Drivers license medical

[tmc31]

Does anyone know what the status of the proposed rule changes regarding using a valid drivers license in place of a third class medical is? It has been a while since I have seen anything about this.

Thanks,

Tim

[Anders]

After some looking around, the only thing I could find was that the current FAA Administrator Micahel Huerta said that he wanted to have a ruling on the issue by the end of the year. So, there may be a ruling sometime in the next two months, but so far, nothing else that I know of.

[Jonathan Harger]

The proposed rule has been approved by the FAA and is now pending approval from DOT and OMB. After DOT and OMB sign off on the proposed rule, the FAA will release it to the public as a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM). Once the NPRM is released, the public comment period starts. After the comment period closes, the FAA reviews all of the comments, incorporates changes to the rule based on the comments (if necessary), and finally enacts the new rule.
The Type Club Coalition recently sent a letter to DOT and OMB to urge both organizations to expedite the review/approval process. (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/eaa/2014-10-23-type-clubs-to-dot-expedite-third-class-medical-review)
As soon as DOT and OMB complete their reviews we will communicate the outcome.

[tmc31]

Hey Anders, I searched the EAA website this morning for articles concerning this and found two recent ones. On Sept 18, 2014 EAA published an article entitled "Education DC on Medical Certification Reform" and on Oct 23, 2014 they published and article titled "Type Clubs to DOT: Expedite third class medical review" It looks like the pressure on the FAA DOT NTSB is being kept up. As you say, hopefully by the end of the year.

Tim

[tmc31]

Thanks for the update Jonathan, good to see that progress is being made.

Tim

[Bob Dingley]

So it was a good thing that I renewed my DL with my glasses stowed in my pocket. I missed the fine print. Will it permit night or IFR?

[Fastcapy]

I think we all need to comment during the comment period that we want it to include night and ifr.

[Jonathan Harger]

So it was a good thing that I renewed my DL with my glasses stowed in my pocket. I missed the fine print. Will it permit night or IFR?

We don't yet know what's in the NPRM because the FAA can't show us (an interested party) until it is made public. To do so would be an "ex parte communication," which is forbidden.
We are all very interested to know what the proposal includes and leaves out. I wish we had more to tell you.

[TedK]

I have pulled down the reports from the DOT website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings) showing the progress, or lack thereof, on moving a change in the 3rd class Medical toward a new regulation.


The FAA sent the proposed rule to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) in July2014. DOT originally indicated the rule would go to Office of Management & Budget (OMB) a monh later. And should have been roughly two months from arrival in OMB to publication of the NPRM.


DOT updates their schedule early each month (the last update was dated 6 Oct). If you look at the attached graphic, you can see that the proposed rule has not left OST for OMB, and worse, in Sept and Oct, DOT didn't even bother to update their report with dates that would be in the future.


I am hoping that at the very least DOT's November report will have achievable dates in the future rather than disrespecting us with such a patently false report with rearview dates.


As it appears to me now, the earliest we will see this proposed rule is February.

[dewi8095]

The delay is unbelievable, even for the government! How does one protest this inaction? Seems like it may be time to flood the DOT, OMB, & FAA with letters and emails, with copies to our elected congressional delegations. Where are the alphabet organizations' leadership on this? AOPA, we know, just asks us for more lobbying money (I got a call just yesterday), EAA appears to prefer gentle jawboning, the Type-Club Coalition seems to be the most forward moving on this with the letter mentioned above, don't know what the others are doing, but all approaches seem ineffective.

The other frustration is not know what is being reviewed. If only the CIA & NSA were so secure with their information. Unfortunately, there is no determined aviation press to go in and dig out what's in the proposal. We can't know what is being proposed? Seems crazy to me.

Don

[FlyingRon]

"Gentle jawboning" is lobbying. It's not necessary that the EAA do the continual self-back clapping that the AOPA does whenever something happens they want to take credit for.
You can try contacting your senator or congressman provided you didn't vote him out yesterday (or at least claim you supported him anyway) and ask if he could exert some pressure on the Secreatary.

DOT is where the politics are played. Once it gets to the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting that approval should be relatively forthcoming. In fact, it should be a slam dunk for DECREASING federal budget impact as it will take a lot of load off Joklahoma City.

[TedK]

Jonathan- Has EAA queried DOT or FAA for any explanation as to why the NRPM has not left OST, and when one might expect it to leave OST?

[Frank Giger]

How does one protest this inaction?One gets their Congressman or Senator to have their staffer call the staff over there at OMB and gently ask if they can get an update on the review process of this action, say in the Senator's office at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday?Incredible amounts of action by a regulatory agency can be achieved that way.

[Jonathan Harger]

Jonathan- Has EAA queried DOT or FAA for any explanation as to why the NRPM has not left OST, and when one might expect it to leave OST?

Ted,

EAA senior management approached FAA and DOT senior management late last week to ask that very question, and the answer we got back was that the NPRM was in the final stages of review in both OMB and DOT. While we weren't given a specific expected date of completion (no one ever is), we know that a significant majority of the work is done. We are cautiously optimistic about that.

[TedK]

Ted,

EAA senior management approached FAA and DOT senior management late last week to ask that very question, and the answer we got back was that the NPRM was in the final stages of review in both OMB and DOT. While we weren't given a specific expected date of completion (no one ever is), we know that a significant majority of the work is done. We are cautiously optimistic about that.

Jonathan-

If DOT and OMB are working that together, then there is indeed reason to be optimistic.

Perhaps there really is a pony! :thumbsup: ;)

Thanks,

Ted

[Jonathan Harger]

Jonathan-

If DOT and OMB are working that together, then there is indeed reason to be optimistic.

Perhaps there really is a pony!


I hope so! ...but let's not count our ponies until they hatch.

[tmc31]

Oh boy, scrambled ponies! yum

Tim

[lnuss]

It's not necessary that the EAA do the continual self-back clapping that the AOPA does whenever something happens they want to take credit for.
That's part of why I dropped my menbership a while back.

[TedK]

It is now 12 Nov and there is no update to DOT's Significant Rulemaking status site. The last update was 6 Oct. they are supposed to update it monthly. This site statuses a lot more than the Driver License Medical we are all waiting to see.


In addition to providing a status and schedule, they are supposed to have a colored box next to each item coded Green, Black or Red. And if it is Red (late) their own website (http://www.dot.gov/regulations/explanation-information-report) says they will say why it is late.


It just galls me when they ignore us and don't even abide by their own rules.

[Jeff Boatright]

I wonder if it's still coded "Black" because it did go to OST before the projected date. OTOH, the current update indicates that it hasn't gone to OMB yet (see below). However, Jonathan tells us that is has in fact already gone to OMB. Sounds like someone simply forgot to update the attachment that downloads from the DOT website. If OMB is just about finished reviewing it, as Jonathan says, then the process is within the projected schedule:



20.


Medical Self-Evaluation for Certain Noncommercial Operations in Lieu of Airman Medical Certification
Black





Popular Title: Medical Self-Certification


RIN 2120-AK45


Stage: NPRM


Previous Stage:None


Abstract: This rulemaking would consider allowing certain operations to be conducted by individuals exercising private-pilot privileges without holding a current FAA airman medical certificate. The intended effect of this action is to provide relief from having to obtain a medical certificate for pilots engaged in low-risk flying, such as private pilots operating a small, general aviation aircraft.


