Pilot's Bill of Rights 2

[TedK]

Still awaiting the actual PBOR2 text, but here is some detail from Senator Inhofe's website (http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=2f2f619a-24cf-46a7-812d-191887f5846b&download=1)

Pilot's Bill of Rights 2
Section by Section
Section 1 Title. Pilot's Bill of Rights 2

Section 2 Expands FAA's 3rd class medical exemption for light sport aircraft to cover most small GA aircraft. Same text as S. 2103, but prohibits enforcement of violations if FAA has not complied with these provisions within 180 days of enactment. (Supposedly this includes IFR too)

Section 3 Reigns in Customs and Border Patrol stops and searches of GA by requiring CBP to follow general law enforce ment standards when exercising its powers.

Section 4 Provides local airport offices to manage the use of private hangars at airports. Current law gives federal officials and Washington the ability to dictate what does and doesn?t happen inside a hangar; this section changes that problem.

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

Section 6 Expanding the Pilot's Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 8 Requires contract towers and other outsourced FAA programs to be subject to FOIA requests.

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

[cub builder]

http://govt.eaa.org/17422/support-pilots-bill-rights-2/

Use this link to contact your representatives. Write regularly Just plug in your zip code and modify the letter to suit your tastes.

-Cub Builder

[Tom Charpentier]

Looks like it hasn't made its way from the Clerk's office to the website yet, but a pre-filing version (final text, sans bill number) is attached. Check back next week on Congress.gov for the "official" version. The bill numbers are S. 571 and H.R. 1062.

[TedK]

Looks like it hasn't made its way from the Clerk's office to the website yet, but a pre-filing version (final text, sans bill number) is attached. Check back next week on Congress.gov for the "official" version. The bill numbers are S. 571 and H.R. 1062.


Tom C, Sean and EAA- thank you!

ted

[TedK]

It appears the Legislators have gotten busy. There are at least four Bills introduced to reform the 3rd class Medical.


There is a pair of Bills called PBOR2 (S.571 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571) and H.R. 1062 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1062?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Hr+1062%22%5D%7D)) introduced by Sen. Inhofe and Rep. Graves.


And there is what appears to be a pair of Bills (S.573 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/573) and H.R. 1086 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1086)) introduced by Sen. Inhofe and Rep. Rokita whose titles are

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 checking on the existing proposed rule, it has still not left DOT for OMB (http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoReviewSearch;jsessionid=84E27ABF711477ED9D8F08D4 09CEC1CD) although the notoriously inaccurate DOT forecast (http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/February%202015%20Internet%20Report.docx) said it was supposed to go over on 27 Feb. My cynical prediction is that when DOT releases their March Rulemaking status, it will kick the can a month and say that it will be scheduled to go over on 27 March.

[Bill Greenwood]

I have just heard a presentation by an informed source and as for as the request to use a drivers license as well as self certifying in place of a 3rd class medical, the info was that the FAA was proceeding with the proposal, but that it was being blocked or resisted by the new head of the Department of Transportation. I don't have more details, but I think the DOT man or person is a new appointee, not sure about that or their background or biases.

[rwanttaja]

I have just heard a presentation by an informed source and as for as the request to use a drivers license as well as self certifying in place of a 3rd class medical, the info was that the FAA was proceeding with the proposal, but that it was being blocked or resisted by the new head of the Department of Transportation. I don't have more details, but I think the DOT man or person is a new appointee, not sure about that or their background or biases.
Don't know what counts as "New", but the DOT web page indicates the current Secretary of Transportation has been there for over eighteen months.

http://www.dot.gov/key-officials

Ron Wanttaja

[Todd copeland]

I have put the Eaa link on every forum I know of and to my non flying friends on facebook. So far, I know I've had about ten people do as I asked and write their representatives in support of the Bill. I ask that everyone on this forum do the same. Then report back here and let's see how much momentum we can create within our sphere of influences. If we all do this, it can have a major impact and we can get this through and eliminate the third class medical once and for all.

[TedK]

See the text of the Bill at

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1062/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Hr1062%22%5D%7D

[rshannon]

Tom, Assuming the proposed PBOR-2 is enacted, what is EAA's position concerning how new or revised regulations implementing Sec. 2 should affect current Sport Pilots? I would suggest that any SEL Sport Pilot should also have at least daylight VFR privileges in larger, faster "covered aircraft", as defined, without further qualification (and the option to pursue night and IFR qualification if desired.) For daylight VFR activity, there is no relevant difference between required training and PTS for SEL Sport Pilots and PPL's even now.

Ron

[TedK]

Tom, Assuming the proposed PBOR-2 is enacted, what is EAA's position concerning how new or revised regulations implementing Sec. 2 should affect current Sport Pilots? I would suggest that any SEL Sport Pilot should also have at least daylight VFR privileges in larger, faster "covered aircraft", as defined, without further qualification (and the option to pursue night and IFR qualification if desired.) For daylight VFR activity, there is no relevant difference between required training and PTS for SEL Sport Pilots and PPL's even now.

