mtv wrote:

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

I don't know Mike, you and I didn't have to go through that and we share the sky just fine. Profile those who need profiled and move on.

It would be nice if we could move past the crippling fear of 9/11. We waste a lot of effort there in my opinion. Go ahead and pull a box cutter on a flight today and see how long it takes to get pummeled beyond recognition. About 30 seconds would be my guess.

The only medical reform we are going to see is whatever can be done to make the task more arduous.

I hope none of you ALPA folks plan on doing any recreational flying when your company squeezes you out when you get too old.

Just read a thing on my weekly AOPA newsletter-- "medical reform" has been rolled into a larger more comprehensive piece of legislation that includes user fees and privatizing ATC. So a vote against either of those is also a vote against medical reform. Likewise, a vote for medical reform is also a vote for user fees and ATC privatization. This is the problem with rolling everything into one big bill. I think each of these issues should have its own bill, and be decided on it's own merits-- but that's not how Congress rolls

jjbaker wrote:....Applying general logic and sentiment on display elsewhere: Membership in ALPA is destructive to General Aviation.

gbflyer wrote: ...I hope none of you ALPA folks plan on doing any recreational flying when your company squeezes you out when you get too old.

Don't throw rocks at someone just because they're an ALPA member. Do you expect them to quit the union, and therefor their job over this? First of all, usually union membership is mandatory if you work at a union shop. Secondly, the benefits of membership (collective bargaining, in other words $$$) may outweigh the drawbacks such as this political position.

Look at elected officials-- maybe they agree with your stand on <insert controversial issue>, but disagree with your stand on <insert controversial issue>. (take your pick-- abortion, gun control user fees, medical reform, illegal immigration, whatever). I doubt I can find any politician who agrees with my particular mix of political stands. Ipick the one who comes closest or is an acceptable compromise.

I don't expect them to quit their jobs and lose their livelihoods over this issue, all people have to make a living. What I would expect, or at least hope for, is that those who feel that the ALPA position on 3rd Class Medical Reform is wrong to make that position known to their leadership loudly and encourage all colleagues that feel the same way to do the same. To sit quietly while the union they're a member of takes a position to defeat a reform effort they individually support makes them complicit in my humble opinion.

If a critical mass were reached it is possible that ALPA would change that position.

Just one little guys opinion and I am not currently at any risk of failing my next third class medical evaluation.

Frank

I didn't. I would imagine the lions share of them could care less about flying post-airline. That's why they side against GA at every turn. Hopefully those that do like flying will speak up.

Here is a nice video on the AOPA website posted on the February 3, 2016. Nice overview re the medical issue and user fees as well in the video.

Link:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2016/February/03/Details-of-long-awaited-FAA-reauthorization-bill-revealed?WT.mc_id=160205epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

I'm ALPA, AOPA, and USA...not in that order. ALPA speaks for me regarding airline issues only, and why national came out against the medical reform is beyond me. Like a lot of union leadership they have opinions that the majority of the memberships may not even agree with.

A lot of us love to fly and are NOT down on GA in any way, form, or fashion!

ANYTHING we can do to help GA in America is desperately needed. I agree that lumping medical reform in with ATC privatization makes no sense. I will be writing national and sharing my opinion on this subject.

As the great philosopher Red Green says, We're all in this together.

hotrod180 wrote:

jjbaker wrote:....Applying general logic and sentiment on display elsewhere: Membership in ALPA is destructive to General Aviation.

gbflyer wrote: ...I hope none of you ALPA folks plan on doing any recreational flying when your company squeezes you out when you get too old.

Don't throw rocks at someone just because they're an ALPA member. Do you expect them to quit the union, and therefor their job over this? First of all, usually union membership is mandatory if you work at a union shop. Secondly, the benefits of membership (collective bargaining, in other words $$$) may outweigh the drawbacks such as this political position.

