Pbr 2

[dick b]

Since the transportation bill passed yesterday, what is status of medical reform?

Dick B

[wallda]

I really can't verify this, but I don't think it was attached to the trasportation bill. Hopefully one of the experts at the EAA will provide an update.

[1600vw]

Does this shock anyone. I think we all knew this was going nowhere. We hoped and had big wild dreams. But every one of us know how Washington works. It was never in the cards. Amazing they gave us Sport Pilot.

Tony

[wallda]

Does this shock anyone. I think we all knew this was going nowhere. We hoped and had big wild dreams. But every one of us know how Washington works. It was never in the cards. Amazing they gave us Sport Pilot.

Tony

I think people are confusing the process. And hopefully someone can correct me because I am sure I will get this wrong.... The PBOR2, which is actually known as S.571 in the senate and H.R. 1062 in the House are stand alone pieces of legislation. Earlier this year there was a third attempt to get third class medical reform passed. That included attaching a provision for 3rd class reform to the Highway Bill. Unfortunately, at that time, congress chose to extend the existing highway bill rather than debate and vote on the new bill. So.... While things do not appear to be moving forward very quickly.... there are still several bills which are not dead, which would achieve 3rd class medical reform.

[Gunslinger37]

AOPA web page has the latest update on the Senate Committee action. Now scheduled for review on December 9th, and hopefully move it onto the Senate floor for a vote.

[cub builder]

PBOR2 made it through Senate Transportation Committee this morning on a voice vote. More info will be coming out via AOPA and EAA soon. -Cub Builder

[rwanttaja]

EAA Press Release:

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/2015-news/12-09-2015-pilots-bill-of-rights-2-clears-key-senate-committee

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike Switzer]

Is this accurate? This is considerably different from everything I have heard previously.

"Under PBOR2, most pilots who have held a valid third-class medical, either regular or special issuance, within the 10 years preceding the legislation’s enactment would never need to get another FAA medical exam. The rule would apply to pilots flying VFR or IFR in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds and carrying up to five passengers at altitudes below 18,000 feet and speeds up to 250 knots. "

The last I heard was VFR only, limited to 180HP & one passenger.

[Chris In Marshfield]

I'm pretty sure that was the original attempt at this legislation that went away some time ago. The latest one is day/night, IFR/VFR, six seats, up to 6000 lbs.

[cub builder]

Is this accurate? This is considerably different from everything I have heard previously. "Under PBOR2, most pilots who have held a valid third-class medical, either regular or special issuance, within the 10 years preceding the legislation’s enactment would never need to get another FAA medical exam. The rule would apply to pilots flying VFR or IFR in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds and carrying up to five passengers at altitudes below 18,000 feet and speeds up to 250 knots. " Yes, this is correct and what has been in the legislation all along.
The last I heard was VFR only, limited to 180HP & one passenger. This set of numbers came from the EAA/AOPA petition, which was tabled indefinitely in DOT. Remember 2 years ago when the FAA announced at Oshkosh they were going to do something about the third class medicals and we were going to really like it, but wouldn't say what? That was their work on the EAA/AOPA Petition. The FAA passed it on to the DOT for review. DOT dutifully moves the expected release date back every month, which is their way of refusing to move forward. So, EAA/AOPA started down the route of reforming the third class medicals via legislation. Senator Inhofe's legislation has always called for up to 6000# gross weight and up to 5 passengers, both VFR and IFR for a drivers license medical. The 6000# gross weight limit didn't just materialize out of thin air. 6000# gross weight is a DOT vehicle size rating between Class 1 and Class 2 vehicles. Also, 6000# is often times used by many states as the limit where a vehicle is licensed as a commercial vehicle regardless of whether it is used commercially or privately. Hope that helps make a little more sense of the legislation. -Cub Builder

[Mike Switzer]

Well that is good to know. It may actually be useful to me.

[skyfixer8]

If you go to AOPA.org and read the comments section, apparently there are a lot of unhappy people with the addition that no one read about the visit to the doctors every 4 years.Bill

[cub builder]

If you go to AOPA.org and read the comments section, apparently there are a lot of unhappy people with the addition that no one read about the visit to the doctors every 4 years.Bill I don't like the addition of the form for the Dr to fill out, but everyone SHOULD be seeing a Dr on a regular basis and a check up every 4 years is not, in my opinion, an unreasonable requirement. According to the bill, the form is only supposed to go into your log book and is not mailed back into the FAA. I can see the FAA changing that to require a copy be sent to them and trying to stick their proverbial "Camel's nose under the tent flap." Personally, I have always had a physical with my own physician every 2 years, and now that I'm about to turn 60, I do a physical with my Dr annually. Quite frankly, the problem isn't the bi-annual third class physical. That is not time consuming and not all that expensive. The problem is the cost of all the additional testing and the suspension of flight privileges while in the process of getting a special issuance for anyone with a less than perfect health record, which will at some age, eventually include every pilot. It's the time, aggravation and cost of the ever ongoing special issuance that drives many pilots out of aviation. The thrust behind this bill is to allow pilots to see their own Drs for proper health care without getting dragged into the FAAs special issuance repetitive nightmare. I personally know of a number of pilots that have conditions that go untreated because they don't want a diagnosis that will drag them into the FAAs special issuance nonsense. I would much rather these pilots seek treatment for those conditions without the FAA threatening to suspend their flight privileges while they pay for a bunch of unnecessary testing to meet the FAAs demands for a special issuance. This bill in its current form accomplishes that goal. -Cub Builder

[Gunslinger37]

According to the web site "govtrack.us" the prognosis is that this bill now has a 25% chance of being enacted. It is now sitting on Senate Calendar #319 with 70 co-sponsors. What can we do to get it moved up for a vote by the Senate and House? Do we need to mount another email and phone call effort with our Senators and Representatives?

[skyfixer8]

PBOR2 has made it through the Senate. House is next. Fingers crossed. AOPA just put it up.Bill

[Gunslinger37]

There was a last minute Amendment SA2928 by Sen. Feinstein that was added to the Senate version. I can't find the full text, but has something to do with "physician certification".UPDATE: Found this, ".....language was added requiring the physician to certify that he or she is not aware of any medical condition that, as it is currently being treated, would interfere with the ability to fly safely."

[FlyingRon]

The amendment modifies the physicians statement from
(iv) to sign the checklist, stating: “I certify that I discussed all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination, discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere with their ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle, and performed an examination that included all of the items on this checklist.”; and...(iv) a certification by the individual that the checklist described in subsection (b) was followed in the comprehensive medical examination required in subsection (a)(7); andto
(iv) to sign the checklist, stating: “I certify that I discussed all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination, discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere with their ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle, and performed an examination that included all of the items on this checklist. I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.”; and...(iv) a certification by the individual that the checklist described in subsection (b) was followed and signed by the physician in the comprehensive medical examination required in subsection (a)(7); andand adds this:
(l) Authority To Require Additional Information.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If the Administrator receives credible or urgent information, including from the National Driver Register or the Administrator’s Safety Hotline, that reflects on an individual’s ability to safely operate a covered aircraft under the third-class medical certificate exemption in subsection (a), the Administrator may require the individual to provide additional information or history so that the Administrator may determine whether the individual is safe to continue operating a covered aircraft. (2) USE OF INFORMATION.—The Administrator may use credible or urgent information received under paragraph (1) to request an individual to provide additional information or to take actions under section 44709(b) of title 49, United States Code.

[Gunslinger37]

This subject has gone very quiet. Nothing on the AOPA nor EAA web sites for the past 6 weeks. No recent activity on the Congress.gov web site for H.R.1062 and H.R.1086. We would like to hear from the EAA Advocacy staff with an update from Washington.

[Tom Charpentier]

The attached article from the February Sport Aviation (online here (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-magazines-and-publications/eaa-sport-aviation-magazine/eaa-sport-aviation-digital-edition)) sums up where we currently stand. Passage in the House will come down to having the right strategy and taking the right opportunity, and right now we are working hard to lay the groundwork.

[1600vw]

It sounds like they have rewritten this bill so much that it looks nothing like the original draft. This bill was to copy SP for PP. Nothing about this bill follows SP. It was also suppose to be more like a drivers license and how we drive our cars and trucks. When did we start needing a medical every 4 years to drive? I know, don't complain and be happy. The new America of today.

If this passes, they gave you nothing.

