H.B 4441, FAA Reauthorization Act (Including PBOR-2)

[S_Van]

If I didn't know better, (and maybe I don't), the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 has been attached to H.B. 4441, for what purpose? To kill it? Could be.

H.B.4441 is titled: A Bill to Transfer operation of air traffic services currently provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to a separate non-for-profit corporate entity, etc., etc. etc.

And when you see who gets representation on the new Board that will control ATC, its pretty clear that airlines and unions will control it. Its a long bill, 273 pages, and I've not had time yet to read it all. But airline control of ATC sounds a lot like user fees for all, to me anyhow. There is language in the bill for user fees for turbines, but once this new Board is up and running, can they really be limited?

So here we have a bill with a lot of contention in it, and they stick the PBOR-2 in with it. Call your Congress-critter and demand that the PBOR-2 be pulled from H.B. 4441 and handled separately. I think there is real grounds for concern that H.B. 4441 could stall and then we are back to the temporary authorizations for the FAA that Congress has been so famous for over the past 10 years, and with it, the PBOR-2 gets stalled too.

Here is a link to the bill:
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/airr_act_text.pdf

[Mike Switzer]

It also bans all in flight cell phone use. I have already seen lots of social media posts opposing it on this issue alone.

[martymayes]

lol, the camel's nose is in the tent.

[rv builder]

Interesting that there's a section 125 change to include aircraft *under construction* as "aeronautical activity" for grant assurance purposes...remember the big dust-up recently about non-aviation use of hangars, and how some airports were saying that planes under construction were not "aeronautical activities"?

[mikey]

section 417 covers 3rd class med reform, pretty much in the original "drivers license" proposal form, before the Senate rewrote it.

[S_Van]

What the House Transportation Committee has done, is said:

"If you want 3rd Class Medical Reform,
THEN you accept ATC privatization, with GA grossly under-represented on the controlling board,
AND user fees, for some, for now. (wink and smile)."

[cub builder]

As you all probably already know, these bills rarely make it through Congress intact, so there will be opportunities for the bill to be amended to delete things like user fees. There are a lot of members in the General Aviation Caucus. Whether they are there to have their names show up for political reasons, or are actually willing to stand up for GA is something we will see. There is a lot of good stuff in this proposed bill, but it's not one of those deals where you have to swallow the bad to get the good. It can be changed. That's what our representative groups are there to do; lobby and educate the congress critters.

-Cub Builder

[RFSchaller]

Given the record of Congress I doubt any of this will be done. They are all too worried about saving their phoney-baloney jobs in an election year to do anything but punt with a short term extension of FAA funding. We are just too small a fraction of their constituency for them to worry about benefits to GA pilots with medical relief. Pretty sad situation for our government to be in.

[Onex33]

I think you are absolutely correct S Van-it was added to H.B 4441 to kill it. Have to wonder if the DOT is behind that move since the original proposal is still sitting in their(DOT). clubhouse. It could have happened a long time ago if DOT hadn't held it up. Still have to wonder why??

[rv builder]

It could have happened a long time ago if DOT hadn't held it up. Still have to wonder why??

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Follow the money...who benefits if there is no change to medicals?

[Byron J. Covey]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Follow the money...who benefits if there is no change to medicals?

If you are suggesting that the AMEs can make money doing third class FAA Medicals, think again. A couple of personal friends, who are practicing physicians and also AMEs, do them as a service to fellow pilots, over the objections of their practice partners. Why do their partners object? Because the going rate for a third class Medical is a fraction of the revenue that could have been generated by a patient with medical insurance.


BJC

[rwanttaja]

If you are suggesting that the AMEs can make money doing third class FAA Medicals, think again. A couple of personal friends, who are practicing physicians and also AMEs, do them as a service to fellow pilots, over the onjections of their practice partners. Why do their partmers object? Because the going rate for a third class Medical is a fraction of the revenue that could have been generated by a patient with medical insurance.
My understanding is the AME group (whatever it's called) has come out in favor of it, but the American Medical Association is against it.

