,000 pound tractor trailer down the road at 70 mi./h passing automobiles coming in the opposite direction also doing 70 miles an hour and I door handles pass within a couple of feet of each other. I am considered medically fit to operate this vehicle in this most dangerous scenario

[Mike M]

I understand your point, miket52. Concur with much of it. But. Our opinions are irrelevant. Pessimist, perhaps, but consider how long this has been going on. Simple request for self-certification on Recreational certificate (based on successful history with self-cert for "glider") was made in what year? But oh, wow, we can rewrite this and make it so much better if you'll just wait one more legislative session (campaign donations address ...............) and we'll be right on it yup it's up for vote oh no those obstructionist Republicans/Democrats/insert party here will not let us vote on it until the last day of the session whoops we didn't get it done well there's always next session (campaign donations address .....................) and we all are so excited about this it will be first on the list for action next session (membership renewal address ....................) (campaign donations address .....................) unless of course we don't get a budget passed or somebody wants to marry their dog or they're coming to take your guns away or there's a big brown cloud in the city until they find out how to burn water.

I know now why old people die we just get tired (AARP memberships available) (stimulant drugs available ask your doctor about risk of significant mental alteration contact 1-800-bad-laws for class action attorney)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRDOrCFIY4c

if we lose our sense of humor we'll all go nuts.

[miket52]

There are as many opinions about this whole thing as there are people who know about it. I would just drive home the point that there is no need for a medical certificate in general aviation. That is the basic point. Don't keep making one section of the public do something that is unnecessary and expensive just because you're afraid of change. But then again they're not doing it because they're afraid of change, it's because they're afraid of their voters. An AOPA and EAA are going along with it because they are not afraid of losing membership.

People make a lot of noise but they never hold the powers to be responsible for some of the things they do. As you have pointed out there is never been a requirement for a medical certificate for gliders. Along with sport pilot and statistical data there's no question about the invalid position of requiring a medical certificate in general aviation.

Once this bill is passed in its altered form it won't matter how long it has been that the attempt at reform has been taking place. There will then be a case of we just did reform and we will not look at it again. That means at least another 30 to 50 years before anyone will be taken seriously on the subject of medical reform. How do I know that? Because it has been talked about in earnest for at least 40 years that I know about. There have been many attempts over that 40 years to bring the subject to the forefront, but until now it has never gained any ground to become a change in the law.

Let me suggest that this not be passed in the rewritten form. This would allow us another avenue. Let's get the law changed on sport pilot that allows for some of these additional aircraft to be flown after a checked out and sign off. The weight limit and speed limit in sport pilot is absolutely ridiculous. If you can learn to fly a Cessna from scratch and continue on to higher ratings, then you can certainly continue on from a sport pilot level to be checked out in larger and faster aircraft. This is the giant hoax that the FAA has perpetrated on the general aviation public from the beginning. As a certified flight instructor with many thousands of hours giving instruction, I can assure you, that anybody who has the capability of learning to be a sport pilot, can also learn how to fly larger faster aircraft.

Once this law has passed the powers that be will no longer be willing to look at anything to do with changing sport pilot. They will point at this change as the equivalent. So once again, you will be stuck with this decision for the rest of your flying career and your children's flying careers.
Don't let this happen, this is not the reform that everyone signed on for. I don't know how AOPA and EAA think they can get away with changing this bill after the fact. This is not what everybody signed on for. This is dirty politics. If you want to change the wording of the bill you need to go back to the constituency who has supported the original bill in writing, and asked them if it's okay to change. This is without a doubt a set up for a lawsuit. As members of AOPA and EAA we have the power to make them do what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to represent the wishes of their members who pay to be represented. This does not give the heads of these organizations the right to change directions against the wishes of their membership. I for one will have much to say now, and going forward, depending on the outcome and wording of this bill.

[rwanttaja]

Nothing I recommend, mind you. But there'll be no additional enforcement with the new rules, and even LESS evidence to carry with you (or be caught without).

