Pilot's Bill of Rights Change

TMetzinger said:
You'd think so. But if your logic was correct, why haven't we managed to roll back the laws many of us do not like?
Click to expand...

Laws are not rolled back. Ever. But pols pay for their mistakes sometimes, crats never do.
 
TomHaines said:
Lots to be worked out yet, but there is some speculation that a student would have to get a medical certificate once and then could let it expire.
Click to expand...

It is considered an extension of the Sport Pilot rules. And student Sport Pilots do not need to get a 3rd class medical. They simply need to have never failed to pass a medical.
 
docmirror said:
Laws are not rolled back. Ever. But pols pay for their mistakes sometimes, crats never do.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of Prohibition? Ever hear of emancipation? Laws are routinely rolled back.
 
Being a true-Blue Liberal (which is rare in aviation apparently), it's tough to pull for Inhofe but I think I can set aside my differences...
 
AuntPeggy said:
Ever hear of Prohibition? Ever hear of emancipation? Laws are routinely rolled back.
Click to expand...

Wow, you got two examples. I'll give one more from a recent thread, the lux tax was rolled back. Now we've got -- three, if you count emancipation. Routine? pfft, qualifies as never. How big is the federal register now? Last I heard was over half a million pages.
 
DJTorrente said:
Above 14k all crew require supplemental oxygen. I can see that as a rational (and pre-existing) dividing line where we start to take a greater interest in the physiology of the pilot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that does make sense.

I'd rather see 18k, but if this passes I will be thrilled to death!

-Dan
 
docmirror said:
Wow, you got two examples. I'll give one more from a recent thread, the lux tax was rolled back. Now we've got -- three, if you count emancipation. Routine? pfft, qualifies as never. How big is the federal register now? Last I heard was over half a million pages.
Click to expand...

They are about to roll-back the prohibition against public breast feeding in my state - via another law that changes it....
 
With FAA already breaking Federal Law on releasing pilot's private information after Congress said no, and FAA already breaking Federal Law by not putting photos on pilot certificate cards...

... what's to stop them from completely ignoring this Congressional mandate too, if passed?

Methinks folks truly believe Congress has control of the government at this point.

Which is, somewhat laughable.
 
denverpilot said:
With FAA already breaking Federal Law on releasing pilot's private information after Congress said no, and FAA already breaking Federal Law by not putting photos on pilot certificate cards...

... what's to stop them from completely ignoring this Congressional mandate too, if passed?...
Click to expand...

Federal courts?
 
denverpilot said:
With FAA already breaking Federal Law on releasing pilot's private information after Congress said no, and FAA already breaking Federal Law by not putting photos on pilot certificate cards...

... what's to stop them from completely ignoring this Congressional mandate too, if passed?

Methinks folks truly believe Congress has control of the government at this point.

Which is, somewhat laughable.
Click to expand...

I suspect, EAA, etc would be all over defending the hell out of the first guy the FAA tried to bust without a medical that was compliant with the Pilots Bill Of Rights 2.
 
I'm enjoying the assumption of some that the FAA would dedicate scarce budget funds just to put an army of inspectors out there just to ramp check and bust pilots for not breaking the law.
 
labbadabba said:
Being a true-Blue Liberal (which is rare in aviation apparently), it's tough to pull for Inhofe but I think I can set aside my differences...
Click to expand...

So you will compromise your tightly held liberal values for your own self interest, how conservative of you!
 
Morgan3820 said:
So you will compromise your tightly held liberal values for your own self interest, how conservative of you!
Click to expand...

I thought conservatives considered compromise to be a dirty word.
 
So if PBOR2 passes, can I send a letter to the FAA explaining how they ****ed me out of 5 years of flying for menial medical issues and they can suck my balls, or would that be considered an "anti-authority" position?

Either way, I am REALLY looking forward to getting my right to fly back. Will have a lot of rust to knock off...
 
Last edited:
I doubt it, Nick. If you've been denied, then that is the final word until/unless you get a SI.

(Please keep it nice.)
 
I would write my congress critters but it'd be a complete waste of breath...or ink...or electrons...or whatever.

I live in the home of tea. Every law is bad and every vote is no. Government is bad...that's why we ran for office...now there's some "logic" I don't understand. But, hey, it works for them.
 
timwinters said:
I would write my congress critters but it'd be a complete waste of breath...or ink...or electrons...or whatever.

I live in the home of tea. Every law is bad and every vote is no. Government is bad...that's why we ran for office...now there's some "logic" I don't understand. But, hey, it works for them.
Click to expand...
ya but.....use what ya gots....to your advantage.

I've used my guy, who is the opposite party, to help me....and it kinda helped.:yes:
 
It's a shame to see this thread going off on a partisan food fight. From what I gather it really seems to be a pretty bi-partisan effort, perhaps more rural vs urban than red vs blue. I see both my senators (Montana) are co-sponsoring, one Republican/one Democrat. Might have to contact my Congressman too?
 
peerlesscowboy said:
It's a shame to see this thread going off on a partisan food fight. From what I gather it really seems to be a pretty bi-partisan effort, perhaps more rural vs urban than red vs blue.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to my post, I really didn't mean it as red vs. blue. I have no issue with moderates on either side of the aisle but I have a huge problem with the extremes on both sides and we have some extreme players in my area. This is Rush's hometown after all.
 
timwinters said:
I would write my congress critters but it'd be a complete waste of breath...or ink...or electrons...or whatever.

