Legislation Seeks to Allow Driver's License Medical

As you know, the 3^rd class medical exemption has been the most important advocacy goal for EAA for some time. In March of 2012, EAA and AOPA filed a petition with the FAA that would allow pilots to fly four or fewer seat, single engine, fixed prop, 180-horsepower maximum aircraft with two souls on board in day-VFR with a driver’s license in lieu of a 3^rd class medical. The FAA has yet to respond to that petition, and many pilots were wondering what the next step would be, given the stalled petition.
Now we know. EAA advocacy representatives worked closely with several Congressmen to address the issue, and the result is a bill introduced in the House today that would allow pilots to fly with a driver’s license in lieu of a medical, with some conditions that are outlined in the story below. I will update this post as more information becomes available.
UPDATE: This bill has been assigned number H.R. 3708. EAA will be calling on members to contact their representatives when Congress is back in session after the new year in late January. Contacting them now when the offices are going to be all but closed for a month is not the best way to get their attention. We will use the Rally Congress tool that we have very successfully deployed in the past to enable our membership to send letters to their representatives, and we will send an all-member email when that tool is ready to go.

December 11, 2013 – Reps. Todd Rokita (R-IN) and Sam Graves (R-MO) introduced a bill in the U.S. House today that seeks to abolish the third class medical certificate for many pilots who fly recreationally. The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013, co-sponsored by Reps. Bill Flores (R-TX), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), Collin Peterson (D-MN), and Richard Hanna (R-NY), would require recreational pilots to hold a valid driver’s license in lieu of a third-class medical certificate and operating under specific limitations.
“This legislation addresses two goals EAA has long advocated: Eliminating excess red tape in the medical certification process while maintaining a safe way to keep pilots flying,” said Jack Pelton, EAA’s chairman of the board. “Our members and the general aviation community have long supported a change in the medical certification process. This proposal will maintain safety, reduce costs for pilots and the federal government, and allow people to pursue the unique freedom of flight in the same way they can pursue other powered recreational activities.”
The proposed rule would allow pilots to use a valid state driver’s license in place of the traditional medical certificate if:

• The flights are not for compensation
• Conducted in VFR operations only, at or below 14,000 feet MSL
• No faster than 250 knots
• In aircraft with no more than six seats and no more than 6,000 pounds gross takeoff weight.

In addition to allowing pilots to operate common GA aircraft for recreational without a third-class medical, the bill also mandates that the FAA prepare and send a report to Congress detailing the impact of the bill’s passage on general aviation safety within five years of the bill’s enactment.
“EAA and other GA associations worked with Rep. Rokita in developing this legislation, as we are committed to lowering barriers to aviation participation,” said Sean Elliott, vice president of EAA advocacy and safety. “This legislation is a step toward both of those goals. The third-class medical certificate does little to evaluate the day-to-day fitness of pilots flying recreationally. There are better ways to maintain high medical standards for aviation and allow people the freedom for individuals to enjoy the world of flight.”
The bill is another step in EAA’s effort to maintain aviation safety while growing participation in aviation. EAA and other aviation groups have regularly petitioned the FAA for medical certification updates and changes, most recently in the joint EAA/AOPA third-class medical certificate exemption request in March 2012. The FAA has yet to move on the request, despite more than 16,000 supportive comments to the docket during the public comment period.

Heard it first in an email from AOPA. Does EAA plan to get the word out directly to all it's members?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gbrasch

Heard it first in an email from AOPA. Does EAA plan to get the word out directly to all it's members?

---

Absolutely. The story will be up on our website within the hour, and we will announce it using all of our social media outlets.

I've already written my Senators and Representative. I must say, I'm not going to get too excited, but this could be the single best mechanism to save GA. I hope everyone here takes a few minutes to let your congressional representatives know that this is a good thing and that they need to support it.

David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Pavlich

I've already written my Senators and Representative. I must say, I'm not going to get too excited, but this could be the single best mechanism to save GA. I hope everyone here takes a few minutes to let your congressional representatives know that this is a good thing and that they need to support it.

David

---

I wouldn't go so far as to say it will save GA single handedly, but it sure improves the environment! Now we'll have to see how long it takes to get through the "process" but I will be joining you in keeping my House and Senate Reps aware of the need!

Joe

Just a note on contacting your reps/senators - Congress is heading into recess until after New Years, so we're delaying the big push for action until January when everyone is back in Washington. We will make a Rally Congress form available at that time, and of course you are always welcome to call, email, or write them on your own.

Thanks for the enthusiasm you've already shown on this bill - it will be crucial moving forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe LaMantia

I wouldn't go so far as to say it will save GA single handedly, but it sure improves the environment! Now we'll have to see how long it takes to get through the "process" but I will be joining you in keeping my House and Senate Reps aware of the need!

Joe

---

You're absolutely correct, Joe! However, this combined with other things like the advent of Shell and others close to offering 100 lead free and the like, it bodes well for GA. Ya' gotta' admit, things look just a little brighter than a month ago!

David

Am I missing something here? I was thinking something less than six seats, 6000# gross weight, 14,000 ft (Ox would be required) and 250 kts was the original proposal. Where did these new proposed standards come from? Seems like it would be a lot harder to get this through. All I'd like to do it fly a Cherokee 180, Cessna 150-172, etcl without jumping through the medical hoops for no useful propose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Berg

Am I missing something here? I was thinking something less than six seats, 6000# gross weight, 14,000 ft (Ox would be required) and 250 kts was the original proposal. Where did these new proposed standards come from? Seems like it would be a lot harder to get this through. All I'd like to do it fly a Cherokee 180, Cessna 150-172, etcl without jumping through the medical hoops for no useful propose.

---

This is the Bill written by two Congressmen, not the AOPA/EAA petition proposal. It is broader, but it won't get to the floor of the house for awhile...may go to some committee to review and recommend. Lots of process b/4 it becomes law. It will get interesting if it passes the house as a stand alone bill or gets rolled up in a big transportation Bill. Then the Senate will take a shot at it and maybe even pass it...then it goes to the President for signing or veto. We're not there yet, but it is a start after 2 years of the FAA sitting on the proposal. Remember your 8th Civics class on all the "Checks & Balances" it really is making sausage!

Joe:cool:

You can tell the FAAs antics over the last year or so has left them no longer in the good graces of either party in Congress. If they refuse to abide by their own rules and want to usurp Congress by setting up their own taxation without Congressional approval, Congress will act to smack them down. Depending on the level of support through Congress, this may be a ruse to push the FAA into acting on the EAA/AOPA proposal. On the other hand, if this picks up good bi-partisan support, you never know what might happen in politics. It may be interesting to watch.

-CubBuilder

This is all well and good, but if they wanted to do something that would really have a positive impact on encouraging the growth of GA and Sport Aviation, they would up the MTOW on LSAs to something more realistic, such as to allow all those 150/152s, Cherokees, and similar trainer-type planes to be flown as LSA. That would do so much more for driving down costs than anything else.

That was the point of my previous post. I hope they're aren't biting off too much or more to the point, maybe the idea is to ask for the moon (as proposed) and hoping for a little less. At present I'm restoring a 11CC Aeronca Chief that comes in just over the LS theshhold of 1320# at 1350#. Hardly makes sense to me..
Mike

The Small Airplane Revitalization Act was introduced May 7, 2013. It was introduced into the Senate July 17, 2013. The President signed into law November 27, 2013. That is just under seven months. It can move quickly, but who knows if it will.

The Small Airplane Revitalization Act was unanimously supported in the House, 410-0. Couldn't find the Senate vote, but don't recall it having any opposition.

Having Congress force the FAA's hand with a bigger requirement is far more likely to succeed than the EAA/AOPA "requesting".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tessmacher

This is all well and good, but if they wanted to do something that would really have a positive impact on encouraging the growth of GA and Sport Aviation, they would up the MTOW on LSAs to something more realistic, such as to allow all those 150/152s, Cherokees, and similar trainer-type planes to be flown as LSA. That would do so much more for driving down costs than anything else.