Ron

Ron- are you suggesting that Aircraft Sport Piots have a path to Certificated Aircraft for Day, VFR, Sport pilot WX flying without having to jump the hurdle of a Private pilot examination? Interesting thought! :D

Ted

[rshannon]

Yes. Other than lack of a medical, insofar as relevant to daylight VFR, the training and PTS for SEL sport pilots and PPL's are virtually identical, even now. (The differences in minimum dual hours are almost entirely due to non-daylight VFR activity. Sport pilots are also required to get controlled airspace operations training and endorsements separately -- for which there is no specific minimum time requirement -- but insofar as might be relevant to daylight VFR, that's it.) If PPL's are going to be allowed to fly heavier-faster-than-LSA aircraft (whether certificated or experimental) in daylight VFR without a medical, there's no reason SEL sport pilots should not also be able to do so. Put another way, the only reason SEL sport pilots have not been allowed to fly heavier-faster-than-LSA (etc.) aircraft in daylight VFR in the first place, has been lack of a medical cert. For daylight VFR activity there is, literally, no other meaningful distinction in the training and testing a licensed SEL sport pilot has already completed, to the same performance standards.

It's interesting you pose the question of a further testing "hurdle" for sport pilots, as if there might be some need or justification. Why should sport pilots have to be tested again on turns around a point, short field takeoff's, etc., etc.? If PPL's were required to pass another test on all that stuff they did already, just to fly without a medical, they'd raise holy hell, and rightly so. Why should that be different for sport pilots? It's worth noting that, even now, sport pilots who wish to get a PPL receive credit for both time and subject matter of prior training. Should they really have to be tested on all that again just to fly bigger airplanes in daylight VFR? Why? Both PPL and sport pilot candidates can train in a J-3 Cub. The PPL can go on to fly a C-182 with a constant speed prop in daylight VFR without further regulatory requirements, yet the sport pilot cannot. If and when a medical is no longer a legitimate requirement for PPL's to fly those aircraft in daylight VFR, why should SEL sport pilots still be excluded from doing the same?

Similarly, if PPL's will be allowed to earn and fly with an IFR rating without a medical, there's no reason SEL sport pilots shouldn't also be allowed to do so, by getting the same additional training and testing for an IFR rating as is now required of PPL's.

Bottom line is that absent the requirement of a medical, convergence between the two classes of licenses will soon be upon us -- as it should be. After all, were it not for the overwheming success of the sport pilot program, today's medical reform movement for PPL's might not even be on the table.

[dougbush]

Both PPL and sport pilot candidates can train in a J-3 Cub. The PPL can go on to fly a C-182 with a constant speed prop in daylight VFR without further regulatory requirements, yet the sport pilot cannot.

The PPL would need the additional endorsements in FAR 61.31(e) and (f).

[TedK]

It's interesting you pose the question of a further testing "hurdle" for sport pilots, as if there might be some need or justification.


Perhaps I could of picked a better word but hurdle seemed a better choice than a word that would justify the additional bureaucratic hassle that goes from going from SP to PP.

I too see it as a continuum from SP up to the point you go for a Commercial. At that point, the bar should be set high.

[rshannon]

The PPL would need the additional endorsements in FAR 61.31(e) and (f).

The C-182 is not a complex aircraft because it doesn't have retractable gear. (The R182 and TR182 models do.) Retractable gear, flaps, and​ controllable pitch prop are required for an aircraft to be a "complex aircraft" [FAA Order 8710.3E] consequently subsection (e) does not apply to a C-182. You are correct that aircraft equipped with 200 HP or more require a high performance endorsement under subsection (f). In that respect, I overstated the argument, but the essence remains. Substitute a 180-HP Piper Archer, Aviat A-1C-180 Husky, 180 HP RV-7A... or whatever.

Although I did, technically, overstate the argument (mea culpa), nevertheless if we're comparing apples to apples additional endorsements are not really the issue. If a medical certificate is no longer a legitimate distinction (indeed, if it ever was) then SP's should also be allowed to obtain additional endorsements for any of the above, whether complex, high performance, etc., same as PPL's -- even now, at least for daylight VFR. Today they are not even allowed to qualify for those endorsements.

[rshannon]

Perhaps I could of picked a better word but hurdle seemed a better choice....

No problem, and the commiseration is appreciated. I guess my purpose in using quotes around "hurdle" was just to highlight again, but from a different angle, that except for a medical, both licenses already require essentially the same hurdles, especially insofar as relevant to daylight VFR operation of many dozens of non-LSA aircraft.

Fortunately, when applying for a PPL, SP's are supposed to get credit for dual hours and subject training already completed, at least on paper. However, as a practical matter, in addition to another round of bureaucratic hurdles, a CFI will need to sign off again on everything, not just the additional material, and SP's are again exposed to all the previously-conquered knowledge and performance hurdles in the second round of tests. Are those things a big deal? In expense at least, yes. Is the redundancy necessary or fair? IMHO, no.