Legislation Seeks to Allow Driver's License Medical

[Tessmacher]

This is all well and good, but if they wanted to do something that would really have a positive impact on encouraging the growth of GA and Sport Aviation, they would up the MTOW on LSAs to something more realistic, such as to allow all those 150/152s, Cherokees, and similar trainer-type planes to be flown as LSA. That would do so much more for driving down costs than anything else.

[Mike Berg]

That was the point of my previous post. I hope they're aren't biting off too much or more to the point, maybe the idea is to ask for the moon (as proposed) and hoping for a little less. At present I'm restoring a 11CC Aeronca Chief that comes in just over the LS theshhold of 1320# at 1350#. Hardly makes sense to me..
Mike

[JimRice85]

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.

Having Congress force the FAA's hand with a bigger requirement is far more likely to succeed than the EAA/AOPA "requesting".

[martymayes]

This is all well and good, but if they wanted to do something that would really have a positive impact on encouraging the growth of GA and Sport Aviation, they would up the MTOW on LSAs to something more realistic, such as to allow all those 150/152s, Cherokees, and similar trainer-type planes to be flown as LSA. That would do so much more for driving down costs than anything else.

What advantage would be gained by including more airplanes in the LSA class? Since it will be possible to fly normal category airplanes (below the wt. & speed limits) without a medical, who cares if they are LSA or not? I'm not following your logic.

[dewi8095]

It will get interesting if it passes the house as a stand alone bill or gets rolled up in a big transportation Bill.
Joe

Attached to the DOT funding bill might be a good place for it.

Don

[Joe LaMantia]

Actually, I think it would be better if it was handled as a stand alone bill, it's "Motherhood and Apple Pie" for most of the folks in Washington. Adding it to any transportation bill opens the door for all kinds of lobbying efforts that will change the whole political equation. Attaching it to a funding bill would bring out the whole "no more spending vs fees and taxes " fight which maybe get put to rest if they really do pass this budget deal. If this goes out by itself the only opposition will come from the "Safety" folks and maybe some Medical people who see lost revenue.

Joe

Attached to the DOT funding bill might be a good place for it.

Don

[Tessmacher]

What advantage would be gained by including more airplanes in the LSA class? Since it will be possible to fly normal category airplanes (below the wt. & speed limits) without a medical, who cares if they are LSA or not? I'm not following your logic.

Seriously? Someone has to explain this to you?

[Jeff Boatright]

Some of the summaries of the bill included terms that aren't being used precisely (e.g. "recreational" has specific meaning when discussing FAA certificates), so I retrieved the text of the bill so I could read it myself (EAA has it at: http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/release...dical-bill.pdf).

It's pretty short, so here it is (apologies if some of the formatting is off):


H. R. 3708


To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ROKITA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on ____


A BILL


To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013’’.


SEC. 2. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIR- CRAFT PILOTS.


(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if—


(1) the individual possesses a valid State driver’s license and complies with any medical requirement associated with that license;


(2) the individual is transporting not more than 5 passengers;


(3) the individual is operating under visual flight rules; and


(4) the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is not carried out—


(A) for compensation, including that no passenger or property on the flight is being carried for compensation;


(B) at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet above mean sea level;


(C) outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted; or


(D) at a speed exceeding 250 knots.

(b) COVERED AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered aircraft’’ means an aircraft that—

(1) is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than 6 occupants; and

(2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more than 6000 pounds.


SEC. 3. REPORT.


Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration shall submit to Congress a report that de- scribes the impact that the regulations issued or revised under section 2 have had, including statistics with respect to changes in small aircraft activity and safety incidents.

[David Pavlich]

Actually, I think it would be better if it was handled as a stand alone bill, it's "Motherhood and Apple Pie" for most of the folks in Washington. Adding it to any transportation bill opens the door for all kinds of lobbying efforts that will change the whole political equation. Attaching it to a funding bill would bring out the whole "no more spending vs fees and taxes " fight which maybe get put to rest if they really do pass this budget deal. If this goes out by itself the only opposition will come from the "Safety" folks and maybe some Medical people who see lost revenue.

Joe

I agree with Joe. 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.

David

[David Pavlich]

Thanks for posting the verbage, Jeff!

David