[crusty old aviator]

Oh, don't be so negative, Tony! If it passes, you no longer need a 3rd class medical, unless the FAA gets wind of your last heart attack, 300+ cholesterol count, or epileptic seizure: then they can require you to provide more information...easily provided by a 3rd class medical exam. Hah!

So, stay away from fast food, eat healthy, get lots of exercise, keep your BMI and cholesterol down, don't get caught driving drunk, and you can keep on flying as a private pilot with your drivers license. Maybe this gives you personally nothing, Tony, but it gives the rest of us a great deal!

[bflynn]

Oh, don't be so negative, Tony! If it passes, you no longer need a 3rd class medical, unless the FAA gets wind of your last heart attack, 300+ cholesterol count, or epileptic seizure: then they can require you to provide more information...easily provided by a 3rd class medical exam. Hah!

So, stay away from fast food, eat healthy, get lots of exercise, keep your BMI and cholesterol down, don't get caught driving drunk, and you can keep on flying as a private pilot with your drivers license. Maybe this gives you personally nothing, Tony, but it gives the rest of us a great deal!

The current medical system is a screen for those that might be guilty. Once suspected, proving medical fitness to the FAA is a guilty until proven innocent deal and many pilots give up trying to prove their innocence and move on. There's nothing wrong, they just can't prove it or can't afford to prove it to the FAA.

It will give a lot of people a break. I've quit trying to prove to the FAA that I'm fit to fly, at least for now. I'm taking an non reviewed drug and the hope of even getting it reviewed is pretty low at the moment. I could fly LSA, but building is long and buying or renting are really expensive in the LSA world. For me, PBOR2 represents my best hope of getting back in the air soon.

[lyleapgmc]

I do not understand the requirement for a valid medical within the last ten years, or nine years or even five years. If this is to be a program that allows flying with only a driver's license then it should not have any further restrictions, especially historical requirements.

By who and and for what reason was ten years selected? Who needed to be satisfied by this requirement?

A commercial pilot died at the controls recently. What was the value of his one year old medical in determining that he was fit to fly.

Another pilot became incapacitated at the controls of an airliner. Did his medical foresee this eventuality?

We all self certify each and every time we are about to take the controls of an aircraft. We most certainly are in a better position at that time to determine if we are healthy enough to fly than would be indicated by a ten year old medical.

The airlines certainly should not have any concern about self certificated pilots flying aircraft under 6000 pounds. When they apply for and are accepted for an airline job they will have to have passed the requisite medical review.

We do not hear of the death or illness of a pilot that holds a medical unless he is part of our close group of pilots.

Lyle

[Byron J. Covey]

I do not understand the requirement for a valid medical within the last ten years, or nine years or even five years. ....

Remember, Lyle, that we are talking about the USA Congress, aka "the best politicians that money can buy".

Wish it were different ....


BJC

[lyleapgmc]

Remember, Lyle, that we are talking about the USA Congress, aka "the best politicians that money can buy".

Wish it were different ....
BJC

I want a $175,000 a year part time jobs with huge benefites such as members of Congress have.

If they were all volunteers they would do a better job.

Lyle

[Byron J. Covey]

I want a $175,000 a year part time jobs with huge benefites such as members of Congress have.

If they were all volunteers they would do a better job.

Lyle

I had a good friend, a pilot, homebuilder, inventor, entrepreneur and very successful businessman. He believed, and I now agree, that citizens selected at random to serve in Congress would do a better job than what we have under the current system.


BJC

[Mike Switzer]

I do not understand the requirement for a valid medical within the last ten years, or nine years or even five years. If this is to be a program that allows flying with only a driver's license then it should not have any further restrictions, especially historical requirements.

By who and and for what reason was ten years selected? Who needed to be satisfied by this requirement?

My guess is this: There are a handful of medical conditions that the FAA will never allow a pilot to have, but generally speaking they do not manifest themselves overnight. If a pilot has passed his medical in the last 10 years the probability of him having one of those conditions is pretty small.

[rwanttaja]

By who and and for what reason was ten years selected? Who needed to be satisfied by this requirement?

IIRC, it was one of the congresscritters who demanded it be added.


I want a $175,000 a year part time jobs with huge benefites such as members of Congress have.

If they were all volunteers they would do a better job.

Actually, with the costs of holding the office (having to maintain residencies in both the home state and Washington DC), if the job didn't have a salary, all officeholders would have to have another source of income. This is not necessarily a good thing.

