Sadly, they probably are not human. But remember, in the USA we have the very best politicians that money can buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dclaxon
BJC
Printable View
Sadly, they probably are not human. But remember, in the USA we have the very best politicians that money can buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dclaxon
BJC
One issue with putting it in SA is the long delay between News and in our mail boxes. I agree knowing the process and where we are in that process is important. Perhaps, if applicable, a flow chart with notes of log jams along the pathway.
That's where the miracle of electronic communication comes in. A resource which they, very sadly, don't seem to understand or use very well.
Updated status on the front page of the website? Nope. Emails with info about what they're doing? Nope. Emails with info about which senators and representatives to call? Nope. Postings on forums with current activities? Not unless someone calls them to task on it. Press releases and news articles on-line? Nope.
The status of medical reform was one of the topics discussed this week at the EAA/FAA Recreational Aviation Summit. There's a brief report about the meeting on the "News" section of the EAA web page, and a statement that a more in-depth report would be coming out on EAA's email news report this week.
I was there for the meeting (hey, SOMEbody has to eat the leftover doughnuts), but since there's going to be an official EAA report on it, I'll leave it to them. Nothing to indicate approval is imminent, but the FAA seems fully in favor of it, and the hitch appears to be objections to the DOT by non-aviation organizations.
Ron Wanttaja
Ron- thanks for heads up. I hope some information comes out that indicates what the objections of the non-aviation organizations might be so that we can intelligently counter their concerns.
Ted
I,ve always wondered why various Manufacturers weren,t behind this on the plus side, seems like it is only pilots and EAA/AOPA.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
How can there be "objections of the non-aviation organizations" when the text of the NPRM has not been approved nor released for public comment? Get it through the DOT and OMB process and released so we can all file our comments or objections. Sounds like there is something going on outside the legal path for this to become a law.
DOT and OMB ARE non-aviation organizations. Doesn't mean they are anti-aviation. But they are going to look out for their own best interest, no matter how small, and hate to see the government give up any authority over us minions.
-Cub Builder
Never underestimate the power of a strong lobby. It's easier to defeat a governmental action privately in the planning stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunslinger37
The American Medical Association is one example of a non-aviation organization that opposes reform of the third class medical...their opposition has been reported in a number of sources.
Ron Wanttaja
Bingo. Follow the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Latest status just released on the DOT website and it has slipped a month.
No apparent progress.
1061 days since EAA and AOPA submitted the request for 3rd class medical exemption. What is the status?
375 days since the FAA started the NPRM. Now 6 months behind schedule with no reason given to the public.
Will the current Congress introduce new bills for the GA Pilot Protection Act?
When will EAA update the membership with current status of what the EAA says is a "top priority"?
Do we need to put pressure on our Congressional representatives to get DOT moving on this issue.
Stalled, because the FAA doesn't want to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunslinger37
No. Their attention span about matches thier individual IQ's in seconds; i.e., less than a minute. Unless it does something to make them think that it will help them get re-elected.Quote:
375 days since the FAA started the NPRM. Now 6 months behind schedule with no reason given to the public.
Will the current Congress introduce new bills for the GA Pilot Protection Act?
Just after they finish promoting the B-17 tour.Quote:
When will EAA update the membership with current status of what the EAA says is a "top priority"?
Yes. And to re-introduce the bill to make it happen.Quote:
Do we need to put pressure on our Congressional representatives to get DOT moving on this issue.
BJC
Hmmmm... slowed, perhaps, because some at the FAA didn't like it. But at the Recreational Aviation Summit last week, all the FAA guys there were in favor of it, and said the FAA Administrator was in favor as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron J. Covey
It's apparently passed all the FAA hoops. It's current stalled at the Department of Transportation (the FAA's parent organization), which is handling protests from organizations like the AMA. Congressional input to the DOT probably *would* help.
Ron Wanttaja
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Ron, you're a national treasure, and your POV is much appreciated, but why aren't we hearing same or similar from EAA?
Dunno about national treasure, unless you're thinking of a big fat lump of Fool's Gold. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright
My position at the meeting last week was a bit anomalous... I was the only "outsider" there (given my rather weird sense of humor, it's probably the LAST invite I'll get, too :-). While invited by EAA, I was not officially part of the EAA delegation.
