Manchin-Boozman amendment

azure

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
8,302
Location
Varmint Country
Display Name

Display name:
azure
The amendment contains some interesting changes to the PBOR2. This is being discussed over on the Red Board but I hadn't seen it mentioned here.

(I note in passing that the amendment is to H.R. 22 - The "Hire More Heroes" Act, which has already been passed by the House. I thought it was supposed to have been proposed as an addition to a highway appropriations bill.)

Congressional Record said:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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(D) cannot have been revoked or suspended; and
(E) cannot have been withdrawn;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.
 
No words "deferred" or "declined", just "revoked, suspended, and withdrawn." Interesting.
 
That's terribly written (and the formatting doesn't help.) Are the numbered paragraphs (1) to (8) under section (a) joined by implicit "ands" or "ors"? If "ands" then one would appear to have to satisfy (a)(1) through (a)(3)! If they intended (a)(1) to (a)(3) to be "ors" (which seems likely) and the rest as "ands" they should have put "or" in there explicitly.

Notwithstanding (a)(7)( B ), the way it is written appears to actually make glider and balloon pilots covered by (a)(1) to (a)(3). Meaning glider and balloon pilots would now have to have an FAA medical exam (unless there are implicit "ors" in there somewhere along with some implicit "ands" so that they need only a driver license.) Currently they only need at most a photo ID. So anyway I parse it the statute actually appears to be a big step backward for such pilots.

I don't think this amendment was vetted very well.
 
Last edited:
That's terribly written (and the formatting doesn't help.) Are the numbered paragraphs (1) to (8) under section (a) joined by implicit "ands" or "ors"? If "ands" then one would appear to have to satisfy (a)(1) through (a)(3)! If they intended (a)(1) to (a)(3) to be "ors" (which seems likely) and the rest as "ands" they should have put "or" in there explicitly.
I'm pretty sure the "and" at the end of (a)(7)(B) links (a)(1) through (a)(8) . I don't think there's any intended "or" in there. I think that's quite deliberate. My reading is that you're supposed to get a medical (even if it's an SI) once in order to qualify for the 3rd class exemption, then you let it expire. Or you can have held a medical within the last 10 years. As long as it wasn't revoked, suspended, or withdrawn, you qualify for the exemption. Then you "renew" your qualification for the exemption by taking the medical education course every 24 months and certifying that you've had a physical exam within the last 60 months and are under a physician's care if you have a condition that might affect your ability to fly safely (which conditions are relevant I assume will be part of the information contained in the course). If you get diagnosed with one of the listed conditions needing an SI, you have to go through that process once only, then you need only the medical education course and continuing physician care for the condition. You still can't fly during periods of medical deficiency.
Notwithstanding (a)(7)( B ), the way it is written appears to actually make glider and balloon pilots covered by (a)(1) to (a)(3). Meaning glider and balloon pilots would now have to have an FAA medical exam (unless there are implicit "ors" in there somewhere along with some implicit "ands" so that they need only a driver license.) Currently they only need at most a photo ID. So anyway I parse it the statute actually appears to be a big step backward for such pilots.
Yes, the way it reads, the only requirement sport, glider, and balloon pilots are exempted from is the biennial medical education course... which is stupid. It might be that they WANT tighter medical control of pilots who previously weren't subject to any control at all - but if so, then it makes no sense unless they're also required to learn basic aeromedical stuff.
I don't think this amendment was vetted very well.
I think they put a lot of thought into satisfying objections from the pro-3rd class side, but failed to proofread the thing. I don't think it quite says what they wanted it to. (In particular, the 18,000 feet limitation is actually worded backwards.)
 
That's terribly written (and the formatting doesn't help.) Are the numbered paragraphs (1) to (8) under section (a) joined by implicit "ands" or "ors"? If "ands" then one would appear to have to satisfy (a)(1) through (a)(3)! If they intended (a)(1) to (a)(3) to be "ors" (which seems likely) and the rest as "ands" they should have put "or" in there explicitly.

Notwithstanding (a)(7)( B ), the way it is written appears to actually make glider and balloon pilots covered by (a)(1) to (a)(3). Meaning glider and balloon pilots would now have to have an FAA medical exam (unless there are implicit "ors" in there somewhere along with some implicit "ands" so that they need only a driver license.) Currently they only need at most a photo ID. So anyway I parse it the statute actually appears to be a big step backward for such pilots.

I don't think this amendment was vetted very well.

Yeah, there do seem to be a couple drafting issues. But, as for sport pilot, glider, and balloon pilots, subsection (a) starts out with ". . . 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--" So, by its own terms, it is only providing an exemption for people who would otherwise need a medical. That sort of makes the language about sport pilot, etc. in subsection (A)(6)(b) surplus, but that happens sometimes. I seriously doubt that the FAA (or a court for that matter) is going to interpret this as adding a medical requirement for glider pilots.