---

What advantage would be gained by including more airplanes in the LSA class? Since it will be possible to fly normal category airplanes (below the wt. & speed limits) without a medical, who cares if they are LSA or not? I'm not following your logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe LaMantia

It will get interesting if it passes the house as a stand alone bill or gets rolled up in a big transportation Bill.
Joe:cool:

---

Attached to the DOT funding bill might be a good place for it.

Don

Actually, I think it would be better if it was handled as a stand alone bill, it's "Motherhood and Apple Pie" for most of the folks in Washington. Adding it to any transportation bill opens the door for all kinds of lobbying efforts that will change the whole political equation. Attaching it to a funding bill would bring out the whole "no more spending vs fees and taxes " fight which maybe get put to rest if they really do pass this budget deal. If this goes out by itself the only opposition will come from the "Safety" folks and maybe some Medical people who see lost revenue.

Joe
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dewi8095

Attached to the DOT funding bill might be a good place for it.

Don

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martymayes

What advantage would be gained by including more airplanes in the LSA class? Since it will be possible to fly normal category airplanes (below the wt. & speed limits) without a medical, who cares if they are LSA or not? I'm not following your logic.

---

Seriously? Someone has to explain this to you?

Some of the summaries of the bill included terms that aren't being used precisely (e.g. "recreational" has specific meaning when discussing FAA certificates), so I retrieved the text of the bill so I could read it myself (EAA has it at: http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/release...dical-bill.pdf).

It's pretty short, so here it is (apologies if some of the formatting is off):


H. R. 3708


To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ROKITA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on ____


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.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013’’.


SEC. 2. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIR- CRAFT PILOTS.


(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 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; 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 a 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.


SEC. 3. REPORT.


Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration shall submit to Congress a report that de- scribes the impact that the regulations issued or revised under section 2 have had, including statistics with respect to changes in small aircraft activity and safety incidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe LaMantia

Actually, I think it would be better if it was handled as a stand alone bill, it's "Motherhood and Apple Pie" for most of the folks in Washington. Adding it to any transportation bill opens the door for all kinds of lobbying efforts that will change the whole political equation. Attaching it to a funding bill would bring out the whole "no more spending vs fees and taxes " fight which maybe get put to rest if they really do pass this budget deal. If this goes out by itself the only opposition will come from the "Safety" folks and maybe some Medical people who see lost revenue.

Joe
:cool:

---

I agree with Joe. We don't need these people fooling with it when it's stuck in an omnimus bill with bridges to nowhere and bicycle paths under the Mississippi River (sarcasm icon here). It needs to be debated on its merits and any fooling with it will be in the open. Being buried in a bill as large as the Transportation monster would not be a good thing.

David

Thanks for posting the verbage, Jeff!

David

"We don't need these people fooling with it when it's stuck in an omnimus bill with bridges to nowhere and bicycle paths under the Mississippi River (sarcasm icon here). It needs to be debated on its merits and any fooling with it will be in the open. Being buried in a bill as large as the Transportation monster would not be a good thing."

Why not. When you move into the political arena, and you have a clear goal, why is the vehicle for your legislation important? The goal is to win, not just talk. Having this buried in a "must pass" bill, with the language we want, is a common way to achieve success in legislation.

If you show up for a fair fight, you are grossly unprepared....

Wes
N78PS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WLIU

"We don't need these people fooling with it when it's stuck in an omnimus bill with bridges to nowhere and bicycle paths under the Mississippi River (sarcasm icon here). It needs to be debated on its merits and any fooling with it will be in the open. Being buried in a bill as large as the Transportation monster would not be a good thing."

Why not. When you move into the political arena, and you have a clear goal, why is the vehicle for your legislation important? The goal is to win, not just talk. Having this buried in a "must pass" bill, with the language we want, is a common way to achieve success in legislation.

If you show up for a fair fight, you are grossly unprepared....

Wes
N78PS

---

I understand the logic and if we were trying to get the under the Mississippi River Bike Path money to my state of Louisiana, we might want it hidden in the omnibus bill. However, I'll just copy and paste from Jim Rice's post:

"The Small Airplane Revitalization Act was introduced May 7, 2013. It was introduced into the Senate July 17, 2013. The President signed into law November 27, 2013. That is just under seven months. It can move quickly, but who knows if it will.

