What is actual text of PBOR2?

[randomandy]

I would be enthusiastic about the accumulating cosponsorships of the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 except for what was revealed in the Manchin-Boozman amendment and from a conversation I had with an advocacy staffer at EAA. From both of those sources I came away with the understanding that the text of PBOR2 that these co-sponsors are supporting behind the scenes has only a slight resemblance of the text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22s571%5C%22%22 %5D%7D&resultIndex=1) we are being shown publicly. I don't have the Manchin Boozman text handy, but it said, for example, that a third class medical would still be required within the past ten years, though with allowances for it to expire. i.e. it helped old pilots but not new ones.

If I am being asked to contact my legislators in support of a bill when I don't know what is actually in that bill as currently negotiated, I find that misleading.

Can someone be forthcoming to the public as to what PBOR2 currently looks like in the same form that these legislators see it when they decide to co-sponsor it? It would be more fair if we were not left to fly blind here.

Thank you.

[Byron J. Covey]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1062/text

[Tom Charpentier]

The current text of the bill as filed in the above links is the language that we and our allies in congress are fighting for. The most powerful tool we have to achieve passage of an expansive, simple bill is support in congress, so please do not let up asking your senators to cosponsor the bill. We just published an update today on the Senate bill’s progress:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/09-18-2015-pilots-bill-of-rights-clears-major-hurdle-in-senate-still-more-work-to-be-done

[miket52]

I have been trying to get this to everyone I can......please help and copy this and send it to everyone you know who has an interest in this!!!

If you are involved in general aviation and or sport flying then you really need to read this letter in its entirety. Please take the time to read this.
PBOR2
I am writting this open letter to all EAA and AO PA members that support the pilot's Bill of Rights 2 bill that is in Congress and the Senate for consideration. All members should be aware that there is an attempt being made to pass a variation of this bill in the name of compromise. The amendment was written by senators Machin and Boozman. The content of this amendment is in no way what the members of AOPA and the EAA have signed up for with their support. Every member interested in medical reform should take the time to examine the content of this amendment. AOPA video link below. In my opinion, this is a bait and switch operation being performed by people who pretend to have medical reform at the center of their efforts. It becomes obvious when you look into the details of this so-called compromise, that this would put the people seeking medical reform in the same or worse situation that they are in now. Not only will this compromise require that you still have to have an FAA medical exam, it will also require that you have an exam from your personal doctor every 16 months.
What happened to the drivers license medical. It appears that the advocates from AO PA and EAA have completely lost sight of the goals supported by their members. This so-called compromise that is being pushed by AO PA and EAA is not ethical. This is not what all the members supported by writing to their senators and congressmen and paying their membership dues. This is a sellout by these two organizations that gives the appearance of being in bed with the FAA and or other government officials rather then supporting their paid membership.
If the Machin – Boozman version is passed, this issue will never see the light of day again in your lifetime. You'll be stuck with this so-called compromise forever. All members need to educate themselves about what their representatives are doing to them behind their backs. Do not allow AO PA and EAA off the hook when it comes to this issue.
Everyone knows that this could become a hot potato issue with public opinion. So what you have here, is an attempt to appease both sides. The same old political bull crap. They are trying to pass a non-reform in place of real reform so they can tell all the members that they passed reform, and still show the details to the opponents illustrating that there is really no reform involved.
There is nothing we can do about the media constantly bombarding the public with every crash of even the smallest airplane. I call it the chicken Little syndrome. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, OMG! the sky is falling. You cannot change the mindset of the majority of people who honestly believe the sky is falling. Our representatives from the AOPA and the EAA are being paid by its members to lobby on behalf of the interests of its members. The members have made it very clear that they want medical reform not sleight-of-hand. These organizations have plenty of ammunition with the fact that sport pilot has proven there is no need for an FAA medical exam. Statistical data supports this.
Anyone that has taken the time to read this needs to educate themselves on what exactly is trying to be passed without their support or knowledge. E-mail EAA or AO PA or both, and demand that they pass only the original reform or something very close to it. Do not allow them to make the situation worse by passing an amendment that has the content of the Machin – Boozman amendment.
I hope you take the time to do something about this. We are being stabbed in the back by representatives that we pay to represent our interests on this very important issue. They are even telling their membership that this is a good compromise which it is not. We need to let them know we are watching and that we expect them to do what we have asked them to do.
Michael Thompson
EAA 1031293
Congress is about to reconvene in September and will again be looking at this issue. Make your voice heard now don't wait or you'll be too late. Cut and paste is a powerful tool.
Please make copies of this letter and give it to anyone you think may be interested. I only hope that in today's world of personal media and e-mail that we can accomplish what seems like an impossible task of getting this message out soon enough.
Also take the time to write your senators and congressmen and tell them that you only support the pilot Bill of Rights 2 in its original form.

AOPA Jim Coon, he tells us the content of the Machin - boozman amendment. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/30/Member-help-still-needed-on-medical-reform?wtmcid
http://www.eaa.org/eaa/about-eaa/contact-us
http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Contact-AOPA

[Spamtownken]

The most important battle of this war has been lost. A sport pilot I am and a sport pilot I will remain, forever it seems. Good thing I got a good deal on an Ercoupe. I am extremely disappointed about the AOPA and EAA advocacy efforts if this is the result.

[skyfixer8]

Having watched the AOPA video and hearing Jim Coon say AOPA thinks that going for a 3rd class medical after 10 years of being without one is a good idea, having read Sen. Imhoffe s speech, going to the links mentioned here and actually reading / watching, I guess i will try and speed up my aircraft construction. What I have seen so far is not what i supported. What happened to the legislation as originally proposed ?

Bill L

[wyoranch]

While I see it as SOME positive change, I do tend to agree that the spirit of the original bill has been altered to the point that it is meaningless. All of those people that have given up on flying are still in the same boat, still having to endure the time and expense of a 'special issuance' even if it is a one time thing. Yet it is ok to see your doc once every 4 years if you have had a medical in the 10 years prior, a lot can happen in between visits. How about saying hello to your PERSONAL doc once every year or two? I see my doc every 6 months and I am in better shape than most of the people I know. I would have no problem passing the physical, but I don't have the cash to lay out for all of the medical expenses involved let alone the possibility of something going awry and not being able to fly at all.
Sad day for me (Sorry to make some of this about me) I had the rug jerked out from under me. Thanks but I will pass.
Rick
P.S. I guess it was never really a 'drivers license' medical.
<EDIT>
P.P.S I am EXTREMELY happy for those of you who would benefit this!!!!!

[phavriluk]

EAA approves this useless bill as amended? And EAA claims to advocate for the pilot members? And wants to get us flying again? Some driver's license medical this is. All the member effort in petitioning our elected representatives undone with the amended bill. What a waste.

Somebody at EAA forgot the core principles of medical reform, which are trashed. There are none. Even worse, if someone wants to fly a 4-passenger airplane he can lose his LSA privileges by failing the forced 3rd class medical.

The PBOR as amended has wasted all our time and effort. And EAA institutionally approves this? My stomach churns. No wonder there's so many co-sponsors. Nothing will change. The FAA gets to institutionalize 'democratically' their dictatorial and unjustifiable policies. There's no relaxation of rules, there's casting them in legislative concrete.