Effects:



None





Prompting action: Secretarial/Head of Operating Administration Decision




Legal Deadline: None






Rulemaking Project Initiated: 02/04/2014


Docket Number:


Dates for 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
08/25/2014



OMB Clearance
11/04/2014
11/25/2014



Publication Date
11/10/2014
12/09/2014



End of Comment Period
01/09/2015
03/09/2015








Explanation for any delay:
N/A





Federal Register Citation for NPRM: None

[Jeff Boatright]

I called DOT and they walked me through where we are on this (that is, they walked me through what they can legally state). Bottom line is that officially the proposal is at OST. Got confirmation from FAA rulemaking division, who said the same thing.

[TedK]

DOT Updated their schedule today for the Drivers License Medical and now projects public release on 5 March 2015. Their newly published schedule does not appear to show any parallel activity that would have accelerated the schedule toward publication. They still show that the NRPM has not left DOT and now isn't scheduled to leave DOT till 30 Nov. Then OMB will have it for three months.

Me thinks they have been blowing smoke up EAA's (et al) skirt.

http://eaaforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=4302&stc=1&thumb=1

[TedK]

Here is the list of current House sponsors and the date they joined sponsorship.


If your Representative isn't below, then you need to turn up the heat.


158 cosponsors (132R, 26D) (show)
Flores, Bill [R-TX17]
(joined Dec 11, 2013)
Graves, Sam [R-MO6]
(joined Dec 11, 2013)
Hanna, Richard [R-NY22]
(joined Dec 11, 2013)
Peterson, Collin [D-MN7]
(joined Dec 11, 2013)
Pompeo, Mike [R-KS4]
(joined Dec 11, 2013)
Johnson, Bill [R-OH6]
(joined Dec 12, 2013)
Kinzinger, Adam [R-IL16]
(joined Dec 12, 2013)
Pearce, Stevan ?Steve? [R-NM2]
(joined Dec 12, 2013)
Smith, Lamar [R-TX21]
(joined Dec 12, 2013)
Long, Billy [R-MO7]
(joined Dec 16, 2013)
Collins, Chris [R-NY27]
(joined Dec 23, 2013)
Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS1]
(joined Dec 23, 2013)
Marchant, Kenny [R-TX24]
(joined Dec 23, 2013)
Rogers, Mike [R-AL3]
(joined Dec 23, 2013)
Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA3]
(joined Dec 23, 2013)
Young, Don [R-AK0]
(joined Dec 23, 2013)
Conaway, Michael [R-TX11]
(joined Jan 7, 2014)
Upton, Fred [R-MI6]
(joined Jan 7, 2014)
Kline, John [R-MN2]
(joined Jan 9, 2014)
Schrader, Kurt [D-OR5]
(joined Jan 9, 2014)
Terry, Lee [R-NE2]
(joined Jan 9, 2014)
Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO4]
(joined Jan 13, 2014)
McHenry, Patrick [R-NC10]
(joined Jan 13, 2014)
Yoder, Kevin [R-KS3]
(joined Jan 13, 2014)
Duncan, John ?Jimmy? [R-TN2]
(joined Jan 15, 2014)
Barrow, John [D-GA12]
(joined Jan 21, 2014)
Hall, Ralph [R-TX4]
(joined Jan 21, 2014)
Bachus, Spencer [R-AL6]
(joined Jan 27, 2014)
Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R-NJ11]
(joined Jan 27, 2014)
Guthrie, Brett [R-KY2]
(joined Jan 27, 2014)
Ross, Dennis [R-FL15]
(joined Jan 27, 2014)
Graves, Tom [R-GA14]
(joined Feb 5, 2014)
Roe, David ?Phil? [R-TN1]
(joined Feb 5, 2014)
Schock, Aaron [R-IL18]
(joined Feb 5, 2014)
Tipton, Scott [R-CO3]
(joined Feb 5, 2014)
Williams, Roger [R-TX25]
(joined Feb 5, 2014)
Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK1]
(joined Feb 14, 2014)
Duncan, Jeff [R-SC3]
(joined Feb 14, 2014)
Fleischmann, Charles ?Chuck? [R-TN3]
(joined Feb 14, 2014)
Griffith, Morgan [R-VA9]
(joined Feb 14, 2014)
Petri, Thomas ?Tom? [R-WI6]
(joined Feb 18, 2014)
Griffin, Tim [R-AR2]
(joined Feb 25, 2014)
Tiberi, Patrick ?Pat? [R-OH12]
(joined Feb 25, 2014)
Bucshon, Larry [R-IN8]
(joined Feb 26, 2014)
Davis, Rodney [R-IL13]
(joined Feb 26, 2014)
Gibson, Christopher [R-NY19]
(joined Feb 26, 2014)
Latta, Robert [R-OH5]
(joined Feb 26, 2014)
Brooks, Susan [R-IN5]
(joined Mar 4, 2014)
Messer, Luke [R-IN6]
(joined Mar 4, 2014)
Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA48]
(joined Mar 5, 2014)
Young, Todd [R-IN9]
(joined Mar 5, 2014)
Amodei, Mark [R-NV2]
(joined Mar 10, 2014)
Jenkins, Lynn [R-KS2]
(joined Mar 11, 2014)
Walorski, Jackie [R-IN2]
(joined Mar 11, 2014)
Carson, Andr? [D-IN7]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
Cramer, Kevin [R-ND0]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN4]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
Hurt, Robert [R-VA5]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
McIntyre, Mike [D-NC7]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
Posey, Bill [R-FL8]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
Schweikert, David [R-AZ6]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
Stutzman, Marlin [R-IN3]
(joined Mar 12, 2014)
Broun, Paul [R-GA10]
(joined Mar 18, 2014)
Miller, Jeff [R-FL1]
(joined Mar 18, 2014)
Duffy, Sean [R-WI7]
(joined Mar 21, 2014)
Loebsack, David [D-IA2]
(joined Mar 21, 2014)
Sessions, Pete [R-TX32]
(joined Mar 21, 2014)
Black, Diane [R-TN6]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Brooks, Mo [R-AL5]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Crawford, Eric ?Rick? [R-AR1]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
DeSantis, Ron [R-FL6]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Hultgren, Randy [R-IL14]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Massie, Thomas [R-KY4]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Chabot, Steve [R-OH1]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Denham, Jeff [R-CA10]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Fitzpatrick, Michael [R-PA8]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE1]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
McClintock, Tom [R-CA4]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Nolan, Richard [D-MN8]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Ribble, Reid [R-WI8]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL8]
(joined Mar 27, 2014)
Farenthold, Blake [R-TX27]
(joined Mar 27, 2014)
Crenshaw, Ander [R-FL4]
(joined Apr 2, 2014)
Gohmert, Louie [R-TX1]
(joined Apr 2, 2014)
LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA1]
(joined Apr 2, 2014)
Barr, Garland ?Andy? [R-KY6]
(joined Apr 3, 2014)
Mica, John [R-FL7]
(joined Apr 4, 2014)
Smith, Adrian [R-NE3]
(joined Apr 4, 2014)
Wenstrup, Brad [R-OH2]
(joined Apr 4, 2014)
Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN7]
(joined Apr 8, 2014)
Kirkpatrick, Ann [D-AZ1]
(joined Apr 8, 2014)
Poe, Ted [R-TX2]
(joined Apr 8, 2014)
Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA6]
(joined Apr 28, 2014)
Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX19]
(joined Apr 28, 2014)
Walberg, Tim [R-MI7]
(joined Apr 28, 2014)
Weber, Randy [R-TX14]
(joined Apr 28, 2014)
Meadows, Mark [R-NC11]
(joined Apr 30, 2014)
Barletta, Lou [R-PA11]
(joined May 1, 2014)
Huizenga, Bill [R-MI2]
(joined May 6, 2014)
Jordan, Jim [R-OH4]
(joined May 6, 2014)
Esty, Elizabeth [D-CT5]
(joined May 8, 2014)
Yoho, Ted [R-FL3]
(joined May 8, 2014)
Garrett, Scott [R-NJ5]
(joined May 15, 2014)
Ryan, Tim [D-OH13]
(joined May 15, 2014)
Simpson, Michael ?Mike? [R-ID2]
(joined May 15, 2014)
Walden, Greg [R-OR2]
(joined May 15, 2014)
Daines, Steve [R-MT0]
(joined May 19, 2014)
Braley, Bruce [D-IA1]
(joined May 22, 2014)
Buchanan, Vern [R-FL16]
(joined May 22, 2014)
Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA19]
(joined May 27, 2014)
Owens, William [D-NY21]
(joined May 29, 2014)
Lipinski, Daniel [D-IL3]
(joined Jun 2, 2014)
Scalise, Steve [R-LA1]
(joined Jun 11, 2014)
Valadao, David [R-CA21]
(joined Jun 11, 2014)
Southerland, Steve [R-FL2]
(joined Jun 12, 2014)
Forbes, Randy [R-VA4]
(joined Jun 18, 2014)
Joyce, David [R-OH14]
(joined Jun 24, 2014)
Gosar, Paul [R-AZ4]
(joined Jun 30, 2014)
Jolly, David [R-FL13]
(joined Jul 10, 2014)
Pocan, Mark [D-WI2]
(joined Jul 14, 2014)
Issa, Darrell [R-CA49]
(joined Jul 22, 2014)
Bustos, Cheri [D-IL17]
(joined Jul 23, 2014)
Perry, Scott [R-PA4]
(joined Jul 25, 2014)
Cartwright, Matthew [D-PA17]
(joined Jul 30, 2014)
Harris, Andy [R-MD1]
(joined Jul 30, 2014)
Byrne, Bradley [R-AL1]
(joined Jul 31, 2014)
McCollum, Betty [D-MN4]
(joined Jul 31, 2014)
Miller, Candice [R-MI10]
(joined Jul 31, 2014)
Coble, Howard [R-NC6]
(joined Sep 8, 2014)
Collins, Doug [R-GA9]
(joined Sep 8, 2014)
Napolitano, Grace [D-CA32]
(joined Sep 8, 2014)
Thompson, Bennie [D-MS2]
(joined Sep 8, 2014)
Veasey, Marc [D-TX33]
(joined Sep 8, 2014)
Miller, Gary [R-CA31]
(joined Sep 9, 2014)
Nunnelee, Alan [R-MS1]
(joined Sep 9, 2014)
Scott, Austin [R-GA8]
(joined Sep 9, 2014)
Aderholt, Robert [R-AL4]
(joined Sep 11, 2014)
Clawson, Curtis ?Curt? [R-FL19]
(joined Sep 11, 2014)
Rothfus, Keith [R-PA12]
(joined Sep 11, 2014)
Lance, Leonard [R-NJ7]
(joined Sep 15, 2014)
Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R-WA3]
(joined Sep 16, 2014)
Hudson, Richard [R-NC8]
(joined Sep 16, 2014)
Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK2]
(joined Sep 17, 2014)
Bishop, Timothy [D-NY1]
(joined Sep 18, 2014)
C?rdenas, Tony [D-CA29]
(joined Sep 18, 2014)
Cook, Paul [R-CA8]
(joined Sep 18, 2014)
Cotton, Tom [R-AR4]
(joined Sep 18, 2014)
Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R-MO3]
(joined Sep 18, 2014)
Rice, Tom [R-SC7]
(joined Sep 18, 2014)
Delaney, John [D-MD6]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Gerlach, Jim [R-PA6]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Hunter, Duncan [R-CA50]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Turner, Michael [R-OH10]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD8]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Wilson, Joe [R-SC2]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Womack, Steve [R-AR3]
(joined Nov 12, 2014)
Benishek, Dan [R-MI1]
(joined Nov 13, 2014)

