Pilots Bill of Rights

fiveoboy01 said:
That's right. They beg over and over for our money to further the cause and then they hoard it, and pay themselves big salaries. They should be spending it to get its membership what they want.

It is, after all, OUR money they're playing with.
Click to expand...

You watch, the already over restrictive Pt. 23 rewrite will get screwed some more as well, if it ever comes around, it started before PBOR2. AOPA can redeem themselves if they can get that through and open it to all planes up to 6000gw.
 
Henning said:
It will eventually help me as well, but that's not the point. The point is in the end it will not change the future viability and growth of GA, it lacks that mechanism to create those numbers. If AOPA had the political clout it says, this would not have happened. Perhaps they should have opened that 'war chest' and spent a few of those dollars. Same crap with SP/LSA, bull**** limitations written in.
Click to expand...



"Never let perfection be the enemy of great"

Not sure why this is seen as anything other than a positive.

Take small wins when you can. Make allies and supporters. Come back next year and ask for the next item on the wish list.

(Caution: Political Commentary ahead..... If any of those who complain about what happens in Congress vote for any of the "gridlock" gang who pride themselves on stopping all legislation, engaging in partisan shenanigans, you might want to look in the mirror before your next trip to the voting booth. My Congressman prides himself on how disruptive he is to DC and how he stands up to Lobbiests.)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Over the next few years, you will see a dramatic reduction in the number of active pilots. (Assuming this bill actually passes.)



(The FAA counts medical certificates to determine the number of "active" pilots.)
Click to expand...

Uh, wouldn't they just count these instead:

"required to take a free online education course on aeromedical factors every two years"
 
JoseCuervo said:
"Never let perfection be the enemy of great"

Not sure why this is seen as anything other than a positive.

Take small wins when you can. Make allies and supporters. Come back next year and ask for the next item on the wish list.

(Caution: Political Commentary ahead..... If any of those who complain about what happens in Congress vote for any of the "gridlock" gang who pride themselves on stopping all legislation, engaging in partisan shenanigans, you might want to look in the mirror before your next trip to the voting booth. My Congressman prides himself on how disruptive he is to DC and how he stands up to Lobbiests.)
Click to expand...

Sure this is better than the status quo but not by much, especially if you compare it to the originally proposed legislation.

Heaven forbid our government(or anyone else for that matter - that's you, ALPA a-holes) could ever pass ANYTHING without putting restrictions on the original.
 
JoseCuervo said:
"Never let perfection be the enemy of great"

Not sure why this is seen as anything other than a positive.

Take small wins when you can. Make allies and supporters. Come back next year and ask for the next item on the wish list.

(Caution: Political Commentary ahead..... If any of those who complain about what happens in Congress vote for any of the "gridlock" gang who pride themselves on stopping all legislation, engaging in partisan shenanigans, you might want to look in the mirror before your next trip to the voting booth. My Congressman prides himself on how disruptive he is to DC and how he stands up to Lobbiests.)
Click to expand...

Because it was a crap load more positive as it was initially written, it could have had a real effect, but no, once more a half measure that maintains the current miasma, and in 20 years when everyone who will benefit from it is dead it will have no further benefit.

Where it is a real negative is an organization solicited a lot of money from a lot of people that were just completely let down, and those were the people who could make a significant long term impact on the future costs of GA.
 
jimbilly said:
Uh, wouldn't they just count these instead:

"required to take a free online education course on aeromedical factors every two years"
Click to expand...
Hard to say what they will do.

But, they have no problem with not counting those flying under no-medical required rules now.
 
Henning said:
Because it was a crap load more positive as it was initially written, it could have had a real effect, but no, once more a half measure that maintains the current miasma, and in 20 years when everyone who will benefit from it is dead it will have no further benefit.

Where it is a real negative is an organization solicited a lot of money from a lot of people that were just completely let down, and those were the people who could make a significant long term impact on the future costs of GA.
Click to expand...

