Going to start a third thread and hope it gets the well considered responses I have seen on the other two.
(cost sharing & AOPA insurance)
I have learned quite a bit and find them interesting topics to review.
Hoping Cary will weigh in here and take a look at new law for us.
The good senator who decided to plop his aircraft on a closed runway... sponsored some new legislation. I am sure he feels like he offered up something for our benefit. Since I really don't trust senators to look out for my rights, but instead, their own mainly--- I offer the following question and starting point for discussion.

What are the summarized elements of the new law, and do they actually benefit us in some tangible ways?

When I was being accused of probably running out of gas recently in my Luscombe, I received an updated copy of the Bill of Rights. My reading of it seemed to indicate that the only thing the FAA wanted me to know was that anything I said in response was going to be used against me if enforcement action was taken. That sure did not give me a warm and fuzzy about what the senator had done to improve my life as a pilot.

I think the fact that they are telling you that "you are under investigation and anything you say will be used against you" is WAY MORE then they would have told you in the past.

Here's a link to the text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1335/text

From a practical standpoint, the biggest thing that I see is that Joe Pilot, if he's under any sort of investigation (which incidentally includes the process of determining whether any form of application for a certificate, rating, or for a medical) has to be informed of the rights described in Section 2 (b)(2), and that he has the right to obtain "releasable" parts of the investigation. Most importantly, if JP chooses not to respond, that can't be used against him.

All that is in contrast the old way, which did not require that JP be informed of much of anything, and his silence was often taken as some sort of admission.

In the old days, getting air traffic info was like pulling teeth at some FSDOs--I have a wild story about that--and even Freedom of Information requests were often delayed or denied with the excuse that the investigation was still under way--never mind that the airman had been already told to send in his certificate because the FAA had suspended it on the basis that the investigation had concluded thus and so and the airman hadn't contested the findings. Other FSDOs turned over the entire file without hesitation. Now it's all available to the airman, just by asking.

In olden times, the word of the Administrator (actually the opinion of the Chief Counsel) was golden and "the law"; now it's entitled to great weight, but it's not binding on the Administrative Law Judge of the NTSB in a contested certificate hearing.

Now there's a clearly defined right to appeal to the federal District Court from an adverse NTSB decision, or the airman can even bypass the District Court and go directly to the Court of Appeals. Incidentally, don't think either of those is a slam-dunk, and the time involved can mean not flying for a long, long period of time while waiting for a decision.

So while Senator Inhofe's piloting skills leave a lot to be desired, this legislation is a benefit to most of us, should we run afoul of the FAA in some way.

Cary