Ron Wanttaja

[cub builder]

There are many in Congress that are big proponents of turning everything over to "private industry". In general, private enterprise can handle many things more efficiency. But that only happens if the government will get completely out of the way. Also, that will mean, those with the smallest $$ (in this case, GA), will lose.

I work for a company that used to be operated by a non-profit university contracted to the Federal Government. These guys in favor of private enterprise for everything got the university tossed out and we are now run by a privately held consortium in an LLC. The immediate fallout was that the management fee to the government went from $7M/yr to $70M/yr. The company was required to offer "substantially the same" benefits package to current employees when they took over. However, all new employees took a pretty severe hit to the benefits, mostly in that they were not allowed into the pension plan. Consequently, with the pension plan under a previously non-existent LLC, the "new" pension plan went insolvent, so those of us in it took a 6% pay cut off our gross to prop up the pension plan. Did we suddenly become more efficient? Nope. With the feds allocating the funding and still making all the rules and regulations we have to work under, we are now more inefficient than ever, and the cost to do business with us is even higher. However, since the company is now privately held, it was a boon to the local government in that our $2B+ annual budget is now taxable. So this move was good for the state and local government entities, lousy for the employees, and lousy for the customers, but the board of directors of the new company got ENORMOUS bonuses.

If you want to keep equal access for all, the air traffic control system needs to stay under the FAA. In the video created by the proponents of this bill, they make it clear that they want our aviation system to reflect the European aviation system. Does anyone in their right mind want that for GA? Really? When every contact with ATC results in a bill, people will stop contacting them. That becomes a safety issue.

In pilot training in Europe, students rarely spend time doing touch and goes. Instead, they do approaches with a low pass. Why? Because every time the tires touch the pavement, you ring up the tally on the bill for your flight. So the skills of actually landing an aircraft degrade because every landing has a $ sign attached to it. Again, does anyone really want to see that here in the US? That's where these guys are headed.

However, as I stated previously, nothing ever goes through Congress intact. There is a lot of good in this bill. It can be fixed with amendments to the funding structure and to the parts moving ATC to privatization. AOPA is still studying the bill and along with other organizations will be lobbying hard to either change or kill it. Both the House and Senate appropriations committees have made it clear that the user fee structure and the privatization of ATC will not be supported.

-Cub Builder

[Onex33]

I agree with you completely Mr. Covey, no doctors that I know rely on 3rd class medicals to make their fortune. Most don't like them much is my perception and do them for the reason you mention. It is always about the money but I still can't figure this one out. Unanimous in the Senate and the House has to "fix" it

[cub builder]

I agree with you completely Mr. Covey, no doctors that I know rely on 3rd class medicals to make their fortune. Most don't like them much is my perception and do them for the reason you mention. It is always about the money but I still can't figure this one out. Unanimous in the Senate and the House has to "fix" it

Oddly enough the AME I go to does nothing but FAA and DOT physicals, 9:00 - 12:00, 3 days a week. Also costs less than most. But you're right. Very few AMEs are going to make their living that way. The AME I went to before also did nothing but FAA & DOT physicals, in a really seedy part of town. Also did a cash only business treating young women with social diseases. Going in for a physical was an interesting social scene with a waiting room full of pilots, truck drivers, and hookers. :rollseyes: But you are right. Not many Drs are getting rich doing FAA & DOT physicals. Too much tied up in their educations to waste it like that.

-Cub Builder

[rv builder]

The AME I went to before also did nothing but FAA & DOT physicals, in a really seedy part of town. Also did a cash only business treating young women with social diseases. Going in for a physical was an interesting social scene with a waiting room full of pilots, truck drivers, and hookers. :rollseyes:

I think I'd like to go just for the entertainment value! :)

[rwanttaja]

The AME I went to before also did nothing but FAA & DOT physicals, in a really seedy part of town. Also did a cash only business treating young women with social diseases. Going in for a physical was an interesting social scene with a waiting room full of pilots, truck drivers, and hookers. :rollseyes:
I'm surprised the hookers and the truck drivers didn't complain... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[CarlOrton]

<snip> Going in for a physical was an interesting social scene with a waiting room full of pilots, truck drivers, and hookers. :rollseyes: But you are right. Not many Drs are getting rich doing FAA & DOT physicals. Too much tied up in their educations to waste it like that.