[cub builder]

While I would prefer to get the FAA out of my life, even with the language changes, it still gets rid of the medical for the vast majority of us. Senator Inhoffe said there are 3 things needed in the new language. First time or new pilots must take a medical as a baseline, pilots must take an online course every 2 years and make a log book entry and document medical visits to their Dr. and treatment received. Pilots that have lapsed in a medical over 10 yrs need to retake a medical. The question is why is AOPA and EAA endorsing this with these changes?

This will push out the medicals to 10 years, including special issuance, which is where the real nightmare currently exists. While it's less than ideal, it relieves many pilots of ridiculously expensive medical tests annually for special issuance medicals and pushes them out to 10 years. Would I rather be rid of medicals all together? Of course. Are we being sold out? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that issue, but it may be the only way to get this through at all. Would I accept this rather than forging ahead and losing the battle? In a heart beat.

-Cub Builder

[wyoranch]

While I would prefer to get the FAA out of my life, even with the language changes, it still gets rid of the medical for the vast majority of us. Senator Inhoffe said there are 3 things needed in the new language. First time or new pilots must take a medical as a baseline, pilots must take an online course every 2 years and make a log book entry and document medical visits to their Dr. and treatment received. Pilots that have lapsed in a medical over 10 yrs need to retake a medical. The question is why is AOPA and EAA endorsing this with these changes?

This will push out the medicals to 10 years, including special issuance, which is where the real nightmare currently exists. While it's less than ideal, it relieves many pilots of ridiculously expensive medical tests annually for special issuance medicals and pushes them out to 10 years. Would I rather be rid of medicals all together? Of course. Are we being sold out? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that issue, but it may be the only way to get this through at all. Would I accept this rather than forging ahead and losing the battle? In a heart beat.

-Cub Builder


Opinions will vary depending on which way you are looking through the 10 year 'window'

[rwanttaja]

I don't like it myself. If it goes through like this, it'll make no difference to me. I'll still be operating under Sport Pilot rather than risking flunking a 10-year medical and having to go through all that rigamarole. It'd be nice to occasionally fly some "big iron" like a Cessna 150, but I guess I'll be sticking with my Fly Baby.

BUT....

I can see this being an end-around for the objections raised by the AMA and ALPA. They scream, "IT'S UNSAFE THAT SKYHAWK PILOTS DON'T HAVE MEDICALS", and the reaction is, "Well, there will still be a process to medically monitor the pilots."

For the most part, elimination of the traditional Class III medical is basically immaterial as to the future of aviation. They help older pilots like myself keep flying longer, but do little towards helping NEW people start flying. Any potential newcomers who had objections to the old Class III process will probably be mollified by a ten-year medical requirement.

Ron Wanttaja

[phavriluk]

We expected the PBOR to expand the LSA medical rules to lower-performance heavier-than-1320-pound aircraft. You know, like the ones we can rent and go places in? The amendments toss that idea aside and EAA smiles and applauds. 'Applaud' ain't the word I'm thinking of right now. Or my opinion of EAA's 'defense' of their membership having ballyhooed them into a write-in campaign for a fundamental component of the PBOR that is being written out of the bill. Feds play us for suckers and we smile and applaud.

[rwanttaja]

We expected the PBOR to expand the LSA medical rules to lower-performance heavier-than-1320-pound aircraft. You know, like the ones we can rent and go places in? The amendments toss that idea aside...
Not sure that's exactly the case. If I understand correctly:

1. You aren't *ever* required to get an FAA medical, unless you haven't had a medical within ten years of the PBOR being enacted.
2. Every two years, you'll need to take an online course on medical issues.
3. You are required to see your personal physician at least every four years, and make a note in your logbook that you've seen the doctor.
4. If you develop certain major conditions, you will basically have to undergo the Special Issuance process. ONCE.
5. The original limits (six or fewer seats, less than 6000 pounds, etc.) are still there.

#1 basically means, "Driver's license medical."

#2 means you have to click the mouse a few times every couple of years. ASSUMING the "online medical course" is as described: "...bringing the latest information on aeromedical factors to pilots." If the online course includes specific questions about your health and any conditions, all bets are off.

#3... jeeze, us old fuds are seeing the doctor MUCH more often than that. Remember, the only "reporting" requirement on this is a notation in our own logbooks every four years, and that notation, as I read the summary, just is that you've visited...not what was found.

#4? That rankles a bit, but as I note above, it only has to be done once...not every two years.

I'm a bit disappointed that the original version didn't continue all the way through. But to quote the guy who my birth-city was named after, "Politics is the art of the possible." With the opposition of ALPA and AMA, the original version was shaping up to be difficult to push through. This is a compromise that greatly weakens their positions and may allow the PBOR2 to finally make it through.

I don't like it...but I understand the necessity. Note that the change in language accompanied an announcement that Inhofe has gathered additional co-sponsors, enough that 60% of the Senate now co-sponsors the bill. That is probably not a coincidence.

While it's not the "driver's license medical" of our dreams, it's certainly better than what we have now.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike Switzer]

So am I understanding this correctly that the whole idea of being able to fly a fixed pitch 4 place 180HP or less aircraft without a current 3rd class medical is gone? If so this bill is useless to me. I can still pass a medical, but it is getting to be more of a pain every time. I purposely let mine lapse since I don't currently have access to a plane while I was waiting to see how this turned out. I was also putting off buying for the same reason.

[rwanttaja]

So am I understanding this correctly that the whole idea of being able to fly a fixed pitch 4 place 180HP or less aircraft without a current 3rd class medical is gone?
No, from my reading of EAA's summary, you still won't require a formal FAA medical.
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/09-25-2015-building-momentum-sen-inhofe-updates-progress-on-pilots-bill-of-rights-2

Here's my summary:

If you've got a current FAA medical, congratulations: You'll never have to take another.

If you received an FAA medical anytime since 2006, congratulations. You won't have to take another.

If your last medical dates to 2005 or earlier, you WILL have to take a medical. Once.

From the point POBR2 passes, you'll need to take an online medical refresher every two years, and see your own physician every four years and log the fact of the visit in your own logbook.

If you develop a specific disqualifying condition, you'll need to obtain ONE special issuance, and from that point on, monitoring by your own doctor is all that will be necessary.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike Switzer]

Well that is better than I thought. Not as good as what we were told originally, but I will be OK. Still stinks for the guys that will have to pay for a lot of tests to get one in the first place.

On the other hand, I can see some of the objections to the original. I have a friend who hasn't had a medical in ages due to epilepsy, which has been controlled by medication for as long as I have known him (20+ years). He had high hopes for this allowing him to fly solo. (To my knowledge he was never denied, since he knew he wouldn't pass he never tried to renew it.) His meds quit working a couple weeks ago & he had a seizure.

[rwanttaja]

On the other hand, I can see some of the objections to the original. I have a friend who hasn't had a medical in ages due to epilepsy, which has been controlled by medication for as long as I have known him (20+ years). He had high hopes for this allowing him to fly solo. (To my knowledge he was never denied, since he knew he wouldn't pass he never tried to renew it.) His meds quit working a couple weeks ago & he had a seizure.
Perfectly true, and, in fact, things in that regard wouldn't really change.