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

My guess is this: There are a handful of medical conditions that the FAA will never allow a pilot to have, but generally speaking they do not manifest themselves overnight. If a pilot has passed his medical in the last 10 years the probability of him having one of those conditions is pretty small.

Yes, and they covered that handful of medical conditions by requiring an SI for them even under the proposed new rules.

[Mike Switzer]

Yes, and they covered that handful of medical conditions by requiring an SI for them even under the proposed new rules.

I'm talking about the conditions that you can't get an SI for. If you could just go & fly with nothing but a drivers license you know some of those people would try.

[1600vw]

I'm talking about the conditions that you can't get an SI for. If you could just go & fly with nothing but a drivers license you know some of those people would try.





I bet they do under SP. Again they gave nothing in this bill. Say what you want. Nothing about this bill is even close to SP, I thought this bill was to follow SP. I would fly SP and forget PP. Most are doing this anyway. JMHO

[DaleB]

I'm talking about the conditions that you can't get an SI for. If you could just go & fly with nothing but a drivers license you know some of those people would try.

Well, let's see... I know a guy who has a condition that he can't get an SI for, and yes, he flies regularly under Sport Pilot restrictions. He sees his doctors more often now than he did when he had a third class medical certificate, and is in fact in far better condition medically now than he was before. So yeah, you may not know it but you can indeed "just go fly with nothing but a driver's license", and yeah, a few thousand (nobody knows how many) of "those people" do. Every day. And we don't seem to be making any more crumpled balls of aluminum than before.

Huh. Weird.

[S_Van]

Hay all, I just started a separate thread because the PBOR-2 has been incorporated into a bill that privatizes ATC and has some (limited?) user fees in it. Its H.B. 4441. The PBOR-2 is Section 417 of that bill. Its a big bill, 273 pages.

[Onex33]

Hay all, I just started a separate thread because the PBOR-2 has been incorporated into a bill that privatizes ATC and has some (limited?) user fees in it. Its H.B. 4441. The PBOR-2 is Section 417 of that bill. Its a big bill, 273 pages.

R.I.P. PBR 2 -Glad I can still fly LSA but I only have a single seat(Onex) so I cant take anyone with me. Would like to be able to fly a 150, 172 etc so I could take people for a ride once in a while. Special thanks to the House of Representatives:mad: for attaching the stand alone bill from the Senate to a House bill that had no chance of passing.

Loren
N331EX

[cub builder]

R.I.P. PBR 2 -Glad I can still fly LSA but I only have a single seat(Onex) so I cant take anyone with me. Would like to be able to fly a 150, 172 etc so I could take people for a ride once in a while. Special thanks to the House of Representatives:mad: for attaching the stand alone bill from the Senate to a House bill that had no chance of passing.

Loren
N331EX

Just because it was attached as a rider to a bill that died doesn't mean the bill can't still go through the house as a stand alone bill. Will they do it? That's the big question. Many of the "sponsors" only sign on for political expediency and won't actually provide support. I'm not holding my breath for this. AOPA and EAA seem to be off chasing other issues, so seem to be ignoring this one.

-Cub Builder

[Onex33]

Just because it was attached as a rider to a bill that died doesn't mean the bill can't still go through the house as a stand alone bill. Will they do it? That's the big question. Many of the "sponsors" only sign on for political expediency and won't actually provide support. I'm not holding my breath for this. AOPA and EAA seem to be off chasing other issues, so seem to be ignoring this one.

-Cub Builder
I understand that but one could reasonably think that because Speaker Ryan is from Wisconsin he would know about EAA/Oshkosh/Air Venture even though he represents a different district in southern WI. One could also reasonably think that the EAA could at least get an audience with the Speaker and ask him to support PBR2. So if Speaker Ryan wanted it passed, all he would have to do is have it moved out of committee for a vote. I believe that is how it would work in a reasonable world of DC politics but it seems there is nothing reasonable about our dysfunctional government in today's environment.