The idea here is that you get a medical once and then you are good for life, unless you develop one of the listed serious psychiatric, neurological, or cardiovascular condition. And in that case, you only need to get a special issuance once.
 
I'm pretty sure the "and" at the end of (a)(7)(B) links (a)(1) through (a)(8) . I don't think there's any intended "or" in there. I think that's quite deliberate. My reading is that you're supposed to get a medical (even if it's an SI) once in order to qualify for the 3rd class exemption, then you let it expire. Or you can have held a medical within the last 10 years. As long as it wasn't revoked, suspended, or withdrawn, you qualify for the exemption.

I didn't notice the "and" at the end of (a)(7)( B ). So paraphrased and removing the flight conditions, it seems to say:

"A person may act as PIC without a medical certificate only if the person has a driver's license and has held a medical certificate at some point and, except for sport, glider and balloon pilots, must also take an online course every 24 months."

Yes, the way it reads, the only requirement sport, glider, and balloon pilots are exempted from is the biennial medical education course... which is stupid. It might be that they WANT tighter medical control of pilots who previously weren't subject to any control at all - but if so, then it makes no sense unless they're also required to learn basic aeromedical stuff.

I think they put a lot of thought into satisfying objections from the pro-3rd class side, but failed to proofread the thing. I don't think it quite says what they wanted it to. (In particular, the 18,000 feet limitation is actually worded backwards.)
I don't see the issue with the 18k ft part.

The rest is going to be a real kicker and shock for glider, balloon, and sport pilots. This statute would seem to now drag all existing (and future) such pilots into having at least one medical exam.

THIS IS A BAD AMENDMENT. Whoever wrote it is probably cackling an evil laugh.
 
Yeah, there do seem to be a couple drafting issues. But, as for sport pilot, glider, and balloon pilots, subsection (a) starts out with ". . . 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--"

This is a statute so I would assume the applicable Federal laws it refers to are other statutes, not necessarily agency regulations, which while having the force of laws are not themselves Federal laws. Or maybe I'm wrong about how such phrases are interpreted.

If I recall correctly (too busy at the moment to look it up,) there is a Federal statute that grants the FAA authority to consider medical aspects in granting certificates, so in the case of any ambiguity that would probably be the "otherwise applicable" law in question; i.e. that phrase may be saying that the amendment does not otherwise affect the rest of the FAA's authority with respect to setting medical requirements.
 
I didn't notice the "and" at the end of (a)(7)( B ). So paraphrased and removing the flight conditions, it seems to say:

"A person may act as PIC without a medical certificate only if the person has a driver's license and has held a medical certificate at some point and, except for sport, glider and balloon pilots, must also take an online course every 24 months."
Yep, that's how I read it. But I suspect they actually meant to leave sport, glider, and balloon privileges untouched.
I don't see the issue with the 18k ft part.
...may operate as pilot in command... if
Congressional Record said:
(a)(6) the flight, including each portion of that flight, is
NOT carried out- [...]
(B) at an altitude that is NOT more than 18,000 feet above
mean sea level; [...]
(my capitalization)

There's a double negative in there. As worded, the entire flight has to be conducted above 18,000 feet to qualify for the exemption.

The rest is going to be a real kicker and shock for glider, balloon, and sport pilots. This statute would seem to now drag all existing (and future) such pilots into having at least one medical exam.

THIS IS A BAD AMENDMENT. Whoever wrote it is probably cackling an evil laugh.
As I said, I doubt it was intended to read the way it does. Last I checked the Red Board, Dr. Bruce said he thought it was a good start to reform that has a chance of passing.
 
This amendment is too confusing for one to read. There are a lot of different, conflicting, and confusing clauses in it.

They should make the amendment much simpler to understand, and one where it will allow DL medical privileges for both private pilots and student pilots wishing to obtain a private pilot certificate.
 
This is a statute so I would assume the applicable Federal laws it refers to are other statutes, not necessarily agency regulations, which while having the force of laws are not themselves Federal laws. Or maybe I'm wrong about how such phrases are interpreted.

If I recall correctly (too busy at the moment to look it up,) there is a Federal statute that grants the FAA authority to consider medical aspects in granting certificates, so in the case of any ambiguity that would probably be the "otherwise applicable" law in question; i.e. that phrase may be saying that the amendment does not otherwise affect the rest of the FAA's authority with respect to setting medical requirements.