After ~40 years of flying, no one had demanded I present my medical...other than when I rented a plane or when I took a BFR. Both those instances are avoidable for those who own their own planes. If you're willing to bust the rules...rules that really aren't enforced, anyway... they don't really affect you.

At a Chapter meetings Monday, one of the members described traveling to Montana to look at a Cessna 180 for sale. The owner used it to monitor his ranch, dropping in and landing where there was work to be done. Probably hadn't seen a public airport in its entire life. Judging from the logbooks, neither had it seen an A&P. The guy did his own maintenance, gassed up from his farm's fuel tank, never used it as anything other than a glorified pickup truck. Didn't see much reason for paperwork, and likely didn't have a medical either.

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

Ron Wanttaja

[Tom Charpentier]

Please follow the below link to a list of frequently asked questions and answers on the latest PBOR2 language and status:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/09-30-2015-pilots-bill-of-rights-2-where-does-it-stand

[Mike M]

Thanks, Ron and Tom, for your clarifications to the incomprehensible.

Regarding "politics is the art of the possible" ... considering each side of an equation the same as the other, von Clausewitz might might be illustriatively misquoted "politics is war by other means." Wars have losers. :)

[miket52]

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

Ron Wanttaja[/QUOTE]<<

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

[miket52]

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

[Mike M]

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

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

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

:):D;):rollseyes: if we lose our sense of humor we'll all go nuts.

[miket52]

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

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

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

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

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

[rwanttaja]

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

One Quick ramp check using a laptop can get you a court date as well as the possibility of having your airplane impounded. It's very easy for them to check to see if you had a medical in the last 10 years using a computer.
I'm not arguing that there aren't penalties. I'm merely stating that the potential for getting *caught* is low, depending on one's level of activity. I've landed at a controlled field maybe six times in the past 35 years; probably one reason I've never had a ramp check.

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

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

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

[rwanttaja]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

PBOR2 or no reform, ever. Take your choice.

Ron Wanttaja

[phavriluk]

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

[miket52]

http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by miket52 http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?p=51339#post51339)
3. Politics never changes. My own Sen. Angus King of Maine responded to my original request the support the medical reform. He stated very plainly that he didn't believe it was a good idea because of the safety issue. He said he might support some kind of legislation that included an examination by your doctor. It strikes me as kind of strange that he now supports the bill while the language has been changed.


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

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



http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by miket52 http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?p=51339#post51339)
Don't think this won't happen, because it will.


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

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


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

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

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

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

[Gunslinger37]

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



Milestone

Originally
Scheduled
Date

New
Projected
Date

Actual
Date



To OST

07/03/2014

08/14/2014

07/24/2014



To OMB

08/04/2014

10/15/2015





OMB Clearance

11/04/2014

01/15/2016





Publication Date

11/10/2014

01/21/2016





End of Comment Period

01/09/2015

03/21/2016

[rwanttaja]

Don't think this won't happen, because it will.[QUOTE=Wanttaja]Ever hear of something called "Chicken Little Syndrome"? You see it within aviation a lot.

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

I am not an alarmist and you probably already know that I'm not the only one out here that doesn't trust the government to do what it says it will do.
I'm sorry you're upset by what I posted, but in my opinion, you are an alarmist... and illustrating the same "chicken little" type of attitude you complained about.

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


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

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

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

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




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

It's not that I don't prefer a change, I think I have been very clear that I do. Any bright person can tell by what I have written that I would like to see the will of the represented members here bear fruit. As the gentleman below states, "no medical means no medical!" . We already have that in sport pilot. If this bill is allowed to be passed with the new wording you will never get a change in sport pilot because they will point to the new rule as a victory and a finish line.
And if it's NOT passed with the new wording, we'll probably never see any reform at all. Again, would you rather PBOR2 or no change?

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


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

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

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

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

Ron Wanttaja
Ron, I have to agree with you on this statement as I am in the same boat. Good for me? No. Better than nothing? Yes.
Rick

[miket52]

Ron, it doesn't matter how much you personally attack me or what you think. Most people already have their opinions of what is being done here. A lot of old quotes or your personal opinion will not change the fact that what is being pushed forward is not what the people who wrote their Congress people signed up for. And it doesn't matter how laws have been pasted throughout history. The people who wrote those letters expecting the organizations to which they pay membership dues to represent them expect representation not sleight-of-hand.

EAA just released their monthly online version of e Hotline. In it they answer many of the questions that have been being asked. One of my goals in voicing my opinion was to get this to happen. Now it has. But I have to point to one line."We’ll be up front with you: EAA and AOPA fully support Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 including these modifications." That tells you all you need to know. I'm guessing they didn't ask you for your opinion.

I suspect that this bill will only go forward in the amended form as the wording seems to be more palatable to the politicians. I also expect at some point this issue might become public. Once the general public hears that there will be pilots flying over their heads without medical certificates it is likely that all hell will break loose and the politicians will back away very quickly. I certainly hope I am wrong about that. An uneducated public is the worst enemy of a bill like this.

[rwanttaja]

I suspect that this bill will only go forward in the amended form as the wording seems to be more palatable to the politicians. I also expect at some point this issue might become public. Once the general public hears that there will be pilots flying over their heads without medical certificates it is likely that all hell will break loose and the politicians will back away very quickly. I certainly hope I am wrong about that.
That's the advantage of the revised PBOR2: It *does* include required medical checkups. Just gets the Government out of the process.

An uneducated public is the worst enemy of a bill like this.
Name a bill that the public *IS* educated on. Health care? Global warming? Pollution? Financial reforms? Gun control? Import tariffs?

Unless the bill deals with the price and availability of beer, John Q. Public isn't going to provide any educated input.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike M]

I believe there is no push to actually change the requirements for a 3rd class medical to allow private pilots to make non-commercial VFR and IFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with up to six seats and to carry up to five passengers, fly at altitudes below 14,000 feet msl, and fly no faster than 250 knots. Amendments, clarifications, input sessions, stakeholders, petitions, friend of the Congress letters, hearings, looming deadlines, end of session, nothing done, smoke and mirrors. There is risk involved. With NO payoff for a Congressperson to pass that proviso since the majority of aviators will vote for the incumbent no matter what. And no penalty for those who don't support it since the majority of constituents will you guessed it vote for the incumbent no matter what. Bottom line - hold out the hope, change nothing, eat the free lunches.

[miket52]

Ron, I can see now that you are nothing more than any EAA shill. It doesn't matter what I have to say you have zeroed in on me and are trying to make this personal to distract from the actual subject. That is the typical tactic of any shill working on behalf of any organization or individual. You fit right in with Yahoo commenters.


However you may be surprised to find out that I'm glad that you are here. Every time you quote me you will entice someone to go back and read my entire post. My intention all along has been to shine light on what is being done with this bill and you are helping me do that.


The next logical move would be for you, if you have the power, or the EAA to remove me from the forum and silence me.

[miket52]

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



You have absolutely no way of knowing that this is how it will go down. Again this bill has not even gone to the House of Representatives yet where it is bound to undergo changes. There are a lot more people in the House of Representatives that will want particular changes before they sign on as sponsors. So again you have no idea of how this will shake out in the end. Without a doubt the wording will change.

