Pilot's Bill of Rights Change

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
17,465
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
The FAA announces in this coming Tuesday's Federal Register that the current PBoR page (https://www.faa.gov/pilots/rights/) and the associated AirmenDataRequest@faa.gov. email address for ordering air traffic data are going away due to email abuse — the email address was designed for airmen under investigation to obtain data, but is being used by others (I guess even the FAA gets spammed).

Instead of the central email, airmen who receive investigatory inquiries should ask the investigating FSDO Inspector to obtain the data.

I recommend those requests be in writing.
 
There is always the freedom of information request. I used it once. Quick service and they gave me everything I asked for.
 
I guess web forms with captchas are hard for FAA coders. LOL. Tricky that HTML stuff.
 
denverpilot said:
I guess web forms with captchas are hard for FAA coders. LOL. Tricky that HTML stuff.
Click to expand...
It's not automated "spam" per se but pilots / others using the address for other than the intended purpose.
 
Rigged4Flight said:
There is always the freedom of information request. I used it once. Quick service and they gave me everything I asked for.
Click to expand...
Simply asking the Inspector who contacted you for it is even faster. Plus the FAA won't take further action against you until 30 days after you receive it (unless the FAA deems it worthy of emergency action).

Only real drawback I can see is there doesn't seem to be anything in place for requesting the information before it gets to the Inspector stage. But that remains to be seen when the FAA revamps its PBoR information page.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Why should that matter? :dunno:
Click to expand...

A head start for the pilot. I've seen pilots take advantage of this by asking for the information after having initial advisory by ATC and before being contacted by an inspector. It's been particularly helpful it a weird situation - when the tapes were not available. It meant the termination of the matter earlier, which may not have much legal significance but definitely lets a pilot relax sooner rather than later. That's true even if it doesn't result is dismissal or relatively benign administrative action. And I think a case terminating earlier has value, at least psychologically. Knowing that there is a definite problem or (better yet) knowing that there isn't one is better than waiting around waiting for the other shoe to drop.
 
midlifeflyer said:
A head start for the pilot. I've seen pilots take advantage of this by asking for the information after having initial advisory by ATC and before being contacted by an inspector. It's been particularly helpful it a weird situation - when the tapes were not available. It meant the termination of the matter earlier, which may not have much legal significance but definitely lets a pilot relax sooner rather than later. That's true even if it doesn't result is dismissal or relatively benign administrative action. And I think a case terminating earlier has value, at least psychologically. Knowing that there is a definite problem or (better yet) knowing that there isn't one is better than waiting around waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand how getting it early could terminate it early. :dunno:

The office (FSDO) will get the PD first, log it in and assign it to an Inspector. The Inspector will make the determination once he listens to the tapes and interviews the pilot.

While it may offer the pilot some relief to hear the tape before the call from the Inspector, the process will still follow.
 
tiger said:
It's not automated "spam" per se but pilots / others using the address for other than the intended purpose.
Click to expand...


Oh no! Stuff that happens at every business every day and they have to handle it graciously to serve their customers.

Hitting forward on the email is hard. LOL
 
midlifeflyer said:
Simply asking the Inspector who contacted you for it is even faster. Plus the FAA won't take further action against you until 30 days after you receive it (unless the FAA deems it worthy of emergency action).

Only real drawback I can see is there doesn't seem to be anything in place for requesting the information before it gets to the Inspector stage. But that remains to be seen when the FAA revamps its PBoR information page.
Click to expand...
Ah. I clicked the link and read the page. My FOIA request wasn't in conjunction with an investigation. Now I understand.
 
TomHaines said:
Pilots Bill of Rights 2 Introduced. Includes third class medical reform with IFR, six seats, 6,000-pound airplanes to 14,000 feet. If passed, becomes law automatically if FAA doesn't implement the change on its own.
Click to expand...


Wow, this is great news. Thanks for posting it, Tom.

Time for us to call our Representatives and Senators.
 
TomHaines said:
Pilots Bill of Rights 2 Introduced. Includes third class medical reform with IFR, six seats, 6,000-pound airplanes to 14,000 feet. If passed, becomes law automatically if FAA doesn't implement the change on its own.
Click to expand...
What are the odds of passing this year?
What are the odds it get signed?
What are the odds that non-related amendments will be attached, preventing passage?