Sure seems like whenever "AOPA" is mentioned, bunch of people whine about the $59 they are solicited for.

Hell, I think there are threads where people whine about the free hat they got from AOPA.

The bill only got watered down because the process requires give and take.
 
Knowing the FAA Medical Dept. and how they work, my concern with this is that anyone applying for a 3rd class from now until . . . is going to be under the microscope for anything they (FAA) may deem in the future to be a disqualifying condition. Suspect they have a whole truckload of hoops on order and unless you're in perfect health, this may be a costly trip. FAA has absolutely no interest or desire in promoting GA. JMHO.
 
Henning said:
I understand that there will be a handful of people it truly benefits, but it should have been much more.
Click to expand...

It'll help a lot of people over time. I'll gladly take any improvements that come down the pike....
 
Poli-Sci 101: Once a power is granted to a government bureaucracy it is extremely difficult to diminish or revoke that power. Bureaucracies (and their political supporters) will fight hard to retain their power, because without it, what are they? If we genuinely seek to prevail in this endeavor we must understand the nature and motives of our adversaries. Think marathon, not sprint.

It seems that some here have an “all or nothing” perspective. Respectfully, I suggest that such a perspective is shortsighted. I too am frustrated that the objectives set forth in the original PBOR2 have been narrowed in the revised version, but as Senator Inhofe noted, that was done solely because the original bill did not have enough VOTES to move it. I am also aware that:

1) A significantly larger number of constituent contacts (letters, emails, in person meetings, etc.) have been made to legislators in support of PBOR2 compared to PBOR1.
2) A broader and more comprehensive lobbying effort has been made by various groups, including AOPA & EAA, in support of PBOR2 compared to PBOR1.
3) Despite these efforts, the original PBOR2 language did not garner the requisite support for passage.

Politics can be a lot like repeatedly asking the pretty girl at the bar for her phone number…sometimes the answer is going to be no, regardless of how valiantly you try. :D

The Sports Pilot and PBOR1 legislations were important steps in this ongoing process. The successes associated with those steps have provided a credible platform from which to mount the next step. The revised PBOR2, although not as far reaching as many of us desire, is the next step. Accordingly, the current bill should be supported despite its imperfections. Remember how you eat an elephant…:yesnod:
 
Henning said:
What it fails to do is let anyone new in the door, and that doesn't help.
Click to expand...

This was my original point. My wife is a teacher and well over half her class is on some type of ADD meds. It is way overprescribed and misdiagnosed today and ALL of these kids will never be able to become pilots without a ton of hoops to jump thru. Don't get me wrong some really do need it just not anywhere the numbers taking it.
 
1600vw said:
:yesnod:

They did not give anybody anything. What a waste of time. They just should have dropped it. This bill did nothing to bring new pilots aboard. NOTHING.

Tony
Click to expand...

As illustrated by my other post, it does a lot for new pilots, provided they get their medical early enough in life.
 
henning said:
Bringing back aged pilots who want to fly again is fine, I have no objects and I'm glad Nick will get to fly again, I really am, and I hope he can afford both flying and his track car.
Click to expand...

If someone can invent a way to tow a hauler with an airplane, I'd do both as most racetracks are right by the airports!

But you really wanna know the value to me? My dad has cancer. Newly diagnosed. I live only 7 hours by car away, so I go down as much as possible, but that's really only once a month or so. It is a 2 hour or less flight. I'd be down there almost every weekend if I could fly again.

So I hope the faa doesn't drag their feet the whole year and wind up making this possible right after he dies. The sooner it happens, the sooner I get to see him more.
 
I'm currently working with the Congressman that represents the District our airport is in to come speak to our EAA chapter about PBOR and field questions. Looks like March might work.
 
kiddbats said:
This was my original point. My wife is a teacher and well over half her class is on some type of ADD meds. It is way overprescribed and misdiagnosed today and ALL of these kids will never be able to become pilots without a ton of hoops to jump thru. Don't get me wrong some really do need it just not anywhere the numbers taking it.
Click to expand...

