Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 91

Thread: What is actual text of PBOR2?

  1. #11
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    I don't like it myself. If it goes through like this, it'll make no difference to me. I'll still be operating under Sport Pilot rather than risking flunking a 10-year medical and having to go through all that rigamarole. It'd be nice to occasionally fly some "big iron" like a Cessna 150, but I guess I'll be sticking with my Fly Baby.

    BUT....

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

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

    Ron Wanttaja

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    24
    We expected the PBOR to expand the LSA medical rules to lower-performance heavier-than-1320-pound aircraft. You know, like the ones we can rent and go places in? The amendments toss that idea aside and EAA smiles and applauds. 'Applaud' ain't the word I'm thinking of right now. Or my opinion of EAA's 'defense' of their membership having ballyhooed them into a write-in campaign for a fundamental component of the PBOR that is being written out of the bill. Feds play us for suckers and we smile and applaud.

  3. #13
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by phavriluk View Post
    We expected the PBOR to expand the LSA medical rules to lower-performance heavier-than-1320-pound aircraft. You know, like the ones we can rent and go places in? The amendments toss that idea aside...
    Not sure that's exactly the case. If I understand correctly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ron Wanttaja
    Last edited by rwanttaja; 09-30-2015 at 11:06 AM.

  4. #14
    Mike Switzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    979
    So am I understanding this correctly that the whole idea of being able to fly a fixed pitch 4 place 180HP or less aircraft without a current 3rd class medical is gone? If so this bill is useless to me. I can still pass a medical, but it is getting to be more of a pain every time. I purposely let mine lapse since I don't currently have access to a plane while I was waiting to see how this turned out. I was also putting off buying for the same reason.

  5. #15
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Switzer View Post
    So am I understanding this correctly that the whole idea of being able to fly a fixed pitch 4 place 180HP or less aircraft without a current 3rd class medical is gone?
    No, from my reading of EAA's summary, you still won't require a formal FAA medical.
    http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-a...ll-of-rights-2

    Here's my summary:

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

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

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

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

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

    Ron Wanttaja

  6. #16
    Mike Switzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    979
    Well that is better than I thought. Not as good as what we were told originally, but I will be OK. Still stinks for the guys that will have to pay for a lot of tests to get one in the first place.

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

  7. #17
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Switzer View Post
    On the other hand, I can see some of the objections to the original. I have a friend who hasn't had a medical in ages due to epilepsy, which has been controlled by medication for as long as I have known him (20+ years). He had high hopes for this allowing him to fly solo. (To my knowledge he was never denied, since he knew he wouldn't pass he never tried to renew it.) His meds quit working a couple weeks ago & he had a seizure.
    Perfectly true, and, in fact, things in that regard wouldn't really change.

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

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

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

    Ron Wanttaja

  8. #18
    EAA Staff Tom Charpentier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    130
    Please follow the below link to a list of frequently asked questions and answers on the latest PBOR2 language and status:
    http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-a...-does-it-stand
    Tom Charpentier
    Government Relations Director
    EAA Lifetime #1082006 | Vintage #722921

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Thanks, Ron and Tom, for your clarifications to the incomprehensible.

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

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    14
    >>Nothing I recommend, mind you. But there'll be no additional enforcement with the new rules, and even LESS evidence to carry with you (or be caught without).

    Ron Wanttaja[/QUOTE]<<

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

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •