This article was included in todays' AOPA e-pilot newsletter.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... c_sect=adv

From that article:
"With passage of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 by the full Senate at the end of 2015, the legislation moves on to the House for its consideration. But with other big aviation issues on the table, the standalone legislation could take a backseat to a more comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill.
The current extension to the FAA’s funding expires March 31, leaving little time for both the House and Senate to pass and reconcile legislation and send it to the president. A more likely scenario is another extension to keep the FAA in business while lawmakers continue to work on a more comprehensive agreement that could include third class medical reform.
House lawmakers have been working on a reauthorization proposal and have indicated that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is likely to mark up the bill sometime in February, after which it would go to the full House."

I was afraid that PBR2 would lose momentum after passing the Senate, with the holiday break intervening before it could be addressed by the House. Looks like maybe I was right. Now I'm afraid it'll get lost in the shuffle, or greatly changed, in the much bigger re-authorization legislation.

.

.
So, according to the latest AOPA Posting of Jan. 14, 2016
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/January/14/Next-steps-for-medical-reform?WT.mc_id=160115epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv

With Congress back in session, the question on the minds of many pilots is, “What’s next for third class medical reform?”

The answer, not surprisingly, is “that depends.”

With passage of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 by the full Senate at the end of 2015, the legislation moves on to the House for its consideration. But with other big aviation issues on the table, the standalone legislation could take a backseat to a more comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill.

Can someone explain what some of the possible outcomes are? I am confused. I was following this but then got "reform fatigue" and just quit following it all. There was something about the "new" requirements being just as onerous as the old required 3rd Class medical, just more expensive. What kind of a deal is that? MTV wrote:

.
Yes, the required exam issues are exactly the same as for a third class medical.
What's different you say that could change cost to you? There is no "standard fee" for this. Ever look at a medical bill BEFORE insurance got involved? Scary.

So, I am confused.
#1 Where are things now likely to go and what do we realistically want to see happen at this point?
#2 What can the average Joe, the grunts in the trenches, do to again contact their congressmen. What are we supposed to say?

Denali wrote:. So, I am confused.
#1 Where are things now likely to go and what do we realistically want to see happen at this point?
#2 What can the average Joe, the grunts in the trenches, do to again contact their congressmen. What are we supposed to say?[/b]

#1: That depends. Chances to see this enacted as proposed (which is useless) are slim in light of other, more pressing, higher priority issues. We have funding issues, user fee issues and drone issues and a ton of other issues. The wishlist items of some Senator are small fish in comparison. Its a high priority item for a very small group of people.
#2: At this point in time there isn't really anything to do. It was a good fundraiser for AOPA. Gotta wait if its picked up and see what the results are, prior to taking the next move.

The new student pilot certificate rules will have a much higher negative impact on new student signups and for the second time in recent history a giant step towards pushing the United States off the throne of being General Aviation Land # 1 was taken. We just took half a step forward and one back on medical reform and six steps back on student pilot certificates now requiring TSA vetting. 95% of this stuff was and remains foreseeable - 2016 will be one of the most amazing years in terms of very predictable moves against general aviation.

The impact this has on schools who already make their bread and butter with foreign students (because there aren't enough Americans learning to fly) will be tremendous. *Imagine waiting 6 months to get vetted by the TSA. Better yet, imagine you'd be put into a group of people who are, by default, considered a risk to national security, simply for having the wish to learn how to fly...

* Clarification: I am aware that FAA 'estimates' three weeks for the vetting process through TSA.*

jjbaker wrote:
The new student pilot certificate rules will have a much higher negative impact on new student signups and for the second time in recent history a giant step towards pushing the United States off the throne of being General Aviation Land # 1 was taken. We just took half a step forward and one back on medical reform and six steps back on student pilot certificates now requiring TSA vetting. 95% of this stuff was and remains foreseeable - 2016 will be one of the most amazing years in terms of very predictable moves against general aviation.

The impact this has on schools who already make their bread and butter with foreign students (because there aren't enough Americans learning to fly) will be tremendous. *Imagine waiting 6 months to get vetted by the TSA. Better yet, imagine you'd be put into a group of people who are, by default, considered a risk to national security, simply for having the wish to learn how to fly...