Look at elected officials-- maybe they agree with your stand on <insert controversial issue>, but disagree with your stand on <insert controversial issue>. (take your pick-- abortion, gun control user fees, medical reform, illegal immigration, whatever). I doubt I can find any politician who agrees with my particular mix of political stands. Ipick the one who comes closest or is an acceptable compromise.

Thank you. Well stated.

Hotrod 180

ALPA union shop can NOT require you to be a member only to pay dues. Quitting ALPA would take real cajones.

flyer

I'm an ALPA member and also a GA enthusiast. Many of my fellow ALPA members are also very involved with GA. Many of us, myself included, wrote national leadership expressing our opposition to their position on medical reform. I'm also very opposed to ATC privatization. I know how their "non profit" corporation, chaired by airline executives, will justify fee for use that will cripple GA. I would venture a guess that most of the folks on here who consistently bash professional pilots have never really known one of us. Maybe you ran into one blowhard at the local airport that nobody at the airline likes either. Hey, there's probably one of those in your profession too but that doesn't mean I'm going to lump you into that same pile of shit.

....Applying general logic and sentiment on display elsewhere: Membership in ALPA is destructive to General Aviation.

Alright. Didn't know that this sentence could possible be perceived as throwing rocks, but oh well.

As one of those "unprofessional amateur pilots" who knows real airline pilots only from television and wet dreams at night, I still wonder if ALPA (as in: the association which claims to represent its body of members opinions) ever corrected its statements after the alleged response from its GA-loving membership body? If so, where was the official apology and clarification to Chief Übercaptain Canolls sick-twisted little attack on General Aviation published?

Did actual members of ALPA ever get any response to their complaints and concerns about ALPA's positioning?

Thanks akaviator and Mr. Ed for your support of GA. I hope you're able to continue to try to educate your association.

"Did actual members of ALPA ever get any response to their complaints and concerns about ALPA's positioning?"

The answer is yes. Enough of the membership wrote that it elicited a response from national leadership. Unfortunately, the response was not what we wanted to hear.

The allegation that anyone who continues membership in ALPA is, by default, in support of everything they do or say is utter hogwash. It's akin to stating that if you don't like the direction the country is moving in then why haven't you renounced your citizenship and gotten the hell out. Moronic.

jjbaker, your posts are very revealing, about you.

Mr. Ed wrote:"....The allegation that anyone who continues membership in ALPA is, by default, in support of everything they do or say is utter hogwash. It's akin to stating that if you don't like the direction the country is moving in then why haven't you renounced your citizenship and gotten the hell out. .....

x2.

The allegation that anyone who continues membership in ALPA is, by default, in support of everything they do or say is utter hogwash. It's akin to stating that if you don't like the direction the country is moving in then why haven't you renounced your citizenship and gotten the hell out. Moronic....

Mr. Ed - that isn't what I stated (and I don't believe it's what gbflyer stated, either), it was read into both partial post snip-lets quoted above. Taking someones post out of context just to inject aggressiveness or to single certain members out isn't something new.

Applying general logic and sentiment on display elsewhere: Membership in ALPA is destructive to General Aviation.

Factual seems that ALPA has positioned itself in very strong opposition of general aviation in the United States. Another fact appears to be, that many members of quite a few associations do not agree with "headquarters/ corporate" decisions and statements and find themselves unable to change the course. Not from within the association, nor from the outside.

Look at the EAA's recent Young Eagles Drama, or AOPA's Wine Club, or a multitude of other associations who have lost tons of members in response to being out of touch with those who pay the bills. It would be some idea to find out where the membership stands, prior to talking on its behalf on such a level. No?

Whats revealing is that an association is (1) capable to do such a thing, above and beyond the heads of its membership body, (2) get challenged about it but then continue on its course, as if it's members were considered servants/ employees and; (3) find enough people to subscribe and excuse the behavior afterwards.

PBoR2 seems to be a dead fish swimming belly up and has now successfully been mixed with the user fee and ATC privatization topic.
I must admit that I am watching the ATC privatization discussions with some amusement, living in one of the countries which have effectively eradicated meaningful general aviation, due to the bureaucratic hassles and costs involved after going this path.

