Manchin-Boozman amendment

[Neil Rubin]

Their PR is totally like "this is PBOR2, attached to a money bill". I really think most of them actually believe that, and it's taking ordinary pilots to bring to their attention the fact that it isn't true.

Also, don't forget that most of them were at OSH last week and only know what they've been told.

I have no inside information, but my interpretation is that S.Amdt. 2267 is the current version of PBOR2. The version introduced as S.571 in February was sort of an opening offer. Any bill of any substance gets changed and tweaked between when it is first introduced and when it comes up for a vote. I'm sure that Inhofe, Rokita, and company fully expected to make changes as things moved along. Ask for a full loaf and end up with half a loaf--you are still better off than where you started.

I suspect that they only got to 55 co-sponsors on S.571 by agreeing with folks that had concerns with the original draft to make these sorts of changes. The choice isn't between this amendment and the February version of PBOR2. The choice is between this amendment's version of PBOR2 and nothing.

 

[azure]

I have no inside information, but my interpretation is that S.Amdt. 2267 is the current version of PBOR2. The version introduced as S.571 in February was sort of an opening offer. Any bill of any substance gets changed and tweaked between when it is first introduced and when it comes up for a vote. I'm sure that Inhofe, Rokita, and company fully expected to make changes as things moved along. Ask for a full loaf and end up with half a loaf--you are still better off than where you started.

I suspect that they only got to 55 co-sponsors on S.571 by agreeing with folks that had concerns with the original draft to make these sorts of changes. The choice isn't between this amendment and the February version of PBOR2. The choice is between this amendment's version of PBOR2 and nothing.

I suspect that may be true. It's still pretty lame for AOPA to sell it as PBOR2 without making the changes clear. And there's also the question is whether Inhofe et al. are on board with this version. If not, it's not going anywhere.

But yeah, though I'm not happy with everything in this bill, if it really is this version or nothing, I'll take this version. Unless it forces sport pilots and PPs exercising sport pilot privileges to get a one-time 3rd class to continue to fly LSA. That would require some explanation, AFAIC.

 

[RogerT]

If you want to see what's in it, read it.

I wasn't refering to me knowing what's in it .. I was refering to AOPA/EAA promoting it without knowing. I read it .. as confusing as it is.

 

[RogerT]

Unless it forces sport pilots and PPs exercising sport pilot privileges to get a one-time 3rd class to continue to fly LSA. That would require some explanation, AFAIC.

The way I read it .. it does. It appears the only thing SP's get out of is the 24 month medical training. It's too coincidental that people who started flying SP when the rule first came out .. would not have had a medical in 10 yrs. This is a way to force them to do so. It's going to push a lot of people out of SP/LSA ranks after being told they'd be able to fly and invested money in aircraft accordingly. Like I said .. it would be a major betrayal by AOPA and EAA to sell us out.

RT

 

[azure]

The way I read it .. it does. It appears the only thing SP's get out of is the 24 month medical training. It's too coincidental that people who started flying SP when the rule first came out .. would not have had a medical in 10 yrs. This is a way to force them to do so. It's going to push a lot of people out of SP/LSA ranks after being told they'd be able to fly and invested money in aircraft accordingly. Like I said .. it would be a major betrayal by AOPA and EAA to sell us out.

RT

But why would they want to? There has been no pressure from any source I know of to nix the DL medical for sport pilot privileges. It would be totally out of the blue AFAIK.

 

[Henning]

I have no inside information, but my interpretation is that S.Amdt. 2267 is the current version of PBOR2. The version introduced as S.571 in February was sort of an opening offer. Any bill of any substance gets changed and tweaked between when it is first introduced and when it comes up for a vote. I'm sure that Inhofe, Rokita, and company fully expected to make changes as things moved along. Ask for a full loaf and end up with half a loaf--you are still better off than where you started.

I suspect that they only got to 55 co-sponsors on S.571 by agreeing with folks that had concerns with the original draft to make these sorts of changes. The choice isn't between this amendment and the February version of PBOR2. The choice is between this amendment's version of PBOR2 and nothing.

I'm better off maybe later, right now I still carry a Second Class. But the majority of people who were hoping for this are left in the cold, and may get screwed out of what they have.

 

[Neil Rubin]

The way I read it .. it does. It appears the only thing SP's get out of is the 24 month medical training. It's too coincidental that people who started flying SP when the rule first came out .. would not have had a medical in 10 yrs. This is a way to force them to do so. It's going to push a lot of people out of SP/LSA ranks after being told they'd be able to fly and invested money in aircraft accordingly. Like I said .. it would be a major betrayal by AOPA and EAA to sell us out.

RT

What section 2 of the amendment says is that the FAA has to let people who meet conditions (a)(1) through (a)(8) fly. It doesn't say that the FAA has to change the rules in any way for people who can already fly. So ATPs don't suddenly have to fly at less than 250 knots. Commercial pilots don't have to stop flying for hire. Glider pilots don't need to stay below 18000 feet. Balloon pilots don't need to get a driver's license. And sport pilots don't need to get a medical. The only effect is to loosen the requirements. Could the FAA change its regulations to require sport pilots to have a medical after this passes? Sure, but the FAA could do that today.

If that's true, why is (a)(7)(B ) in there, you might ask? Well, first off, this version wasn't very carefully drafted. (a)(3)(B ) could be read as saying you are only eligible if your medical had a Special Issuance. (a)(6)(B ) has a double negative that read literally gives an absurd result. But one thing (a)(7)(B ) does is prevent the FAA from getting the clever idea that all sport, glider, and balloon pilots should now have to take this spiffy medical course, too. The FAA couldn't add that requirement, at least for sport, glider, and balloon pilots that have once held a medical.

Yes, the amendment is complicated and could be cleaned up. But I don't believe that the intent or the effect will be to require sport, glider, or balloon pilots to get a medical.

 

[Henning]

What makes you think the FAA wants these restrictions? They have stayed as far away from SP/LSA as possible.

 

[Unregistered]

No, if it passes, you will need to have gotten a medical once after 2005.

Actually, my last medical (2nd Class) was Sept 2003 and I -think- I would still be covered because the medical remains current for two years (with Third Class Privileges) taking it (just barely) inside the 10 year time frame

 

[flyingron]

No words "deferred" or "declined", just "revoked, suspended, and withdrawn." Interesting.

Deferral is a transient state. It doesn't even stop you from flying if you have a valid medical. I think the missing word is "denied."

 

[azure]

Deferral is a transient state. It doesn't even stop you from flying if you have a valid medical. I think the missing word is "denied."

Nevertheless, the word IS missing. Unless it's a loophole that will be closed in the final version, that IS significant.

 

[dans2992]

Since they're going on recess, I think we have at least six weeks before anything happens (or even could happen), right?

 

[libby2cm]

Since they're going on recess, I think we have at least six weeks before anything happens (or even could happen), right?

Yes, unless Inhofe works a miracle, drums up 4 more cosponsors and puts it up for vote before the end of the week..

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk