3rd class medical ruling

Guys - the tweet from AOPA was about an hour ago - the timestamp seems to be from an incorrect timezone setting... not sure what's up with that though...
 
So basically it's confirmed that he said nothing new...?

I hope congress rams it down their throats.
 
dans2992 said:
So basically it's confirmed that he said nothing new...?

I hope congress rams it down their throats.
Click to expand...

Amen and Amen, but considering how effective congress is I don't hold out much hope.
 
I hesitate to pass judgment on an entire speech based on a single tweet. Does anyone know if there will be a transcript?
 
DFH65 said:
What reason could the have not to give the details of what they have proposed?
Click to expand...

Because DOT and the OMB can make changes. It's not complete. Imagine the outcry if for example, the FAA's original rule mirrored exactly the bills before Congress, then the DOT came through and said no, make this mirror the AOPA/EAA rule. People would be outraged, even though the rule was never complete.

The problem is Huerta was hinting at news at Oshkosh and didn't have anything beyond a routine update to give.

Congress needs to just take it out of their hands.
Click to expand...

There's never been any reason not to keep yelling at your Congress critters about this issue.
 
Keep waitin or go rogue. I'd suggest goin rogue otherwise you b waitin a while.
 
So they say Fall. Anybody wanna take a bet that it's after Christmas? at best?
 
Hi.

theskunk said:
Anybody wanna take a bet that it's after Christmas? at best?
Click to expand...

It sounds like it will [FONT=&quot]>>be opened for public comment sometime in the fall<<
which means that it may be some Xmas, but not likely during the life time of the people that want / need it now. TV
[/FONT]
 
aventhu said:
There is an election coming up and it really matters.
Click to expand...

And if the bills don't pass before that, they get tossed out and the whole process starts over again (not that they've gotten very far anyway, just collected co-sponsors).
 
Ron Levy said:
In any event, if y'all can keep your pants on until next Thursday, you should hear an FAA position on the issue.
Click to expand...
Apparently not.

"Huerta would not discuss details of the proposed rule, but said the FAA has heard the general aviation community “loud and clear” on the need for reform. The proposed rulemaking must be vetted by both the Department of Transportation and the White House Office of Management and Budget before it can be opened for public comment sometime in the fall. "
 
This doesn't seem like a big enough change to warrant it going all the way to the White House.

Did they ask the White House when they change other regs, like making it easier to install AoA indicators?

Will they ask the White House when they approve a 100LL replacement?

Doubt it.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Apparently not.

"Huerta would not discuss details of the proposed rule, but said the FAA has heard the general aviation community “loud and clear” on the need for reform. The proposed rulemaking must be vetted by both the Department of Transportation and the White House Office of Management and Budget before it can be opened for public comment sometime in the fall. "
Click to expand...

So much for "inside sources"............

Ron Levy said:
Be at AirVenture and in the tent when the FAA Administrator gets up to speak, and you won't have to wonder any more. Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Anyone who is part of the rulemaking process who spills the beans on the details of the proposed rule before it is officially announced would get into very deep trouble. My sources have access to that information, but they sure as heck aren't going to share those details with me. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with them saying "Have you seen the AOPA proposal? You think that would work?" or "You really want to be listening next Thursday". ;)
Click to expand...
 
dans2992 said:
This doesn't seem like a big enough change to warrant it going all the way to the White House.

Did they ask the White House when they change other regs, like making it easier to install AoA indicators?

Will they ask the White House when they approve a 100LL replacement?

Doubt it.
Click to expand...

The FAA ultimately reports to the White House, it's part of the Department of Transportation.

Any rule change takes this route. DOT because they are the cabinet under which the FAA resides (and thus have ultimate say and veto power). OMB to assess any budgetary effects.
 
ANY rule change? ANY change to the FARs? Seriously?

Sounds like asking the boss if you can go to the washroom... No wonder the govt is so inefficient.
 
dans2992 said:
This doesn't seem like a big enough change to warrant it going all the way to the White House.

Did they ask the White House when they change other regs, like making it easier to install AoA indicators?

Will they ask the White House when they approve a 100LL replacement?

Doubt it.
Click to expand...

OMB weighs in on all rule changes. Check out the forms you fill out, they all have OMB control numbers, and just changing a field on a form goes to the "White House Office of Management and Budget"
 
That's the problem with the APA -- the FAA is Congressionally prohibited from publicly disclosing the contents of a proposed rule until it's released as an NPRM, and that doesn't happen until DoT and OMB sign off on it. But I'm still confident there will be an NPRM released before Congress goes forward with their bill
 
dans2992 said:
ANY rule change? ANY change to the FARs? Seriously?

Sounds like asking the boss if you can go to the washroom... No wonder the govt is so inefficient.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the rules are regarding when the FAA has to get OMB approval, but adopting anything resembling the AOPA/EAA proposal would be slightly more significant than a trip to the washroom!
 
Not that I know much about this, but 126 co-sponsors for the house bill seems like a lot. Is there a better chance of seeing some action on this with over 1/4 of the house signing on?
 
F01LA said:
Not that I know much about this, but 126 co-sponsors for the house bill seems like a lot. Is there a better chance of seeing some action on this with over 1/4 of the house signing on?
Click to expand...

Well the bills have just been introduced into their respective houses of Congress (and have been languishing there for a few months now). After they are introduced they have to go to the various subcommittees, reported out to the full committee and voted on. Only then do they come for a floor vote. Once that happens, assuming they pass of course, then the House and Senate versions have to be reconciled in the Conference Committee. Only then does it get sent to the President for signing (or vetoing).

Even when all that happens, and it becomes law (I'm a little fuzzy on this next part), Congress can only direct the FAA to do something, they can't make the FAA do anything. I believe the FAA could look at the PPA and say "no that's dangerous" or costs to much or we want to do it this way instead and implement something along the same lines but different. At any rate whatever the FAA came up with in response to the bill would still have to go through the rule making process, just as they are doing now.

(In fact just looked at the bill it states in the first sentence: "To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes.")

All of this is a long winded way of saying, the PPA has a long way to go, even it it ever sees the light of day, we'd still have to wait for it to go through the rule making process.

In my opinion, I don't think the PPA was ever meant to become law. It was simply there to kick the FAA into gear (which it has done) and for legislators to be able to point to it in '14 and go "vote for me, look what I did!"
 
It's one thing to pass a bill and require the FAA to comply, and it's entirely another for Congress to appropriate the funds to do so.

Seen your picture on you pilot certificate yet?
 
There is nothing to reconcile between the two bills. It is my understanding, they were identical by design. Still, there is a long ways to go. Just getting Congress to agree on anything seems pretty difficult in the last couple of years. If they ever move out of committee, I might feel more confident, but that is frequently where hills die with no fanfare or publicity.
 
RotorAndWing said:
It's one thing to pass a bill and require the FAA to comply, and it's entirely another for Congress to appropriate the funds to do so.

Seen your picture on you pilot certificate yet?
Click to expand...

True, although in this case, issuing fewer medical certificates should not require additional funds.
 
Palmpilot said:
True, although in this case, issuing fewer medical certificates should not require additional funds.
Click to expand...

Who is going to rewrite the regulations? Who is going to rewrite the guidance? Who is going to rewrite the training program?, etc, etc.....

While it may appear there is little to do, what there is still requires funding and manpower. Simply saying "We'll just dump this in CAMI's lap and let them figure it out" won't work.

For each department affected they will need to allocate man hours to accomplish. Most departments are already at 100+ % and no allocation of additional personnel.
 
Ron Levy said:
That's the problem with the APA -- the FAA is Congressionally prohibited from publicly disclosing the contents of a proposed rule until it's released as an NPRM, and that doesn't happen until DoT and OMB sign off on it. But I'm still confident there will be an NPRM released before Congress goes forward with their bill
Click to expand...

