×

Message

Please login first

Backcountry Pilot • Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Discuss the legality of flying the backcountry, FARs, advocacy, and aviation relevant legislation. Registered users only.
242 postsPage 2 of 131, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

hotrod180 wrote:
Prosaria wrote: I just wanted to point out that there are TWO bills in each chamber dealing with this issue. They are the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 (HR 1062 and S 571) and the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act (HR 1086 and S 573). ............


What are the differences between the two bills?


They have published the text of the two bills. HR 1086 and HR 1062 are exactly the same, to the letter, with respect to the 3rd class medical exemption. The difference is that HR 1062 continues on and adds additional protections for pilot certificates, accessibility of information from contractors to appeal FAA actions, NOTAM reform, and Liability Protection for FAA representatives and volunteer pilots. HR 1086 does not have these additional things, it is strictly 3rd class medical reform.

I have updated my original post with updates to the list of co-sponsors. Keep writing those folks!
Prosaria offline
User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:25 pm
Location: Eagle River

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Prosaria wrote: They have published the text of the two bills. HR 1086 and HR 1062 are exactly the same, to the letter, with respect to the 3rd class medical exemption. The difference is that HR 1062 continues on and adds additional protections for pilot certificates, accessibility of information from contractors to appeal FAA actions, NOTAM reform, and Liability Protection for FAA representatives and volunteer pilots. HR 1086 does not have these additional things, it is strictly 3rd class medical reform.
.....


Then I think 1062 is a mistake. A legislator may be all in favor of 3rd class medical reform, but doesn't like the other stuff that was added in so he votes against it. Kind of like a bill for school funding that includes a waiting period for ammo purchases, outlaws menthol cigarettes, and mandates 406 ELT's. Too many ingredients-- let's just keep it simple, keep it 3rd class medical reform, and get it passed.

I sent in a short email of my own, plus tagged onto the EAA deal, and already got a response back from one of my senators (Maria Cantwell). "While I support efforts to improve pilot safety, I believe it is important to preserve the FAA's ability to enforce strong safety regulations to protect consumers and the flying public. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to consider this legislation." Not sure but it sounds like "no" to me. #-o

No response from my other senator (Patty Murray). Nor my congressman (Derek Kilmer), other than thanks for emailing, I'll get back to you.
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10534
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

My medical is coming up in august... Probably not a cold chance in hell that they will get it done before then...
jaudette offline
User avatar
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:12 pm
Location: Westcliffe
Aircraft: Husky A-1B
Vans RV-7a

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

jaudette wrote:My medical is coming up in august... Probably not a cold chance in hell that they will get it done before then...
Supermajorities are hard to get. I don't recall the last time and over ride vote occurred. Maybe back in '08 on the ethanol bill? I really don't know. I think Bush signed because he was facing a supermajority? Marty might know.

I think it will happen at some point. I also think that indemnifying FAA inspectors is the strongest part of the bill as far as getting it across the finish line. It's not clutter at all. It's desperately needed and will help re-start the 337 process out of field offices. It might even get us a nod from FAA brass. The trial lawyers won't like it though.
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Barnstormer, Thanks for the EAA site. That was even easy for old guys.
contactflying offline
Posts: 4972
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:36 pm
Location: Aurora, Missouri 2H2
Download my free "https://tinyurl.com/Safe-Maneuvering" e-book.

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

A couple of new Senators signed on to S 571, the Pilots Bill of Rights 2. See my updated post on page one.
Prosaria offline
User avatar
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:25 pm
Location: Eagle River

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Nevada Pilots,

When I called Harry Reid’s office, they said they hope to get more calls in support of this bill! I took that to mean they haven't received many calls from us. It only takes a minute and they all answered right away.



Harry Reid 775-686-5750 (Reno)
Dean Heller 775-686-5770 (Reno)
Mark Amodei 775-777-7705 (Elko)
blackrock offline
User avatar
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: Elko, NV
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... BFmtASxjeV
Aircraft: Bearhawk

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Got this today, with luck this will keep going forward, They are talking of the FAA reauthorization is coming up this year, worth watching!
http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live?watch=%7BDB88C0D3-FF36-4FE2-A64E-71691CF69BAD%7D&WT.mc_id=150522epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv

Keep calling, got a response from Patty Murray, she is not backing this at all!!
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

M6RV6 wrote:....Keep calling, got a response from Patty Murray, she is not backing this at all!!


What a shock! (not)
How do her & Maria Cantwell keep getting elected?
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10534
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

jaudette wrote:My medical is coming up in august... Probably not a cold chance in hell that they will get it done before then...


Plan on getting a medical in August..... :roll:

Passage of one of these bills is only the start. A Congressional law is nothing until and unless the executive agency with responsibility for that area (in this case the FAA) promulgates regulations to implement the law. And, as we all know, the FAA doesn't exactly move fast on laws that the Congress has passed. I suspect the FAA will drag its feet right up to the precipice on this one.

So, all the more reason to call/email/write your representatives, encouraging them to support these pieces of legislation. It's going to take a while to get implemented in any case....so the sooner we get started, the sooner this thing will have legs.

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10514
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

M6RV6 wrote:Got this today, with luck this will keep going forward, They are talking of the FAA reauthorization is coming up this year, worth watching!
http://www.aopa.org/AOPA-Live?watch=%7BDB88C0D3-FF36-4FE2-A64E-71691CF69BAD%7D&WT.mc_id=150522epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv

Keep calling, got a response from Patty Murray, she is not backing this at all!!

That's a pretty sharp guy. Neither one of Nevada's senators has replied to me but my Rep, Mark Amodei is a co-sponser.
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

So here is an opinion from a responce on the last AOPA note or update on this.
What do you folks think??

It’s a good thing we are so patient. If not, one may start
to wonder what if……
1.)
The AOPA and EAA were to write and post directions
for pilots to self-certify their ability to act as PIC within all the current
parameters of a private pilot.
2.)
Then the AOPA and EAA create a website that
keeps current the medications that are allowed for use by the FAA, as well as
any constraints the FAA may have. This website would allow public access so
that all pilots and their physicians can access at any time. The FAA would have
the task of maintaining the currency of the site.
3.)
All GA pilots and GA aircraft owners send a
letter to all the insurance carriers explaining that they will only support the
companies that drop the need for a third class medical as a requirement for
coverage while operating as a private pilot (AOPA and EAA could compose a
generic letter and provide addresses).
4.)
On a set date, all pilots that only need a third
class medical, write the FAA (AOPA and EAA could compose a generic letter and
provide address) to advise the FAA that as private pilots they will no longer
be visiting an AME once every two years to determine their fitness to fly.
Instead pilots will be following the guidelines set forth by the AOPA and EAA
(see item 1).

Could add the argument that currently, while
operating with a third class medical, the pilot has the task of ‘self-certifying’ one’s fitness to fly,
from the moment the pilot leaves the AME’s office, for the remainder of the two
year term. Under the new policies, the task of ‘self certification’ would
expand to include the one additional day every two years. When health circumstances
border the limits of the guidelines set forth by the AOPA and EAA as outlined
in item 1, pilots would rely on their primary care physicians to help them make
an educated decision of whether or not they should be performing the duties of
a private pilot (not an AME that has a limited understanding of the given
situation).
This is a much safer approach and in the best
interest of the general public, including pilots and non-pilots.

Are we enough numbers that the FAA would concede? Would we
stand together? Would we be paying British taxes if our forefathers had decided
to drink the tea instead of floating it in the harbor?....just wondering………I’ll
go back to hoping that our ‘government of the people and for the people’ will
give us permission................. :)
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

M6RV6 wrote:So here is an opinion from a responce on the last AOPA note or update on this.
What do you folks think??

It’s a good thing we are so patient. If not, one may start
to wonder what if……
1.)
The AOPA and EAA were to write and post directions
for pilots to self-certify their ability to act as PIC within all the current
parameters of a private pilot.
2.)
Then the AOPA and EAA create a website that
keeps current the medications that are allowed for use by the FAA, as well as
any constraints the FAA may have. This website would allow public access so
that all pilots and their physicians can access at any time. The FAA would have
the task of maintaining the currency of the site.
3.)
All GA pilots and GA aircraft owners send a
letter to all the insurance carriers explaining that they will only support the
companies that drop the need for a third class medical as a requirement for
coverage while operating as a private pilot (AOPA and EAA could compose a
generic letter and provide addresses).
4.)
On a set date, all pilots that only need a third
class medical, write the FAA (AOPA and EAA could compose a generic letter and
provide address) to advise the FAA that as private pilots they will no longer
be visiting an AME once every two years to determine their fitness to fly.
Instead pilots will be following the guidelines set forth by the AOPA and EAA
(see item 1).