Loren

[Gunslinger37]

As usual, EAA web pages do not keep up with the latest news on Third Class Medical Reform.
The U.S. Senate introduced the FAA Reauthorization Act (S.2658) yesterday. This will provide funding for the FAA before the deadline of March 31.
This bill contains Third Class Medical Reform text that was passed by the Senate last year. The bill is in committee mark up now and should be on the floor for a vote in a few days. Then the House of Representatives will either vote on the Senate bill, or come up with their own version with differences to be worked out in conference.
Bottom line, we may have PBR 2 by the end of March!

[Onex33]

Bottom line, we may have PBR 2 by the end of March!

I really do hope that you are right Gunslinger37 but I am not holding my breath. Whoever is against PBR2 is still hiding in the shadows and they still have some dirty tricks up their sleeve is my fear. Nice AA1 by the way.

Loren
Onex33

[Gunslinger37]

PBR2 is alive and well. Fully contained in H.R. 636 (FAA Reauthorization) that passed the Senate today with a vote of 95 to 3. The three Senators that voted against the bill are; Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). Now it is up to the House to vote on this, or something similar, and get it to the White House for signature.

[Byron J. Covey]

Thank you for keeping us informed, Gunslinger.


BJC

[Gunslinger37]

Article today in Aero-News by Gene Yarbrough.

You can bet that Gene will be getting a FAA Ramp Check after they read this.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=8a5e0f07-9092-426f-be69-cc1367cdc42d

[Gunslinger37]

British CAA is making the change to private pilot medicals this summer. Why can't our FAA move forward on this issue?

https://www.caa.co.uk/News/Changes-to-private-pilot-medical-requirements-announced/

Also, the U.S. Senate has added PRB2 to a Defense Funding Bill that moved from committee to the floor for a vote. This is a third path to becoming law.

[FlyingRon]

Also, the U.S. Senate has added PRB2 to a Defense Funding Bill that moved from committee to the floor for a vote.
Alas, this is not true. While the NDAA has had the PBOR2 added to it, it has NOT been reported out of the Armed Services committee yet. I checked minutes ago to see what form of the PBOR2 was attached.

[TedK]

The Senate is in the process of debating the National Defense Authorization Act (which has PBOR2 buried in Title XXXIII of the NDAA), and amendments are coming in. Yesterday, Sen. Blumenthal submitted two amendments to Title XXXIII of the The Pilot?s Bill of Rights 2.

The first adds a provision directing the FAA to establish minimum levels of Liability Insurance. The second amendment appears to do away with PBOR2, it strikes the title all together and replaces it with two brief provisions which seem to require sport pilots flying without a current medical to report their hours flown every six months so that th GAO can do a study.

Ted
--------------------------
SA 4494. Mr. BLUMENTHAL
At the end of title XXXIII, add the following:
SEC. 3308. RULEMAKING ESTABLISHING MINIMUM LIABILITY INSURANCE LEVELS FOR PILOTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall initiate a rulemaking to establish minimum levels of liability insurance for any pilot covered under this title.
--------------------------------------------------------
SA 4495. Mr. BLUMENTHAL
Strike title XXXIII and insert the following:
TITLE XXXIII--EXEMPTION FROM MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 3301. REPORTING BY PILOTS EXEMPT FROM MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall require any pilot who is exempt from medical certification requirements to submit, not less frequently than once every 180 days, a report to the Department of Transportation that--
(1) identifies the pilot's status as an active pilot; and
(2) includes a summary of the pilot's recent flight hours.
SEC. 3302. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REPORT ASSESSING EFFECT ON PUBLIC SAFETY OF EXEMPTION FOR SPORT PILOTS FROM REQUIREMENT FOR A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives that assesses the effect of section 61.23(c)(ii) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (permitting a person to exercise the privileges of a sport pilot certificate without holding a medical certificate), on public safety since 2004.

[Wilfred]

That sounds as if it is a prelude to eliminating the driver's license exception. A real step backwards. The insurance requirement, if it survives, would likely mean I give up flying also.

[1600vw]

That sounds as if it is a prelude to eliminating the driver's license exception. A real step backwards. The insurance requirement, if it survives, would likely mean I give up flying also.

I believe many will follow suit or do the same. To think we have those that celebrate this bill. People want change..here it is...

[Frank Giger]

I didn't read that at all. I read that as a Sport Pilot every 6 months I have to go online and fill out a form saying how many hours I flew.