Well, it could make the hoop jumping worth it. If you didn't have to do it every year, or two years ongoing.

I've heard the stories of the SI's that people have to pay big $$ to get over and over just to prove there is no change. This would help those people.

Could bring back a fair share of those who had given up for these reasons too.

Significant numbers? Who knows? But I guess any number is better than no number.
 
I guess any number is better than no number.
Click to expand...

Out of small things come great things.

It's hard to introduce, mentor, or share aviation if you can't participate in it.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Sure seems like whenever "AOPA" is mentioned, bunch of people whine about the $59 they are solicited for.

Hell, I think there are threads where people whine about the free hat they got from AOPA.

The bill only got watered down because the process requires give and take.
Click to expand...

$59 is the initial offering that gets you on the mailing list for their PAC where the big contributions are solicited. It's not this one issue they have just been ineffective on, in my 30 years of flying this is the repeating theme IF they are even on the right side of an issue.
 
SkyHog said:
As illustrated by my other post, it does a lot for new pilots, provided they get their medical early enough in life.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your dad.
 
JoseCuervo said:
"Never let perfection be the enemy of great"

Not sure why this is seen as anything other than a positive.

Take small wins when you can. Make allies and supporters. Come back next year and ask for the next item on the wish list.

(Caution: Political Commentary ahead..... If any of those who complain about what happens in Congress vote for any of the "gridlock" gang who pride themselves on stopping all legislation, engaging in partisan shenanigans, you might want to look in the mirror before your next trip to the voting booth. My Congressman prides himself on how disruptive he is to DC and how he stands up to Lobbiests.)
Click to expand...

Is it opposition, or a recognition of the absurdity of the proposal?

Yes, it will help some. Good for them. And, it is far better than nothing. But when you stand back and try to make sense of the whole thing...

If the third class medical had a real safety impact, then this proposal is absurd for allowing people to fly without a recent exam.

If there is no demonstrated safety impact, than requiring that you get a medical to be able to fly without a medical is absurd.

And, in either case, thinking that a medical exam at age 14 (or younger) is a good screening tool and an indicator of what may or may not pop up for the rest of your life is beyond absurd.

So, what is the rational behind this? What makes getting a one time medical exam a logical thing to do? What is the realistic expected outcome?

(And, yes, I had a medical at one time - what is the relevance of that today?)

Or, in line with your political commentary, has someone just tossed in some random absurdities into this bill for the shear fun of poking a stick into the spokes?

The other thing is, having once passed a "reform" no matter how absurd, what would be the motivation to come back and do it again in the next 10 or 20 years. What you see now will be come law, and even if the FAA were interested in actually coming up with a sensible plan (no, I am not holding my breath) they will be restricted by this law that requires that you get a medical to be able to fly without a medical.

And, having typed all this and thought about it some more, is it really that good an idea to put half-vast reform through in the form of law which will hamper any sort of common sense reform in the future? My enthusiasm is even further dampened.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Over the next few years, you will see a dramatic reduction in the number of active pilots. (Assuming this bill actually passes.)



(The FAA counts medical certificates to determine the number of "active" pilots.)
Click to expand...

anyone want to take bets that the reduced number of active pilots (as defined by the FAA's count of medical certs) will be used to "justify" rescinding the PBOR?
 
Unfortunately, this doesn't help me since I never had a medical and the fact that there will be potential problems if I even do apply. So for now, Sport Pilot is still the answer for me.

I'm just hoping that PBOR2 would indirectly help sport pilots, student sport pilots or PPL exercising sport pilot privileges if they could not get a medical. I'm still hoping there will be something that they could benefit from even if they won't be covered under the revised bill. Hopefully the rise in demand for used Part 23 aircraft would reduce overall demand for LSAs both new and used and hopefully reduced the purchase price of LSAs. I think that would be the only benefit for sport pilots who could not afford the price of a new SLSA.
 