-Cub Builder
Funny you mentioned that. In '79, I was progressing far-enough along in my training that solo was imminent. I happened to be in Palm Springs for 3 weeks, and was using the FBO there for some flight time. I asked if they had a list of AME's, and they handed me a paper copy. I have no idea *why*, but I chose this one Dr. on the list and called for an appt. Imagine my youthful horror when I walked up to the building, and he was an ob-gyn. Stuck with it, got the odd looks from the preggo's in the waiting room when my name was called, and walked out with my certificate and pap smear results.

[Frank Giger]

I'm surprised the hookers and the truck drivers didn't complain... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

No fair....I'm drinking coffee, darned you!

[TedK]

It also bans all in flight cell phone use. I have already seen lots of social media posts opposing it on this issue alone.

Uh, not exactly...

In Section 502 of the Bill, it tells the FAA to develop Regulations prohibiting the use of cell phones for voice communications on scheduled airlines while in-flight.

And as a multi million miler in the Trapped in an Aluminum Tube Club, I'd kinda like to see intelligent regulations on this. However, I don't think it will impact us GAers unless we are trying to call someone on a commercial airliner. :D

[rv builder]

Given the record of Congress I doubt any of this will be done.

If by "this" you mean privatization, I think that depends on just how much the airlines pay Congress. Enough $ and most congressmen and senators would bbq their own mother.

Follow the money...

[Cozytom]

What is J Mac McClellen thinking. From his article, it sounds like the EAA has given up the fight. "...help change everything here", "Maybe even likely". It is like the EAA is softening us up to prepare us for the greased pole.

Nav Canada has low fees for GA, plus Fuel Taxes.

Nav Canada went broke in 2009. Nav Canada issued notes to cover the shortcomings in 2009, so instead of getting a better system they are paying interest.

Nav Canada sells services to make ends meet.

---
Which part of the US ATC Corp will we enjoy? Fees, that will grow, Fuel taxes that will increase, an ever growing FAA to cover all the interfacing to US ATC corp.

This is a bad place to be.

[TedK]

I'm going with first principles.

Airspace in the USA is in The Commons.

If ATC's instructions are directive and obedience is required that sounds inherently governmental. Why should I, as a private entity, have to obey a non-government entity, in the Commons?

I can see separating the operations of ATC from the Regulatory agency, but the operations still seem governmental in their core in that they govern and demand action of private citizens.

ted

[Tom Charpentier]

What is J Mac McClellen thinking. From his article, it sounds like the EAA has given up the fight. "...help change everything here", "Maybe even likely". It is like the EAA is softening us up to prepare us for the greased pole.

Nav Canada has low fees for GA, plus Fuel Taxes.

Nav Canada went broke in 2009. Nav Canada issued notes to cover the shortcomings in 2009, so instead of getting a better system they are paying interest.

Nav Canada sells services to make ends meet.

---
Which part of the US ATC Corp will we enjoy? Fees, that will grow, Fuel taxes that will increase, an ever growing FAA to cover all the interfacing to US ATC corp.

This is a bad place to be.

Mac is an editorially-independent columnist for the magazine. As for our position as an organization, look no further than Jack's editorial in the magazine this month (http://sportaviation.epubxp.com/t/144253-eaa-sport-aviation/2) as well as our statement to the Congressional Record posted a few hours ago (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/eaa-media-room/eaa-news-releases/2016-02-10--eaa-statement-to-house-committee--strongly-opposes-atc-privatization-plan). There should be no mistaking that we categorically oppose the privatization of air traffic control. As our statement for the Record points out, user fees are only the tip of the iceberg as to why this proposal is bad news for general aviation. We have been among the most vocal opponents to this effort on Capitol Hill.