To all....email or fax your congress critters in support.
 
Colorado POA'ers (we got over 40!) here's the list of all the congress critters and the complete text of the bills. Note that Scott Tipton is a pilot and a member of the House GA Caucus. Diana DeGette's district includes DIA and I think KFTG. Not sure about KAPA

House (H.R. 1062, 114th Congress)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1062

Diana DeGette http://degette.house.gov/
Jared Polis http://polis.house.gov/
Scott Tipton http://tipton.house.gov/
Ken Buck https://buck.house.gov/
Doug Lamborn https://lamborn.house.gov/
Mike Coffman https://coffman.house.gov/
Ed Perlmutter https://perlmutter.house.gov/

Senate (S.571)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571

Michael Bennet http://www.bennet.senate.gov/

Cory Gardner http://www.gardner.senate.gov/
Serves on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
 
murphey said:
What are the odds of passing this year?
What are the odds it get signed?
What are the odds that non-related amendments will be attached, preventing passage?

To all....email or fax your congress critters in support.
Click to expand...

Pretty good odds that it does get passed I'd say. Senator Infahoe got PBOR 1 passed and signed, so why not a 2nd one.
 
Mixed emotions here. I really like the proposed results. I am unhappy with Congress writing laws instead of the FAA writing regs. I understand why it's happening, but I look at other examples (the ATP changes that I don't think will make anything safer, the enactment in law of the DC FRZ and SFRA), and I think we're on a really slippery slope here.
 
TMetzinger said:
Mixed emotions here. I really like the proposed results. I am unhappy with Congress writing laws instead of the FAA writing regs. I understand why it's happening, but I look at other examples (the ATP changes that I don't think will make anything safer, the enactment in law of the DC FRZ and SFRA), and I think we're on a really slippery slope here.
Click to expand...


It's already being done. This one is to pilots' advantage so we might as well take it.
 
This is great news. It should be six seats, 6000lb period though. No real reason for the other restrictions.
 
I just contacted all my congress critters...... Hope is helps...:yes:
 
Great news. Hope it passes.

I find the 14k feet a little odd. 18k would seem to make more sense.

But IFR and VFR would be great (and make sense).

-Dan
 
dweyant said:
Great news. Hope it passes.

I find the 14k feet a little odd. 18k would seem to make more sense.

But IFR and VFR would be great (and make sense).

-Dan
Click to expand...


And no Horsepower limitation makes me VERY happy...:)
 
TMetzinger said:
Mixed emotions here. I really like the proposed results. I am unhappy with Congress writing laws instead of the FAA writing regs. I understand why it's happening, but I look at other examples (the ATP changes that I don't think will make anything safer, the enactment in law of the DC FRZ and SFRA), and I think we're on a really slippery slope here.
Click to expand...

The only reason that the FAA (or any other administrative agency) writes "regulations", which have the power of law and are distinguished from law only in name and the precise body drafting them, is because Congress punted on the job in the first instance. I'm not at all perplexed by the democratically elected and accountable branch of government writing the law rather than some job-for-life bureaucrat.
 
dweyant said:
Great news. Hope it passes.

I find the 14k feet a little odd. 18k would seem to make more sense.

But IFR and VFR would be great (and make sense).

-Dan
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

Agreed, this is a reasonable break-point, and "gives" something, probably of minimal real value, to the aeromedical bureaucrats.

Combined with IFR being allowed, this is actually the bill we need.

Will start scribbling the letters to the congresscritters tonight.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Agreed, this is a reasonable break-point, and "gives" something, probably of minimal real value, to the aeromedical bureaucrats.

Combined with IFR being allowed, this is actually the bill we need.
Click to expand...
Amen. IF it passes, this is as good as the FAA just letting the 3rd class go, which is never going to happen.