This is a hassle for me but a good thing for Private Pilots who want to eventually get rid of the Class III medical entirely. Right now we know that Sport Pilots haven't had any (that I'm aware of) wrecks due to medical incapacitation. The number of Private Pilots flying under Sport Pilot rules is a complete statistical mystery. This will build a database of hours flown versus incidents and accidents; it will also show if flight hours increase with the relaxation of the medical requirements for Private Pilots.

The insurance requirement concerns me. If they jack up the minimum liability coverage too high that could price me out of flying. I don't need hull insurance - my plane is too inexpensive to make it financially reasonable to pay premiums on - but I don't really need some super duper mega coverage for stuff on the ground, either.

[TedK]

Blumenthal's amendments have been submitted but not yet accepted.


This is where you get hot and send an email to your two Senators telling them, "Vote No to Senate Amendment 4494 and 4495 to S. 2493"


Yes, you!


Now! Time is a wasting...or would you rather take another flight physical?

[Mayhemxpc]

Two issues here
1) I may be old fashioned about these things, but this amendment is not appropriate in a National Defense Authorization Act. It should be in the Transportation legislation or some separate Act.
2) It is almost certain that the President will veto the Bill for other issues actually relating to Defense. This will require a massive overhaul of the entire work.

I will call to schedule my flight physical tomorrow.

[Mike M]

It's an election year. PBOR will not be signed into law. Keep those membership dues and campaign donations coming in. Nor will it pass next year. Keep those membership dues and campaign donations coming in. Then it will be an election year again. Won't be signed into law. Keep those membership dues and campaign donations coming in. Yeah. I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too, his name is Richard Simmons................

[1600vw]

It's an election year. PBOR will not be signed into law. Keep those membership dues and campaign donations coming in. Nor will it pass next year. Keep those membership dues and campaign donations coming in. Then it will be an election year again. Won't be signed into law. Keep those membership dues and campaign donations coming in. Yeah. I believe in the Tooth Fairy, too, his name is Richard Simmons................

Someones panties is going to get into a bunch with talk like this. If you don't believe this will happen read some of my posts. No moderator will care either and will let you get attacked. Just read my posts. You will see this is indeed true.

[1600vw]

I was told once, people treat you the way you allow them to treat you. The same goes for our government. My point, if you do not like what is happening do something about it. Be it write letters or run for office. But to do nothing is letting them treat you as they want and being passive about it.

[griffin800]

Too easy for most people to bitch and do nothing.

Bill H.

[TedK]

Think about it. You can fret about your next or future flight physicals.

Or you can simply take the three minutes it takes to tell your two Senators to vote No to SA 4494 and 4495 to the NDAA S. 2943.

[L16 Pilot]

My personal opinion is that our representatives don't even read communications to them. Maybe the staff does....maybe! I remember writing to Sen. Kohl a few years ago about some issue and got a form letter back that had nothing to do with the issue I wrote about. So I wrote back saying "you must have an incompetent staff" described the issue and got the same form letter back. For politicians their number one job is to get reelected which is why I believe in term limits. Having said that the proposed third class medical change is totally based on common sense which most of them lack.

[dclaxon]

Having said that the proposed third class medical change is totally based on common sense which most of them lack.

Not only do most of them lack common sense, I believe it is actually against government policy.

Dave

[Gunslinger37]

The Senate has passed the PBOR 2 for the third time. Today it was attached to the National Defense Authorization Act. Vote was 85-13. Now on to the House for a vote.

[TedK]

The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act seems to be in the lead as several Bill's make the way toward passing Third Class Medical Reform.


The Senate version of the NDAA has passed the full Senate and contains a version of PBOR2.

The House version of NDAA has passed the full House but is silent on PBOR2 and 3CMR.


Next stop, a joint Senate-House Conference to reconcile the two Bills.


Assuming that the PBOR2 sections remain after Conference ...there is no reason they shouldn't...PBOR2 has over 188 sponsors in the House, then the Conference version goes back to the full House and Senate for approval.

But this is where you can make a difference. Contact your Representative and tell them to "Keep the Senate's Title XXXIII (33) for General Aviation in the Conference version of the Defense Authoization Bill."


And then on to the President for signature (or Veto).

ted

[TedK]

Attached is the PBOR2 portion of the Senate's Defense Authorization Bill.

Ted

[skyfixer8]

WOW, I wonder how many lawyers it took to draft that.