[rv builder]

Mac is an editorially-independent columnist for the magazine. As for our position as an organization, look no further than Jack's editorial in the magazine this month (http://sportaviation.epubxp.com/t/144253-eaa-sport-aviation/2) as well as our statement to the Congressional Record posted a few hours ago (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/eaa-media-room/eaa-news-releases/2016-02-10--eaa-statement-to-house-committee--strongly-opposes-atc-privatization-plan). There should be no mistaking that we categorically oppose the privatization of air traffic control. As our statement for the Record points out, user fees are only the tip of the iceberg as to why this proposal is bad news for general aviation. We have been among the most vocal opponents to this effort on Capitol Hill.

This makes precisely zero sense. You have a position as an organization, and in your signature publication, one of your contributors flat-out contradicts that position? I believe in the past publications had what is called an Editor-in-Chief who decided which submissions would run, particularly those that are essentially opinion pieces. Does EAA Sport Aviation not have such a person any more? Or is Mac the power behind the throne still?

If you're opposed to ATC privatization and/or user fees, then you should ensure that your organization presents a unified front, in all forums and all media, not some mishmash of opinions both opposing and supporting it.

Or perhaps it has to do with certain advertisers whose ads magically always appear on the page next to Mac's articles?

Just sayin'...

[mikey]

This makes precisely zero sense. You have a position as an organization, and in your signature publication, one of your contributors flat-out contradicts that position? I believe in the past publications had what is called an Editor-in-Chief who decided which submissions would run, particularly those that are essentially opinion pieces. Does EAA Sport Aviation not have such a person any more? Or is Mac the power behind the throne still?

If you're opposed to ATC privatization and/or user fees, then you should ensure that your organization presents a unified front, in all forums and all media, not some mishmash of opinions both opposing and supporting it.

Or perhaps it has to do with certain advertisers whose ads magically always appear on the page next to Mac's articles?

Just sayin'...

well said.

[Cozytom]

Mac is an editorially-independent columnist for the magazine. As for our position as an organization, look no further than Jack's editorial in the magazine this month (http://sportaviation.epubxp.com/t/144253-eaa-sport-aviation/2) as well as our statement to the Congressional Record posted a few hours ago (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/eaa-media-room/eaa-news-releases/2016-02-10--eaa-statement-to-house-committee--strongly-opposes-atc-privatization-plan). There should be no mistaking that we categorically oppose the privatization of air traffic control. As our statement for the Record points out, user fees are only the tip of the iceberg as to why this proposal is bad news for general aviation. We have been among the most vocal opponents to this effort on Capitol Hill.

Go look at the congress call to action page on the eaa

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-advocacy-and-safety/aviation_advocacy/top-aviation-issues

It doesn't even show up on the top issues page.

There are words, and there are actions.

It is a top issue on nbaa.org, go there if you want to do something.

[TedK]

Go look at the congress call to action page on the eaa

http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-advocacy-and-safety/aviation_advocacy/top-aviation-issues

It doesn't even show up on the top issues page.

There are words, and there are actions.

It is a top issue on nbaa.org, go there if you want to do something.

Too much HQ focus on items that could potentially endanger EAA Inc (such as YE and the minuscule chance of sex offenders) vice attention and effort on items of member interest.

[rv builder]

So we have medical reform that isn't really any reform at all, and some sort of confused opposition to or support of privatization (hard to say which). Yep, doing a bang-up job there, EAA.

But I'm sure Sen. Inhofe will get a nice campaign contribution (perhaps he can use it to defend himself the next time he violates an FAR).

[Mack Dickson]

Gentlemen,

We appreciate your input, but it is extremely important to ensure the facts are properly stated.

Our history on the issue of ATC privatization is clear. When this was first proposed last summer, we stated our concerns (https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2015-eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-20-2015-keeping-a-close-eye-on-atc-privatization) and promised we would be actively following it. We have published articles (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/eaa-magazines-and-publications/eaa-sport-aviation-magazine/eaa-sport-aviation-digital-edition) in Sport Aviation for the past two months clearly stating our position on privatization; we have included headlines in eHotline (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/about-eaa/eaa-media-room/eaa-news-releases/2016-02-10--eaa-statement-to-house-committee--strongly-opposes-atc-privatization-plan?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRomrfCcI63Em2iQPJWpsrB0B %2FDC18kX3RUsIbqXfkz6htBZF5s8TM3DWFNAXqNE9UEITbM%3 D) for two weeks back-to-back explaining our position; we have submitted a written statement to be included in the Congressional record that states our strong opposition to ATC privatization and proposes a comprehensive alternative that would keep ATC within the FAA structure. EAA advocacy staff was on Capitol Hill yesterday to attend the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup session of the FAA Reauthorization bill, and Wednesday to attend the committee hearing on ATC privatization. EAA opposes ATC privatization. We are actively working to ensure the proposal does not pass. Any belief to the contrary is simply not true. Please refer to eHotline and the eaa.org (https://www.eaa.org/eaa) homepage for the latest news on ATC Privatization.