Now comes the real work: making it a reality.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Agreed, this is a reasonable break-point, and "gives" something, probably of minimal real value, to the aeromedical bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

If anything, it's a 'gimme' to the legal enforcement folks. Having a slow day? Check the radar tapes... any inbound GenAv above 14k? Is the likely pilot on record with a current medical? Can I get to the ramp before he lands? Write up an enforcement action; call it a day.
 
TMetzinger said:
Mixed emotions here. I really like the proposed results. I am unhappy with Congress writing laws instead of the FAA writing regs. I understand why it's happening, but I look at other examples (the ATP changes that I don't think will make anything safer, the enactment in law of the DC FRZ and SFRA), and I think we're on a really slippery slope here.
Click to expand...

Seems to be the way things have to happen these days. Dueling power: congressional action (that may well get vetoed like the pipeline) vs executive action. And feet-dragging at implementing regulations that are mandated by the law.

Neither are the way things should be done in DC.
 
dweyant said:
Great news. Hope it passes.

I find the 14k feet a little odd. 18k would seem to make more sense.

But IFR and VFR would be great (and make sense).

-Dan
Click to expand...
I wonder if the rule will be 14k limit or include the optional 2500 agl for those of us that live in the Rockies?
 
TMetzinger said:
Mixed emotions here. I really like the proposed results. I am unhappy with Congress writing laws instead of the FAA writing regs. I understand why it's happening, but I look at other examples (the ATP changes that I don't think will make anything safer, the enactment in law of the DC FRZ and SFRA), and I think we're on a really slippery slope here.
Click to expand...

With respect sir, I think you have it backwards. One of the main problems today is abuse of regulation writing/enforcing without concomitant legislation that goes through an elected representative.

Regulation by NOTAM or 'crat is a poor way to run a republic. At least when it's signed and stamped via the HR or senate, we have a way to fix mistakes at the ballot. With unbridled regulation miasma we get -- the modern NOTAM system which is completely broke.
 
TomHaines said:
Pilots Bill of Rights 2 Introduced. Includes third class medical reform with IFR, six seats, 6,000-pound airplanes to 14,000 feet. If passed, becomes law automatically if FAA doesn't implement the change on its own.
Click to expand...


That's great news! Tom, would you know by chance if the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 would cover student pilots seeking a private pilot certificate or would a student pilot still would need to obtain a 3rd class medical in order to obtain their private pilot certificate, then let their medical expire? It really wasn't clear in the bill if the 3rd class medical reform portion of the bill covers student pilots or not.
 
docmirror said:
With respect sir, I think you have it backwards. One of the main problems today is abuse of regulation writing/enforcing without concomitant legislation that goes through an elected representative.

Regulation by NOTAM or 'crat is a poor way to run a republic. At least when it's signed and stamped via the HR or senate, we have a way to fix mistakes at the ballot. With unbridled regulation miasma we get -- the modern NOTAM system which is completely broke.
Click to expand...

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?
 
N918KT said:
That's great news! Tom, would you know by chance if the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 would cover student pilots seeking a private pilot certificate or would a student pilot still would need to obtain a 3rd class medical in order to obtain their private pilot certificate, then let their medical expire? It really wasn't clear in the bill if the 3rd class medical reform portion of the bill covers student pilots or not.
Click to expand...


No reason it wouldn't. That's one of the things the FAA has 180 days to figure out.
 
N918KT said:
That's great news! Tom, would you know by chance if the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 would cover student pilots seeking a private pilot certificate or would a student pilot still would need to obtain a 3rd class medical in order to obtain their private pilot certificate, then let their medical expire? It really wasn't clear in the bill if the 3rd class medical reform portion of the bill covers student pilots or not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DJTorrente said:
If anything, it's a 'gimme' to the legal enforcement folks. Having a slow day? Check the radar tapes... any inbound GenAv above 14k? Is the likely pilot on record with a current medical? Can I get to the ramp before he lands? Write up an enforcement action; call it a day.
Click to expand...

I,ll take it as proposed and follow the rules. Why gripe about a gift horse? This will satisfy 99.9%.
 
Gerald said:
I,ll take it as proposed and follow the rules. Why gripe about a gift horse? This will satisfy 99.9%.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm not complaining, but is the 14k or < 250k restriction really going to have any bearing on whether is passes or not?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top