Bill L

[TedK]

Just to make it a little easier to see the Medical part of PBOR2 in the NDAA, I have pasted it below.


COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
(1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a checklist for an individual to complete and provide to the physician performing the comprehensive medical examination required in subsection (a)(7).

(2) REQUIREMENTS. The checklist shall contain

(A) a section, for the individual to complete that contains
(i) boxes 3 through 13 and boxes 16 through 19 of the Federal Aviation Administration Form 8500-8 (3-99);
(ii) a signature line for the individual to affirm that
(I) the answers provided by the individual on that checklist, including the individual?s answers regarding medical history, are true and complete;
(II) the individual understands that he or she is prohibited under Federal Aviation Administration regulations from acting as pilot in command, or any other capacity as a required flight crew member, if he or she knows or has reason to know of any medical deficiency or medically disqualifying condition that would make the individual unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner; and
(III) the individual is aware of the regulations pertaining to the prohibition on operations during medical deficiency and has no medically disqualifying conditions in accordance with applicable law;

(B) a section with instructions for the individual to provide the completed checklist to the physician performing the comprehensive medical examination required in subsection (a)(7); and

(C) a section, for the physician to complete, that instructs the physician

(i) to perform a clinical examination of -

(I) head, face, neck, and scalp;
(II) nose, sinuses, mouth, and throat;
(III) ears, general (internal and external canals), and eardrums (perforation);
(IV) eyes (general), ophthalmoscopic, pupils (equality and reaction), and ocular motility (associated parallel movement, nystagmus);
(V) lungs and chest (not including breast examination);
(VI) heart (precordial activity, rhythm, sounds, and murmurs);
(VII) vascular system (pulse, amplitude, and character, and arms, legs, and others);
(VIII) abdomen and viscera (including hernia);
(IX) anus (not including digital examination);
(X) skin;
(XI) G-U system (not including pelvic examination);
(XII) upper and lower extremities (strength and range of motion);
(XIII) spine and other musculoskeletal;
(XIV) identifying body marks, scars, and tattoos (size and location);
(XV) lymphatics;
(XVI) neurologic (tendon reflexes, equilibrium, senses, cranial nerves, and coordination, etc.);
(XVII) psychiatric (appearance, behavior, mood, communication, and memory);
(XVIII) general systemic;
(XIX) hearing;
(XX) vision (distant, near, and intermediate vision, field of vision, color vision, and ocular alignment);
(XXI) blood pressure and pulse; and
(XXII) anything else the physician, in his or her medical judgment, considers necessary;


(ii) to exercise medical discretion to address, as medically appropriate, any medical conditions identified, and to exercise medical discretion in determining whether any medical tests are warranted as part of the comprehensive medical examination;

(iii) to discuss all drugs the individual reports taking (prescription and non- prescription) and their potential to interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft or motor vehicle;

(iv) to sign the checklist, stating: ‘‘I certify that I discussed all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination, discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere with their ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle, and performed an examination that included all of the items on this checklist. I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.’’; and

(v) to provide the date the comprehensive medical examination was completed, and the physician’s full name, address, telephone number, and State medical license number.

[Mike Switzer]

Looks to me like you still need a medical, it just doesn't have to be done by an AME. Doctors are just going to love this - I wonder how will they code everything on the checklist to comply with the Obamacare rules?

[wyoranch]

Forgive my ignorance, but is the 10 year exclusion still part of all of this?
Thanks
Rick

[Mike Switzer]

Forgive my ignorance, but is the 10 year exclusion still part of all of this?
Thanks
Rick

Yes

[deftone]

What were they thinking when this was added to the list..........