[miket52]

“Ron Wanttaja
While it's not the "driver's license medical" of our dreams, it's certainly better than what we have now.”



It may be better for some, but you don't know nor do I how many of the members that wrote letters to support this effort are outside the 10 year window. Special issuances are very expensive and never guaranteed. State the percentages of how many people pass all you want, but those people went in pretty much knowing that they could pass a special issuance. The cost alone for many people is prohibitive. The chance that they will fail the test and never be able to fly again is paramount. So for many this is a no-win scenario.

[miket52]

“Ron Wanttaja
If you develop a specific disqualifying condition, you'll need to obtain ONE special issuance, and from that point on, monitoring by your own doctor is all that will be necessary.”



How will anyone know you have developed a disqualifying condition if according to you their personal doctor will not have to submit a form.

[miket52]

“Ron Wanttaja
After ~40 years of flying, no one had demanded I present my medical...other than when I rented a plane or when I took a BFR. Both those instances are avoidable for those who own their own planes. If you're willing to bust the rules...rules that really aren't enforced, anyway... they don't really affect you.”

“Ron Wanttaja
At a Chapter meetings Monday, one of the members described traveling to Montana to look at a Cessna 180 for sale. The owner used it to monitor his ranch, dropping in and landing where there was work to be done. Probably hadn't seen a public airport in its entire life. Judging from the logbooks, neither had it seen an A&P. The guy did his own maintenance, gassed up from his farm's fuel tank, never used it as anything other than a glorified pickup truck. Didn't see much reason for paperwork, and likely didn't have a medical either.
Nothing I recommend, mind you. But there'll be no additional enforcement with the new rules, and even LESS evidence to carry with you (or be caught without).”

This is not only illegal is a totally wrongheaded thought process. Who in their right mind would continually fly illegally and take the chance on losing everything. Not only can you be hauled into court and fined, your airplane could also be impounded. People that advocate this sort of thing don't belong in aviation.

[miket52]

“Ron Wanttaja
From the point POBR2 passes, you'll need to take an online medical refresher every two years, and see your own physician every four years and log the fact of the visit in your own logbook.”


You don't know this to be true. The bill hasn't even gone to the House of Representatives yet where it is bound to go through some changes. You can't possibly know what it will look like when it comes out the other end and neither can anyone else.

[miket52]

“Ron Wanttaja

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



Yes I certainly do think people outside aviation care about pilots rights. But not necessarily in a positive light.


The FAA probably has a different take on that situation. You can't possibly know what they're thinking nor can anyone else on the outside.


This bill is definitely not 95% of what the members signed up for. As a matter of fact it is 0% of what the members signed up for. The members sent letters supporting the drivers license medical. That means that those who paid the freight for the Washington hobnobbing are not getting their money's worth. Again no medical means no medical.

[miket52]

“Ron Wanttaja
Unless the bill deals with the price and availability of beer, John Q. Public isn't going to provide any educated input.”



You my friend are not only a shill, you are a bigot.

[cub builder]

Mike52,

I suggest reading all of the statement put out by AOPA in their Weekly Newsrag (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/September/30/AOPA-and-EAA-answer-questions-about-medical-reform?WT.mc_id=151002epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv). Some of the answers you seek are there. They may not be the answers you want, but that doesn't make them not true.

The fact is, POBR2 wasn't going to pass in it's original form. The language was modified in order to satisfy a number of senators and congressmen that would not support it unless pilots have some kind of medical oversight. You may not be getting what you wanted. I wish it didn't have to go through as this either. But we will be lucky to get this much, and what was originally proposed was going to die on the vine.

From what I've seen, Ron W. has been right on the money here and quite reasonable. Would you rather see nobody get anything because the part you need was dropped in order to get enough support to have the bill considered??? Do you think any of us are happy about the modified language? You don't have to support the current bill, but doesn't that make you just as narrow minded as those that refused to support the original version you wanted passed? The person you have been attacking loses in this version of the bill as well. The difference is that he seems to be looking at the bigger picture. Your concerns appear to be limited to a much narrower scope.

-Cub Builder

[67jwbruce]

I don't see that anything Ron has said rises to the level of personal attacks, in fact the only personal attacks I see here can be found in Post #42 and #35. Perhaps Ron is exceptionally skilled at button pushing, but that's a stretch, it appears to me that Mike52 is just looking for a fight.

[rwanttaja]

You my friend are not only a shill, you are a bigot.

Heh, heh... NOW who's making personal attacks? It's apparently OK for you to call me names, but not OK for me to call you names.

Fortunate, then, that I never called you names....



According to EAA's latest summary, there will not be a "form" for the doctor to fill out. You'll have to put a hand-entry in your own logbook. Your personal physician won't get involved...won't even have to know that you're a pilot. He'll say, "let's get your condition under control" with no knowledge that it affects your airworthiness.”
You have absolutely no way of knowing that this is how it will go down. Again this bill has not even gone to the House of Representatives yet where it is bound to undergo changes. There are a lot more people in the House of Representatives that will want particular changes before they sign on as sponsors. So again you have no idea of how this will shake out in the end. Without a doubt the wording will change.

Perfectly true, but there's no way to presume it'll go in the OTHER direction, either. We don't know what the final form of the bill is going to be. I summarized the current state of the bill.

It may change, but it really depends on whether anyone can get motivated enough to, essentially, poison the bill. AMA should be partially mollified; we're still required to see doctors. ALPA...who *knows* what their original motivation was.



From the point POBR2 passes, you'll need to take an online medical refresher every two years, and see your own physician every four years and log the fact of the visit in your own logbook.”

You don't know this to be true. The bill hasn't even gone to the House of Representatives yet where it is bound to go through some changes. You can't possibly know what it will look like when it comes out the other end and neither can anyone else.

See above.



If you develop a specific disqualifying condition, you'll need to obtain ONE special issuance, and from that point on, monitoring by your own doctor is all that will be necessary.”

How will anyone know you have developed a disqualifying condition if according to you their personal doctor will not have to submit a form.
Yes, exactly. We're expected to self-report. It's a great solution; we retain the freedom of the original PBOR while adding this reporting clause to mollify the senators who wanted there still to be ways to disqualify a pilot medically. It'll be interesting to see if this provision remains.



(referring to people flying now without medicals, or non-qualified personnel performing maintenance on certified aircraft)...Nothing I recommend, mind you. But there'll be no additional enforcement with the new rules, and even LESS evidence to carry with you (or be caught without).”

This is not only illegal is a totally wrongheaded thought process. Who in their right mind would continually fly illegally and take the chance on losing everything.
"Everything"? I don't think that's the case. I don't believe the FAA is allowed to impound the aircraft (ground it, yes, take possession, no). There are civil fines, but don't believe the typical amount runs that all high.

Of course, pilots are notoriously cheap. My last run-in with the law was an $80 speeding ticket fifteen years ago, and it still rankles.

The counterpoint is that the potential for getting caught appears very low, and that will affect how many people push the envelope. Like I said, no one but the CFI administering a BFR has asked to see my medical since I soloed, 45-odd years ago.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I don't see that anything Ron has said rises to the level of personal attacks, in fact the only personal attacks I see here can be found in Post #42 and #35. Perhaps Ron is exceptionally skilled at button pushing, but that's a stretch, it appears to me that Mike52 is just looking for a fight.
Mike is upset, and his personal disappointment is understandable. I'm a convenient target, that's all.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

Mike is upset, and his personal disappointment is understandable. I'm a convenient target, that's all.