Do you know where the APA or any other provision of law prohibits agencies from disclosing proposed rule making prior to publication as an NPRM? 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553 require publication of a rule in the Federal Register before it can become effective, but I don't see where they mandate secrecy prior to that publication.

I would think that it is more an issue of the fact that the Secretary of Transportation (FAA Administrator's boss) and the Office of Management and Budget (part of the Executive Office of the President, and thus sort of the FAA Administrator's boss's boss) need to sign off on the rules before an NPRM can be published, and may reject the rules or demand changes. It's generally bad form to publicly announce the details of something that your boss or boss's boss haven't yet approved and may change.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Who is going to rewrite the regulations? Who is going to rewrite the guidance? Who is going to rewrite the training program?, etc, etc.....

While it may appear there is little to do, what there is still requires funding and manpower. Simply saying "We'll just dump this in CAMI's lap and let them figure it out" won't work.

For each department affected they will need to allocate man hours to accomplish. Most departments are already at 100+ % and no allocation of additional personnel.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I have a question: There have been regulation rewrites before, some of them major; did they require specific appropriations to fund them, or were they already covered in the FAA's budget?

In this case, it seems that the FAA has already expended the manpower to write the new regulations in the NPRM. :dunno:
 
No one knows for sure what will happen with this, but to pass, I suspect it will not be voted out of committee. Usually at the end of the session (and at other specific times) the leadership collects up a lot of bills like this where there is no significant legislative hostility and puts them into a suspension bill where they vote to suspend the rules and make it law. It requires a unanimous (or 2/3 sometimes) voice vote on the package and supporters can proclaim victory and bystanders can proclaim innocence.

The raw number of sponsors is not particularly relevant, but the fact that there is a mix of D's & R's means no one is whipping against it. It does take leadership support, which in the House is currently in a confused state.

The current bill, as written (of course it could change), eliminates the requirement. The FAA would have an unenforceable rule. Also, the FAA budget people see the bills they get from the consultants supporting SI's for class 3's and stopping them is an instant savings and they like that.
 
So are you saying the proposed bill would _eliminate_ class 3 requirements, or just make < 6000 lbs, < 14,000 ft, < 7 seats and VFR NOT require a 3rd class?
 
Ron Levy said:
You are confusing the comment period on AOPA's petition with a comment period for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the changes the FAA would like to make. Odds are you'll hear some sort of official FAA announcement on this at AirVenture, which is less than two weeks away.
Click to expand...


Guess those odds didn't pan out. Or they had to maintain their record on "real budget, more useless".
 
denverpilot said:
Guess those odds didn't pan out. Or they had to maintain their record on "real budget, more useless".
Click to expand...

How do Huerta's comments at Airventure not qualify as "some sort of official FAA announcement"? ;)
 
dans2992 said:
So are you saying the proposed bill would _eliminate_ class 3 requirements, or just make < 6000 lbs, < 14,000 ft, < 7 seats and VFR NOT require a 3rd class?
Click to expand...

**** as currently written***** the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act (GAPPA, House Bill H.R. 3708 and Senate Bill S.2103) would eliminate the requirement for a class 3 medical to fly aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with up to six seats, VFR and non-commercially, without a third-class medical certificate. Other limits would include carrying no more than five passengers, remaining below 14,000 feet msl and flying no faster than 250 knots. It would still be required for bigger/faster aircraft.
 
Palmpilot said:
How do Huerta's comments at Airventure not qualify as "some sort of official FAA announcement"? ;)
Click to expand...


Well I guess "we'll do something, someday" is impressive to someone. In most businesses, that's just an everyday thing. You announce accomplishments, not wishful thinking.
 
denverpilot said:
Well I guess "we'll do something, someday" is impressive to someone. In most businesses, that's just an everyday thing. You announce accomplishments, not wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but I was just pointing out the flexibility in Cap'n Ron's prediction! :D
 
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