* Clarification: I am aware that FAA 'estimates' three weeks for the vetting process through TSA.*

Well, I really don't like the new requirement for student pilots to be vetted by TSA prior to flight training, though frankly, there is technically no requirement to hold a student pilot certificate to take dual instruction.....only to SOLO, which will take a while anyway. So, I'm not sure that's a big deal.

As to schools who train a lot of foreign students to fly, this will have almost no effect on them at all. They in fact are already required to have TSA vet their students prior to FLIGHT. I've been through that process a number of times, and the time to vet students averaged about three weeks. I can't recall one ever taking more than a month. And, that was a much more involved process than this new policy will impose....fingerprinting and verification of passport/student visa, etc for foreign students by a local law enforcement office, AFTER the student submitted the application well in advance. That total process is lengthy and complex, but most of the time it takes to complete is done before the student arrives in the US.

This new requirement will constitute another pain in the butt for folks wanting to learn to fly, but I don't think it'll be the catastrophe that you suggest.

MTV

mtv wrote:....This new requirement will constitute another pain in the butt for folks wanting to learn to fly, but I don't think it'll be the catastrophe that you suggest. MTV

It's kind of like the death from a thousand cuts-- adding another PITA to the already daunting process for a downwardly spiraling pastime like becoming a pilot might not be a catastrophe, but it sure won't help things. This business about having to go to the FSDO in person to get your student license is BS. The nearest FSDO to me is in Renton (SE of Seattle), a four hour roundtrip if traffic cooperates. For someone who lives in Forks, WA it's another 2 hours each way. So a whole day off work (without pay for the average Joe) as I imagine the FSDO's a Monday-thru-Friday show. I imagine there's plenty of people who are even farther away from a FSDO than that, so for some it might involve an overnight trip. For someone who's wavering right on the edge of becoming a student pilot, this major inconvenience (on top of "honey it'll be too expensive" from the old lady and "hey dude, just buy a Harley" from his buddies) might be just enough to make him change his mind about learning to fly.

hotrod180 wrote:

mtv wrote:....This new requirement will constitute another pain in the butt for folks wanting to learn to fly, but I don't think it'll be the catastrophe that you suggest. MTV

It's kind of like the death from a thousand cuts-- adding another PITA to the already daunting process for a downwardly spiraling pastime like becoming a pilot might not be a catastrophe, but it sure won't help things. This business about having to go to the FSDO in person to get your student license is BS. The nearest FSDO to me is in Renton (SE of Seattle), a four hour roundtrip if traffic cooperates. For someone who lives in Forks, WA it's another 2 hours each way. So a whole day off work (without pay for the average Joe) as I imagine the FSDO's a Monday-thru-Friday show. I imagine there's plenty of people who are even farther away from a FSDO than that, so for some it might involve an overnight trip. For someone who's wavering right on the edge of becoming a student pilot, this major inconvenience (on top of "honey it'll be too expensive" from the old lady and "hey dude, just buy a Harley" from his buddies) might be just enough to make him change his mind about learning to fly.

I don't disagree. That said, if someone isn't willing to go through that little bit of effort, are they really likely to get through pilot training? Do you really want to share the sky with someone like that?

As to the prospective student having to go to the FSDO, that's not what Avweb noted, though I haven't read the actual language in the rule yet. What Avweb's article said is that the student can go to the FSDO, or to a DPE or a CFI to apply. I'm not sure what those folks will have to do, but...not like they'll all have to go to a FSDO.

And, by the way, for a number of years now, a CFI teaching someone to fly has been required to
acquire a copy of that student's birth certificate or US Passport and keep that record for some years. This doesn't sound like it's much more, other than the delay for TSA to do the screening.

MTV

Mike, thanks for responding!

My concern with TSA vetting is that the process is already lengthy (not saying it's completely unjustified) for foreigners.
I am not sure what TSA vetting for U.S. citizens will accomplish and how it will affect general wait times, what I do know is that it will add time, effort and cost and another big ? to training. General Aviation flying is already a tough sell. I mean, why would one subject themselves to this kind of witch-hunt, just to put put put around in a little plane? What are they afraid of? Or asked differently, is everyone with ties to GA a terrorism suspect? Why can I walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with a gun I can use to kill people, but wait a bunch of weeks before I can solo a stinky Cessna 172? (Don't use this against me, I love guns!) What have we done to whom, to require this kind of security theater?