[TedK]

Below is a list of the Senators currently sponsoring S2103.


19 cosponsors (14R, 5D) (show)
Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
(joined Mar 11, 2014)
Roberts, Pat [R-KS]
(joined Mar 11, 2014)
Hatch, Orrin [R-UT]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Tester, Jon [D-MT]
(joined Mar 24, 2014)
Crapo, Michael [R-ID]
(joined Mar 26, 2014)
Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
(joined Mar 31, 2014)
Begich, Mark [D-AK]
(joined Apr 1, 2014)
Risch, James [R-ID]
(joined Apr 1, 2014)
Inhofe, James ?Jim? [R-OK]
(joined Apr 8, 2014)
Enzi, Michael [R-WY]
(joined Apr 10, 2014)
Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]
(joined Jun 5, 2014)
Pryor, Mark [D-AR]
(joined Jun 5, 2014)
Toomey, Patrick ?Pat? [R-PA]
(joined Jun 5, 2014)
Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH]
(joined Jun 19, 2014)
Wicker, Roger [R-MS]
(joined Jun 19, 2014)
Landrieu, Mary [D-LA]
(joined Jul 15, 2014)
Portman, Robert ?Rob? [R-OH]
(joined Jul 23, 2014)
Fischer, Deb [R-NE]
(joined Sep 15, 2014)
Johanns, Mike [R-NE]

[Jonathan Harger]

Ted,

As you know, come January 3 many of the Representatives and Senators on that list will be pursuing other career options and the bill's support coalition will have to be rebuilt. There is work to be done in building up the GA caucuses, too.
The bill will likely stay alive in one form or another, and I suspect that the FAA does not want that legislative language to be a factor in the 2015 re-authorization bill. That is why we are holding out hope for an acceptable NPRM, as slow as the process may be.

[TedK]

Jonathan- I believe in Christmas Miracles.

There isn't any reason this reasonably uncontroversial Bill couldn't be swept up in the end of year clean-up and tacked onto a omnibus before the Session is out. If we keep the heat on the yet unsponsored, it just might happen.

As it stands now, the bureaucrats have slow rolled us so we won't even see the NPRM until March. I am mad as heck because for two months DOT had dates in the rear view mirror.

EAA indicated that DOT and OMB were working together to fast track the NPRM. Do you see any evidence of that?

if we get a good NPRM, I'm ok with that, but I never put all my chips on one number.

[TedK]

In July, the DOT Significant Rulemaking tracker said that the Third Class Medical NPRM would be released for public comment in November.

It it is now January 2015, and the DOT Rulemaking tracker (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/January%202015%20Internet%20Report.docx) indicates that the NPRM won't be released until May 2015.

So in six months, we have slid six months.

Jonathon, can you tell us what EAA is doing?

[lynnlpitts]

Does anyone know if our staff at EAA are lobbying for the Drivers License at this time, January 14? ...Why do 'bad' regulations take a few days for Congress to pass and benevolent ones stall out? If the Republicans control the majority, where is the logjam? Thanks, Lynn

[1600vw]

Does anyone know if our staff at EAA are lobbying for the Drivers License at this time, January 14? ...Why do 'bad' regulations take a few days for Congress to pass and benevolent ones stall out? If the Republicans control the majority, where is the logjam? Thanks, Lynn

Now the American public will see it does not matter what side is in office or what office, politicians are what they are, it matters not if you have an R or D in front of ones name.

[Gunslinger37]

From a January 22 AOPA update, "The Department of Transportation has announced plans to complete its review of proposed third class medical reforms on Jan. 26, allowing the FAA’s draft rule to move to the Office of Management and Budget for another round of mandatory reviews."
Does anyone know if the NPRM actually moved over to the OMB? The DOT web site has not been updated for several months and fails to show any reason for the 8 month delay.