One Quick ramp check using a laptop can get you a court date as well as the possibility of having your airplane impounded. It's very easy for them to check to see if you had a medical in the last 10 years using a computer.

I'm not arguing that there aren't penalties. I'm merely stating that the potential for getting *caught* is low, depending on one's level of activity. I've landed at a controlled field maybe six times in the past 35 years; probably one reason I've never had a ramp check.

For some subset of pilots, the rule change isn't going to make any difference.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

Perhaps I missed it, but I have yet to read or hear EAA and AOPA 'opinion' on the current PBOR2. I have seen the 'what it means to me' part but no response to the wording. This usually indicates a lack of enthusiasm for the subject at hand. As I stated in my earlier posts, PBOR2 means absolutely nothing positive for me, but I am one person. I try to look at the 'common good' as it DOES benefit the majority of pilots. The part that does chap my rear end is the fact that the ORIGINAL purpose of the rule is completely lost. Miket, I agree with you. unless preempted now, we will NEVER see the rule as we expected, it will be viewed as a victory and left behind. The people that complain will be the fringes of aviation that (by numbers) couldn't swing an city council election in a town of 1 person. I love all things that fly and the people who fly them, but I do not think that you could gather all of them together to stand up for the minority. Where do you start? How do you ask the people that this is a victory to give up the battle they just survived to re-position to another front line and expose themselves to 'bullets' that could kill them (sorry if that is a little dramatic). Believe me, I truly wish that it would go that way. Politicians need to understand at the end of the day we DO control their fate (I still believe that). Truly the definition of 'Catch 22' on this one. I am still good for a LSA and it is better than nothing. I have almost 3000 hours of instructing and 2000 hours of Cheyenne and Citation time with a whole bunch of other stuff in between, I would have loved to be able to share that knowledge and my experience. In my opinion, we are not seeing the side benefits of what the current PBOR2 will eliminate/prevent. I already have spoken with two friends who make my logbook look like a student pilot's who have just stated 'I am out for good'. That hurts everyone.
Sorry for the emotional rant, I guess I am still stinging from all of this.
Best to all of you!
Rick

[rwanttaja]

3. Politics never changes. My own Sen. Angus King of Maine responded to my original request the support the medical reform. He stated very plainly that he didn't believe it was a good idea because of the safety issue. He said he might support some kind of legislation that included an examination by your doctor. It strikes me as kind of strange that he now supports the bill while the language has been changed.

Don't get your point, here. He originally said he wouldn't support it in its original form, but that he would support it if it included an examination by one's doctor. They added such a provision, and now he supports it. How is this strange?

[B]Let me be the first to warn everyone about what's going to happen when you go to your own doctor for a medical exam. There will be a form of some kind rather it be online will come directly from your doctor that you will have to fill out. Your doctor knowing this, will scrutinize your medical conditions the matter what they are to the extreme. Unlike the FAA's medical examiners your doctor has no protections against liability for allowing you to fly. And even more, you never tell the FAA medical examiner all the little stuff that your doctor already knows. Your doctor would be his mind to sign you off to fly because of the liability it will heap upon him or her.

According to EAA's latest summary, there will not be a "form" for the doctor to fill out. You'll have to put a hand-entry in your own logbook. Your personal physician won't get involved...won't even have to know that you're a pilot. He'll say, "let's get your condition under control" with no knowledge that it affects your airworthiness.

Don't think this won't happen, because it will.

Ever hear of something called "Chicken Little Syndrome"? You see it within aviation a lot.

This is not the time to fold and allow AO PA and EAA to knuckle under to the political pressures at hand. Everyone needs to write directly to their congressmen and senators and tell them that you appreciate them being signed on to the pilot's Bill of Rights 2 in its original form only. Explain to them that you do not want them to support the variation that is being sold at this time.

If the choice is between PBOR2 and no changes, ever, which do you prefer?