Like anyone who works for a company, the EAA folks would have to be guided by their corporation's policies regarding public data release. The EAA guys can't just post their impression of what happened, just like Hal can't post a summary based on what he heard in the hallways after the meeting. Their employer requires that information like this go through a release process...and they can't talk about it, publicly, until that item is released. They just aren't allowed to answer off the cuff, like I do. The FAA guys are under the same strictures, probably worse.
But I'm not EAA, and I'm not FAA. I'm a bit freer to speak on what I observed (reason #2 for NOT inviting me back :-). There's stuff that was obviously sensitive, or personal opinion, and I haven't commented on those.
Another factor is that I'm rather tuned in to the online communities, where stuff like the medical reform is always being discussed. It's natural for me to chime in, then, when questions arose and I had information from the meeting to share. But, again, the EAA guys can't do that, and after working these problems all day, they probably don't want to talk about them on their time off.
The people at EAA that are working these problems are the people you *want* working these issues. They're knowledgeable, they're capable, and they're passionate fans of personal aviation. I've known some of them for 10-15 years, and have been happy to help when issues arise that are within my limited zone of expertise.
And... doggone it, the FAA people I met were good, too. They weren't hidebound bureaucrats, they were guys who loved aviation. We got a private tour of the museum after the first day's meeting (I got to sit in the P-38!) and they were like any airplane nut in a candy shop.
The problems we're worrying about the most aren't technical or medical...they're political. EAA's working those, too, but sometimes you can't talk about it as much.
The last factor to consider is...well, I could have heard them wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, wouldn't even be a low exponent. Or maybe I'm channeling my inner Brian Williams, and none of this happened at all. :-)
Ron Wanttaja
I'm not surprised that you found the FAA people to be good people who love aviation. Over the years, I've learned not to judge individuals by the organizations that they are affiliated with. There are some very good, capable, well-intentioned people is some of the very worst organizations. That is also my experience with the FAA people whom I have gotten to know well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
BJC
Hi Ron,Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Thanks for the thorough reply, Mr NTTIABFLOFG*. I understand and agree with individuals not speaking out of turn. What I meant was: Why haven't we heard any updates from EAA "corporate"?
Best,
Jeff
*National Treasure That Is A Big Fat Lump Of Fool's Gold :rollseyes:
Jeff, et al -Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright
We published our summary of the summit last Thursday:
http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-a...-key-ga-issues
Watch EAA.org and e-Hotline for any additional news or updates as we get them.
Thanks -
Hal
The Summary saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
"More information from this week's summit will be published in upcoming issues (emphasis added) of EAA Sport Aviation magazine. In addition, EAA and FAA officials agreed to maintain regular updates on the major action items identified this week, as well as meet for high-level discussions during EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2015 in July."
I get that SA has a wider circulation than this site, but the language troubled me a bit. I hope EAA won't dribble out the info.
I am really hoping that EAA overachieves in keeping us informed in what their position is, what they have done, what they intend to do and where we can help.
thanks
Ted
The problem is, I'm visible in that lead-in photo. I think it scared folks off.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Ron Wanttaja
So the EAA and the FAA are in agreement on third class medical reform. OK, big hug and everyone goes home to sit and wait for DOT to move the NPRM along.
I see no action by EAA to get the DOT moving on this issue. I see the letter that AOPA sent to Anthony Foxx at the DOT on January 13th. They posted it on their web site for all members to see. EAA, no visible action in Washington. Someone in Sean Elliott's (V.P. Advocacy) office should be sitting on the front steps of the DOT every morning when they open the doors. I would like to know where the paperwork is sitting at DOT. Who's desk is it sitting on and what is their phone number.
Also, what is happening with Congress? AOPA has already started working with the new Congress and the new leaders of the GA Caucus in the House and Senate. Nothing heard from EAA. Click here Medical certificate reform update to see a video update from the AOPA interview with Sam Graves (R-MO) on February 13th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Thanks for directing me to the correct webpage. I have been looking at the Advocacy webpages (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-advocacy). What fooled me was that there is an entire suite of pages devoted to Top Advocacy Initiatives, with Aeromedical Reform being the Top of the Top (http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-a...medical-reform).
I figured that those pages would be where I could find news about, you know, Aeromedical Reform Advocacy. :P
(*runs for cover*)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright
OK, so now I've read the News page. Sorry to say, but the one paragraph devoted to aeromedical reform is pretty weak beer. Like, Bud-Lite weak. I has ta sadz. :(
The other topics, which actually rose to the level of being included in the subtitle, are of interest.