[FlyingRon]

I think the AOPA assumption was that the DOT was going to hold to the scheduled dates which they haven't done yet. Whoever wrote that press release wasn't actually paying attention to the issue.

[Byron J. Covey]

Now the American public will see it does not matter what side is in office or what office, politicians are what they are, it matters not if you have an R or D in front of ones name.

Prefessional politicians are the lowest form of human life.


BJC

[TedK]

I think the AOPA assumption was that the DOT was going to hold to the scheduled dates which they haven't done yet. Whoever wrote that press release wasn't actually paying attention to the issue.

It sure seems to me that AOPA and EAA are naive. All you have to do is look at the DOT Significant Rulemaking website to get some sense of FAA's poor track record at bringing even modestly controversial Rules to fruition.

[TedK]

Ted,

As you know, come January 3 many of the Representatives and Senators on that list will be pursuing other career options and the bill's support coalition will have to be rebuilt. There is work to be done in building up the GA caucuses, too.
The bill will likely stay alive in one form or another, and I suspect that the FAA does not want that legislative language to be a factor in the 2015 re-authorization bill. That is why we are holding out hope for an acceptable NPRM, as slow as the process may be.

Jonathan- au Contraire, the grand majority of those sponsors were reelected.

Hope is not a strategy. The NPRM has spent over six months going absolutely nowhere. And AOPA embarrassed themselves by taking a cursory look at the DOT Significant Rulemaking website without looking at trend. A down in headwork. Amateurish.

So, as Lynn asked a few posts earlier, what is EAA's Strategy? This is the number One item among recreational aviators and neither AOPA nor EAA will state to their membership what their strategy for obtaining Third Class Medical Reform will be.

Frankly, it appears to me that EAA has been successfully cowed by the FAA and you are too afraid for Airventure to challenge the FAA. Please tell me something that proves me wrong.

But should I be right, and EAA has decided the Show is more important than being an Agent for Change, then perhaps we Members and Chapters need to consider how we abandon the husk and move forward. Perhaps, it might be time to ask is our organization working for us or working for themselves?

[Gunslinger37]

This subject is a hot issue with all the pilots at our local airport and our EAA Chapter meetings. Why has EAA HQ let this drop off the radar screen? The latest issue of Sport Aviation has not one word about Aeromedical Reform. No update to the membership. On the EAA Advocacy web page is appears to be the top issue, but the two little paragraphs of text on that page have not changed for months. At least AOPA writes letters to the DOT and updates their members with a little news when they get anything from the government.
Now that we have a new Congress, what is happening there to re-introduce the House and Senate bills this session?

[FlyingRon]

Note that GAPPA even if it had passed would have done NOTHING with regard to this. It didn't abolish the medical requirement, it just told the FAA to initiate regulations to that effect.
Well the FAA has done that. There were time limits in the rule but such limits are almost UNIVERSALLY ignored by the executive branch so unless the Congress comes back and specifically takes them to task (rare), it doesn't happen. Further, it wouldn't short circuit the OMB part of the rulemaking (yes i know we're not there yet) because that's required by law and GAPPA didn't override that law.

[Tom Charpentier]

So, as Lynn asked a few posts earlier, what is EAA's Strategy? This is the number One item among recreational aviators and neither AOPA nor EAA will state to their membership what their strategy for obtaining Third Class Medical Reform will be.

Frankly, it appears to me that EAA has been successfully cowed by the FAA and you are too afraid for Airventure to challenge the FAA. Please tell me something that proves me wrong.

If we have ever given the impression that reforming the 3rd Class Medical is not our top advocacy priority, nor one that we work on every day, then that was certainly unintentional on our part. Our strategy is comprehensive, and we’re not hanging our hats on any one thing. Yes, the fact that the FAA has developed a rule-making package is a step in the right direction, and we’re waiting for it to clear the same bureaucratic hurdles that all rulemaking must clear (the same hurdles, I might add, that help us fight bad rulemaking), but we’re in parallel continuing to actively push for legislation. The new congress is seated and we are on Capitol Hill every week recruiting members of the General Aviation Caucus and developing support for new legislation on medical reform, which will soon be filed. In addition, the FAA needs its budget reauthorized this year, so the must-pass reauthorization bill is another part of our legislative toolbox.

So the bottom line is this: the NPRM is forthcoming, but we’re very active in pursuing legislation on a parallel track. And I promise that’s not lip service. We’re on the ground in Washington on a regular basis to work on this. Nothing will be off the table until we have accomplished actual reform for pilots who fly recreationally.

[cub builder]

So the bottom line is this: the NPRM is forthcoming, but we’re very active in pursuing legislation on a parallel track. And I promise that’s not lip service. We’re on the ground in Washington on a regular basis to work on this. Nothing will be off the table until we have accomplished actual reform for pilots who fly recreationally.

Since this is undoubtedly the #1 subject matter with the EAA membership, why not have a monthly update in Sport Aviation as to the status and what is being done to make it happen EVERY MONTH WITHOUT FAIL until the goal is met?

No matter how much you do, if you fail to keep the membership informed on their #1 issue, then you will be seen as asleep at the wheel.

-Cub Builder

[TedK]

If we have ever given the impression that reforming the 3rd Class Medical is not our top advocacy priority, nor one that we work on every day, then that was certainly unintentional on our part. Our strategy is comprehensive, and we’re not hanging our hats on any one thing. Yes, the fact that the FAA has developed a rule-making package is a step in the right direction, and we’re waiting for it to clear the same bureaucratic hurdles that all rulemaking must clear (the same hurdles, I might add, that help us fight bad rulemaking), but we’re in parallel continuing to actively push for legislation. The new congress is seated and we are on Capitol Hill every week recruiting members of the General Aviation Caucus and developing support for new legislation on medical reform, which will soon be filed. In addition, the FAA needs its budget reauthorized this year, so the must-pass reauthorization bill is another part of our legislative toolbox.

So the bottom line is this: the NPRM is forthcoming, but we’re very active in pursuing legislation on a parallel track. And I promise that’s not lip service. We’re on the ground in Washington on a regular basis to work on this. Nothing will be off the table until we have accomplished actual reform for pilots who fly recreationally.

Tom-

An excellent post. Thank you.

However, it appears you are trying to do the heavy lifting without the benefit of the additional support the Members and Chapters could add. For example, why not publish who you have met with so we could roll in behind you as the exclamation point? When you go to see a Congressperson or Senator, do you take a powerful aviator from their district or state with you? Who? How can we work with that person?

Do do you have an Info Packet that you are providing to Hill denizens? Can we see the packet so we can sing from your hymnal?

This is is not just your fight, this is our fight. Include us and arm us. We can be a tremendous force multiplier.

Your thoughts, please?

Ted

(Jonathan, I owe you a cold one at OSH)

[dclaxon]

Prefessional politicians are the lowest form of human life.


BJC

Byron, are you sure the life form you are speaking of is actually human?
Dave

[Byron J. Covey]

Byron, are you sure the life form you are speaking of is actually human?
Dave

Sadly, they probably are not human. But remember, in the USA we have the very best politicians that money can buy.


BJC

[Jim Heffelfinger]

One issue with putting it in SA is the long delay between News and in our mail boxes. I agree knowing the process and where we are in that process is important. Perhaps, if applicable, a flow chart with notes of log jams along the pathway.

[rv builder]

That's where the miracle of electronic communication comes in. A resource which they, very sadly, don't seem to understand or use very well.