What will change in two years...five years...ten years... that would enable the original Pilot's Bill of Rights to get passed when it wouldn't now? Both houses of Congress are currently controlled by the Conservative faction. With the see-saw of politics, that isn't going to last. The AMA and ALPA are not going to fade away. EAA and the AOPA are not going to pour their member's money down an endless rathole forever.

Land o' mighty, Mike, do you think anyone outside aviation truly *cares* about pilots' rights? The only reason PBOR exists is because the FAA ticked off a very powerful Senator. They're not going to make that mistake again...and if Inhofe's current effort fails (despite being 95% of what we need, never mind what we want) there's no chance a "more free" bill will ever make it as far.

PBOR2 or no reform, ever. Take your choice.

Ron Wanttaja

[phavriluk]

Finally, some folks are discussing the emperor's new clothes. 'No Medical' means NO MEDICAL. The qualifier of requiring a medical if the last one was more than ten years old, and by implication, I think, for all new pilots, means a medical is a REQUIREMENT. The bill accepts ten-year-old medicals, and ongoing physical examinations not by an AME, but at the bottom of the glass is a requirement for a medical. And a trip through the special-issuance hoops (at whose discretion?). We're going to need medicals and we're exposed to the cost and aggravation of special issuance. Some reform. All the dancing around the topic cannot take that reality away. I hope the EAA pooh-bahs enjoy their smiley-face photo ops with the Feds. You don't have to advocate a deal that doesn't offer what the original deal was designed to provide. Bait and switch?

[miket52]

Originally Posted by miket52
3. Politics never changes. My own Sen. Angus King of Maine responded to my original request the support the medical reform. He stated very plainly that he didn't believe it was a good idea because of the safety issue. He said he might support some kind of legislation that included an examination by your doctor. It strikes me as kind of strange that he now supports the bill while the language has been changed.


>>Don't get your point, here. He originally said he wouldn't support it in its original form, but that he would support it if it included an examination by one's doctor. They added such a provision, and now he supports it. How is this strange?<<

Well I guess I could've worded that a little different, not so much strange as obvious that many of the senators would not have signed on, did so after the rewording, meaning that we would have never gotten this many supporting it with the original language. So that tells you that this will not fly politically in its original form. Therefore it only makes sense for the people who are seriously interested in reform to try and get the entire subject defined as the original language, and if it will not pass that way, then let it be so. As I said, we can increase the sport pilot rules to accommodate the interests of people who want true reform. Increasing sport pilot in the way I explained above would effectively eliminate the third class medical. In reality all general aviation private pilots are sport pilot's. They do not fly for hire. So it makes sense to have one category of sport pilot with the ability to work your way up to any level you desire. I am a firm believer that a medical certificate is 100% necessary for commercial operations of any kind. But flying your small private airplane is no different than getting in the family car and driving down the road when the pilot is sufficiently capable. As a matter of fact it is statistically much safer. We all know this to be true yet we allow these government officials to bully us with this medical issue.
One of the biggest reasons this country is in so much trouble is because people yield to authority rather than challenge it when it is wrong. This is a wrong that has been around for a long time and should be corrected. If you're not willing to go all the way to correct this it will never get done. Passing a half measure is not the answer. It will put an end to reform for the foreseeable future.



Originally Posted by miket52
Don't think this won't happen, because it will.


>>Ever hear of something called "Chicken Little Syndrome"? You see it within aviation a lot.<<

Ron please don't take this to a personal level the subject matter is too important


I am not an alarmist and you probably already know that I'm not the only one out here that doesn't trust the government to do what it says it will do. I also do not trust the leaders of AOPA or EAA to represent us in an honest way. The fact that they have altered this amendment without the consent of the people who signed on by writing that congressional people is proof of that.

>>If the choice is between PBOR2 and no changes, ever, which do you prefer?<<

It's not that I don't prefer a change, I think I have been very clear that I do. Any bright person can tell by what I have written that I would like to see the will of the represented members here bear fruit. As the gentleman below states, "no medical means no medical!" . We already have that in sport pilot. If this bill is allowed to be passed with the new wording you will never get a change in sport pilot because they will point to the new rule as a victory and a finish line.