(i) to perform a clinical examination of -

(I) head, face, neck, and scalp;
(II) nose, sinuses, mouth, and throat;
(III) ears, general (internal and external canals), and eardrums (perforation);
(IV) eyes (general), ophthalmoscopic, pupils (equality and reaction), and ocular motility (associated parallel movement, nystagmus);
(V) lungs and chest (not including breast examination);
(VI) heart (precordial activity, rhythm, sounds, and murmurs);
(VII) vascular system (pulse, amplitude, and character, and arms, legs, and others);
(VIII) abdomen and viscera (including hernia);
(IX) anus
(X) skin;
(XI) G-U system (not including pelvic examination);
(XII) upper and lower extremities (strength and range of motion);
(XIII) spine and other musculoskeletal;
(XIV) identifying body marks, scars, and tattoos (size and location);
(XV) lymphatics;
(XVI) neurologic (tendon reflexes, equilibrium, senses, cranial nerves, and coordination, etc.);
(XVII) psychiatric (appearance, behavior, mood, communication, and memory);
(XVIII) general systemic;
(XIX) hearing;
(XX) vision (distant, near, and intermediate vision, field of vision, color vision, and ocular alignment);
(XXI) blood pressure and pulse; and
(XXII) anything else the physician, in his or her medical judgment, considers necessary;

[DaleB]

It IS the FAA we're talking about, you know.:eek:

[wyoranch]

Checking for Klingons circling Uranus. I truly apologize but I could not resist........
Rick

[Mike Switzer]

Yea. IX has never been an issue when I had a medical. My AME is my regular doc, and since my dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer, at my last regular checkup I got checked. But I don't know why that has to be on this checklist.

[dclaxon]

It IS the FAA we're talking about, you know.:eek:

Actually, no. This is the CongressCritters

[DaleB]

Actually, no. This is the CongressCritters

That's even worse. No K-Y for Item 9. They'll probably steal your wallet while you're bent over, too.

[Gunslinger37]

UPDATE.....Both the House and Senate have agreed to a FAA Funding Bill that includes third-class medical reform. FAA funding runs out next week. It is expected that the full House and Senate will pass the legislation and send it to the President to be signed into law before Congress adjourns next week. Then the FAA has one year to go through the NPRM process and change the regulations.

(Note: Last update to the EAA Advocacy, Aeromedical Reform, page was 12/15/2015. This doesn't seem to be a "Top Issue" at EAA anymore.)

[Tom Charpentier]

See story published today: http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/07-01-2016-pushing-for-success-medical-reform-attached-to-faa-funding-extension


EAA's Washington staff as well as Jack Pelton himself worked day and night alongside AOPA and other groups to make this happen.

[wallda]

Very exciting, sounds like the faa will have one year to create the rules after the bill is signed.

[Frank Giger]

Rock on, y'all, rock on!

[jam0552@msn.com]

Very exciting, sounds like the faa will have one year to create the rules after the bill is signed.
Just curious...does anyone know what version of the Pilots Bill of Rights is included in FAA Reauthorization?

[wallda]

Just curious...does anyone know what version of the Pilots Bill of Rights is included in FAA Reauthorization?

My comment was based on a short article I read. I think it was incorrect.

[Tom Charpentier]

About two hours ago the 14-month FAA funding extension, with the medical reform language attached, passed the House on a voice vote. The Senate is expected to take up the bill in the next few days.

[dclaxon]

Just curious...does anyone know what version of the Pilots Bill of Rights is included in FAA Reauthorization?

I haven't read the entire bill, but it's my understanding that this does not include the entire PBoR2, just the medical reform part. Which means we still need to keep pushing for
the PBoR2 to pass, for the legal protections, etc. And I believe the medical reforms in this bill are pretty much taken word for word from the PBoR2, are they not?

Dave

[MEdwards]

I haven't read the entire bill, but it's my understanding that this does not include the entire PBoR2, just the medical reform part. Which means we still need to keep pushing for
the PBoR2 to pass, for the legal protections, etc. And I believe the medical reforms in this bill are pretty much taken word for word from the PBoR2, are they not?

DaveDepends. It's certainly not Senator Inhofe's originally submitted PBOR2, which, for medical reform, was basically the drivers license medical, period. But it appears to be the compromised version after the California senator got hold of it. Plus perhaps a bit more detail, complications and obfuscations.

[dclaxon]

Depends. It's certainly not Senator Inhofe's originally submitted PBOR2, which, for medical reform, was basically the drivers license medical, period. But it appears to be the compromised version after the California senator got hold of it. Plus perhaps a bit more detail, complications and obfuscations.

True, but Inhofe's original bill was also not the one that the Senate passed 3 times. Once the compromises were made that were needed to pass it standalone, the same bill was "cut and pasted" into the FAA Reauthorization bill and the defense bill, and now the medical part was pasted into the funding extension. So while it is not the original proposal, it is what was able to make it through the Senate.

Dave