Thank you for clarifying that ALPA responded to its members concerns. It certainly did a superb job not responding to others.
What I find surprising is that the general aviation community would cut its nose of and fight each other to death on semantics, rather than coming up with ideas on how to change this inverted flat spin into something halfway controllable.

We seem to be waiting for some magic leader to appear to pull it all around...

jjbaker wrote: ...Thank you for clarifying that ALPA responded to its members concerns. It certainly did a superb job not responding to others......

While I certainly don't agree with the stand ALPA's leadership took re medical reform, and don't undertstand why they took it, I must point out that the only people ALPA owes an explanation to is it's members.

hotrod180 wrote:

jjbaker wrote: ...Thank you for clarifying that ALPA responded to its members concerns. It certainly did a superb job not responding to others......

While I certainly don't agree with the stand ALPA's leadership took re medical reform, and don't undertstand why they took it, I must point out that the only people ALPA owes an explanation to is it's members.

x2

gbflyer wrote:It would be nice if we could move past the crippling fear of 9/11.

I cannot think of any credible reason why a CFI should not be able to issue a student license on the spot if they present the required documentation or get a non-citizen waiver (which I also think is a completely useless idea). All this talk about proper vetting of applicants is 99.99% BS and .001% HS. It will improve the safety of the skies about as much as regular proctological exams would.

The new process means the creation and further of more unaccountable secret lists and secret exclusion criteria to inflict on innocent people. It likely means the end of the 16th birthday solo tradition. It means pointless delays with zero measurable benefits to aviation or the general public.

Even if an applicant were found to be ineligible to learn to fly with this new scrutiny, I submit it is still bad law because the very premise that a person should be selectively restricted from gaining knowledge about anything in this country itself means things have gone sideways. I can't think of any other category in the pursuit of knowledge and personal endeavor where a law abiding citizen or a resident is expressly prohibited from peaceful pursuits, particularly one based on secret criteria.

If a person is denied a student pilot license, what recourse will there be with the TSA? Answer: there is none:

http://www.noflylistcheck.org/

"Unfortunately, there is still no full recourse for the innocent."

Even the federal courts have declared the process is unconstitutional:
http://media.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/other/NoFlyOpinion.pdf

Does anyone believe it is a good idea to let the TSA decide who gets to learn to fly?

Well said lesuther.

Even though we are talking about a government operation, it seems like the State Dept. would be doing homework on folks who come over here to get flight training when they apply for a VISA? Don't we suppose that their names get run through DHS then? Now, we make the CFI responsible to do it again? Seems like yet another example of assigning blame after the fact rather than dealing head on with the problem.

I wonder if the DHS has a jacket on every foreign pilot operating transport category aircraft into the US? My bet is no. Hell, let's pick on those guys while we're at it.

.
...it seems this has been going on forever... I got this in an email. So where do things stand now... as of mid-March 2016, and what, if anything, are we supposed to do ? Should I again call and write to my Congressional Representatives & Senators?

.
March 9, 2016

By Elizabeth A Tennyson

The Senate Commerce Committee has unveiled its own version of FAA reauthorization legislation, which it plans to mark up on March 16.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 (S. 2658) was introduced March 9 and would authorize FAA funding for approximately 18 months through September 2017. The bill contains third class medical reform language that passed the Senate in December but does not include user fees for general aviation, instead relying on the current system of excise taxes on fuel. In addition, the legislation would authorize annual increases in Airport Improvement Program funding, streamline certification for light GA aircraft, support a transition to unleaded aviation fuel, and make it easier to install modern safety equipment in legacy aircraft.

“This bill includes meaningful reforms that the general aviation community wants and needs—especially changes to the third class medical and the aircraft certification process,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) has been a strong supporter of general aviation and we hope the Senate will move quickly to pass this legislation, which could save general aviation pilots hundreds of millions of dollars, improve general aviation safety, and strengthen the GA industry.”