Ron Wanttaja


Ron,
I am upset can I hammer you as well? lol I wonder if Glory is wondering what she got herself into now?
Rick

[rwanttaja]

Ron,
I am upset can I hammer you as well?
Shoot, Rick, everybody ELSE does... :-)

Ron 'Punching Bag' Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

Shoot, Rick, everybody ELSE does... :-)

Ron 'Punching Bag' Wanttaja


Now that is funny......

[67jwbruce]

Ron,
I am upset can I hammer you as well? lol I wonder if Glory is wondering what she got herself into now?
Rick

Hurry, sing her one of them songs before she asks for a promotion

[cub builder]

Mike is upset, and his personal disappointment is understandable. I'm a convenient target, that's all.

Ron Wanttaja

I think you just nailed it. I can feel his disappointment in having his hope of flying again pulled out from under him. It sucks and I feel his pain. But this is our best chance to get something out of this rather than an all or nothing battle that we would ultimately lose. It's in Congress where a lot of compromises happen, so hang on. More changes and amendments could happen; both good and bad.

-Cub Builder

[Byron J. Covey]

“Ron Wanttaja

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



Yes I certainly do think people outside aviation care about pilots rights. But not necessarily in a positive light.


The FAA probably has a different take on that situation. You can't possibly know what they're thinking nor can anyone else on the outside.


This bill is definitely not 95% of what the members signed up for. As a matter of fact it is 0% of what the members signed up for. The members sent letters supporting the drivers license medical. That means that those who paid the freight for the Washington hobnobbing are not getting their money's worth. Again no medical means no medical.

miket52:

Can you summarize, in a sentence or two, just what you expect the EAA and the AOPA to do?

Thanks,


BJC

[lynnlpitts]

This isn't what I worked so hard for...another Sell Out by EAA and AOPA...the FAA will make the Special Issuance impossible to get and we will risk Sport Pilot privileges to obtain it...Funny it doesn't take 100% of the Senators to past taxes and encumbrances and the process only takes a few days...this medical issue 'slight of hand' has been going on for years!

[JimRice85]

Everything I've heard and seen agrees with what Ron has said. I can certainly appreciate the disappointment of many though. This isn't what all had hoped for, but it is going to be a pretty big change for many.

I understand and as I just rolled the dice and went through the SI process. I went in well armed after consulting with a Senior AME who does nothing but FAA flight physicals. Had he not told me he was 99% certain I would be issued! I would have likely stayed Light Sport, though it wasn't what I wanted. It was a scary process, but over 98% are issued. The fear of being the 2% is terrifying thought to most of us.

What at really needs to change is a denial eliminating Sport Pilot privileges, IMHO.

[wyoranch]

Jim,
i completely agree with you about the 'fail the medical and you are done for good' reform. I for one would sell a kidney to fund my SI if there was no fear of never flying again as a sport pilot. Is one kidney a disqualifying condition? Kidding!
rick

[rwanttaja]

Jim,
i completely agree with you about the 'fail the medical and you are done for good' reform.
To quote the immortal Curly (of the Three Stooges): "Me three." The "Pass or you can't fly at all" provision is a bit draconian. Would be nice if they eased up on it.

Certain conditions disqualify you for flight under any provisions, and, I think, the problem is that once the FAA finds out about them, they have to take action. If a guy has a disqualifying condition but doesn't formally bring it to the FAA's attention (via a medical application), they don't officially know about it so they don't have to react.

Still, the whole purpose of the Light Sport aircraft definition was to produce slower, lighter airplanes. These slower, lighter machines will cause less damage in a crash, so the risk to those outside the aircraft is less. Seems like the FAA would be able to back off a a bit.

If PBOR2 passes in its current form, the pilot and his own doctor are responsible for ensuring the pilot's fitness for flight. This is true even if a pilot has a nominally disqualifying condition...that is, once he or she receives a SA, all further monitoring is just by the pilot's physician.

With that logic in place, seems like the FAA might be able to stop banning pilots from flying as Sport Pilots if they have a (third-class medical) disqualifying condition.... with the provision, for example, that Sport Pilots with nominally disqualifying conditions log doctor visits every four years, like the medical requirements under the new program.

Will it happen? I dunno. One advantage is that Sport Pilot is not a "law", it's policy defined by the FAA and thus can be RE-defined if the FAA chooses. It'd be nice if the EAA went into Sport Pilot reform after PBOR2 is enacted (when and if). Seems like they'd need another windmill to tilt at once PBOR2 gets clear.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

This isn't what I worked so hard for...another Sell Out by EAA and AOPA...the FAA will make the Special Issuance impossible to get and we will risk Sport Pilot privileges to obtain it...Funny it doesn't take 100% of the Senators to past taxes and encumbrances and the process only takes a few days...
To quote another old dead guy, "The only sure things in life are death and taxes...and you don't see death getting worse every time Congress meets!"

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike M]

Fear not that this latest revision will pass as proposed. The most recent posts here explain why. Discontent and controversy. This will percolate through the 114th session (campaign contribution address .................) with discussion, amendments, press releases (membership renewal address .............) more discussion, letters calls and faxes to representatives (campaign contributions address ...............) and be appended to "must-pass" bills then stripped before passage until the midnight hour when Congress adjourns and don't worry it will be reintroduced as the first item of business in the 115th session (campaign contribution address ............) because our strong alphabet organizations (membership renewal address .............) will ensure each candidate is individually apprised how essential, such that our collective voice will be heard when we vote as a monolithic bloc on this litmus test issue. All 593, 499 of us scattered all over the country. Oh, except ALPA members, of course, who will vote in lockstep with their demon union thug bosses to ground all octogenarians and kill blue eyed babies.

(Campaign contribution and membership renewal addresses ................ and ....................)

In case you can't tell this ain't my first rodeo. Lighten up, folks, it's gonna get worse before it gets .......well, keep sending in those cards and letters.

[phavriluk]

If PBOR2 passes in its current form, the pilot and his own doctor are responsible for ensuring the pilot's fitness for flight. This is true even if a pilot has a nominally disqualifying condition...that is, once he or she receives a SA, all further monitoring is just by the pilot's physician.


Ron Wanttaja

As some of us have been hammering on for a few days now, this is not true. If you don't have a medical newer than ten years, or have never had one, you get to go through the field of mousetraps and gotcha's that now passes for medical issuance. And go to the not-cheap expense and risk of special issuance, and never flying anything again if the AME flunks you for a condition that would not be evident if that applicant was flying light sport.