And I disagree that it's 95% of what we all need, because it is 0% of what many of us need. And that would be true reform in the sense of a drivers license medical for all of general aviation.

[Gunslinger37]

What ever happened to the original EAA & AOPA request for a waiver? Was there ever an "official" written reply from the FAA that turned the request down? Of course, that pushed the FAA to issue a NPRM that still sits on a desk at OMB with a new projected date of October 15 for movement on to the next approval phase. (See chart below.) Has anyone ever seen the text of the NPRM?

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	10/15/2015
OMB Clearance	11/04/2014	01/15/2016
Publication Date	11/10/2014	01/21/2016
End of Comment Period	01/09/2015	03/21/2016

[rwanttaja]

[QUOTE=miket52;51355]

Don't think this won't happen, because it will.

Ever hear of something called "Chicken Little Syndrome"? You see it within aviation a lot.

Ron please don't take this to a personal level the subject matter is too important

I am not an alarmist and you probably already know that I'm not the only one out here that doesn't trust the government to do what it says it will do.

I'm sorry you're upset by what I posted, but in my opinion, you are an alarmist... and illustrating the same "chicken little" type of attitude you complained about.

Allow me to post the full quote of what you said:

Let me be the first to warn everyone about what's going to happen when you go to your own doctor for a medical exam. There will be a form of some kind rather it be online will come directly from your doctor that you will have to fill out. Your doctor knowing this, will scrutinize your medical conditions the matter what they are to the extreme. Unlike the FAA's medical examiners your doctor has no protections against liability for allowing you to fly. And even more, you never tell the FAA medical examiner all the little stuff that your doctor already knows. Your doctor would be his mind to sign you off to fly because of the liability it will heap upon him or her. Don't think this won't happen, because it will.

So, what's your basis for claiming that the FAA will require a form to be filled out for your private physical?

You have none. This is what you're *afraid* is going to happen, a conclusion not based on evidence or even past FAA behavior. You're asking us to take action because of your unsupported fears.

And, shoot, I've heard this sort of thing for years. Don't let the FAA require periodic re-registration, because they'll jack up the prices! Early days, admittedly...but the aircraft registration fee is the same $5 it's been since the 1970s. Don't let the FAA require biannual flight reviews, because they'll soon require us to re-take our Private flight test every year! Hasn't happened. No doubt a hundred years ago, folks were arguing against the requirement that pilots use seat belts, because it infringed their freedom and prevented them being thrown clear in an accident.

If the choice is between PBOR2 and no changes, ever, which do you prefer?

It's not that I don't prefer a change, I think I have been very clear that I do. Any bright person can tell by what I have written that I would like to see the will of the represented members here bear fruit. As the gentleman below states, "no medical means no medical!" . We already have that in sport pilot. If this bill is allowed to be passed with the new wording you will never get a change in sport pilot because they will point to the new rule as a victory and a finish line.

And if it's NOT passed with the new wording, we'll probably never see any reform at all. Again, would you rather PBOR2 or no change?

Allow me to return to a quote from one of my earlier posts: "Politics is the art of the possible." PBOR2 just might be possible; the bill's author decided the earlier provisions just won't make it through and modified it to handle his fellow Senator's objections. What you're seeing here is the legislative process. It's not sufficient to have a bill that 0.1% of the population wants, it is necessary to satisfy 99 other Senators and 400-odd Representatives. Sometimes it takes compromises; sometimes things have to be watered down to make it through at all. Experienced politicians like Inhofe know what it takes to get a bill through, as unpalatable as it might be to us common citizens. To add another quote by the same dead politician, "People are happiest when they do not know how laws or sausages are made."

And I disagree that it's 95% of what we all need, because it is 0% of what many of us need.

And as I pointed out, I'm one of those 0%... my last medical was more than ten years ago, so I'd need one of the one-time special issuances to take advantage of it. But I support it, as I think that, overall, it's the best solution we can achieve.

Ron Wanttaja