The Small Airplane Revitalization Act was unanimously supported in the House, 410-0. Couldn't find the Senate vote, but don't recall it having any opposition."

This bill was passed and signed very convincingly on its merits. I'm confident that once this new bill is out of committee, it'll sail through just as the above bill did. This isn't a "bridge to nowhere" kind of bill. This has real substance and will have minimal effect on the taxpayer. In fact, there are several states that produce airplanes that just may see good things happen to their manufacturing base if this passes. Same for reducing the ranks of the unemployed. It's easily shown to be a winning combination. Besides, with more airplanes flying, it means more fuel taxes for our cause. :-)

David

Outstanding!

I was actually wondering about this path the other day! There are two tracks to rules in government - by law (actual legislation) and by regulation (which isn't law, it's rules laid down by an agency). The latter is how most of the rules we live by are made - and sometimes the only way to change a regulation from a stubborn agency is to pass a law to change it, which is pretty weird when one thinks about it.

I'd actually rather it get stuck in a large bill that has nothing to do with transportation at all - like a farm bill or one on education or as a rider to NASA's budget. Vote Yea on the big bill and give us a break with no fuss, no muss, and - most importantly - no real debate that could turn it into a wedge issue.

I've grown a bit cynical, you see, and don't trust in the slim possibility of reasoned debate on any issue in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

Outstanding!

I was actually wondering about this path the other day! There are two tracks to rules in government - by law (actual legislation) and by regulation (which isn't law, it's rules laid down by an agency). The latter is how most of the rules we live by are made - and sometimes the only way to change a regulation from a stubborn agency is to pass a law to change it, which is pretty weird when one thinks about it.

I'd actually rather it get stuck in a large bill that has nothing to do with transportation at all - like a farm bill or one on education or as a rider to NASA's budget. Vote Yea on the big bill and give us a break with no fuss, no muss, and - most importantly - no real debate that could turn it into a wedge issue.

I've grown a bit cynical, you see, and don't trust in the slim possibility of reasoned debate on any issue in politics.

---

Frank,
I totally get your feelings, here's a few more thoughts. It looks like the House is actually coming together to pass a budget bill against the wishes of the "Tea Party". The environment maybe changing a bit to get the public opinion of the House in a more positive light in time for next falls' election. One could imagine a number of bills passing that are small things that most people see as reasonable. The large bills that get all the Xmas tree ornaments get a lot of attention and a lot of fighting. If you roll this up into any funding bill it will get lost in another "numbers" fight. This bill on it's own would provide everybody a chance to take credit for a little improvement without a fight that ends in gridlock. Even sending it out on it's merits it will get some "hostile fire" from some quarters, but it has a good chance of getting through given the climate and timing.

Joe
:cool:

“...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson

I take my role as PIC very seriously and on my determining my fitness to fly and the repercussion of that decision on my passengers and those who are on the ground along my route. That is why I sought out the best training and instructors in my area. My recurrent training is one of choice, not obligation. If I decide I am fit to fly... I fly. I use FAA FARs as a source of procedural consistency, not as an entity of approval. Congressional action, State statute or any other form of governmental entity is also referenced as a source of procedural consistency of my flying not as a permitting entity. Should I fail to be granted a Third Class medical in the future I will still go out to the airfield, stand in front of my aircraft and decide if I am capable of operating my aircraft safely. My decision to take a machine off the ground and into the sky has always been, is now, and always will be one of ethics and honor. What plastic or paper forms I have in my possession are of little relevance. If the sitting government decides to take my plastic and paper forms and I still determine I am of sound health to fly... I will fly. If the government becomes aware of my flying without benefit of plastic and paper documents and places me in confinement; on the day I am released from that confinement IF I DETERMINE I am safe to operate an aircraft... I will fly. My consent to be governed is now and will always be overt, NOT tacit. Every decision in life, major or minor is a function of ethics and risk management. If you choose to live your life in fear of what a government entity MAY DO to you... you have already forfeited that which is of most important in this life.