Thank you,
Mack Dickson

[rv builder]

That's good. So does that mean you will stop publishing articles by former Editors-in-Chief which apparently *support* privatization?

[Onex33]

So now the EAA is opposed to H.B.4441 which includes the PBOR-2 if I understand correctly. That puts the EAA in a no win situation so instead of taking it out on the EAA, why not put your efforts to contacting the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan who happens to be from Wisconsin, and get after him about attaching the Senate's stand alone bill to a House bill that will not pass. And contact your House Representative and give him/her an earful-not that it will do any good but you might feel better. I for one am completely disgusted with our current political system and gridlock.
Loren Sievila
N331EX

[cub builder]

If you're opposed to ATC privatization and/or user fees, then you should ensure that your organization presents a unified front, in all forums and all media, not some mishmash of opinions both opposing and supporting it.


The EAA is going to have a tough time standing up against user fees. They tried it once, but as soon as the FAA threatened to tie up Oshkosh over paying fees for the control tower, the EAA capitulated, paid the user fees, quietly dropped their law suit and hasn't said a peep about it since. The EAA already set the precedence for paying user fees and seems to be happy with their arrangement. Kind of hard to show a unified front against user fees when they have already surrendered and appear to support them.

Cub Builder

[rv builder]

So now the EAA is opposed to H.B.4441 which includes the PBOR-2 if I understand correctly. That puts the EAA in a no win situation so instead of taking it out on the EAA, why not put your efforts to contacting the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan who happens to be from Wisconsin, and get after him about attaching the Senate's stand alone bill to a House bill that will not pass. And contact your House Representative and give him/her an earful-not that it will do any good but you might feel better. I for one am completely disgusted with our current political system and gridlock.
Loren Sievila
N331EX

Because it won't do any good? EAA is supposed to be the organization lobbying *for us*. I know they say "they're working on it" by attending hearings and such. I'd like to see more details...how about printing their daily schedule showing with whom they met, what they discussed, who they have on their side, who is against them, etc.? Give us some hard data to work with...then we can add to that by contacting the holdouts and pressuring them. All I've seen is platitudes and back-slapping Jim Inhofe (and it chaps my hide that he's the guy we're relying on...I won't post what I think of him and his less-than-stellar aeronautical skills, let alone anything else about him).

Medical reform was, until this apparently annual attempt at FAA privatization, one of if not the biggest issue for pilots across the nation. Can you honestly say that our organization has been in any way effective at getting it done? The FAA NPRM has been stuck at DOT or OMB or whatever for at least a year, the PBOR2 gives us basically nothing, and now this mess.

What, exactly, is EAA doing to a) get us REAL medical reform, and b) fight against privatization? "Attending hearings"? *I* could do that, and I bet it would have about the same effect.

[Byron J. Covey]

Because it won't do any good? EAA is supposed to be the organization lobbying *for us*. I know they say "they're working on it" by attending hearings and such. I'd like to see more details...how about printing their daily schedule showing with whom they met, what they discussed, who they have on their side, who is against them, etc.? Give us some hard data to work with...then we can add to that by contacting the holdouts and pressuring them. All I've seen is platitudes and back-slapping Jim Inhofe (and it chaps my hide that he's the guy we're relying on...I won't post what I think of him and his less-than-stellar aeronautical skills, let alone anything else about him).