[rwanttaja]

As some of us have been hammering on for a few days now, this is not true. If you don't have a medical newer than ten years, or have never had one, you get to go through the field of mousetraps and gotcha's that now passes for medical issuance. And go to the not-cheap expense and risk of special issuance, and never flying anything again if the AME flunks you for a condition that would not be evident if that applicant was flying light sport.
Yes, I understand that. My topic was Sport Pilot, not the general PBOR issue. What I was trying to do was sketch out a path that would implement a method to allow people who flunk normal medicals to still retain Sport Pilot privileges. The case I stated ("If PBOR2 passes in its current form, the pilot and his own doctor are responsible for ensuring the pilot's fitness for flight") was intended to show what the steady-state situation would be under PBOR2, after the transition period.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Fear not that this latest revision will pass as proposed. The most recent posts here explain why. Discontent and controversy. This will percolate through the 114th session (campaign contribution address .................) with discussion, amendments, press releases (membership renewal address .............) more discussion, letters calls and faxes to representatives (campaign contributions address ...............) and be appended to "must-pass" bills then stripped before passage until the midnight hour when Congress adjourns and don't worry it will be reintroduced as the first item of business in the 115th session (campaign contribution address ............) because our strong alphabet organizations (membership renewal address .............) will ensure each candidate is individually apprised how essential, such that our collective voice will be heard when we vote as a monolithic bloc on this litmus test issue. All 593, 499 of us scattered all over the country. Oh, except ALPA members, of course, who will vote in lockstep with their demon union thug bosses to ground all octogenarians and kill blue eyed babies.

(Campaign contribution and membership renewal addresses ................ and ....................)

In case you can't tell this ain't my first rodeo. Lighten up, folks, it's gonna get worse before it gets .......well, keep sending in those cards and letters.

Good points. And with the Presidential election season in full swing, little issues like this are likely to be kicked to the gutter.

It's quite likely that *no* version of the PBOR will be passed this session. Which would mean another year's wait, at least. By that point, Inhofe may have lost interest.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

Good points. And with the Presidential election season in full swing, little issues like this are likely to be kicked to the gutter.

It's quite likely that *no* version of the PBOR will be passed this session. Which would mean another year's wait, at least. By that point, Inhofe may have lost interest.

Ron Wanttaja
At what point we go after expanding sport pilot to include the Cherokee/Skyhawks class of aircraft. :-)

[rwanttaja]

At what point we go after expanding sport pilot to include the Cherokee/Skyhawks class of aircraft. :-)
Don't raise the bridge, lower the water. :-)

It's actually an approach that EAA/AOPA should consider, if PBOR2 doesn't go through. In fact, judging from the comments here, it would be a preferred approach vs the current content of PBOR2, as it would, basically, allow "driver's license medicals" to people who want to fly a larger class of airplane.

It would be easier to implement than PBOR would be... as it would merely require changes to an FAA *definition* (14CFR Part 1), not a change to an actual regulation. Wouldn't require Congressional action...although neither do the provisions in the PBOR. The only reason it's a congressional bill is to force the FAA to implement changes. Many of what most of us refer to the key aspects of the PBOR (e.g., driver's license medicals for larger aircraft) have already been bought into by the FAA.

However, there would be several problems with this approach. The first is the same controversy that has tagged Sport Pilot all along: The weight/speed/seat/etc. limits on the new "Light Sport" aircraft.

Would the FAA go along with raising the definition of Light Sport Airplane to the levels in the PBOR? I'm guessing not. Describing a 6000-pound six-seat aircraft as a "Light Sport Airplane" seems to be stretching things a bit.

Really, though, it's simple to determine what the limits should be:

1. Find out what aircraft Ronald James Wanttaja wants to fly without a medical.
2. Set the Light Sport Airplane definition to include such aircraft.

Joking aside, it illustrates the problem: The lack of consensus on what the limits *should* be. Everybody has their own idea. Ten years later, there's still controversy over the definition of Light Sport Aircraft. If we alter the definition...what should we alter it *to*?

(for those at the FAA taking notes, the answer to #1 is, "Cessna O-1 Bird Dog")

Everyone has their own idea. But the higher you put the limits...the more people will push back. Enough to cover 172s and Cherokee Warriors? Reasonable. Cessna 182s/Piper Archers? Hmmmm....constant speed props. Bonanzas/Piper Arrows? Hmmmm.... retractable gear. Cessna 206/Piper Cherokee 6? Hmmmm....six seaters. Where does designation as a "Light Sport Aircraft" turn ludicrous?

Most of us probably remember the huge bunfight from the original Sport Pilot/LSA rulings. Not sure if the FAA would want to go through that again.

The next issue is that of existing Light Sport Aircraft manufacturers. People tend to forget that the purpose of LSA/Sport Pilot was NOT to let some decrepit old folks like myself continue to fly (though we're grateful for the opportunity, y'honor [tugs forelock]). The purpose of Sport Pilot/LSA was to make it easier for new blood to become pilots, and to nourish a revitalization of the light aircraft industry.

The problem is whether raising the definition of Light Sport Aircraft would steal a significant portion of the market for existing LSAs. The LSA industry not doing too well, and making a vast store of used aircraft available to their potential clients wouldn't help.

Now, I can see that concern not getting a lot of sympathy from this crowd (at $150,000 a pop, it's no wonder). But consider the quandary this puts AOPA and EAA into. We'd all prefer they'd support their members and push for relaxed rules, the fact is they're partnered with industry as well. The sort of internal rift that would be generated by the alphabets taking side would NOT be good for aviation. Nor would the failure of multiple small aviation companies.

However, the previous version of PBOR and even major aspects of PBOR2 would have done the same thing, and I hadn't heard much squawking from the industry. So maybe I'm inventing a problem that doesn't really exist. Wouldn't be the first time.

There'd probably be one advantage, from the FAA's viewpoint, to raising the limits of the Light Sport Aircraft definition: It'd reduce the chance of another Pilot's Bill of Rights being pushed through Congress.

Remember, the Pilot's Bill of Rights isn't about medical certification, or what airplanes we can fly. It's about putting limits on the FAA's powers during enforcement actions. Senator Inhofe got [description deleted] by the FAA after an in-flight event, and is determined that the rights of pilots be established so what happened to him won't happen to anyone else. Adding the medical aspects helps sell the bill to the alphabets and the flying public...and, I suspect, is yet another tweak at the FAA.

Stripped of the medical issues, PBOR3 is not as likely to get as much support...Just note how many posts on the FAA forum are about medical reform vs. enforcement reform. So if the FAA mollifies the flying public NOW with a Sport Pilot relaxation, they reduce the chances of Congressional action later.

There's one big advantage of making the change an FAA action vs. an act of Congress: Openness. When the FAA implemented Sport Pilot, they released a 435-page document as to WHY the decisions came out as they did. They covered each original limit, what comments they received, and their reasons for making each aspect of the final rule come out as it did. And, IIRC, all comments were made public. We don't have that level of visibility into the lawmaking process related to PBOR.

If PBOR fails, it'd be nice to see some sort of end-run like this. The problem is, if it fails, the FAA may just assume that there isn't enough support for reform, and Congress won't be on their backs.