Updated status on the front page of the website? Nope. Emails with info about what they're doing? Nope. Emails with info about which senators and representatives to call? Nope. Postings on forums with current activities? Not unless someone calls them to task on it. Press releases and news articles on-line? Nope.

[rwanttaja]

The status of medical reform was one of the topics discussed this week at the EAA/FAA Recreational Aviation Summit. There's a brief report about the meeting on the "News" section of the EAA web page, and a statement that a more in-depth report would be coming out on EAA's email news report this week.

I was there for the meeting (hey, SOMEbody has to eat the leftover doughnuts), but since there's going to be an official EAA report on it, I'll leave it to them. Nothing to indicate approval is imminent, but the FAA seems fully in favor of it, and the hitch appears to be objections to the DOT by non-aviation organizations.

Ron Wanttaja

[TedK]

Ron- thanks for heads up. I hope some information comes out that indicates what the objections of the non-aviation organizations might be so that we can intelligently counter their concerns.

Ted

[Gerry]

The status of medical reform was one of the topics discussed this week at the EAA/FAA Recreational Aviation Summit. There's a brief report about the meeting on the "News" section of the EAA web page, and a statement that a more in-depth report would be coming out on EAA's email news report this week.

I was there for the meeting (hey, SOMEbody has to eat the leftover doughnuts), but since there's going to be an official EAA report on it, I'll leave it to them. Nothing to indicate approval is imminent, but the FAA seems fully in favor of it, and the hitch appears to be objections to the DOT by non-aviation organizations.

Ron Wanttaja
I,ve always wondered why various Manufacturers weren,t behind this on the plus side, seems like it is only pilots and EAA/AOPA.

[Gunslinger37]

How can there be "objections of the non-aviation organizations" when the text of the NPRM has not been approved nor released for public comment? Get it through the DOT and OMB process and released so we can all file our comments or objections. Sounds like there is something going on outside the legal path for this to become a law.

[cub builder]

DOT and OMB ARE non-aviation organizations. Doesn't mean they are anti-aviation. But they are going to look out for their own best interest, no matter how small, and hate to see the government give up any authority over us minions.

-Cub Builder

[rwanttaja]

How can there be "objections of the non-aviation organizations" when the text of the NPRM has not been approved nor released for public comment? Get it through the DOT and OMB process and released so we can all file our comments or objections. Sounds like there is something going on outside the legal path for this to become a law.
Never underestimate the power of a strong lobby. It's easier to defeat a governmental action privately in the planning stages.

The American Medical Association is one example of a non-aviation organization that opposes reform of the third class medical...their opposition has been reported in a number of sources.

Ron Wanttaja

[rv builder]

Never underestimate the power of a strong lobby. It's easier to defeat a governmental action privately in the planning stages.

The American Medical Association is one example of a non-aviation organization that opposes reform of the third class medical...their opposition has been reported in a number of sources.

Ron Wanttaja

Bingo. Follow the money.

[TedK]

Latest status just released on the DOT website and it has slipped a month.

No apparent progress.

[Gunslinger37]

1061 days since EAA and AOPA submitted the request for 3rd class medical exemption. What is the status?
375 days since the FAA started the NPRM. Now 6 months behind schedule with no reason given to the public.
Will the current Congress introduce new bills for the GA Pilot Protection Act?
When will EAA update the membership with current status of what the EAA says is a "top priority"?
Do we need to put pressure on our Congressional representatives to get DOT moving on this issue.

[Byron J. Covey]

1061 days since EAA and AOPA submitted the request for 3rd class medical exemption. What is the status?
Stalled, because the FAA doesn't want to do it.


375 days since the FAA started the NPRM. Now 6 months behind schedule with no reason given to the public.
Will the current Congress introduce new bills for the GA Pilot Protection Act?

No. Their attention span about matches thier individual IQ's in seconds; i.e., less than a minute. Unless it does something to make them think that it will help them get re-elected.


When will EAA update the membership with current status of what the EAA says is a "top priority"?

Just after they finish promoting the B-17 tour.


Do we need to put pressure on our Congressional representatives to get DOT moving on this issue.

Yes. And to re-introduce the bill to make it happen.


BJC

[rwanttaja]

Stalled, because the FAA doesn't want to do it.
Hmmmm... slowed, perhaps, because some at the FAA didn't like it. But at the Recreational Aviation Summit last week, all the FAA guys there were in favor of it, and said the FAA Administrator was in favor as well.

It's apparently passed all the FAA hoops. It's current stalled at the Department of Transportation (the FAA's parent organization), which is handling protests from organizations like the AMA. Congressional input to the DOT probably *would* help.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Boatright]

Hmmmm... slowed, perhaps, because some at the FAA didn't like it. But at the Recreational Aviation Summit last week, all the FAA guys there were in favor of it, and said the FAA Administrator was in favor as well.

It's apparently passed all the FAA hoops. It's current stalled at the Department of Transportation (the FAA's parent organization), which is handling protests from organizations like the AMA. Congressional input to the DOT probably *would* help.

Ron Wanttaja


Ron, you're a national treasure, and your POV is much appreciated, but why aren't we hearing same or similar from EAA?

[rwanttaja]

Ron, you're a national treasure, and your POV is much appreciated, but why aren't we hearing same or similar from EAA?
Dunno about national treasure, unless you're thinking of a big fat lump of Fool's Gold. :-)

My position at the meeting last week was a bit anomalous... I was the only "outsider" there (given my rather weird sense of humor, it's probably the LAST invite I'll get, too :-). While invited by EAA, I was not officially part of the EAA delegation.

Like anyone who works for a company, the EAA folks would have to be guided by their corporation's policies regarding public data release. The EAA guys can't just post their impression of what happened, just like Hal can't post a summary based on what he heard in the hallways after the meeting. Their employer requires that information like this go through a release process...and they can't talk about it, publicly, until that item is released. They just aren't allowed to answer off the cuff, like I do. The FAA guys are under the same strictures, probably worse.

But I'm not EAA, and I'm not FAA. I'm a bit freer to speak on what I observed (reason #2 for NOT inviting me back :-). There's stuff that was obviously sensitive, or personal opinion, and I haven't commented on those.

Another factor is that I'm rather tuned in to the online communities, where stuff like the medical reform is always being discussed. It's natural for me to chime in, then, when questions arose and I had information from the meeting to share. But, again, the EAA guys can't do that, and after working these problems all day, they probably don't want to talk about them on their time off.

The people at EAA that are working these problems are the people you *want* working these issues. They're knowledgeable, they're capable, and they're passionate fans of personal aviation. I've known some of them for 10-15 years, and have been happy to help when issues arise that are within my limited zone of expertise.

And... doggone it, the FAA people I met were good, too. They weren't hidebound bureaucrats, they were guys who loved aviation. We got a private tour of the museum after the first day's meeting (I got to sit in the P-38!) and they were like any airplane nut in a candy shop.

The problems we're worrying about the most aren't technical or medical...they're political. EAA's working those, too, but sometimes you can't talk about it as much.

The last factor to consider is...well, I could have heard them wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't even be a low exponent. Or maybe I'm channeling my inner Brian Williams, and none of this happened at all. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Byron J. Covey]

And... doggone it, the FAA people I met were good, too. They weren't hidebound bureaucrats, they were guys who loved aviation. We got a private tour of the museum after the first day's meeting (I got to sit in the P-38!) and they were like any airplane nut in a candy shop.

Ron Wanttaja

I'm not surprised that you found the FAA people to be good people who love aviation. Over the years, I've learned not to judge individuals by the organizations that they are affiliated with. There are some very good, capable, well-intentioned people is some of the very worst organizations. That is also my experience with the FAA people whom I have gotten to know well.