I'm a little nervous that including such a broad spectrum of lower end aviation (including 6 place and light twins except IFR), this may be so radical that the FAA will be able to point out a thousand reasons "why not". It seems a lot of the more serious accidents involving a 3rd party (i. someone on the ground) are a result of a lot of fuel present in bigger light planes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nrpetersen

I'm a little nervous that including such a broad spectrum of lower end aviation (including 6 place and light twins except IFR), this may be so radical that the FAA will be able to point out a thousand reasons "why not". It seems a lot of the more serious accidents involving a 3rd party (i. someone on the ground) are a result of a lot of fuel present in bigger light planes.

---

Yes, but the FAA doesn't get a vote on a congressional bill. Per their advice/testimony, the bill could be modified or killed, but they don't get to play any more of a roll than to testify in favor or against it. The ball was in their court for the last 2 years with the EAA/AOPA proposal. They refused to act. Now congress is taking away their ball. Should this bill actually see the light of day and be voted into law, the FAA only has one choice. Compliance.

-CubBuilder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdskoog

“...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson

I take my role as PIC very seriously and on my determining my fitness to fly and the repercussion of that decision on my passengers and those who are on the ground along my route. That is why I sought out the best training and instructors in my area. My recurrent training is one of choice, not obligation. If I decide I am fit to fly... I fly. I use FAA FARs as a source of procedural consistency, not as an entity of approval. Congressional action, State statute or any other form of governmental entity is also referenced as a source of procedural consistency of my flying not as a permitting entity. Should I fail to be granted a Third Class medical in the future I will still go out to the airfield, stand in front of my aircraft and decide if I am capable of operating my aircraft safely. My decision to take a machine off the ground and into the sky has always been, is now, and always will be one of ethics and honor. What plastic or paper forms I have in my possession are of little relevance. If the sitting government decides to take my plastic and paper forms and I still determine I am of sound health to fly... I will fly. If the government becomes aware of my flying without benefit of plastic and paper documents and places me in confinement; on the day I am released from that confinement IF I DETERMINE I am safe to operate an aircraft... I will fly. My consent to be governed is now and will always be overt, NOT tacit. Every decision in life, major or minor is a function of ethics and risk management. If you choose to live your life in fear of what a government entity MAY DO to you... you have already forfeited that which is of most important in this life.

---

Well put!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cub builder

Should this bill actually see the light of day and be voted into law, the FAA only has one choice. Compliance.

-CubBuilder

---

I'm very much in favor of it, but the general public would be quick to blame Congress again, and would listen to the outcry from the "experts" at FAA. And I can't imagine Obama signing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nrpetersen

... And I can't imagine Obama signing it.

---

Why not? He signed into law the Pilot's Bill of Rights in 2012 and the Small Airplane Revitalization Act in 2013. Why wouldn't he sign a bill in 2014 that fits that record in terms of general aviation?

Beyond that focused view of the issue, it's also unlikely Obama would veto this bill or one like it because Obama tends to not use the veto. Obama has vetoed 2 bills during his presidency, with neither overridden. GW Bush vetoed 12; 4 overridden. Clinton vetoed 37; 2 overridden. GWH Bush vetoed 44; 1 overridden. Reagan vetoed 78; 9 overridden. You'd have to go all the way back to Garfield to find a president who vetoed fewer bills than Obama, and Garfield was president for only 6.5 months.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, Obama has pushed pretty hard to get Congress, whether run by his party or by Republicans, to do it's job of legislating, and he hasn't second-guessed them much with vetoes. Now, whether Congress has really been doing it's job is another matter… ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright

Why not? He signed into law the Pilot's Bill of Rights in 2012 and the Small Airplane Revitalization Act in 2013. Why wouldn't he sign a bill in 2014 that fits that record in terms of general aviation?

