Urgent call to action on medical reform - as in now!!

A

airbrain

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
53
Location
Mountain View, California
Display Name
Display name:
AirBrain
I hope everyone is responding to this urgently. There seems to finally be some imminent action :yikes: in the senate and making noise now is important even if you spoke up earlier.

If your senator isn't on this list, please rattle their cage again!
 
Keep the pressure on,so easy for the politicians to forget.
 
I'll hold my nose and call my two senators (if they've taken my phone number off their block lists, that is), but I doubt either of them will have any interest.

Rich
 
As of Tuesday 7/21/15, 10 of the 20 members of the Senate Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security subcommittee had signed on as co-sponsors of S.571 Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. Presuming the bill is put on the committee schedule, and presuming co-sponsors vote in favor of bills they co-sponsor, only one more vote is needed to pass and be reported by committee to the full senate body.
 
One of my 2 politicians, a Rep, is definitely on board. Her husband is in GA!
My Senator is on the list.:yes:
 
Last edited:
50 cosponsors as of today. People from both sides of the aisle. They must be afraid of upsetting the people with the highest ability to donate to them. I mean their campaigns.

The bill is still in committee. I don't pretend to understand the senate rules, so i dont know what should be next.
 
What about this? Also, the AOPA article.

Looks like we may have a couple different options to get this thing shoved through. There may be a little hope!!
 
Last edited:
I am impressed the call to action resulted in 70,000 contacts. That sounds like a number that would get attention, but I don't have a point of comparison.

This is an interesting development.
“Even if you’ve contacted your senators about PBR2, call or email them again today and ask them to support the Manchin-Boozman amendment. Time is short and every voice counts!”
Click to expand...
 
airbrain said:
I am impressed the call to action resulted in 70,000 contacts. That sounds like a number that would get attention, but I don't have a point of comparison.



This is an interesting development.
Click to expand...


0.02% of their constituency. Not even a mouse fart.
 
That's over ten percent of the U.S. pilot population!
 
It isn't a comparison to total constituency. It is a comparison to typical constituency response levels. Just like a political poll might only sample 2000 people at random yet represent the country as a whole. If 70,000 emailed, they assume many more agree but didn't email.
 
airbrain said:
It isn't a comparison to total constituency. It is a comparison to typical constituency response levels. Just like a political poll might only sample 2000 people at random yet represent the country as a whole. If 70,000 emailed, they assume many more agree but didn't email.
Click to expand...

The reason I mentioned it is that it seems like an unusually high percentage of response.
 
On Wednesday I called the two Iowa senators and my house rep. And whadda ya know, yesterday they signed up as cosponsors of PBOR2! I told a few aviation friends about it too, but we're talking about just a handful of folks. Still, pretty cool!

I'm not real well versed in how this congressional committee stuff works. If you have more than half of the senate cosponsoring a bill in committee, whats the likelihood of it passing the senate? Making it to law...?
 
A senator visited Shawnee airport last week, Monday morning for some meet and greet with some officials, talking a bit about his support of PBOR2. Flew in on his experimental Rocket II. Sharp looking plane!

53e3f17be1a46.image.jpg
 
bflynn said:
50 cosponsors as of today. People from both sides of the aisle. They must be afraid of upsetting the people with the highest ability to donate to them. I mean their campaigns.

The bill is still in committee. I don't pretend to understand the senate rules, so i dont know what should be next.
Click to expand...

http://youtu.be/tyeJ55o3El0 :lol:
 
Looks like the Manchin- Boozman bill has changed:
TITLE __--PILOT'S BILL OF RIGHTS 2

SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Pilot's Bill of Rights
2''.

SEC. __02. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT
PILOTS.