ADS-B: I have yet to have anyone at EAA explain to me why this wasn't fought tooth-and-nail from the outset. There is nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g, it offers that will help me or any of the other people I fly with every weekend. In fact, the whole thing just adds cost and restriction to our activities. I think our little group is somewhat representative of REAL sport aviation. It includes a Pietenpol, two Pitts S1Cs, a Sopwith replica, a Titan Tornado II, a Pup, a Mustang II, a Zenair 601HD, a Cougar, an M-Squared Breese, a Cessna 170, two Cessna 175s, two Cessna 172s, a Cessna 185, a Piper Cub, and a Piper Cherokee. These planes and pilots are all very active, most flying at least monthly (and many every weekend day that is flyable). None of them feel that ADS-B is worth the expense and trouble. Total failure on the part of EAA, IMO, as I never heard that promulgation was even questioned.
Electric LSA: Very nice that FAA "welcomes" a petition for using electric propulsion in LSAs. It is heartening to hear that they want to improve the rules as reality changes. However, their statement may be like saying "we will accept getting wet when we shower." I was not aware that FAA could NOT accept a petition, even if only to circular file it. Is EAA drafting such a petition? Now that would have been a win.
Ultralight training: I couldn't figure out from the phrasing what was actually going on here: "...FAA is willing to find a solution to the ultralight training situation that keeps potential ultralight pilots from finding specific instruction in ultralight category machines." Again, sort of like saying that water is wet. Specifics will be much appreciated by the membership. ;)
I've been a member since 1985, chapter NL editor (award winning - you could look it up!), I'm not leaving EAA or anything b!tchy like that, just commenting on the News.
Just got my EAA e-Hotline for Feb. 19. The third-class medical reform is not mentioned even once. No visible activity from the EAA on this issue, which they claim is a hot topic. Turn to the AOPA to get the latest information.
Strongly suspect that, when the topic IS included in the e-Hotline, the information probably won't exceed the content of the press release which Hal posted the link to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunslinger37
Strangely enough, the link to the e-Hotline for Feb 12 is bad....that should have included the information.
Ron Wanttaja
OK folks, we can finally announce some significant news on this front - The Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 has been filed.
News release here
The bill was authored by Senator Inhofe (R-OK) with significant input by EAA. Representative Graves (R-MO) introduced the House version. The medical-related provisions of the bill are as follows:
-6,000 gross weight or less
-Includes both VFR and IFR flights
-Raises altitude limitation up to 14,000 feet
-Prohibits FAA enforcement for 3rd class medical certificate violations unless the FAA has issued regulations as described within 180 days of enactment
So, similar to last year's GA Pilot Protection Act except it INCLUDES IFR and has the additional teeth of taking away the FAA's enforcement authority if not acted upon right away (GAPPA's original lead sponsors Sen. Boozman and Rep. Rokita are cosponsoring PBOR2). Not to be lost in the medical issue, the bill also expands the due process provisions of the first PBOR for airmen and other certificate holders under investigation and gives FAA designees and volunteer pilots some liability protection. A big thank you to the EAA Legal Advisory Council for helping with this language.
This doesn't take away any of our support for the still-forthcoming NPRM from the FAA, but we absolutely back the legislative effort as an equally important avenue to reform.
EAA has been instrumental in lining up support for the bill, which already has 13 Senate cosponsors, representing broad bipartisan support. As I have mentioned here before, we are hard at work at this issue even if you don't see updates from us on a frequent basis. We will provide ample updates as work on the PBOR2 progresses.
You have asked when and how the community can become involved, and now is the time since we have filed bills that legislators can back. Head over to our Rally Congress site and be among the first to send an email. We have loaded it with suggested language that you are free to edit. You may also send a personal letter or phone call to your delegation on your own, which can oftentimes be more effective than a form letter. Let's get this thing passed!
Great news, Tom!
I have sent my letters to my delegates.
An important aspect of the PBR II that isn't discussed in your suggested letter is safety. I would think that the number one reason a legislator would shy away from signing on is that he or she would take some heat the first time a self-certified pilot augered into the proverbial orphanage. Here's what I added at the beginning of the letter (it's not well-crafted, but I hope it makes sense):
This bill will increase safety. It removes previous regulations that have never been supported by data with regards to medical fitness. This will allow pilots to maintain proficiency in aircraft with which they have the most experience. Current regulations are forcing pilots out of these aircraft into smaller, lighter aircraft that, while safe in and of themselves, possess flight characteristics that differ substantially from those of the rest of the general aviation fleet.
