PBOR2 Changes?

[JeffDG]

I don't think this removes the language that if your last medical was denied, you can't fly.

It solves the Catch-22 the other way.

Now you have a pilot with, say, ADHD. He can not get a medical and fly on his DL. Or if he goes to get a medical and is denied so he can't use his DL medical.

With this, no choice. You have to go for that first medical.

 

[azure]

It solves the Catch-22 the other way.

Now you have a pilot with, say, ADHD. He can not get a medical and fly on his DL. Or if he goes to get a medical and is denied so he can't use his DL medical.

With this, no choice. You have to go for that first medical.

Where it does help with the Catch-22 is that if you hold a medical, go in to renew and are denied, then you aren't automatically screwed. As long as it isn't an SI that they withdraw before it expires (or is otherwise revoked or suspended), you've satisfied the requirement of holding a medical at one time. If the condition is one that affects safety, then you have to be under a doctor's care, and presumably the doctor has to agree that you are safe to fly before you can fly. And you will have to certify to that effect after your next medical education course. But assuming you and your doctor agree you're safe, and it's not one of the conditions that still require an SI, you can go fly on your DL, denial notwithstanding.

What I'm wondering now is, can an amendment with the same wording be attached to a different bill before being voted on as an amendment to H.R. 22? Or are they stuck now? If they're stuck, it seems like they took a hail mary gamble with this thing, especially since there were several avenues open to get a highway extension before the recess.

 

[Neil Rubin]

Where it does help with the Catch-22 is that if you hold a medical, go in to renew and are denied, then you aren't automatically screwed. As long as it isn't an SI that they withdraw before it expires (or is otherwise revoked or suspended), you've satisfied the requirement of holding a medical at one time. If the condition is one that affects safety, then you have to be under a doctor's care, and presumably the doctor has to agree that you are safe to fly before you can fly. And you will have to certify to that effect after your next medical education course. But assuming you and your doctor agree you're safe, and it's not one of the conditions that still require an SI, you can go fly on your DL, denial notwithstanding.

What I'm wondering now is, can an amendment with the same wording be attached to a different bill before being voted on as an amendment to H.R. 22? Or are they stuck now? If they're stuck, it seems like they took a hail mary gamble with this thing, especially since there were several avenues open to get a highway extension before the recess.

The Senate passed H.R. 22 on July 30, without the PBOR2 amendment. So that route is closed. But there is no reason that the same amendment can't be added to a whole bunch of different pending bills. So, I don't see how they really lost anything by trying to include the PBOR2 in the highway bill. Try a bunch of different ways to get it passed, and hopefully one will work.

 

[Neil Rubin]

It solves the Catch-22 the other way.

Now you have a pilot with, say, ADHD. He can not get a medical and fly on his DL. Or if he goes to get a medical and is denied so he can't use his DL medical.

With this, no choice. You have to go for that first medical.

What you say is true if the pilot with ADHD wants to take advantage of this exemption (e.g., to fly a six-seat, 6,000-pound plane up to 18,000 feet).

If that pilot is happy flying with sport pilot privileges, there is nothing in this draft of the PBOR2 that would prevent them from flying under the current sport pilot DL medical provisions.

 

[jimson]

Turd of a compromise. If this has the potential to change requirements for sport, I think I'll reverse course and ask my senators to reject this.

 

[Rigged4Flight]

The Senate passed H.R. 22 on July 30, without the PBOR2 amendment. So that route is closed. But there is no reason that the same amendment can't be added to a whole bunch of different pending bills. So, I don't see how they really lost anything by trying to include the PBOR2 in the highway bill. Try a bunch of different ways to get it passed, and hopefully one will work.

That's basically the current strategy, outlined in this video.

http://bit.ly/1VRmdgy

 

[Henning]

This really isn't that bad for future generations depending on how you look at it and who you are.

Basically, it doesn't help the 70-80 year old guys who've been out for 20 years or people who've never been able to obtain medical at all.

But for future generations, it's pretty inclusive of anyone who will eventually lose the ability to get a medical. That will end up being the majority of people eventually.

It is NOT inclusive of hose who are never able to obtain a medical, and that was what mental issues/ADD/ADHD crowd was hoping for.

 

[denverpilot]

So isn't all this moot now that Congress is in recess? DOA again.

 

[Neil Rubin]

Turd of a compromise. If this has the potential to change requirements for sport, I think I'll reverse course and ask my senators to reject this.

I really don't see how this would change requirements for sport (i.e., make them more restrictive). It says the FAA has to let people who meet the listed criteria fly. It doesn't say that the FAA has to make any changes--more restrictive or less--for people who don't meet those listed criteria, be they airline captains or sport pilots flying gliders.

There is also nothing that would prevent the FAA from making rules that are looser than the criteria listed in the statute. For example, if the FAA wanted to make it apply to people who had the medical education course within the last 5 years, rather than 2 years, or to allow people to fly at 300 knots, rather than 250 knots, nothing in this draft statute would prohibit the FAA from doing that. The FAA just couldn't make it 1 year or 100 knots.

In fact, the FAA could abolish the third class medical certificate requirement for private pilots without violating anything in this draft statute. Not likely for various reasons, but the FAA could legally do it.

I think it would be a real shame if no reform of medical requirements happened at all, because folks were afraid because of non-existent threats to sport pilots.

 

[txflyer]

I guess it's progress with a serving of cold cuts to anyone who can't pass a 3rd class medical if the requirements aren't already met.

Right now I'm not seeing how it will bring any new flyers to the GA table, but I could be missing a bigger picture perhaps.

Anything to do away with the third class workup and stop that stupid routine can't be all bad unless you're ineligible now, and you're hoping for a complete drop of the rules to a DL requirement.

 

[NJP_MAN]

If you can get a DL then just go fly. Its a shame for the people who can't train and earn a Private Certificate but they should just fly too.



Disclaimer: not serious though. Kinda serious. But really I don't mean any of it.

 

[jimson]

I really don't see how this would change requirements for sport (i.e., make them more restrictive). It says the FAA has to let people who meet the listed criteria fly. It doesn't say that the FAA has to make any changes--more restrictive or less--for people who don't meet those listed criteria, be they airline captains or sport pilots flying gliders.

There is also nothing that would prevent the FAA from making rules that are looser than the criteria listed in the statute. For example, if the FAA wanted to make it apply to people who had the medical education course within the last 5 years, rather than 2 years, or to allow people to fly at 300 knots, rather than 250 knots, nothing in this draft statute would prohibit the FAA from doing that. The FAA just couldn't make it 1 year or 100 knots.

In fact, the FAA could abolish the third class medical certificate requirement for private pilots without violating anything in this draft statute. Not likely for various reasons, but the FAA could legally do it.

I think it would be a real shame if no reform of medical requirements happened at all, because folks were afraid because of non-existent threats to sport pilots.

I was referring to this post.

Pretty much, however it is worded so poorly, that as a Sport Pilot it should concern you since there can be some ugly implications for you inferred.

I still think it is a turd of a compromise, but as long as it doesn't affect sport pilot I am indifferent.