Medical reform was, until this apparently annual attempt at FAA privatization, one of if not the biggest issue for pilots across the nation. Can you honestly say that our organization has been in any way effective at getting it done? The FAA NPRM has been stuck at DOT or OMB or whatever for at least a year, the PBOR2 gives us basically nothing, and now this mess.

What, exactly, is EAA doing to a) get us REAL medical reform, and b) fight against privatization? "Attending hearings"? *I* could do that, and I bet it would have about the same effect.

Co-sponsoring a bill in Congress typically is not a commitment by the member to support the bill, to work for its passage, or even to vote for it if it is brought up for a vote. It usually is nothing more than checking a box to retain or gain the support of a small interest group for reelection. With very few exceptions, members fall in line behind their party's leaders, and take actions only to lambast the other party and to work toward sustaining or bettering the position of the party.

The executive branch is worse, and the judicial branch has become a political action committee.

If one wants things to be different, then one needs to work to elect different people into legislative and executive roles at all levels of government. The EAA does not represent enough votes or have enough money to have any substantive influence. Ergo, lots of talk, lots of hope and dreams, and, I believe, lots of well intended efforts by EAA employees, but no real progress.

I wish it were different, and I am resolved to continuing to vote to replace professional politicians with people who will actually represent the people.


BJC

[TedK]

I wish it were different, and I am resolved to continuing to vote to replace professional politicians with people who will actually represent the people.




I am with you on that, at least for the House of Representatives.

I think Congresspeople should be drawn by lottery from a jury that is hearing a capital crime.

One single two year term. If they are qualified to decide life or death, they are overqualified for Congress.

Ted

[Wilfred]

Well I doubt anything meaningful will come of the proposed PBOR. It was suggested that the change if it happens would result in a class 4 medical. I let my 3rd class lapse and just kept flying my RV-12 ELSA using my PPL and driver's license.

Does anyone really expect a Dr. to 'sign you off' and accept unknown liability? I doubt it.

[Gunslinger37]

So today I took the time to read the entire text of H.R. 4441, all 273 pages. So why is EAA and AOPA so fired up about this new "ATC Corporation" which will be run by a Board with equal representation from the Airlines and General Aviation? Below is a direct copy of the text related to fees.


‘‘§ 90311. Charges and fees for air traffic services




‘‘(4) Charges and fees may not be imposed forair traffic services provided with respect to—
‘‘(A) aircraft operations of piston engineaircraft; or
‘‘(B) noncommercial aircraft operations ofturbine engine aircraft.

[TedK]

So today I took the time to read the entire text of H.R. 4441, all 273 pages. So why is EAA and AOPA so fired up about this new "ATC Corporation" which will be run by a Board with equal representation from the Airlines and General Aviation? Below is a direct copy of the text related to fees.


‘‘§ 90311. Charges and fees for air traffic services




‘‘(4) Charges and fees may not be imposed forair traffic services provided with respect to—
‘‘(A) aircraft operations of piston engineaircraft; or
‘‘(B) noncommercial aircraft operations ofturbine engine aircraft.

Because, Dear Gunslinger, it's a trap, a slippery sloped trap. Certainly today they would offer us the freebie, but in the not too distant future you will find what was free is ridiculously priced. I have even heard of a few instances where the FAA has already sent GA drivers a bill for oceanic services.

Remember, what we are talking about here is The Commons.

[Dave Stadt]

So today I took the time to read the entire text of H.R. 4441, all 273 pages. So why is EAA and AOPA so fired up about this new "ATC Corporation" which will be run by a Board with equal representation from the Airlines and General Aviation? Below is a direct copy of the text related to fees.




‘‘(4) Charges and fees may not be imposed forair traffic services provided with respect to—
‘‘(A) aircraft operations of piston engineaircraft; or
‘‘(B) noncommercial aircraft operations ofturbine engine aircraft.


And how many seconds would it take to change that after the program goes into effect? Also, the board does not have equal representation. It is biased toward the airlines and we know how much they love us.

[martymayes]

I've been for privatizing ATC for ~10 yrs now. The cost of the current system is not sustainable. Sooner or later something has to give. I don't mind paying for my "fair share" but of course that will likely be a contentious issue.