BJC

[Jeff Boatright]

Dunno about national treasure, unless you're thinking of a big fat lump of Fool's Gold. :-)

...
Like anyone who works for a company, the EAA folks would have to be guided by their corporation's policies regarding public data release. The EAA guys can't just post their impression of what happened,...

Ron Wanttaja

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the thorough reply, Mr NTTIABFLOFG*. I understand and agree with individuals not speaking out of turn. What I meant was: Why haven't we heard any updates from EAA "corporate"?

Best,

Jeff

*National Treasure That Is A Big Fat Lump Of Fool's Gold :rollseyes:

[Hal Bryan]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the thorough reply, Mr NTTIABFLOFG*. I understand and agree with individuals not speaking out of turn. What I meant was: Why haven't we heard any updates from EAA "corporate"?

Best,

Jeff

*National Treasure That Is A Big Fat Lump Of Fool's Gold :rollseyes:

Jeff, et al -

We published our summary of the summit last Thursday:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/02-12-2015-eaa-faa-summit-brings-progress-on-key-ga-issues

Watch EAA.org and e-Hotline for any additional news or updates as we get them.

Thanks -

Hal

[TedK]

Jeff, et al -

We published our summary of the summit last Thursday:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/02-12-2015-eaa-faa-summit-brings-progress-on-key-ga-issues

Watch EAA.org and e-Hotline for any additional news or updates as we get them.

Thanks -

Hal

The Summary said

"More information from this week's summit will be published in upcoming issues (emphasis added) of EAA Sport Aviation magazine. In addition, EAA and FAA officials agreed to maintain regular updates on the major action items identified this week, as well as meet for high-level discussions during EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2015 in July."

I get that SA has a wider circulation than this site, but the language troubled me a bit. I hope EAA won't dribble out the info.

I am really hoping that EAA overachieves in keeping us informed in what their position is, what they have done, what they intend to do and where we can help.

thanks

Ted

[rwanttaja]

Jeff, et al -

We published our summary of the summit last Thursday:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/02-12-2015-eaa-faa-summit-brings-progress-on-key-ga-issues

The problem is, I'm visible in that lead-in photo. I think it scared folks off.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Gunslinger37]

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 (http://www.aopa.org/sitecore%20modules/web/ooyala/aopa.ooyala/layouts/sublayouts/lightboxview.aspx?w=633&h=356&id=xhOG5jczr2rTwQmgXRajPQQ8qgM27X4H&title=Medical+certificate+reform+update.&duration=93893&pid=NzU1MDFiOTZhNTZlYTZhMjg5NTU1MDkz) to see a video update from the AOPA interview with Sam Graves (R-MO) on February 13th.

[Jeff Boatright]

Jeff, et al -

We published our summary of the summit last Thursday:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/02-12-2015-eaa-faa-summit-brings-progress-on-key-ga-issues

Watch EAA.org and e-Hotline for any additional news or updates as we get them.

Thanks -

Hal


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-advocacy/top-aviation-issues/aeromedical-reform).


I figured that those pages would be where I could find news about, you know, Aeromedical Reform Advocacy. :P

(*runs for cover*)

[Jeff Boatright]

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-advocacy/top-aviation-issues/aeromedical-reform).


I figured that those pages would be where I could find news about, you know, Aeromedical Reform Advocacy. :P

(*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.

[Gunslinger37]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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

[Tom Charpentier]

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 (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/02-26-2015-second-pilots-bill-of-rights-pushes-long-awaited-aeromedical-reform-forward)

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 (http://govt.eaa.org) 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!

[Jeff Boatright]

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

[MEdwards]

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.

[Richard Warner]

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.

[rwanttaja]

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.
He certainly could veto it. But Obama signed both the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act of 2013 and the first Pilot's Bill of Rights Act back in 2012. That's a good sign that he'll approve this one.

One factor in favor of his approval of the new bill is that the second Pilot's Bill of Rights act is bi-partisan. Vetoing it, he'd tick off members of his own party. With the Democrats the minority party in both houses, he really can't afford to do that.

Of course, there are some aspects in the bill NOT related to pilot medicals that may generate their own controversy, and certainly a non-related "poison pill" rider could be added that would guarantee a veto.

Ron Wanttaja

[TedK]

In addition to PBOR2 being introduced in both chambers of Congress, you gotta love Congressman Todd Rokita (R-IN) for also introducing what seems to be another GAPPA. Only the title is available thus far


H.R.1086 - 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.114th Congress (2015-2016)

[rv builder]

Going nowhere fast. Anybody who thinks this is something Congress really cares about is kidding themselves.

[TedK]

Here is the text of GAPPA 2015. Essentially the same language as PBOR2. Includes IFR and a prohibition on enforcing the old rules after 180 days.

Ted


I
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1086
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 25, 2015
Mr. Rokita (for himself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Flores, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Pompeo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
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.
1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2015.2.Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots

(a)In general
Not later than 180 days after the date of the 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 or instrument 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 an indicated air 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.

(c)Report required
Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that describes the effect of the regulations issued or revised under subsection (a) and includes statistics with respect to changes in small aircraft activity and safety incidents.

(d)Prohibition on enforcement actions
On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet the applicable requirements under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under subsection (a).

[TedK]

The existing draft Rule remains stuck in DOT. they updated their Rule Tracker (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/MARCH%202015%20Internet%20Report_0.docx) today and kicked the date the proposed rule is supposed to go to OMB from 27 Feb to 13 April 2015.

IF the rule goes as scheduled to OMB then it could be publicly disclosed in time for OSH.

If it slides, then we will get nothing from Huerta at Osh. The man is zip lipped.

[JimRice85]

SEN Inhofe seemed to think the legislation should be passed by end of May. DOT/FAA recalcitrance might help give it a push along. I'm still expecting I'll have to renew my third class which expires in a few months.

[rwanttaja]

SEN Inhofe seemed to think the legislation should be passed by end of May. DOT/FAA recalcitrance might help give it a push along. I'm still expecting I'll have to renew my third class which expires in a few months.
Note the final paragraph of the bill as posted by TedK:

On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet the applicable requirements under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under subsection (a).

In other words, if the FAA *doesn't* enact the provisions within 180 days of the bill going into effect, they cannot legally enforce the requirement to hold a Class III medical.

But better get yours renewed; this provision couldn't go into effect until the end of 2015 at the earliest.

Ron Wanttaja

[TedK]

SEN Inhofe seemed to think the legislation should be passed by end of May. DOT/FAA recalcitrance might help give it a push along.

That sure seems optimistic but Senator Inhofe knows his business. I'll show my support by saying should PBOR2 or GAPPA pass before OSH, then I'll help sponsor a celebration over at SOS Brothers. I'll even send a special invite to the Honorable Mister Huerta.

[JimRice85]

OSH is the main reason for renewal. Hoping to fly my RV-4 in this year. Took my Cub in 2012...ten hours each way.

[detectivedrew]

Does anyone know if this bill will have an affect on a sport pilot and not a private pilot limited to SP limitations due to 3rd class medical requirements? Will the rule allow SPs to fly faster, heavier, GA aircraft?

Thank you.

[TedK]

Does anyone know if this bill will have an affect on a sport pilot and not a private pilot limited to SP limitations due to 3rd class medical requirements? Will the rule allow SPs to fly faster, heavier, GA aircraft?

Thank you.