For me it won't help unfortunately. I am a Sport Pilot and (as my wife regularly
reminds me) I am lucky to be able to fly at all. I had hopes that the FAA's
own proposal would allow me to fly something with a gross weight higher
than 1320 lbs. Just 150 pounds would help immensely.
I'd like to be able to fly with one other person and a FULL tank of fuel.
I am 200 lbs so my options are limited. Yeah, Yeah, losing 50 lbs would
be a good start (also mentioned regularly by my wife).

I think that PBR will help some pilots but it's so watered down
that it won't make a huge impact to GA. I think that the original
proposals tossed around that consisted of no medical required for
PPL would have made a much bigger impact.

Lastly, assuming that PBR is enacted I have some doubts that the
FAA will go along with it. The FAA is not known for being the one
of the most cooperative agencies in the government.

Victor
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Is it opposition, or a recognition of the absurdity of the proposal?

Yes, it will help some. Good for them. And, it is far better than nothing. But when you stand back and try to make sense of the whole thing...

If the third class medical had a real safety impact, then this proposal is absurd for allowing people to fly without a recent exam.

If there is no demonstrated safety impact, than requiring that you get a medical to be able to fly without a medical is absurd.

And, in either case, thinking that a medical exam at age 14 (or younger) is a good screening tool and an indicator of what may or may not pop up for the rest of your life is beyond absurd.

So, what is the rational behind this? What makes getting a one time medical exam a logical thing to do? What is the realistic expected outcome?

(And, yes, I had a medical at one time - what is the relevance of that today?)

Or, in line with your political commentary, has someone just tossed in some random absurdities into this bill for the shear fun of poking a stick into the spokes?

The other thing is, having once passed a "reform" no matter how absurd, what would be the motivation to come back and do it again in the next 10 or 20 years. What you see now will be come law, and even if the FAA were interested in actually coming up with a sensible plan (no, I am not holding my breath) they will be restricted by this law that requires that you get a medical to be able to fly without a medical.

And, having typed all this and thought about it some more, is it really that good an idea to put half-vast reform through in the form of law which will hamper any sort of common sense reform in the future? My enthusiasm is even further dampened.
Click to expand...

Fortunately when the Chinese take over they will eliminate our inefficient, entrenched, and corrup bureaucracy. Interesting to see how that works out.
 
N918KT said:
Unfortunately, this doesn't help me since I never had a medical and the fact that there will be potential problems if I even do apply. So for now, Sport Pilot is still the answer for me.

I'm just hoping that PBOR2 would indirectly help sport pilots, student sport pilots or PPL exercising sport pilot privileges if they could not get a medical. I'm still hoping there will be something that they could benefit from even if they won't be covered under the revised bill. Hopefully the rise in demand for used Part 23 aircraft would reduce overall demand for LSAs both new and used and hopefully reduced the purchase price of LSAs. I think that would be the only benefit for sport pilots who could not afford the price of a new SLSA.
Click to expand...

PPL flying SP will indeed be the prime benefactors, thing is, it's a one shot deal. Once this batch get a benefit, that's the end of people who will see a benefit from this. It's a law that is meant to keep one Senator flying his plane without a medical. That's what this piece of legislation is meant to do. If some people get on the coat tails of that ok, but no more than that. This is politics as usual.
 
So how can anyone argue that it does nothing for future generations of pilots? It isn't the perfect bill, but provided you can get a medical once, it will keep you in the air until you decide you're unfit, rather than having a group that has no business doing so making that decision for you.

I'd wager that most pilots are lost to subsequent medical failures than those lost by never having the ability to attain a medical in the first place.
 
steingar said:
It would help me big-time. I don't need an SI for my gout, but the hoops I have to jump through sure seem like one.
Click to expand...

Wait, what???

I've been on gout meds for three years. I reported it at my last medical and my AME, who is also my PCP, shrugged.

What hoops do you have to jump through? Did mine FU?
 
dans2992 said:
Just passed the full senate!
Click to expand...