(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
certificate regulations to ensure that an individual may
operate as pilot in command or required crewmember 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 driver's license
issued by a State, territory, or possession of the United
States and complies with all medical requirements or
restrictions associated with that license;
(2) the individual holds a medical certificate issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment
of this Act, held such a certificate at any point during the
10-year period preceding such date of enactment, or obtains
such a certificate after such date of enactment;
(3) the most recent medical certificate issued by the
Federal Aviation Administration to the individual--
(A) indicates whether the certificate is first, second, or
third class;
(B) includes authorization for special issuance;
(C) may be expired;
(D) cannot have been revoked or suspended; and
(E) cannot have been withdrawn;
(4) the aircraft is carrying not more than 5 passengers;
(5) the individual is operating the aircraft under visual
flight rules or instrument flight rules;
(6) the flight, including each portion of that flight, is
not carried out--
(A) for compensation or hire, including that no passenger
or property on the flight is being carried for compensation
or hire;
(B) at an altitude that is not more than 18,000 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;
(7)(A) the individual has completed a medical education
course described in subsection (b) during the 24 calendar
months before acting as pilot in command or required
crewmember in a covered aircraft and demonstrates proof of
completion of the course; or
(B) the individual exercises sport pilot privileges or acts
as pilot in command of a glider or balloon; and
(8) the individual, when serving as a pilot in command or
required crewmember, is under the care and treatment of a
private physician if the individual has been diagnosed with
any medical condition that may impact the ability of the
individual to fly.
(b) Medical Education Course Requirements.--The medical
education course described in subsection (a)(7) shall--
(1) be available on the Internet free of charge,
(2) be developed and periodically updated in coordination
with representatives of relevant nonprofit and not-for-profit
general aviation stakeholder groups;
(3) educate pilots on conducting medical self-assessments;
(4) advise pilots on identifying warning signs of potential
serious medical conditions;
(5) identify risk mitigation strategies for medical
conditions;
(6) increase awareness and impacts of potentially impairing
over-the-counter and prescription drug medications;
(7) encourage regular medical exams and consultations with
primary care physicians;
(8) inform pilots of the regulations pertaining to the
prohibition on operations during medical deficiency; and
(9) provide to an individual a signature page, which shall
be transmitted to the Administrator, for the individual to
certify that the individual has--
(A) completed the course;
(B) received a routine physical exam from an appropriately
qualified physician during the 60 months before acting as
pilot in command or required crewmember in a covered
aircraft;
(C) received the care and treatment from a private
physician in accordance with subsection (a)(8), if
applicable; and
(D) declared an understanding of the existing prohibition
on operations during medical deficiency by stating: ``I
understand that I cannot act as pilot in command, or in any
other capacity as a required flight crewmember, if I know or
have reason to know of any medical condition that would make
me unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.''.
(c) Special Issuance Process.--
(1) In general.--An individual who has qualified for the
third-class medical certificate exemption under subsection
(a) and is seeking to serve as a pilot in command or required
crew member of a covered aircraft shall be required to have
completed the process for obtaining an Authorization for
Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate one time if the
individual is diagnosed with any of the following medical
conditions:
(A) A mental health disorder, limited to clinically
diagnosed conditions of--
(i) personality disorder that is severe enough to have
repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts;
(ii) psychosis, defined as a case in which an individual--

(I) has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly
bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted
symptoms of psychosis; or
(II) may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions,
hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or
other commonly accepted symptoms of psychosis;

(iii) severe bipolar disorder; and
(iv) substance dependence within the previous 2 years, as
defined in section 67.307(4) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(B) A neurological disorder, limited to an established
medical history and clinical diagnosis of the following:
(i) Epilepsy.
(ii) Disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory
medical explanation of the cause.
(iii) A transient loss of control of nervous system
functions without satisfactory medical explanation of the
cause.
(C) A cardiovascular condition, limited to the following:
(i) Myocardial infraction.
(ii) Coronary heart disease that has been treated by open
heart surgery.
(iii) Cardiac valve replacement.
(iv) Heart replacement.
(2) Special rule for cardiovascular conditions.--In the
case of an individual with a cardiovascular condition, the
process for obtaining an Authorization for Special Issuance
of a Medical Certificate shall be satisfied with the
successful completion of an appropriate clinical evaluation
without a mandatory wait period.
(d) Report Required.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in
coordination with the National Transportation Safety Board,
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.
(e) 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 subsection (a)
unless the Administrator has published final regulations in
the Federal Register under that subsection.
(f) 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.I'm not quite sure what the opening sections are saying. I think the implication is you can still fly with a driver's license and if you've held a medical within the last 10 years and that last medical regardless of time frame was not withdrawn or revoked but I'm far from a lawyer. Not at all sure if this is referring to a applicant withdrawing an application or the FAA withdrawing the certificate either. This
 
Last edited:
:D
overdrive148 said:
A senator visited Shawnee airport last week, Monday morning for some meet and greet with some officials, talking a bit about his support of PBOR2. Flew in on his experimental Rocket II. Sharp looking plane!