Ron Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

Ron, I would like to see it expanded to include the Citations I used to drive..... 501's, not the X's and that would be crazy to let a sport pilot fly one of those. In the end I will do whatever is asked of me in support of PBOR2, it does benefit the common good and something that is very important to me, general aviation. I am thrilled for those of you whom it benefits and I commiserate with those people who it does not. I keep my fingers crossed that it works, despite the fact that if it is not approved then there is a possibility of the (insert acronym here) groups may seek change in the sport pilot rules which would benefit me as an individual. Honestly after the initial pain, I am truly satisfied with LS, It beats jumping off the roof with a sheet. ( my wife gets pissed at me when I do that).
best to all of you
Rick
pS. In response to how far you expand SP.... how fast is fast enough? Slow enough? Big enough? Enough seats? Man o man that would be a debate that would never end. Simple 4 seat, fixed prop and gear 180 hp. That is what would be acceptable to me, those parameters would for the most part self limit what will work. Yes I know you can shoehorn a 360 in a vari Eze and go just south of Mach one, but try hoisting a 210 sized ac aloft with those params and see what you get. Of course someone will point out something I did not think of and flush my thoughts down the toilet.

[67jwbruce]

one thing at a time I think. 2 seats is reasonable, just up the weight to 1670 lbs. See what I did there? I just opened up thousands of C150's and 152's....

[wyoranch]

one thing at a time I think. 2 seats is reasonable, just up the weight to 1670 lbs. See what I did there? I just opened up thousands of C150's and 152's....
Unfortunately you also open it up to Tomahawks as well...... :P But seriously I do get your point. I did think that it would have taken at least a couple of posts to destroy my theory. As a positive it could result in me getting a Citabria.....

[Dave S]

Ye Olde Official: Friends, Romans, chariot racers, lend me your ear! Thou shalt be required to eat one cubit of horse doo doo every three years to be allowed the privilege of racing your chariot.

Young Crowd: No problemo!

Old Crowd: We don’t like this but we gotta do what we gotta do.

Years pass and the chariot racers become fewer and fewer…

Ye Olde Official: Friends, Romans, chariot racers, lend me your ear! Thou shalt no longer be required to eat horse doo doo! Please joinith me in a rousing rendition of “Oh Happy Day!”

Crowd: Yay! Yippee! Oh happy day!

Ye Olde Official: Er, Friends, Romans, etc., In regards to our last pronouncement, thou shalt no longer be required to eat one cubit of horse doo doo <pause for yay’s and yippee’s to subside> – thou shalt be required to ONLY eat ½ cubit of horse doo doo! Anyone wanna singith “Oh Happy Day?”

Crowd: Wait…wut?

[Mike M]

At what point we go after expanding sport pilot to include the Cherokee/Skyhawks class of aircraft. :-)

Can't happen, the 1320lb/120kt limit is inviolate due to safety of people on the ground because of the momentum generated by faster or heavier vehicles if used as a terrorist weapon. Remember that one? What? Gosh, isn't that new Icon LSA a marvel of capabilities within the 1320 MGW limit! Oh.

[phavriluk]

Indeed so. BUT the 'transition period', so mildly described, is a path of great expense and aggravation and risk. Nice that the 'other side' will be a promised land, but the getting there is a very big problem. And this is a fundamental problem that was not anticipated by the membership and certainly isn't sitting well with many. Few would have given support and letters and hope to the original PBOR if it looked like the amended legislation. I feel as if I've been deceived, in great part by my own EAA 'leadership'.

[Mike Switzer]

one thing at a time I think. 2 seats is reasonable, just up the weight to 1670 lbs. See what I did there? I just opened up thousands of C150's and 152's....

The problem with that is a lot of us can't fit in those (or most of the light sport planes for that matter). For me it is a height & legroom problem, but even though I am not overweight for my height, in most 2 seaters, even if I could fit I couldn't take a passenger or instructor with me that was very big.

[Mike M]

well i guess we can put this topic to bed:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/american-airlines-pilot-death/index.html

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/06/united-airlines-co-pilot-on-sfo-bound-flight-loses-consciousness/

[rwanttaja]

well i guess we can put this topic to bed:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/american-airlines-pilot-death/index.html

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/06/united-airlines-co-pilot-on-sfo-bound-flight-loses-consciousness/
Not sure. It certainly proves the point that having a "medical" doesn't prevent incapacitating conditions. Gives an easy comeback when the AMA argues that medicals are necessary for safety. "How's that workin' out for ya?" :-)

It may also take some of the heat off GA; the average person is going to be more interested in the FAA preventing airline pilots from suffering incapacitation than worry about us "little plane" pilots.

May cause the Special Issuance bureaucracy to tighten up a bit, though.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike M]

Not sure? Seriously, Ron? Y'all know I've been skeptical but keeping an open mind, sense of humor, and deep hope. This isn't the final nail, it's a nailgun on full auto. The voting public knows "pilot" and we drop dead with the present super-strict medical rules in place so their kneejerk will kick any relaxation of any medical rule. I disbelieve they know squat about 1st, 3rd, sport pilot they just know "pilot" and heck even most aviators don't know "pilot" is properly applied to superlative mariners. Where'd that comment come from? Misapplied knowledge, everybody has some, and the general public added to Congress will pile it up so deeply the only way POBR2 will get off the ground now is smacking that speedbump at 600kts and it hasn't even gotten out of park on the prndl stick. Oh, well, nice try, maybe next session (campaign $ donations to ............... membership renewal $ to ..................)

[Byron J. Covey]

Duck, Ron, the sky is falling!


BJC

[rwanttaja]

Not sure? Seriously, Ron? Y'all know I've been skeptical but keeping an open mind, sense of humor, and deep hope. This isn't the final nail, it's a nailgun on full auto. The voting public knows "pilot" and we drop dead with the present super-strict medical rules in place so their kneejerk will kick any relaxation of any medical rule. I disbelieve they know squat about 1st, 3rd, sport pilot they just know "pilot" and heck even most aviators don't know "pilot" is properly applied to superlative mariners. Where'd that comment come from? Misapplied knowledge, everybody has some, and the general public added to Congress will pile it up so deeply the only way POBR2 will get off the ground now is smacking that speedbump at 600kts and it hasn't even gotten out of park on the prndl stick. Oh, well, nice try, maybe next session (campaign $ donations to ............... membership renewal $ to ..................)
I have a deep and abiding faith in the short attention span of the American public. Some young celebrity will post another nekkid photo, and people will forget all about pilot medicals. The current Congressional session is only half over...there's another year to get PBOR2 pushed through. Plenty enough time to push the recent in-flight death back far enough in the common memory.

While another old dead guy said, "The people have long memories," that really referred to *shafting* people, not "flavor of the month" issues.

In any case, GA hasn't undergone much public "meddling." Like you said, the average citizen doesn't know the difference between Sport Pilots and other types of pilots, and there was no public clamor when SP came out with "Driver's License Medicals"...even though medical emergencies affecting airline pilots have been happening all along.

I just don't think the average citizen cares about GA either way. Problems affecting airline pilots ARE of concern to them, since they can feel threatened by them (The Colgan crash, etc.). Sure, someone can ALWAYS invoke the "airplanes falling out of the skies onto our heads" trope, but that's usually reserved for NIMBYs fighting airports.

Pollyannaish I may be, but let's burn this bridge when we come to it.