Could add the argument that currently, while
operating with a third class medical, the pilot has the task of ‘self-certifying’ one’s fitness to fly,
from the moment the pilot leaves the AME’s office, for the remainder of the two
year term. Under the new policies, the task of ‘self certification’ would
expand to include the one additional day every two years. When health circumstances
border the limits of the guidelines set forth by the AOPA and EAA as outlined
in item 1, pilots would rely on their primary care physicians to help them make
an educated decision of whether or not they should be performing the duties of
a private pilot (not an AME that has a limited understanding of the given
situation).
This is a much safer approach and in the best
interest of the general public, including pilots and non-pilots.

Are we enough numbers that the FAA would concede? Would we
stand together? Would we be paying British taxes if our forefathers had decided
to drink the tea instead of floating it in the harbor?....just wondering………I’ll
go back to hoping that our ‘government of the people and for the people’ will
give us permission................. :)


As usual, the real problem with this approach wouldn't be the FAA. They'd only come out of their holes when an accident occurred.

BUT, suppose we were all to do this. At your next annual insurance renewal, you mark in the box that you no longer hold a medical.....and they just happen to know the make/model of your airplane, and it doesn't meet LS standards. You will not get insurance from that company.

Suppose you (wink, wink) mark the "Do you have a current FAA Medical Certificate?" question on your insurance questionnaire in the affirmative, suggestion you do have a medical...when in fact you don't.
Now, if you have an accident, the FAA will come visit, AND, your insurance carrier will walk away from you, based on the fact that you falsified information on your insurance application....a contract. If someone got hurt in that accident.......you're toast..

It's fun to imagine these kinds of scenarios, but how many of us are willing to go completely uninsured? I'd go without hull coverage, maybe, but liability????

MTV
mtv offline
Knowledge Base Author
User avatar
Posts: 10514
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
Location: Bozeman

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

I've just found out that Nevada Senator Dean Heller has just co-sponsored The Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. My US Rep Mark Amodei was an initial signer during the last congress and this one too but Heller has been dragging his feet. His name showing up on the bill is evidence that some of the more moderate members of the senate are beginning to come on board.

No word out of Harry Reed's office yet, but I keep sending the letters. These days with a stamp on an envelope.

I sent Heller a thank you on his website contact form for joining us.
Mister701 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 11:13 pm
Location: Sparks
Aircraft: Rans S7LS

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Check out this bullshit from the Airline Pilots Association. Somehow, miraculously, we've survived the last 10 years' worth of sport pilots without any of them managing to run into an airliner because they didn't have a medical.

Give me an f'ing break. If I was a member of ALPA, I'd be embarrassed by this nonsense. Follow the money, I guess. I wonder who's paying for this position?

............................................................
June 23, 2015

Dear Senator:
On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I want to make you aware of ALPA’s opposition to S.Amdt.2267, filed by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to H.R. 22. ALPA disagrees with the process and is fundamentally opposed to the dangerous policy shift proposed in the Manchin amendment. We do not believe a complex issue such as this should be attached to a surface transportation bill—especially in a year when both chambers must take up an FAA reauthorization bill that deals directly with issues such as this.

The amendment is a modified version of S. 571, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2. Specifically, ALPA has grave concerns with how this amendment addresses the 3rd class medical requirement for general aviation pilots.

This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet, which also includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo. The amendment would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft. It also reduces the number of medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.

ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a 3rd class medical and intends to continue collaboration to ensure aviation safety for all pilots and passengers; however, we cannot allow bad policy to be forced through on an unrelated bill. A common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace, which we cannot support.

We urge you to vote no on the Manchin amendment.
Sincerely,
Tim Canoll, President
RanchPilot offline
User avatar
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:18 pm
Location: Wyoming
Experience is the knowledge that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.

RanchPilot Facebook Community: http://www.facebook.com/ranchpilot777

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

RanchPilot wrote: relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified.


We are required to do this even if we have received a medical. Just because we get a medical done every 5 years doesn't mean we are any more fit then not. The day after we are cleared, any one of us could become unfit and we are required to self report. This change would be great for GA.
A1Skinner offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 5186
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:38 am
Location: Eaglesham
FindMeSpot URL: [url:1vzmrq4a]http://share.findmespot.com/shared/faces/viewspots.jsp?glId=0az97SSJm2Ky58iEMJLqgaAQvVxMnGp6G[/url:1vzmrq4a]
Aircraft: Cessna P206A, AT402/502/602

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

He sure as hell doesn't speak for me on this.

I just looked, and I can't find any reference to this at all on ALPA's site. Where did you find it?

RanchPilot wrote:Check out this bullshit from the Airline Pilots Association. Somehow, miraculously, we've survived the last 10 years' worth of sport pilots without any of them managing to run into an airliner because they didn't have a medical.

Give me an f'ing break. If I was a member of ALPA, I'd be embarrassed by this nonsense. Follow the money, I guess. I wonder who's paying for this position?

............................................................
June 23, 2015

Dear Senator:
On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I want to make you aware of ALPA’s opposition to S.Amdt.2267, filed by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to H.R. 22. ALPA disagrees with the process and is fundamentally opposed to the dangerous policy shift proposed in the Manchin amendment. We do not believe a complex issue such as this should be attached to a surface transportation bill—especially in a year when both chambers must take up an FAA reauthorization bill that deals directly with issues such as this.

The amendment is a modified version of S. 571, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2. Specifically, ALPA has grave concerns with how this amendment addresses the 3rd class medical requirement for general aviation pilots.

This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet, which also includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo. The amendment would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft. It also reduces the number of medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.

ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a 3rd class medical and intends to continue collaboration to ensure aviation safety for all pilots and passengers; however, we cannot allow bad policy to be forced through on an unrelated bill. A common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace, which we cannot support.

We urge you to vote no on the Manchin amendment.
Sincerely,
Tim Canoll, President
Cannon offline
User avatar
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:17 pm
Location: SoCal
Aircraft: C-185
Piper J3C-65
Pitts S1S

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

It's making the rounds on FB. I couldn't find it on ALPA’S site either, but I saw a reference in the AME assn letter stating that ALPA opposes this reform, so I believe it is legit.

I can see why they might not feature this on their website. I suspect there are quite a few line pilots in their membership who would be pissed if they knew they were being lumped in to supporting this position.
RanchPilot offline
User avatar
Posts: 974
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:18 pm
Location: Wyoming
Experience is the knowledge that enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.

RanchPilot Facebook Community: http://www.facebook.com/ranchpilot777

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

RanchPilot wrote:It's making the rounds on FB. I couldn't find it on ALPA’S site either, but I saw a reference in the AME assn letter stating that ALPA opposes this reform, so I believe it is legit.

I can see why they might not feature this on their website. I suspect there are quite a few line pilots in their membership who would be pissed if they knew they were being lumped in to supporting this position.


http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2015/July/24/Urgent-action-needed-on-medical-reform-legislation?WT.mc_id=150727special&WT.mc_sect=adv
M6RV6 offline
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: Rice Wa. 82WN Magee Creek AERODROME
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... sWKXuhKlg2
Have as much Fun as is Safe, and Keep SMILIN! GT,

Re: Pilot Bill of rights 2 / medical

Can some of the past and current airline pilots here on this forum start raising hell with ALPA about this please? I cannot believe that ANY of the airline pilots I know would support this opposition to the medical reform.

My understanding is that there is also a well known discussion group for professional pilots called PPRUNE. Can everyone who's on that site start stirring up a hornet's nest too please?

Other than profitability for manufacturers of expensive LSA airplanes, does anyone know whether there is any reason or justification for pilots, unions, or anyone else to oppose this being passed?
EZFlap offline
User avatar
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:21 am
.

DISPLAY OPTIONS

PreviousNext
242 postsPage 2 of 131, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base