I guess I would see it differently if someone wishing to operate a snowmobile, RV or boat was to go through the same system. The other question/ comment brought up in the comments of the AVweb blog (IIRC) was that there should be direct and tangible benefits for pilots who have gone through this vetting process - as in having expedited or faster checkpoint clearance in airports.

Just like with the medical mess, I miss equality from the system.

To me, hotrods comment about death from a thousand cuts (rather than one large one) sounds just about how I feel about the multitude of issues currently stacked against GA. Medical reform (as currently on the table) is a small drop on a very hot stone.

This kind of BS appears to be coming through every single crack we have left open in decades past. It appears the same we have gone through here in Europe, which is why I react allergically every time someone mentions EASA. Systematic destruction. How far has it come, that we now need politicians to force the FAA to even hear the voice of General Aviation? To me it seems as if the big three and four letter groups are becoming the middle man between pilots and politicians who will then force the Administrator to fail performing on his agencies obligations.

What happened to: "The most powerful voice for General Aviation Pilots" with a direct line to the FAA? AOPA isn't a puppet monkey for politicians to collect votes with, its the representative of a NAS stakeholder. What are we, chopped liver? When are we going to overcome our division and fragmentation and start arguing with a unified voice? Manufacturers, Pilots, FBO's, Associations, Groups, LSA, GA and Business Aviation?

The lone wolf system we've had for the last 60 years isn't going to cut the cheese.

Denali wrote:.

.
So, according to the latest AOPA Posting of Jan. 14, 2016
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/January/14/Next-steps-for-medical-reform?WT.mc_id=160115epilot&WT.mc_sect=adv

With Congress back in session, the question on the minds of many pilots is, “What’s next for third class medical reform?”

The answer, not surprisingly, is “that depends.”

With passage of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 by the full Senate at the end of 2015, the legislation moves on to the House for its consideration. But with other big aviation issues on the table, the standalone legislation could take a backseat to a more comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill.

Can someone explain what some of the possible outcomes are? I am confused. I was following this but then got "reform fatigue" and just quit following it all. There was something about the "new" requirements being just as onerous as the old required 3rd Class medical, just more expensive. What kind of a deal is that? MTV wrote:

.
Yes, the required exam issues are exactly the same as for a third class medical.
What's different you say that could change cost to you? There is no "standard fee" for this. Ever look at a medical bill BEFORE insurance got involved? Scary.

So, I am confused.
#1 Where are things now likely to go and what do we realistically want to see happen at this point?
#2 What can the average Joe, the grunts in the trenches, do to again contact their congressmen. What are we supposed to say?

The idea of PBR2 getting tied in with major FAA authorization in the house might be a great thing. Perfect way to get away from the last minute restrictions added in the senate - House ties in original language with major bill, more likely to get approval from Senate. Contact your representatives, EAA, and AOPA! Those that know someone - reach out!

The problem with PBR2 being lumped in with another bill ....
This is common practice, that's why a bill to fund more schools in Oregon might be added to a bill to fund a new freeway in Arkansas and both of them lumped in with a third bill-- this one to study the effects of the hole in the ozone (BTW is that still happening?) on the Okefenokee spotted swamp toad. Some Congressman who doesn't want to see good money spent studying that spotted toad (and rightly so) votes against the bill...and there goes PBR2 oops I mean the Arkansas freeway and the Oregon schools right down the drain.

I'd like to see the House address PBR2 as passed by the Senate. Period. And soon, while there's still some momentum left.

Hotrod180 wrote:

.
. Some Congressman who doesn't want to see good money spent studying that spotted toad (and rightly so) votes against the bill...and there goes PBR2 oops I mean the Arkansas freeway and the Oregon schools right down the drain.

I'd like to see the House address PBR2 as passed by the Senate. Period. And soon, while there's still some momentum left.

So, to play the devil's advocate, what happens if the current PBR2 ends up dying on the vine. ? Then what ?



