Congress Passes A Bill To Help Pilots Rights

Here's the bill text in case anyone is interested in reading it: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1335/text

And here's a link to Senator Inhoefe's press release from yesterday: http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/ind...ecord_id=b5ce828c-0604-543d-2ef9-dae42342dd33

One highlight: "The FAA’s medical certification process has long been known to present a multitude of problems for pilots seeking an airman certificate. The bill requires a GAO review of the FAA’s medical certification process and forms, with the goal of demonstrating how the FAA can provide greater clarity in the questions and reduce the instances of misinterpretation that have, in the past, lead to allegations of intentional falsification against pilots. Non-profit general aviation groups will make up an advisory panel, which will give advice to the FAA on how the medical certification process can be improved. The FAA is required to take appropriate action on the GAO recommendations within one year."
 
Too bad Senator Inhofe's staff doesn't know how to spell "led." :rolleyes:
 
Palmpilot said:
Too bad Senator Inhofe's staff doesn't know how to spell "led." :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's a common error that I still make. However, I attribute it to lead poisoning from an unfortunate incident in my youth (in which I tried to light a barometer with LEDs,) which has now led to spelling errors that I hope doesn't lead to a medical denial.

Anywho - hopefully da prez signs da bill.
 
"You will reap what you sow."

I hope the FAA gets it now. It has long been a thorn in my side that if you flunk your medical you can never fly anything again. If , with he same malady that kept you from passing your medical, allow your medical to lapse you can fly LSA. This make no sense at all. Not sure if this will change with the new law, but it should. :no:

Government should be working for the people. :mad2:
 
Geico266 said:
"You will reap what you sow."

I hope the FAA gets it now. It has long been a thorn in my side that if you flunk your medical you can never fly anything again.
Click to expand...

Nit:

That's true only for Sport Pilot, not Glider, part 103 or probably a couple other things.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Nit:

That's true only for Sport Pilot, not Glider, part 103 or probably a couple other things.
Click to expand...

True, I forgot about the loop hole with self launch gliders, & Part 103.

But you missed my point, you should be able to fly light sport if you fail your medical. If you let it lapse and fly LSA you would still have the same condition that caused you to fail your medical in the first place. That makes no sense. Why would sport pilot not be included?

Pipistrel's self launch sure looks like an LSA to me. ;)

http://pipistrel-usa.com/
 
Last edited:
Inhofe may be an idiot, but he is our idiot so all is well.
 
Geico266 said:
"You will reap what you sow."

I hope the FAA gets it now. It has long been a thorn in my side that if you flunk your medical you can never fly anything again. If , with he same malady that kept you from passing your medical, allow your medical to lapse you can fly LSA. This make no sense at all. Not sure if this will change with the new law, but it should. :no:

Government should be working for the people. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Is it true that the FAA has a policy to allow pilots with narcolepsy known to the agency to be sever enough to render them incapable of flying a Cessna 152 but still fly a Cessna 162? I rest my case.

The FAA can plead ignorant if they don't already know about a medical condition.

The point of LSA wasn't to let folks with medical issues fly. But it seems they're saying, fine go fly if you want, don't tell us about it.
 
bartmc said:
I found it kind of interesting that on the message boards people were umm.. silent on is "Red X sky hop, taxiway takeoff" incident.
Click to expand...

Depends on whether it is relevant to the contents of the legislation, eh?
 
bartmc said:
I found it kind of interesting that on the message boards people were umm.. silent on is "Red X sky hop, taxiway takeoff" incident.
Click to expand...

search for the threads about that incident, i don't recall much silence about it
 
I have not read the bill, however, I have a hunch that most pilots will find little or nothing will actually change. When Congress "helps" an endeavor that is usually associated with white rich guys, it is probably nothing more than lip service in order to gain favor, and hopefully, votes.

I doubt if the FAA will be falling all over itself to implement anything that might alter it's ingrained regulations, policy, or culture of the organization.

In other words, don't hold your breath while you are quivering with anticipation.

-John
 
Geico266 said:
True, I forgot about the loop hole with self launch gliders, & Part 103.

But you missed my point, you should be able to fly light sport if you fail your medical. If you let it lapse and fly LSA you would still have the same condition that caused you to fail your medical in the first place. That makes no sense. Why would sport pilot not be included?

Pipistrel's self launch sure looks like an LSA to me. ;)

http://pipistrel-usa.com/
Click to expand...

I got your point. I was just picking a couple nits.

Look at the Stemme - performance is too high for LSA, but it is a self-launch glider so you can fly that if you fail your medical (and have enough bucks).

The FAA rules are designed to cover the FAA's ass. Period.
 
John Baker said:
I have not read the bill, however, I have a hunch that most pilots will find little or nothing will actually change. When Congress "helps" an endeavor that is usually associated with white rich guys, it is probably nothing more than lip service in order to gain favor, and hopefully, votes.