53e3f17be1a46.image.jpg
Click to expand...

I have a shirt just like that... I think I bought it at Walmart.... I'm serious! :D
 
Z06tink72 said:
On Wednesday I called the two Iowa senators and my house rep. And whadda ya know, yesterday they signed up as cosponsors of PBOR2! I told a few aviation friends about it too, but we're talking about just a handful of folks. Still, pretty cool!
Click to expand...

You must write really persuasively!
“I don’t know what I would do without the EAA because after the appeal was made last week by Chairman Jack Pelton, an additional 19 members of the United States Senate came on as cosponsors,” Inhofe told AirVenture Today.
Click to expand...

Z06tink72 said:
I'm not real well versed in how this congressional committee stuff works. If you have more than half of the senate cosponsoring a bill in committee, whats the likelihood of it passing the senate? Making it to law...?
Click to expand...

From EAA News: Inhofe Looking for Six PBOR2 Votes
Senate rules require 60 votes for a bill to be approved.
“I have reason to believe we will be (successful) because I have 54 cosponsors, and all I have to do is get six more on this trip up here, and I think we will be able to do that.”
Click to expand...
 
Luigi: you beat me to it by 20 minutes. I just posted a separate thread to discuss the Manchin-Boozman amendment. (I also disabled smileys, which might make it easier to grok the various headings.)
 
Looks like us Texans have John Cornyn on board already. Now Ted Cruz needs to join. I just sent his office an email.
 
So, I saw in the latest AOPA email that the ALPA is against this amendment. Any idea why?
 
ettsn said:
So, I saw in the latest AOPA email that the ALPA is against this amendment. Any idea why?
Click to expand...

The obvious: they CAN'T get away without having their medicals. We can, and do, I'm sorry to say. Nobody checks an owner as to his medical, BFR, annual, etc. He can take off and fly anytime. They cannot. Guess they're under the assumption that ALL GA pilots are playing by the rules and they want to keep it that way. They ought to be more worried about green lasers and drones:yes:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
As an ALPA member I can't fathom why they are against it. The rank and file that post on the professional forums are for it.
Click to expand...


Is there some way ALPA members can band together and force ALPA management to retract their position? Why would they do this if the majority of their members were not against it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
airbrain said:
The Boozman-Manchin amendment may be voted on as soon as Tuesday. Ready - Go! :yikes:
Click to expand...

They didn't make it any easier for aspiring pilots with this amendment. I would rather roll the dice on getting PBOR2 through.
 
Z06tink72 said:
They didn't make it any easier for aspiring pilots with this amendment. I would rather roll the dice on getting PBOR2 through.
Click to expand...
Not at first, but if you can get even an SI once, you should be golden unless you develop something that would make any sane person self-ground, at least temporarily. For most folks the big deterrent to staying in aviation is shelling out multiple AMUs every year to convince the feds that we're safe to fly.
 
I'd call...one of my Senators is listed as a co-sponsor, the other isn't, but I feel it's inappropriate for aliens such as myself to lobby Congress.
 
This last draft looks like AOPA couldn't handle it, so they got AARP in on it, and what we have here is the bill as AARP approved. :lol:
 
AARP involved in anything that won't make them millions? Not believing that one for a minute. Have had them as a customer multiple times over the years. They're not interested if they can't sell something.
 
Just have to calm down and be patient.. I've been waiting 13 years, what's another month. 571 has 56 cosponsors. .. house bill is well covered as well. Hopefully inhofe can muster up a few more folks after the recess and push it to vote. Failing that, there is still the FAA reauthorization bill. I'm glad the highway amendment fell thru.. if that had passed, there would have been a ton of back slapping for little benefit to any of us.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
libby2cm said:
Just have to calm down and be patient.. I've been waiting 13 years, what's another month. 571 has 56 cosponsors. .. house bill is well covered as well. Hopefully inhofe can muster up a few more folks after the recess and push it to vote. Failing that, there is still the FAA reauthorization bill. I'm glad the highway amendment fell thru.. if that had passed, there would have been a ton of back slapping for little benefit to any of us.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

:confused: If you've been waiting 13 years, if this passes, you'll still have to get a medical.
 
Henning said:
:confused: If you've been waiting 13 years, if this passes, you'll still have to get a medical.
Click to expand...
If the highway amendment had passed I would.. which is why I am glad it didn't. PBOR2 and GAPPA don't have that stipulation/verbage.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top