#1 Does the FAA breathe a sigh of relief and go on business as usual, with no change period ?

#2 Does AOPA pick up the pieces and regroup?

#3 Do we all just give up? And what is the deal with ALPA's attitude towards GA?

LOL!!! Yep...my sentiments exactly!

Personally, I have resigned myself to say F'it...I highly doubt anything will improve for GA in the forseeable future. I predict nothing is going to change drastically in the last remaining years I will be flying. How's that for Hope and Change!! Gloom and doom...that's me!

I'm inclined to believe that it'll be back to the same old shit. I (foolishly) allowed my hopes to get up when PBR2 passed the Senate, but I should have known it was a false alarm. I hope I'll be proved wrong but at this point it seems doubtful.

I haven't heard boo from AOPA or anyone else re PBR2 being addressed by the House. Has anybody heard anything about this, or is PBR2 dead in the water?

I'm an ALPA member and they sent out an email today for it's members to oppose the measure, as it doesn't address some security needs that need to be addressed, and unregulated carriage of lithium batteries.

Our president also expressed that the relaxed medical requirements for GA would degrade safety.

.
akaAviator wrote:
I'm an ALPA member and they sent out an email today for it's members to oppose the measure, as it doesn't address some security needs that need to be addressed, and unregulated carriage of lithium batteries.
Our president also expressed that the relaxed medical requirements for GA would degrade safety..

Can anyone in the know post anything here re the current/latest ALPA position on this. I sort of vaguely recall that they were against it. I am not sure why?

If I talk to a legislator in the future, I want to be able to address the ALPA criticism re medical reform for GA. I am just curious

Of course, I believe strongly believe ALL commercial pilots should face mandatory retirement at age 39..... I mean it's all about safety don't you know.

akaviator wrote: I'm an ALPA member and they sent out an email today for it's members to oppose the measure, as it doesn't address some security needs that need to be addressed, and unregulated carriage of lithium batteries. Our president also expressed that the relaxed medical requirements for GA would degrade safety.

I don't know which measure he's talking about-- is the "third class medical reform" already rolled into a bill combined with security issues etc? I do recall that AOPA management came out against PBR2 quite a while ago, and that there was a lot of talk by airline pilots who also flew GA about how that position didn't represent their feelings and that they were gonna write management & tell them to shut up.

I have been a member of the Sheet Metal Workers union all my life, and am still a retiree member for their health plan, and I know that both our local and national management has come out with positions that didn't even come close to reflecting the average member's opinions.

hotrod180 wrote:..........and that there was a lot of talk by airline pilots who also flew GA about how that position didn't represent their feelings and that they were gonna write management & tell them to shut up...

Those who have written such letters are sorely mistaken about the inner workings of today's pilot associations.

This is an excerpt from the union's view:

"...the proposed legislation actually degrades safety by undercutting the existing regulations regarding medical certification for general aviation pilots."

I highly doubt that the majority of the folks I fly with would agree with that statement. Regarding political issues most of us don't line up with their viewpoints.

And yet they are fully funded and staffed and write statements on behalf (and in full representation) of their membership.
ALPA's pen is powerful. That one group with an agenda is manifesting every single members public opinion.

ALPA says: GA = Bad bunch of crooks and unprofessional amateurs, no better than a trunk full of medically incapacitated time-bombs.
Applying general logic and sentiment on display elsewhere: Membership in ALPA is destructive to General Aviation.

H.B 4441, FAA Reauthorization Act (Including PBOR-2)

In section 417 the bill covers 3rd class medical reform, pretty much in the original "drivers license" proposal form, before the Senate rewrote it.

H.B 4441, FAA Reauthorization Act (Including PBOR-2)

192
SEC. 417. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL
1
AIRCRAFT PILOTS.
2
(a) I
N
G
ENERAL
.—Not later than 180 days after the
3
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
4
Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise med-
5
ical certificate regulations to ensure that an individual
6
may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
7
without regard to any medical certificate or proof of health
8
requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if—
9
(1) the individual possesses a valid driver’s li-
10
cense issued by a State, the District of Columbia, or...

http://transportation.house.gov/uploade ... t_text.pdf scroll down to page 192 for the rest.