No, I think "federal law" in this case means statutes, regulations, treaties, federal common law, and every other form of law that derives from federal power. Otherwise, the whole PBOR2 thing would be a nullity, because there is no statute that requires "medical certification or proof of health." 49 U.S.C. § 44711 prohibits serving as an airman without an "airman certificate" and prohibits violating the terms of that certificate. But the requirement for a medical appears solely in FAA regulations. (As you note, 49 U.S.C. § 44703 allows the FAA to consider "physical" qualifications in issuing airman certificates, but that doesn't by itself create a statutory obligation to possess a medical certificate.)

And, the text of the amendment says that the FAA has to change its regs so that people who meet requirements (a)(1) through (a)(8) "may" act as PIC or required crew. I don't see how you go from a law saying that Group A "may" act as PIC to the conclusion that rights to act as PIC must be taken away from Group B (sport, glider, and balloon pilots).

Furthermore, if your interpretation was right, and conditions (a)(1) through (a)(8) apply to every pilot, regardless of rating or category of aircraft, then every pilot in the country would be prohibited from flying a "covered aircraft" for compensation or hire ((a)(6)(A)), above (or is it below?) FL180 ((a)(6)(B)), or faster than 250 knots ((a)(6)(D)), just as surely as they would be prohibited from flying without ever having had a medical ((a)(2)).
 
I am reminded that the Founding Fathers neglected to include in the requirements for Members of Congress the ability to write coherently in English.

Rich
 
Don't know the real facts, but there was a rumor going around today that ALPA was opposed to the 3rd class proposal.
 
I am reminded that the Founding Fathers neglected to include in the requirements for Members of Congress the ability to write coherently in English.
If they had, we'd have real trouble filling the seats in both houses. The ability to write coherently in English is fast becoming a lost skill in this country.
 
Don't know the real facts, but there was a rumor going around today that ALPA was opposed to the 3rd class proposal.

Everybody needs to see ALPA for what it is which is a labor union just as AOPA/EAA are lobbys for their respective groups. What would be intersesting to know is what's behind ALPAs opposition - suspect some bad blood with AOPA/EAA etc.

Labor unions should be clear that first and foremost they represent the interests of their members - that's why they pay union dues. Whatever they are doing here is a veiled attempt to do that in the context of some likely unrelated issue. ALPA is a labor union just like the teamsters, machinest, and bakers.


American and Southwests pilot unions support it - they like the parts related to getting around certificate appeals at the NTSB - but they'll take the third class reforms to get what they want. So what gives at ALPA?
 
Too be honest, I don't think we should support the Manchin-Boozman amendment on the Third Class Medical Reform. Too many confusing and conflicting restrictions and most likely wouldn't benefit most pilots or would-be pilots. I don't know why AOPA would allow this kind of amendment to be supported.

I would rather support GAPPA 2 or the PBOR2 as is.
 
What better way to defeat an enemy. Create and pit factions against each other. Create different ideals which drag someone into the fray who was neutral.

"We are not going to rest ", vowed Mark Baker.

That is until we have extracted every last golden egg from this goose,IMHO.
__________________
 
It reads to me like this only helps people who formerly qualified for Class 3 but no longer do. i.e. it benefits aging pilots and does nothing to ease restrictions on new pilots. Why the bias there? Agreed, this is poorly drafted.
 
It reads to me like this only helps people who formerly qualified for Class 3 but no longer do. i.e. it benefits aging pilots and does nothing to ease restrictions on new pilots. Why the bias there? Agreed, this is poorly drafted.

Exactly, as ALPA pointed out, it's NOT PBOR2, this is a highly restricted version that will keep the better version from coming up.
 
It reads to me like this only helps people who formerly qualified for Class 3 but no longer do. i.e. it benefits aging pilots and does nothing to ease restrictions on new pilots. Why the bias there? Agreed, this is poorly drafted.

The bias is predictability for actuarial purposes. The entire purpose of all this type of regulation is to maintain predictable, profitable, insurability of industry; protect the money, that's what we do as a society, that's the FAA's job as well.

Without some level of medical screening, it's impossible for the actuaries to come up with a reliable and accurate model.
 
I've read this several times .. and it's confusing as hell. What about those of us that have been fying under SP for the last 10 yrs and haven't gotten a medical?
Does this now supercede and revoke SP rules and require a one time medical if
we haven't had one in the last 10 yrs?

RT
 
I've read this several times .. and it's confusing as hell. What about those of us that have been fying under SP for the last 10 yrs and haven't gotten a medical?
Does this now supercede and revoke SP rules and require a one time medical if
we haven't had one in the last 10 yrs?