You can scroll up to post 74 (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5522-Drivers-license-medical&p=47684&viewfull=1#post47684) and read the language in the Bill and draw your own conclusions, however, as I read it, it simply says a Med is not required to fly airplanes up to 6000lbs.

Since an aviator with a Sport Pilot Certificate is limited to Aircraft the meet the LSA requirement, I would conclude, No a SP wouldn't be legal to fly a Cherokee Six.

However, if this Bill or similar passes, a Sport Pilot going after a Private Pilot certificate shouldn't need a Medical.

Perversely, if you had access to a Night and Instrument equipped LSA, I think you could meet all of the aeronautical experience requirements in an LSA, however, the check ride for PP is required to be performed in a Certificated aircraft.

[rwanttaja]

Does anyone know if this bill will have an affect on a sport pilot and not a private pilot limited to SP limitations due to 3rd class medical requirements? Will the rule allow SPs to fly faster, heavier, GA aircraft?
My guess is that it will not. Sport Pilots will still be restricted to aircraft meeting the LSA definition. They will be expected to take the additional training/test to get a Private ticket, if they want go outside the LSA world.

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

As a Sport Pilot, I'd have to complete the rest of the syllabus for the PPL. That means the hood, night flying, communications, and retaking the written test (they're different; the SP test is much shorter, as a lot of stuff is left out), as well as a check ride by an evaluator.

My SP instructor was very smart in having me fly PPL length cross country flights (both dual and solo), so that's out of the way. Plus I've got well over the solo hours required. ;)

The FAA would have to come up with endorsement language for "non-medical Private certificate limitations" if no medical was provided; from what I've read it's a loophole that's not been filled and not addressed. It's a bit like Private Pilots flying under Sport Pilot rules - no endorsement required, no special log book entries to be made.


However, if this Bill or similar passes, a Sport Pilot going after a Private Pilot certificate shouldn't need a Medical.

One can't take the check ride without proof of a current medical right now; it's part of the evaluator's checklist. So an SP would have to have a medical to grab a PPL. One of the many things that will prove to be a "gotcha" if the rule makers aren't advised of it.

Ron is on the money on Sport Pilots and aircraft limitations. It's inherently part of the certificate - it doesn't matter if astronauts aren't required a medical, a Sport Pilot cannot fly a space ship.

I've no beef with the LSA rules. They had to have a cutoff somewhere on gross weight, after all. But it would be nice to snatch up a C150 for a song (as I could have last year).

[rwanttaja]

I've no beef with the LSA rules. They had to have a cutoff somewhere on gross weight, after all. But it would be nice to snatch up a C150 for a song (as I could have last year).
If C150s *did* qualify for Sport Pilot, that song would have been a long Wagnerian aria by a buxom blonde wench with an unbelievably 3-D cuirass and a whole chorus of do-wop Valkyries. The demand would have been much, much higher.....

Ron "Yo-Ho-To-Yo" Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

At at aviation convention 2 weeks ago, a senior FAA medical person clearly said the FAA was in favor of this, ( the medical issue, not an LSA thing) however it was being held up by the Sec. of Transportation, who was not in favor of it. I also don't think this DOT man is a pilot and may have come in office since this movement got started. I know that I heard Sen Inhofe speak at Osh at least 3 years ago.

[JimRice85]

Current Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx, entered office July 2013. Former Mayor of Charlotte, NC. 2009-2013.

[TedK]

I wonder if we could muster the 100,000 signature in 30 days it takes to get an on-line petition acted on by the White House?

[Frank Giger]

I wonder if we could muster the 100,000 signature in 30 days it takes to get an on-line petition acted on by the White House?

He'd just say it's being reviewed by the appropriate agencies and being addressed by Congress - which is exactly where it sits. This issue is huge with us but super minor to him, as it would be for any President.

[rshannon]

See extended discussion on PBOR2 and SEL sport pilots here (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5764-Pilot-s-Bill-of-Rights-2). Bottom line? SP's have already had all training and testing that PPL's have had that is relevant to daylight VFR flying of larger, faster aircraft than LSA's. If PPL's can train in a Cub then go fly a C-172 without any further regulatory requirements - including no medical -- then there's no logical, relevant reason sport pilots shouldn't be able to do so too -- daylight VFR -- as SP's, now. Vis-a-vis daylight VFR, the only reason there has ever been a distinction of aircraft is the medical... not any relevant training or test standards.

[danielfindling]

The DOT May 2015 Significant Rulemaking Report ( https://cms.dot.gov/regulations/may-2015-significant-rulemaking-report ) provides: "to OMB on 6/15/2015"

Does anyone have insight as to the validity of the new dates? I have provided a copy of the relevant portion of the report below.



Federal Aviation Administration


17.


Medical Self-Evaluation for Certain Noncommercial Operations in Lieu of Airman Medical Certification
Black





Popular Title: Medical Self-Certification


RIN 2120-AK45


Stage: NPRM


Previous Stage:None


Abstract: This rulemaking would consider allowing certain operations to be conducted by individuals exercising private-pilot privileges without holding a current FAA airman medical certificate. The intended effect of this action is to provide relief from having to obtain a medical certificate for pilots engaged in low-risk flying, such as private pilots operating a small, general aviation aircraft.


Effects:



Information Collection
Privacy





Prompting action: Secretarial/Head of Operating Administration Decision




Legal Deadline: None






Rulemaking Project Initiated: 02/04/2014


Docket Number:


Dates for 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
06/15/2015



OMB Clearance
11/04/2014
09/15/2015



Publication Date
11/10/2014
09/28/2015



End of Comment Period
01/09/2015
11/28/2015








Explanation for any delay:
N/A





Federal Register Citation for NPRM: None

[Gunslinger37]

I have been watching that monthly report for a long time. The DOT pushes the date out every month when a new report is released. Our best hope is that Congress will attach HR. 1062 and S. 571 to the September FAA funding bills which might include many other major changes for the FAA.

[TedK]

The DOT May 2015 Significant Rulemaking Report ( https://cms.dot.gov/regulations/may-2015-significant-rulemaking-report ) provides: "to OMB on 6/15/2015"

Does anyone have insight as to the validity of the new dates? I have provided a copy of the relevant portion of the report below.


i have tracking that DOT site since last year. It just continues to slip. IM<HO, DOT will not publish a rule on 3rd Class Med reform until Congress passes a Law.

[TedK]

And just in time for AirVenture, the Dept of Transportation has published its July report on significant Rulemaking, and Third Class Medical Reform is (drum roll please)....punted again another month. The earliest the draft rule might be publicly published is Thanksgiving. And to add further insult, DOT doesn't even indicate they are late.

[Gunslinger37]

As usual the EAA is not covering the latest news from Washington on this important issue. A quick check of the EAA web pages, including the Advocacy page, contains none of the latest news that I have been seeing for two days from AOPA, Flying Magazine, GAN, and others.

Here is some great news....Senators Joe Manchin (D. WV) and John Boozman (R. AR) attached an amendment, SA 2267, to H.R. 22 (Highway Funding Bill) which is being debated and will probably come up for a vote on Sunday. The amendment reads almost exactly the same as the Pilots Bill of Rights bills that are sitting in Sub-Committees at both the Senate and House. If you want to read the actual text, go to this link; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r114:1:./temp/~r1147Kel80:e1251244: Scroll down about half way on the page and look for SA 2267.

In summary, if the amendment stays attached to the Bill, and the Bill passes and becomes law, here is what we can expect:

1. The FAA has 180 days to enact the new rules, revise the medical certificate regulations, etc.
2. Have a valid driver's license.
3. Must have a current medical, or have held one in the past 10 years.
4. Medical has never been revoked or suspended.
5. Aircraft operation limited to 6 occupants, IFR & VFR, not for hire, below 18,000 feet, below 250 knots, 6,000 pounds.
6. Within the past 24 months, attend a medical education course. (Available on the Internet free of charge.)