Not only passed, but by unanimous consent.

Henning said:
Once this batch get a benefit, that's the end of people who will see a benefit from this.
Click to expand...

That's preposterous. Every new pilot will someday receive the same benefit that existing pilots are now about to receive from the bill in terms of sharply reduced likelihood of unnecessarily being forced to stop flying. And in terms of saving money, time, and effort on AME visits and possible specialist exams, the benefit to new pilots will begin within just a few years of starting to fly.

The compromises leave the reform largely intact, and on the whole the departures from the original 2012 petition greatly enhance the reform. In exchange for a one-time AME visit, we get to fly at night, IFR, in complex and high-performance aircraft, up to 18,000' instead of 12,000', and with 5 passengers instead of just 1.
 
Last edited:
This is good news. That it passed unanimously strikes me as a good indication it will make it through the house without too much trouble. Of course, no guarantees.
 
Good incentive to start the RV7 build. I always had a fear of finishing the plane after many years, and then losing my medical for some stupid reason. My wife promised if that happened she would get her license so I could keep flying it (and her around to cool places), but wasn't sure how practical that would really be.

It is a shame it is so watered down from what was first introduced. And we are applying too much logic to what it should have been. Remember, they are politicians elected by the mentally deficient majority, not smart people. It is their job to mess up things that could otherwise be easy.
 
VictorValencia said:
I think that PBR will help some pilots but it's so watered down that it won't make a huge impact to GA. I think that the original proposals tossed around that consisted of no medical required for
PPL would have made a much bigger impact.

Lastly, assuming that PBR is enacted I have some doubts that the
FAA will go along with it. The FAA is not known for being the one
of the most cooperative agencies in the government.
Click to expand...

Actually, the FAA is pretty cooperative. They come across as inflexible because they insist on sticking to those darn rules so often.

You don't think it will make an impact to GA because you haven't experienced the problems with the medical system yet. I would hazard a good guess that most pilots with medical issues quit flying because it is too big of a PITA to jump through the hoops that the people in Oklahoma City want, not because they're not healthy enough. It's dealing with the bureaucracy that is stopping people, not the standards.

There are other reasons pilots quit flying, but this should go a long way toward solving some of the medical ones.
 
JoseCuervo said:
"Never let perfection be the enemy of great"

Not sure why this is seen as anything other than a positive.

Take small wins when you can. Make allies and supporters. Come back next year and ask for the next item on the wish list.

(Caution: Political Commentary ahead..... If any of those who complain about what happens in Congress vote for any of the "gridlock" gang who pride themselves on stopping all legislation, engaging in partisan shenanigans, you might want to look in the mirror before your next trip to the voting booth. My Congressman prides himself on how disruptive he is to DC and how he stands up to Lobbiests.)
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with what you are saying, but didn't Calvin Coolidge say that its a lot better to kill bad bills than to pass good ones?
 
What was changed from the original bill?

The only major change I'm aware of is having to have had a valid medical in the last three years, is there something else that has so many upset?

If I remember correctly they added a number of things as well, the biggest being allowing IFR flight, and up to 18,000 ft.

-Dan
 
So let me get this straight... My medical is dated in August...

If this goes through Congress and El Presidente signs off, I will not have to go for a class 3 medical ever again???
 
dweyant said:
What was changed from the original bill?

The only major change I'm aware of is having to have had a valid medical in the last three years, is there something else that has so many upset?

If I remember correctly they added a number of things as well, the biggest being allowing IFR flight, and up to 18,000 ft.

-Dan
Click to expand...

Well the 'big' change is that you either have to have had a medical in the last 10 years, or need to get one, and then you won't have to get a 3rd class again.

That as opposed to eliminating the 3rd class medical entirely.

It's a compromise. I'm on SI and if it passes in its current form, it will eliminate me a lot of hassle and save me some money too. Still, I would have liked to see the 3rd class go away, but perhaps that was an unrealistic wish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top