RT
I agree that it needs clarification. Who to contact though? None of the articles I've seen on AOPA hint that those people even have a clue that the amendment is different from the original PBOR2. I can't imagine that the office staff of either Sens. Manchin or Boozman would be in a position to explain it.
:dunno:

edit to add: If you haven't held a medical in the last 10 years though, I think it's pretty clear that you will need the one time medical to fly a non-LSA.
 
edit to add: If you haven't held a medical in the last 10 years though, I think it's pretty clear that you will need the one time medical to fly a non-LSA.

Having read it a bunch of times .. it appears to add the new requirement to those of us flying LSA eligible aircraft. Am I missing something? This is worse than no change at all.

RT
 
Having read it a bunch of times .. it appears to add the new requirement to those of us flying LSA eligible aircraft. Am I missing something? This is worse than no change at all.

RT
That's the part I'm not clear on. One of the legal eagles on the Red Board opined that the "without regard to any medical certification or proof of health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law" language in the first paragraph of (a) means that for operations that do not currently require medical certification, the new bill doesn't change anything. My problem is with the "if" in that sentence and the whole set of conditions (a)(1) through (8). Then again, IANAL.

But I can't think of any reason anyone would WANT to bring sport pilots under the FAA's medical oversight, even on a one-time basis. There just isn't any evidence supporting that kind of move. And the "or" at the end of (a)(7)(A) seems to mean that sport pilots will need the one-time medical but won't be required to take the medical education course, which makes no sense at all.

So it seems likelier to me, anyway, that the mention of sport, glider, and balloon pilots is a drafting error. I just don't know where to inquire to find out for certain, unfortunately. :(
 
It reads to me like this only helps people who formerly qualified for Class 3 but no longer do. i.e. it benefits aging pilots and does nothing to ease restrictions on new pilots. Why the bias there? Agreed, this is poorly drafted.

I just chatted with someone at EAA advocacy (who was gracious enough to return my call, thank you) who did not contradict this interpretation. He conceded this was not the desired PBOR2 but rather the outcome from the obligatory negotiation.

So yah, basically, you would be eligible for drivers license medical if once in the past ten years you obtained a medical and are not suffering from the severe conditions specified in the amendment. It does absolutely nothing to ease limitations on new issuances. The same special issuance (SI) regimen remains in place.

So this doesn't bring in new pilots. It just slows the departure of old ones. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
So, do we now have to have a medical every 10 years?

No, if it passes, you will need to have gotten a medical once after 2005. Then never again unless you develop one of the specific psychiatric, neurological, cardiac, or substance abuse issues listed in the bill, in which case you will need to get a one-time SI for the condition.

For a new would-be pilot, get a medical when you are 15 and you may not need to get one again (to fly your six-seater, below FL180, etc.) for decades, if ever.
 
No, if it passes, you will need to have gotten a medical once after 2005. Then never again unless you develop one of the specific psychiatric, neurological, cardiac, or substance abuse issues listed in the bill, in which case you will need to get a one-time SI for the condition.

For a new would-be pilot, get a medical when you are 15 and you may not need to get one again (to fly your six-seater, below FL180, etc.) for decades, if ever.

Well, that exact demographic is where a large contingent who post on the subject have been, with a disqualifying ADD/ADHD concern that cannot get that first medical at 15 because they have already been diagnosed and treated.
 
This is bad if it goes through as written.

It certainly appears to throw those flying under Light Sport under the bus to gain a few crumbs for those on 3rd Class. It appears to have been written by insurance companies to bring SP's back under the medical requirements. I think it's a betrayal by AOPA/EAA. And to think I just renewed AOPA after pondering for quite a while.


RT
 
It certainly appears to throw those flying under Light Sport under the bus to gain a few crumbs for those on 3rd Class. It appears to have been written by insurance companies to bring SP's back under the medical requirements. I think it's a betrayal by AOPA/EAA. And to think I just renewed AOPA after pondering for quite a while.


RT
I called AOPA this afternoon about this point and the gentleman I spoke with said he would ask some of the folks in governmental affairs. Basically most of the people there haven't a clue about the details, but at least he was determined to get an answer for me. I'll post more when I hear back from him (if?).
 
I called AOPA this afternoon about this point and the gentleman I spoke with said he would ask some of the folks in governmental affairs. Basically most of the people there haven't a clue about the details, but at least he was determined to get an answer for me. I'll post more when I hear back from him (if?).

Oh my ... this is like .. "we have to pass this to see what's in it".
 
Oh my ... this is like .. "we have to pass this to see what's in it".
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.
 
Oh my ... this is like .. "we have to pass this to see what's in it".

It was published in the Congressional Record 5 days ago. It's relatively short. If there is a vote in the next day or two, that is the version the Senate will vote on. If you want to see what's in it, read it.
 
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