I live in the home of tea. Every law is bad and every vote is no. Government is bad...that's why we ran for office...now there's some "logic" I don't understand. But, hey, it works for them.
Click to expand...
So then why would you assume that what you refer to as "the home of tea" would oppose legislation to eliminate un-nessesary government regulation?
 
SkyHog said:
So if PBOR2 passes, can I send a letter to the FAA explaining how they ****ed me out of 5 years of flying for menial medical issues and they can suck my balls, or would that be considered an "anti-authority" position?

Either way, I am REALLY looking forward to getting my right to fly back. Will have a lot of rust to knock off...
Click to expand...

When the FAA gets their **** together, come out here, and we'll knock that rust off in a weekend.
 
SkyHog said:
So if PBOR2 passes, can I send a letter to the FAA explaining how they ****ed me out of 5 years of flying for menial medical issues and they can suck my balls, or would that be considered an "anti-authority" position?



Either way, I am REALLY looking forward to getting my right to fly back. Will have a lot of rust to knock off...
Click to expand...


Ball sucking is an additional service which will require additional taxes. Currently it's an unfunded mandate. ;)
 
peerlesscowboy said:
So then why would you assume that what you refer to as "the home of tea" would oppose legislation to eliminate un-nessesary government regulation?
Click to expand...

Because I rarely see either ends' radicals doing anything that doesn't pander to their base (and thus garner themselves votes on Election Day). We're too small of a population to be considered important to anyone's base and are we aren't numerous enough to make a difference on Election Day thus we're not even on their radar screen. They don't care whether the bill actually "eliminates a unnecessary government regulation" if it doesn't further their own career.
 
timwinters said:
Because I rarely see either ends' radicals doing anything that doesn't pander to their base (and thus garner themselves votes on Election Day). We as a group and the aviation industry don't spend enough money bribing them, to be considered important to anyone's base and are we aren't numerous enough to make a difference on Election Day thus we're not even on their radar screen. They don't care whether the bill actually "eliminates a unnecessary government regulation" if it doesn't further their own career.
Click to expand...


FTFY. ;)
 
timwinters said:
Because I rarely see either ends' radicals doing anything that doesn't pander to their base (and thus garner themselves votes on Election Day). We're too small of a population to be considered important to anyone's base and are we aren't numerous enough to make a difference on Election Day thus we're not even on their radar screen. They don't care whether the bill actually "eliminates a unnecessary government regulation" if it doesn't further their own career.
Click to expand...
That sounds pretty cynical, in the meantime I intend to contact both of my Senators (D & R) and thank them for sponsoring this piece of legislation and also suggest to my Congressman that this voting constituant would be pleased to see him support the legislation as well :)
 
I asked both of my a senators if they would support the bill.


Nothing. Yet.
 
denverpilot said:
Ball sucking is an additional service which will require additional taxes. Currently it's an unfunded mandate. ;)
Click to expand...

Ah, I was going under the assumption that they'd just so the normal government waste deal and pay someone else a lot of money to suck my balls for them.
 
If 3d Class is eliminated, how could a previous denial preclude one from exercising PPL below 6001# below 14,000 ft? This isn't an exemption, it would be the elimination of Third. Full text hasn't yet been published, but nothing in previous proposed legislation mentioned a denial being the kiss of death. It simply says a state issued drivers license is sufficient. The whole once denied is permanent is an FAA rule from Sport Pilot exemption.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
N3368K said:
If 3d Class is eliminated, how could a previous denial preclude one from exercising PPL below 6001# below 14,000 ft? This isn't an exemption, it would be the elimination of Third. Full text hasn't yet been published, but nothing in previous proposed legislation mentioned a denial being the kiss of death. It simply says a state issued drivers license is sufficient. The whole once denied is permanent is an FAA rule from Sport Pilot exemption.
Click to expand...

Expect the language to be along the lines of Sport Pilot. If you let your medical lapse you are ok. If you were denied a medical you are not ok.
 
Full text of the Bill is here.

Below is the Third Class medical specific language. Previously denied medical is not specifically mentioned, but the language does say without regard to any medical certification or proof of health. I would think that would preclude previous denials from applying, but who knows how the FAA will respond.

(a)

In general

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise medical certification regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft without regard to any medical certification or proof of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law if—
(1)

the individual possesses a valid State driver's license and complies with any medical requirement associated with that license;
(2)

the individual is transporting not more than 5 passengers;
(3)

the individual is operating under visual flight rules or instrument flight rules; and
(4)

the relevant flight, including each portion thereof, is not carried out—
(A)

for compensation, including that no passenger or property on the flight is being carried for compensation;
(B)

at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet above mean sea level;
(C)

outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted; or
(D)

at an indicated air speed exceeding 250 knots.
(b)

Covered aircraft defined

In this section, the term covered aircraft means an aircraft that—
(1)

is not authorized under Federal law to carry more than 6 occupants; and
(2)

has a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more than 6,000 pounds.
(c)

Report required

Not later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that describes the effect of the regulations issued or revised under subsection (a) and includes statistics with respect to changes in small aircraft activity and safety incidents.
(d)

Prohibition on enforcement actions

On and after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet the applicable requirements under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (a) unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under subsection (a).
 
N3368K said:
(B)

at an altitude that is more than 14,000 feet above mean sea level;
Click to expand...

By the way, you can get rid of unintended smilies by selecting "Disable smilies in text" below the "Submit Reply" or "Save Changes" button.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top