Congratulations on helping push this,
Jeff
Sure, EAA can support the "still-forthcoming NPRM from the FAA," but there's a big difference. These bills: We know what's in 'em. The NRPM: We haven't a clue. Not the original one as it left FAA and certainly not what it will look like after DOT gets through with it. If, in fact, it ever does.
Write your representative and both of your senators. I suggest stating explicitly that this is not a partisan issue.
The thing that bothers me is that the liberal media will get wind of this and twist it around to being unsafe and get the general public into opposing it and cause their congress reps & senators to vote against it. Of course, then Obama might veto it even if it does pass. Hopefully that won't happen.
He certainly could veto it. But Obama signed both the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act of 2013 and the first Pilot's Bill of Rights Act back in 2012. That's a good sign that he'll approve this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Warner
One factor in favor of his approval of the new bill is that the second Pilot's Bill of Rights act is bi-partisan. Vetoing it, he'd tick off members of his own party. With the Democrats the minority party in both houses, he really can't afford to do that.
Of course, there are some aspects in the bill NOT related to pilot medicals that may generate their own controversy, and certainly a non-related "poison pill" rider could be added that would guarantee a veto.
Ron Wanttaja
In addition to PBOR2 being introduced in both chambers of Congress, you gotta love Congressman Todd Rokita (R-IN) for also introducing what seems to be another GAPPA. Only the title is available thus far
H.R.1086 - To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes.114th Congress (2015-2016)
Going nowhere fast. Anybody who thinks this is something Congress really cares about is kidding themselves.
Here is the text of GAPPA 2015. Essentially the same language as PBOR2. Includes IFR and a prohibition on enforcing the old rules after 180 days.
Ted
I114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1086
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 25, 2015
Mr. Rokita (for himself, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Flores, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Pompeo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes.
1.Short title
This Act may be cited as the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2015.2.Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots
(a)In general
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if—
(1)the individual possesses a valid State driver's license and complies with any medical requirement associated with that license;
(2)the individual is transporting not more than 5 passengers;
(3)the individual is operating under visual flight rules or instrument flight rules; and
(4)the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is not carried out—(A)for compensation, including that no passenger or property on the flight is being carried for compensation;(B)at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet above mean sea level;(C)outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted; or(D)at an indicated air speed exceeding 250 knots.
(b)Covered aircraft defined
In this section, the term covered aircraft means an aircraft that—(1)is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than 6 occupants; and(2)has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more than 6000 pounds.
(c)Report required
Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that describes the effect of the regulations issued or revised under subsection (a) and includes statistics with respect to changes in small aircraft activity and safety incidents.
(d)Prohibition on enforcement actions
On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet the applicable requirements under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under subsection (a).
The existing draft Rule remains stuck in DOT. they updated their Rule Tracker today and kicked the date the proposed rule is supposed to go to OMB from 27 Feb to 13 April 2015.
IF the rule goes as scheduled to OMB then it could be publicly disclosed in time for OSH.
If it slides, then we will get nothing from Huerta at Osh. The man is zip lipped.
SEN Inhofe seemed to think the legislation should be passed by end of May. DOT/FAA recalcitrance might help give it a push along. I'm still expecting I'll have to renew my third class which expires in a few months.
Note the final paragraph of the bill as posted by TedK:Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRice85
On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet the applicable requirements under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under subsection (a).
In other words, if the FAA *doesn't* enact the provisions within 180 days of the bill going into effect, they cannot legally enforce the requirement to hold a Class III medical.
But better get yours renewed; this provision couldn't go into effect until the end of 2015 at the earliest.
Ron Wanttaja
That sure seems optimistic but Senator Inhofe knows his business. I'll show my support by saying should PBOR2 or GAPPA pass before OSH, then I'll help sponsor a celebration over at SOS Brothers. I'll even send a special invite to the Honorable Mister Huerta.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRice85
OSH is the main reason for renewal. Hoping to fly my RV-4 in this year. Took my Cub in 2012...ten hours each way.
Does anyone know if this bill will have an affect on a sport pilot and not a private pilot limited to SP limitations due to 3rd class medical requirements? Will the rule allow SPs to fly faster, heavier, GA aircraft?
Thank you.