Ron Wanttaja

(The scary thing is that the Firefox spell checker recognized, "Pollyannaish".....:-)

[rwanttaja]

In any case, GA hasn't undergone much public "meddling."
Got to thinking about this, and was trying to remember cases where an event caused a change in General Aviation policy. Came up with these:

1. Disappearance of a plane carrying a Congressman Hale Boggs in Alaska, led to ELT requirement.
2. Crash of a privately-owned F-86 into an ice-cream parlor, led to more restrictions on ex-military aircraft
3. Cerritos air-to-air, resulting in more controlled airspace (and, I think helped lead to the transponder requirement for TCAs/Class B).
4. Terrorist attacks of 9/11/2011, leading to more restricted airspace.
5. Disappearance of a Lear Jet over New England, leading to widening of ELT requirements.

Key for all these is newsworthiness; three are major accidents with plenty of horrific footage, the other two involve mysteries that got a lot of attention.

This is why I don't think the recent event(s) (including the FO pass-out) will have that much effect on PBOR: It just isn't outrageous enough for the populace to take notice.

Ron "No old dead guy quote this time" Wanttaja

[martymayes]

6. Jessica Dubroff and the Child Pilot Safety Act - (which quashed the dreams of all "child pilots" - lol) the statute prohibits anyone who does not hold at least a private pilot certificate and a current medical certificate from manipulating the controls of an aircraft, if that individual "is attempting to set a record or engage in an aeronautical competition or aeronautical feat." (I guess in a taildragger that would be "aeronautical feet")

I think the big change that came from #3 above was a technology solution in the form of TCAS which has yet to trickle down to the propeller GA world.

[wyoranch]

It happens more often than you ( or I for that matter ) think . Since 1994 seven pilots have died enroute, I remember none of them. Ron, does that make me one of the American public with a short attention span, or was it not significant enough for the media to report and blow out of proportion? :-)
Rick

[rwanttaja]

It happens more often than you ( or I for that matter ) think . Since 1994 seven pilots have died enroute, I remember none of them. Ron, does that make me one of the American public with a short attention span, or was it not significant enough for the media to report and blow out of proportion? :-)
Rick

Uhhhh...yes!

Ron "Oooo! Squirrel!" Wanttaja

[Mike M]

OK, Ron, Rick, Marty, you have excellent and well-documented points. I'll admit I'm wrong a lot, and will gratefully admit it once again when the recurring 3rd class medical dies as a result of POBR2 passing this congressional session.

[wyoranch]

Mike,
my point was not directed at you. I was surprised when I read the statistics I figured you kids would find the info interesting.
Rick

[martymayes]

OK, Ron, Rick, Marty, you have excellent and well-documented points. I'll admit I'm wrong a lot, and will gratefully admit it once again when the recurring 3rd class medical dies as a result of POBR2 passing this congressional session.

If the legislation dies or fails to pass, I don't think it will be because an airline pilot died while in flight while the legislation was pending. I don't see anything in this scenario that is related to GA. Airlines fly millions of flights, one pilot dies while on duty, plane lands safely because another fully qualified pilot is in the cockpit. Do we want a reg that says we can fly without a medical provided another pilot is on board?

I think what's missing is any relevant data to support voting for/against the proposed legislation. Sport Pilot has been around ~11 yrs now? How many flights/flt hrs have sport pilots flown without medical certification and how many accidents/incidents has occurred due to medical incapacitation? In my region the FSDO has at least a handful of cases but I dunno how that compares to the national picture. If the statistics show there is a <1% chance of a pilot without a medical crashing due to medical incapacitation, the FAA would practically have to endorse it because that meets their own standards for SI.

[rwanttaja]

We have to remember that this is more than just stacking up votes. Lots of bills are filed, but not that many actually make it to the voting stage. The bill has to clear various committees, first, and getting past those committees is really the difficult part. There may be 65-odd Senators co-sponsoring the bill, but if one of the 35 remaining is the committee chair, he or she has a good opportunity to spike the bill and prevent it from coming to a vote of the full chamber.

Even if the committee chair is a nominal supporter of the bill, that doesn't ensure the committee will consider it. They may have higher-priority items they need to address, instead, and PBOR just gets shoved to the side. With elections approaching, Congresscritters will be more interested in issues that can torpedo some candidate or the other, or can enhance their own re-election chances.

Mike has a point, in that one or two members of Congress could use the recent in-flight fatality as a public pretext for not supporting the bill, but the actual *merit* of the bill probably has little influence, at this point. It'll all be other factors beyond the control of us or the bill's sponsors.

Reminds me of that old Bloom County cartoon:

"Ahhhh....catch that scent in the air!"

"Dirty socks?"

"No... Politics!"

Ron "If I am elected...." Wanttaja

[wyoranch]

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/10-08-2015-reforming-special-issuance-process-will-help-many-pilots
Irony? Coincidence? You be the judge.....
Rick

[jpoppa]

Dear Whomever, Well this cash cow is dry, and will no longer advocate the lobby clap-trap of all the good work that you manage for the GA crowd.
You made fools out of your most vocal and active members and should be ashamed.
Now pat yourselves on the back and get about the real work; get busy and send me a mailer for $2.00 off on a $50.00 t-shirt.
Ps- I truly believe that if not addended to allow for current Sport Pilot Certificate holders to be grandfathered in under the 10 yr medical restriction, this classification will be the next thing on the negotiation block. --

I cant wait to hear the next progress on GA reforms you have for me- print it on a coffee mug.

[Dave S]

OK...check my math here...

I am currently inactive, but if I am a private pilot flying as a sport pilot now and I have NOT had a 3rd class medical within the last 10 years, if/when PBOR2 comes along, I appears I will no longer be able to fly unless I go get a 3rd class medical?

[wyoranch]

OK...check my math here...

I am currently inactive, but if I am a private pilot flying as a sport pilot now and I have NOT had a 3rd class medical within the last 10 years, if/when PBOR2 comes along, I appears I will no longer be able to fly unless I go get a 3rd class medical?


If you are a sport pilot nothing changes.
Rick

[S3flyer]

OK...check my math here...

I am currently inactive, but if I am a private pilot flying as a sport pilot now and I have NOT had a 3rd class medical within the last 10 years, if/when PBOR2 comes along, I appears I will no longer be able to fly unless I go get a 3rd class medical?
You will not be able to fly a non-LSA without a one-time medical if you are a PP (if PBOR2 becomes law). You may continue to fly under SP privileges just as you do today.

[phavriluk]

You will not be able to fly a non-LSA without a one-time medical if you are a PP (if PBOR2 becomes law). You may continue to fly under SP privileges just as you do today.

Some improvement in getting dormant pilots back into the left seat. Without PBOR2, we'd have to get a 3rd class medical; with PBOR2 we'd have to get a 3rd class medical. Exactly where all this drumbeating and letter-writing is getting us?

[rwanttaja]

Avweb editorial on the status. Not very optimistic.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Third-Class-Medical-Surely-Theres-Some-Grim-Humor-Here-224980-1.html

Ron Wanttaja

[Kevin N.]

I have read all nine pages(so far) of these word salads and I'm dizzy. While I would love to see the FAA third class medical disappear I have no confidence in even the PBOR2 passing. I will be a sport pilot soon by choice as my first class has dropped to a second and when it expires I do not plan on seeing another AME. I'm a recently retired 30,000 hour airline jockey and have no plans of flying anything other than my Champ and my homebuilt(when finished) which meets LSA criteria. I have become jaded in my old age and expect nothing positive from my government and they never let me down.