Beyond that focused view of the issue, it's also unlikely Obama would veto this bill or one like it because Obama tends to not use the veto. Obama has vetoed 2 bills during his presidency, with neither overridden. GW Bush vetoed 12; 4 overridden. Clinton vetoed 37; 2 overridden. GWH Bush vetoed 44; 1 overridden. Reagan vetoed 78; 9 overridden. You'd have to go all the way back to Garfield to find a president who vetoed fewer bills than Obama, and Garfield was president for only 6.5 months.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, Obama has pushed pretty hard to get Congress, whether run by his party or by Republicans, to do it's job of legislating, and he hasn't second-guessed them much with vetoes. Now, whether Congress has really been doing it's job is another matter… ;)

---

Jeff....You are so correct.:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdskoog

“...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson

I take my role as PIC very seriously and on my determining my fitness to fly and the repercussion of that decision on my passengers and those who are on the ground along my route. That is why I sought out the best training and instructors in my area. My recurrent training is one of choice, not obligation. If I decide I am fit to fly... I fly. I use FAA FARs as a source of procedural consistency, not as an entity of approval. Congressional action, State statute or any other form of governmental entity is also referenced as a source of procedural consistency of my flying not as a permitting entity. Should I fail to be granted a Third Class medical in the future I will still go out to the airfield, stand in front of my aircraft and decide if I am capable of operating my aircraft safely. My decision to take a machine off the ground and into the sky has always been, is now, and always will be one of ethics and honor. What plastic or paper forms I have in my possession are of little relevance. If the sitting government decides to take my plastic and paper forms and I still determine I am of sound health to fly... I will fly. If the government becomes aware of my flying without benefit of plastic and paper documents and places me in confinement; on the day I am released from that confinement IF I DETERMINE I am safe to operate an aircraft... I will fly. My consent to be governed is now and will always be overt, NOT tacit. Every decision in life, major or minor is a function of ethics and risk management. If you choose to live your life in fear of what a government entity MAY DO to you... you have already forfeited that which is of most important in this life.

---

Yes, we still live in a free country and you can choose to ignore any law you don't agree with, and we have prisons full of people who have done that, some are repeat offenders. Keep in mind that Congress elected by the people established the regulatory agencies and ceded the "power" to regulate with congressional oversight. The current bill before the house is an example of that oversight and I would suggest that we may some more congressional actions coming in other areas the agency overreach in the next few years.

Joe
:cool:

This bill picked up 4 new sponsors yesterday and now has 32 Co-sponsors.:
New Cosponsor: Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
New Cosponsor: Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ11]
New Cosponsor: Rep. Brett Guthrie [R-KY2]
New Cosponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross [R-FL15]

-CubBuilder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cub builder

This bill picked up 4 new sponsors yesterday and now has 32 Co-sponsors.:
New Cosponsor: Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL6]
New Cosponsor: Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ11]
New Cosponsor: Rep. Brett Guthrie [R-KY2]
New Cosponsor: Rep. Dennis Ross [R-FL15]

-CubBuilder

---

Please don't pile on with the politics, but where are the Democrats? House passed SARA unanimously, how come nearly no Democratic Congressperson has signed on?

EAA/AOPA- what is the plan to rally us aviators to energize our representives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TedK

Please don't pile on with the politics, but where are the Democrats? House passed SARA unanimously, how come nearly no Democratic Congressperson has signed on?

EAA/AOPA- what is the plan to rally us aviators to energize our representives?

---

Agreed. 3 Ds and 28 Rs on this one, whereas the two previous pilot-friendly bills had much more balance. One of the original sponsors was Petereson (D-MN), so it's not clear to me at all why there aren't more Democrats on board. Could be a timing thing, could be a subcommittee thing. I certainly haven't contacted my congressman (Lewis, D-GA), so I'm as guilty of inactivity as anyone.

Possibly EAA has some insight?

Good question Jeff!.

If my memory serves me GW Bush was a fan of user fees, and so it seems is the current President. Given the very small number of "RINO's" on the GOP side and "Moderates" on the left, we get most of the party positions staked-out by the "leadership". The airlines play a big role in that fight, and they all have to get re-elected ($$$). One of the GOP's major themes is big govt and "overreach" so they have jumped on the 3rd class medical issue as yet another example of that. Both parties represent different segments of the population and while the $ is with the airlines the votes are in the GA population. It's unlikely that this bill will ever see a vote, but it's good "politics" to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not taking any political position here, just looking at the behavior pattern. Remember that we have about 500 people sitting in Congress who have very comfortable life styles and don't want to loose them. Most are there because they tell their voters what they want to hear!

Joe
:P

Our friends in the Senate have introduced a companion bill to the House on their side of the Hill. :)

See http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...px?CMP=ADV%3A1