Questions on the Manchin-Boozman Amendment to PBOR2

[N918KT]

Okay, after reading the amendment several times in the other thread about this amendment to PBOR2 I am still very confused on who can fly under the 3rd class medical exemption under this amendment to the PBOR2.

Can student pilots who wish to pursue their PPL who have a current U.S. driver's license and who have never had their medical denied, deferred, or never applied for the medical be allow to fly without a 3rd class medical under this exemption?

Also, is it possible to pass the PBOR2 as it was originally written without including the Manchin-Boozman Amendment in it?

 

[azure]

Can student pilots who wish to pursue their PPL who have a current U.S. driver's license and who have never had their medical denied, deferred, or never applied for the medical be allow to fly without a 3rd class medical under this exemption?

As I read it, you have to qualify for a 3rd class or SI of a 3rd class at least once. If you never applied, I don't think you qualify for the exemption.

Also, is it possible to pass the PBOR2 as it was originally written without including the Manchin-Boozman Amendment in it?

The fact that two of the original co-sponsors of PBOR2 felt the need to propose this modified version suggests to me that the original was DOA. But we really don't know for sure, yet.

 

[airbrain]

Is it possible to pass the PBOR2 as it was originally written without including the Manchin-Boozman Amendment in it?

Just to avert confusion, the Manchin-Boozman is not an amendment to PBOR2. Manchin-Boozman is an amendment to "the highway bill" which would add something resembling the self standing bill PBOR2 to within the highway bill. These are two parallel attempts to achieve similar aims. It isn't clear to me which is more likely to succeed but I read somewhere that the current highway bill expires July 31, so a new one, or a temp extension, needs to occur by then.

 

[dedgemon]

attended inhoffe's forum yesterday.
The hiway bill (and its ammendments) may be voted on as early as tuesday of this week. as of yesterday we had 56 cosonsors in the senate. ALPA is trying to kill it.

 

[TNFlyer76D]

So does anyone know if the Manchin-Boozman amendment has been voted on to be included on the Highway bill? They seem to fighting about an Export Bank amendment right now and I can find no word on if the Manchin-Boozman amendment has been authorized yet. In fact the last thing I can find for a Manchin-Boozman amendment concerns the Highway bill but it is in Mar 2005 and concerns drug testing CDL drivers.

Maybe I am not Googleing correctly.

 

[Henning]

It seems restrictive, like a way to get out of a real "no third class" system as was in the PBOR2 proposal. The insurance industry doesn't want that. At least with this you will have to pass a medical or SI once, and that gets you into an actuarial cubby. I'm not sure that you really want this one to happen. This is like Obamacare vs Univeral Health Care.

 

[airbrain]

So does anyone know if the Manchin-Boozman amendment has been voted on to be included on the Highway bill? They seem to fighting about an Export Bank amendment right now and I can find no word on if the Manchin-Boozman amendment has been authorized yet.

The M-B amendment has not yet been voted on to be added to the bill. That is the purpose of our current lobbying. Yes, the ImEx Bank is the current senate priority so M-B would come after that.

 

[Bill]

As I read it, you have to qualify for a 3rd class or SI of a 3rd class at least once. If you never applied, I don't think you qualify for the exemption.

The fact that two of the original co-sponsors of PBOR2 felt the need to propose this modified version suggests to me that the original was DOA. But we really don't know for sure, yet.

It doesn't do jack for me, the way I read it. I developed a condition that requires an SI, but I let my medical lapse. With this wording, I'm still required to have been granted an SI at least once for this condition. If not, I must $hell out on expen$ive not medically needed te$t$ and $ubmit a pakage to aeromedical.

Looks like either way I sell my share.

 

[Henning]

It doesn't do jack for me, the way I read it. I developed a condition that requires an SI, but I let my medical lapse. With this wording, I'm still required to have been granted an SI at least once for this condition. If not, I must $hell out on expen$ive not medically needed te$t$ and $ubmit a pakage to aeromedical.

Looks like either way I sell my share.

This is not PBOR2. Look at the ALPA objection and I agree with the "This should not exist because there is a whole different bill addressing this issue purposely for it."

 

[JeffDG]

It seems restrictive, like a way to get out of a real "no third class" system as was in the PBOR2 proposal. The insurance industry doesn't want that. At least with this you will have to pass a medical or SI once, and that gets you into an actuarial cubby. I'm not sure that you really want this one to happen. This is like Obamacare vs Univeral Health Care.

Insurance companies could just write their policies so that they don't apply to if the PIC doesn't have a 3rd Class or better. They could do it for LSA and Gliders too if they wanted to.

They don't need it written this way.

 

[Henning]

Insurance companies could just write their policies so that they don't apply to if the PIC doesn't have a 3rd Class or better. They could do it for LSA and Gliders too if they wanted to.

They don't need it written this way.

It's a matter of enforcement, also no, they can't just write whatever they want, in fact, the state insurance commissions dictate what products they can sell, then they have to determine a premium scale and get permission to charge it. Insurance is highly regulated even in the market investments they may make.

 

[azure]

It doesn't do jack for me, the way I read it. I developed a condition that requires an SI, but I let my medical lapse. With this wording, I'm still required to have been granted an SI at least once for this condition. If not, I must $hell out on expen$ive not medically needed te$t$ and $ubmit a pakage to aeromedical.

Looks like either way I sell my share.

Would your condition still require an SI under M-B? How long ago did you hold a valid medical? If it was after 2005 and you let it lapse, then the only reason you'd need an SI under M-B is if your condition was one of the really bad ones they list specifically. Letting your medical go to preserve sport privileges because you developed a condition that would have required an SI under the old system but not under the new does NOT disqualify you.

At least, that's how I read it...

 

[Neil Rubin]

It doesn't do jack for me, the way I read it. I developed a condition that requires an SI, but I let my medical lapse. With this wording, I'm still required to have been granted an SI at least once for this condition. If not, I must $hell out on expen$ive not medically needed te$t$ and $ubmit a pakage to aeromedical.

Looks like either way I sell my share.

You would only need an SI if you have one of the specific psychiatric, neurological, cardiac, or substance abuse conditions listed in the bill. And even then you only need the SI once. Hope this helps you.

 

[Bill]

You would only need an SI if you have one of the specific psychiatric, neurological, cardiac, or substance abuse conditions listed in the bill. And even then you only need the SI once. Hope this helps you.

Understand, and yes, I will need an SI for one of those things.

 

[dans2992]

Ok, but in reality you're not likely to ever be discovered. They can't tell this on a ramp check....

 

[azure]

Ok, but in reality you're not likely to ever be discovered. They can't tell this on a ramp check....

I was thinking that too... a fact which cannot have escaped the opposition.

 

[dans2992]

To be fair, even under the current system, I could have open heart surgery and go flying the day I get out of the hospital.

That wouldn't be detected on a ramp check either if my 3rd class was issued in the last 2 (or 5) years.

 

[Henning]

I was thinking that too... a fact which cannot have escaped the opposition.

Of course not. Simple enough to issue you your 2 year medical counseling course or whatever it is certificate when you do your biennial class, and you have to prove the prerequisites for the certificate. This is simple.

 

[azure]

Of course not. Simple enough to issue you your 2 year medical counseling course or whatever it is certificate when you do your biennial class, and you have to prove the prerequisites for the certificate. This is simple.

It all depends on how it is implemented. There was nothing in the text of the amendment about proving that you've met the quintennial physical exam or other requirements outside of the online course. Just a signature card where you "certify" (which usually means sign on the honor system) that you're in compliance.

If you have to get the doctor to sign, then that adds enforceability. But it's not spelled out yet exactly what will be required.