Any 3rd class rules update?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
Brad Z
Final Approach
Actively working on it.
azure
Final Approach
365, for practical purposes. Only after that long can they not take enforcement action against a pilot who makes a good faith effort to follow the criteria in the bill (excepting only the online course).
Brad Z
Final Approach
Believe it or not, there's a fair amount of work taking place behind the scenes at FAA HQ since the summer.
A couple things to look out for:
1) In order to prevent the rule to go out as a NPRM rather than a final rule, the FAA rule has to be EXACTLY as written by the legislation without any interpretation. Problem is the legislation wasn't written by folks familiar with FAA rule making, so there are some inadvertent and mostly insignificant flaws that will get carried over to the regulations. If you read the law closely, you'll note a few odd things:
--relief is only good for those acting as PIC, so a safety pilot who is not acting as PIC (but is a required crew member when the PIC is wearing a view limiting device) must hold a medical (or be agree and be able to act as PIC).
--Inconsistent use of months and calendar months (24 calendar months for medical education course, 48 months for medical exam)
--Inability to use relief when flying a light sport aircraft when using exercising higher-than-sport-pilot privileges (i.e. at night, under IFR) because the law specifies a maximum certificated takeoff weight, which does not exist for LSAs (LSAs are authorized under a Special Light Sport Aircraft certification category that adhere to an ASTM standard, but do not have certificate maximum weight like a part 23 certificated aircraft).
There are a few other things too, which escape me at the moment. At some point after the rule is published I expect another rule go out to clean up this minor issues. Either way, I don't think it is necessary for the FAA to fix it now if it means going out for public comment (and triggering an additional internal DOT review process).
2) The FAA's goal is to get this published in January. Because there's a pretty major change in the executive branch there will likely be a halt to new regulations until the incoming administration can review it. I'm not certain that the legislative directive will make a difference in this case, but it is a potential delay.
A couple things to look out for:
1) In order to prevent the rule to go out as a NPRM rather than a final rule, the FAA rule has to be EXACTLY as written by the legislation without any interpretation. Problem is the legislation wasn't written by folks familiar with FAA rule making, so there are some inadvertent and mostly insignificant flaws that will get carried over to the regulations. If you read the law closely, you'll note a few odd things:
--relief is only good for those acting as PIC, so a safety pilot who is not acting as PIC (but is a required crew member when the PIC is wearing a view limiting device) must hold a medical (or be agree and be able to act as PIC).
--Inconsistent use of months and calendar months (24 calendar months for medical education course, 48 months for medical exam)
--Inability to use relief when flying a light sport aircraft when using exercising higher-than-sport-pilot privileges (i.e. at night, under IFR) because the law specifies a maximum certificated takeoff weight, which does not exist for LSAs (LSAs are authorized under a Special Light Sport Aircraft certification category that adhere to an ASTM standard, but do not have certificate maximum weight like a part 23 certificated aircraft).
There are a few other things too, which escape me at the moment. At some point after the rule is published I expect another rule go out to clean up this minor issues. Either way, I don't think it is necessary for the FAA to fix it now if it means going out for public comment (and triggering an additional internal DOT review process).
2) The FAA's goal is to get this published in January. Because there's a pretty major change in the executive branch there will likely be a halt to new regulations until the incoming administration can review it. I'm not certain that the legislative directive will make a difference in this case, but it is a potential delay.
Yep, the "new regulation" moratorium has hit us before. It remains to be seen if that Trump card gets pulled this time.
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell it's going to direct to final. This is a major change (as Brad points out the act isn't strong enough to stand on its own to replace the existing regulation). There's still likely to be some quibbling from some of the special interests and other gadflies (and I'm sorry to say, Dr. Bruce, the AMA is likely going to be one) on any such "interpretation" of the intent of the law the FAA does.
It would be interesting to see what the regime change brings us at the Secy of Trans level.
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell it's going to direct to final. This is a major change (as Brad points out the act isn't strong enough to stand on its own to replace the existing regulation). There's still likely to be some quibbling from some of the special interests and other gadflies (and I'm sorry to say, Dr. Bruce, the AMA is likely going to be one) on any such "interpretation" of the intent of the law the FAA does.
It would be interesting to see what the regime change brings us at the Secy of Trans level.
Morgan3820
En-Route
[\Quote]
It would be interesting to see what the regime change brings us at the Secy of Trans level.[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed. I was wondering could Huerta have to go get another job? Is his position appointed or career?
It would be interesting to see what the regime change brings us at the Secy of Trans level.[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed. I was wondering could Huerta have to go get another job? Is his position appointed or career?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The FAA Web site says that Huerta was sworn in for a five year term on January 7, 2013.
https://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/huerta/
SkyDog58
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2015
- Messages
- 14,601
- Location
- My own special place.
- Display Name
Display name:
Canis Non Grata
Administrator Huerta most likely will survive. Secretary Fox will be gone.
Brad Z
Final Approach
Direct final wouldn't apply here; that's intended for minor administrative fixes to existing rules. It will likely go interim final rule with the justification that the rule is a legislative directive. Adverse comments won't stop the rule from being published as drafted from the law.
Actually, DFR is used for more than minor administrative fixes (in fact, there's an even briefer procedure for that). But I agree DFR is not likely to be used here (I'm not even sure IFR is appropriate).
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I received the following in the FAA's "FAAST Blast" email last night:
There's also an article about it in the current issue of the FAA Safety Briefing magazine. (See attachment.) Among other things, the article says "In the unlikely event that the FAA is unable to issue rules by July 15, 2017, the FAA would be precluded from taking enforcement action against airmen who are complying with the new process as outlined in the law. But the FAA has confidence it will be able to publish final regulations in the Federal Register long before that date." [Emphasis added]
FAA Making Progress on New Pilot Medical Qualifications
The FAA is working to implement Section 2307 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190), Medical Certification of Certain Small Aircraft Pilots. In the Act, Congress outlined an alternative medical qualification in lieu of holding an FAA medical certificate. The FAA must draft rules to meet the Congressional mandate. We have reached out to the general aviation community, including groups which have expressed a desire to partner with the FAA during the implementation. We look forward to working with them to successfully implement the provisions of Section 2307 on time.
The FAA is working to implement Section 2307 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-190), Medical Certification of Certain Small Aircraft Pilots. In the Act, Congress outlined an alternative medical qualification in lieu of holding an FAA medical certificate. The FAA must draft rules to meet the Congressional mandate. We have reached out to the general aviation community, including groups which have expressed a desire to partner with the FAA during the implementation. We look forward to working with them to successfully implement the provisions of Section 2307 on time.
There's also an article about it in the current issue of the FAA Safety Briefing magazine. (See attachment.) Among other things, the article says "In the unlikely event that the FAA is unable to issue rules by July 15, 2017, the FAA would be precluded from taking enforcement action against airmen who are complying with the new process as outlined in the law. But the FAA has confidence it will be able to publish final regulations in the Federal Register long before that date." [Emphasis added]
But that doesn't mean it won't publish other things earlier.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I didn't mean to imply that it did.