We have never been this close before, let's watch the news and see what the Senate, and House, do with this amendment to their highway bill.

[rwanttaja]

As usual the EAA is not covering the latest news from Washington on this important issue. A quick check of the EAA web pages, including the Advocacy page, contains none of the latest news that I have been seeing for two days from AOPA, Flying Magazine, GAN, and others.
In EAA's defense, they ARE a trifle busy this week. AOPA, Flying, GAN, etc. send some of their people to Oshkosh for the big show, but every one of EAA's staffers is there. They're probably on the grounds for ~14 hours plus every day, and I suspect Wifi doesn't work any better for them. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Wait, what? Is there some sort of meeting or something going on up at the EAA headquarters?

They really should put that in their magazine to let people know.

[rwanttaja]

Here is some great news....Senators Joe Manchin (D. WV) and John Boozman (R. AR) attached an amendment, SA 2267, to H.R. 22 (Highway Funding Bill) which is being debated and will probably come up for a vote on Sunday.
And...the latest word is that an another amendment was added to the bill, to repeal Obamacare. What was probably a slam-dunk is now mired down in politics.

Ron Wanttaja

[Gunslinger37]

Today, Monday July 27, on the Senate floor at 4:18 p.m. Semator Inhofe spoke about the Transportation Reauthorization bill and his adventures as the pilot of a small plane and the Pilots Bill of Rights amendment.

[wyoranch]

Just read this on AvWeb. They don't feel like talking because it will interfere with vacation.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/House-Move-May-Delays-Medical-Reform-224595-1.html
Rick

[Gunslinger37]

EAA main page shows the last news update to PBOR 2 as September 25, 2015. As usual, you must go to the AOPA web site to get the latest news. November 18th is the date set by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for markup and to move the bill, S.571, forward toward a vote in the Senate. Another step closer.

[1600vw]

If you read the bill they are making anyone going after a PP certificate on the level we are talking. Meaning flying all the smaller things, one still needs to pass a medical. Then they can fly the smaller 4 seat airplanes using your drivers license. IMHO this is back peddling on the issues. I do not need to get a medical or go in for a medical to drive my car. I self certify that I am able to drive when I went for my drivers license.
I wonder what will be next? Not holding my breath on any of this. Seems like double standards to me.

Tony

[Dave Stadt]

EAA main page shows the last news update to PBOR 2 as September 25, 2015. As usual, you must go to the AOPA web site to get the latest news. November 18th is the date set by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for markup and to move the bill, S.571, forward toward a vote in the Senate. Another step closer.

The EAA main page I go to shows an update as of November 12, 2015.

[1600vw]

If you read the bill they are making anyone going after a PP certificate on the level we are talking. Meaning flying all the smaller things, one still needs to pass a medical. Then they can fly the smaller 4 seat airplanes using your drivers license. IMHO this is back peddling on the issues. I do not need to get a medical or go in for a medical to drive my car. I self certify that I am able to drive when I went for my drivers license.
I wonder what will be next? Not holding my breath on any of this. Seems like double standards to me.

Tony

My Point. We were told they are modeling this after the Sport Pilot certificate. I don't believe anyone has to go see a doctor to get this SP certificate. If you have a drivers license you can get this certificate. Why not this certificate also? What gives?

Tony

[Eric Cernjar]

My Point. We were told they are modeling this after the Sport Pilot certificate. I don't believe anyone has to go see a doctor to get this SP certificate. If you have a drivers license you can get this certificate. Why not this certificate also? What gives?

Tony

Forgive me for potentially not having as much understanding on the issue as some of you on the forum, but my understanding is that without compromises like this the bill wouldn't have made it as far as it has. I think the only reason we have 69 co-sponsors is because of some of the concessions made. Ideally the bill would have made it through the process untouched, but I think this could still be a pretty significant win for private pilots.

What do the rest of you think?

Thanks for your thoughts,
Eric

[Gunslinger37]

The EAA main page I go to shows an update as of November 12, 2015.

Sometime during the 8 hours between my post, and your post, the EAA updated their web page. It was all over the Internet on other aviation web pages before the EAA finally woke up and responded.

[Byron J. Covey]

Forgive me for potentially not having as much understanding on the issue as some of you on the forum, but my understanding is that without compromises like this the bill wouldn't have made it as far as it has. I think the only reason we have 69 co-sponsors is because of some of the concessions made. Ideally the bill would have made it through the process untouched, but I think this could still be a pretty significant win for private pilots.

What do the rest of you think?

Thanks for your thoughts,
Eric


PBOT2, if enacted, will be a huge step forward. Apparently, some people just don't appreciate what it takes to get a bunch of professional politicians to actually do something that has no direct payback to them.


BJC

[1600vw]

PBOT2, if enacted, will be a huge step forward. Apparently, some people just don't appreciate what it takes to get a bunch of professional politicians to actually do something that has no direct payback to them.


BJC

Really, well they enacted Sport Pilot. I was just asking why they changed the wording from what is already set forth under the Sport Pilot rule? So my next question. When will anyone going after a Sport Pilot Certificate have to pass a medical first?

Double standard IMHO.

Tony

[Dave Stadt]

Really, well they enacted Sport Pilot. I was just asking why they changed the wording from what is already set forth under the Sport Pilot rule? So my next question. When will anyone going after a Sport Pilot Certificate have to pass a medical first?

Double standard IMHO.

Tony


I do believe the FAA instituted the Sport Pilot certificate without congress being involved. Huge difference. The bill is dead without the compromises.

[cub builder]

After a great deal of work on the part of the EAA and other groups, the FAA created the Light Sport Aircraft category and Certification. It's worth noting that this was in part so the FAA could closer regulate the 2 seat and heavier ultralight aircraft and pilots that flew them by classifying them as Light Sport Aircraft and Light Sport Pilots.

After a great deal of work on the part of the EAA and AOPA, the FAA after much foot dragging, acted on the EAA and AOPA petition to change the medical requirements to eliminate the third class medicals for pilots of a number of light aircraft. The FAA acted in secret and passed it off to the DOT, who has successfully sat upon the FAA recommendations for years now with no action what-so-ever other than continuously pushing back the date.

So, EAA and AOPA went to their friends in Congress and asked for help. This is the only avenue left to us at this point in time. A bill was submitted in the house and senate in 2014, which never even made it even to the respective committees for discussion, effectively killing the bills. For 2015, the bills were rewritten and submitted again, with a year long push from the EAA and AOPA to get these bills moving. Pilots are a very small groups, so enacting any bill for us would be considered to be special interest legislation. After a lengthy push, it had become clear that we simply were not going to get enough support to get the bills through committee, and that is where they would once again die. The only way to get more senators and congressmen on board was going to be with a compromise. So, the bill was rewritten to include some medical oversight in order to get enough support on board to get the bill moving. That's our choice. Compromise and get something, or don't compromise and get nothing. I know I have contacted my congressman and senators repeatedly and seen nothing beyond form letters back to me and my name added to their spam mailing lists. None of the congress weasels elected to represent me will support the bill even in it's current form, so getting it through Congress, even now, is not a done deal. It is possible that it could be further compromised in Congress, or have other bills added onto it that could cause it to fail. So we can either get behind the bill and keep pushing in hopes of getting some relief from the current medical requirements and costs, or we can turn our backs and most assuredly get nothing.

-Cub Builder