I doubt if the FAA will be falling all over itself to implement anything that might alter it's ingrained regulations, policy, or culture of the organization.

In other words, don't hold your breath while you are quivering with anticipation.

-John
Click to expand...

The people within the FAA whose daily operations would be affected appear to be the chief counsel and minions. Would be odd indeed for them not to change their operations, since lawyer types tend to live and breathe conformance to the letter of the statutes, whatever they say.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I got your point. I was just picking a couple nits.

Look at the Stemme - performance is too high for LSA, but it is a self-launch glider so you can fly that if you fail your medical (and have enough bucks).

The FAA rules are designed to cover the FAA's ass. Period.
Click to expand...

I have nits? :confused: :rofl:



Take a look at the Pipistrel Virus (veeris). It has a 30-1 glide ratio for less $$$.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The people within the FAA whose daily operations would be affected appear to be the chief counsel and minions. Would be odd indeed for them not to change their operations, since lawyer types tend to live and breathe conformance to the letter of the statutes, whatever they say.
Click to expand...

This will also be of help when the inspectors get out of line. I have has several run ins with over zellous FAA types. Got one fired a few years ago by going to the regional director. They don't like bullies anymore. :no:
 
bartmc said:
I found it kind of interesting that on the message boards people were umm.. silent on is "Red X sky hop, taxiway takeoff" incident.
Click to expand...

Is that different from the occasion when he landed on a closed runway with workers on it. When challenged his reply was that getting a briefing is too complicated and that a person as important as him cannot be expected to spend time on briefings :eek: .
 
> It has long been a thorn in my side that if you flunk your medical you can
> never fly anything again.

I believe that Bruce C. disagrees with your interpretation re: Gliders, LTA
and Part 103.

When I was denied (PVCs), my cardiologist (a pilot) said that I was healthy
enough to fly (motor) gliders by exercising the self-certification guideline ...
because his diagnosis was, "No increased risk of sudden incapacitation." He
had more than the usual interest; as my girlfriend, was his daughter and we
did a few trips in a Grob 109.

Bless his Board Certified heart.
 
Last edited:
glider pilots are bound by the same regs that everyone is bound to, which is that if you have or have reason to believe that you are medically unfit to fly then you are required to self-ground. we just don't have to do the dr. visit every now and then to get the piece of paper. so if you've been denied an FAA medical you have reason to believe that you are medically unfit to fly and it would be likely illegal and most definitely irresponsible to continue flying a glider without doing anything about the condition. a denial is not a defacto grounding though like it is with LSA.
 
rainsux said:
>
When I was denied (PVCs), my cardiologist (a pilot) said that I was healthy
enough to fly (motor) gliders by exercising the self-certification guideline. He
had more than the usual interest; as my girlfriend, was his daughter.

"Healthy enough" = No increased risk of sudden incapacitation. Bless his
Board Certified heart.
Click to expand...

I would assume he had the same opinion about you driving his daughter around in a car.
 
> I would assume he had the same opinion about you driving his daughter
> around in a car.

Transporting his daughter by auto and Grob 109 were both fine with him.
He even blessed other, um, blush, activities that typically raise the heart
rate. <g>

Sadly; he never offered me the keys to his C90.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
That's a common error that I still make. However, I attribute it to lead poisoning from an unfortunate incident in my youth (in which I tried to light a barometer with LEDs,) which has now led to spelling errors that I hope doesn't lead to a medical denial.
Click to expand...

English is a tough language to spell correctly, so we Internet posters can be forgiven for not always getting it right, IMO, but Senate staffers writing press releases represent their senators to the world, and should be careful about it.
 
I am curious, what was the last thing Congress passed that helped aviation? Liability reform in the 90's? :dunno:
I hope it helps, but from my short 48 years on earth, not much good has come from congress. :no:
 
N747JB said:
I am curious, what was the last thing Congress passed that helped aviation? Liability reform in the 90's? :dunno:
I hope it helps, but from my short 48 years on earth, not much good has come from congress. :no:
Click to expand...
The Transportation Bill last year.

http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=258659
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – Included in the legislation is $12.6 billion for the FAA, an increase of $233 million over last year and $485 million below the President’s request. The bill fully funds the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), allowing the FAA to move forward with the next step in modernizing the nation’s air control and airport system, which will help ease congestion and reduce delays for travelers in U.S. airspace.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call deploying 1990s data technology over RF as "modernizing" really.

"Playing catch-up and ending up twenty years behind when it's completed" might be a more appropriate way to describe NexGen as it currently stands.

Not saying its not needed, but "modern" would be something that utilizes 4th Gen RF data technology, along the lines of just about anything that utilizes RF technology common in millions of cell phones.

Low speed data links and transponder squitters aren't "modern" in the data comm world at all. Ancient.
 
I'm always amused by names like NexGen. When it comes time to replace it, will they change the name to LasGen? Or will its replacement be called NexNexGen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top