medical reform??

pmanton

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
5,324
Location
Indian Hills Airpark Salome, AZ
Display Name

Display name:
N1431A
What's the current status of PBOR 2? I've been away from a computer for a month. Is it dead yet, killed by the ALPA and AMEs?

Paul
Salome, AZ
 
Congress on recess....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I am thinking that this is not going to happen. It's kind of depressing really.
 
The PBOR2 got "fixed" such that you wouldn't need to get a medical as long as you had been issued a FAA third class medical recently.

And, then, it went nowhere.
 
Last edited:
My medical expires at the end of this month. A few months ago I had hopes I might not need to get another one but now I need to get it knocked out. Maybe this will pass sometime in the next 5 years :D.
 
The PBOR2 got "fixed" such that you wouldn't need to get a medical as long as you had been issued a FAA third class medical recently.

And, then, it went nowhere.

PBOR2 didn't get "fixed" at all. It's still mired in committee as it has been for months. And there's more to PBOR2 than the medical reform.

What they were trying to do is tack on a medical reform rider on to a DOT funding bill, that's the one you're thinking about.
 
PBOR2 didn't get "fixed" at all. It's still mired in committee as it has been for months. And there's more to PBOR2 than the medical reform.

What they were trying to do is tack on a medical reform rider on to a DOT funding bill, that's the one you're thinking about.
OK...
 
PBOR2 didn't get "fixed" at all. It's still mired in committee as it has been for months. And there's more to PBOR2 than the medical reform.
True that PBOR2 involves a lot more than just medical reform. But whether there is another version of it that's still stuck in committee, that I'm not sure of. Do you have any recent news on it?
What they were trying to do is tack on a medical reform rider on to a DOT funding bill, that's the one you're thinking about.
Which was introduced by two of the original PBOR2 co-sponsors, and reportedly Inhofe was totally on board with it, leading to speculation that the modified version presented in the DOT funding amendment is the current version, and that the original proposal is dead. Do you have any hard info on this? References?
 
This process makes me glad I went Sport Pilot. I'm really sad at the state of uselessness of the FAA and Congress.
 
PBOR2:

HR 1062: 03/16/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

S 571: 02/25/2015 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

GAPPA:

HR 1086: 02/26/2015 Referred to the Subcommittee on Aviation
S 573: 02/25/2015 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


The bill you're thinking about is the "Manchin-Boozman" ammendment to the DRIVE Act. It includes the medical reform along with a few other things like mandates reciprocity for out of state concealed carry permits. This amendment to never went ANYWHERE. The DRIVE act passed both houses without the amendment and has gone on to the President for signature. For all practical purposes, that angle is dead though I think AOPA/EAA is committed to find some other bill to see if they can get tacked on to.
 
What's the latest count on co-sponsors in the Senate? Inhofe said if he got 60, he would go for a stand alone Bill. After the last EAA/AOPA email crusade, both of my Senators (Ohio) signed on.

Cheers
 
What's the latest count on co-sponsors in the Senate? Inhofe said if he got 60, he would go for a stand alone Bill. After the last EAA/AOPA email crusade, both of my Senators (Ohio) signed on.

Cheers

A stand alone bill for what? GAPPA is already pretty much a standalone bill for the medical reform.

Cosponsor score:

BILL HOUSE SENATE
GAPPA 60 5
PBOR2 126 56
 
Actually I would be thrilled with the Faa if they accepted the Enchroma lens to help us poor color deficient pilots. Oh well one can dream.
 
Just for Nuthin'

In the last few months I've logged 27 hours toward my SP Cert- paid for and passed my written, on track for my check ride and am actively looking for an LSA airplane to buy. Took a while but I made it back.
Did it all with the full OK of my long time Doc (a pilot); and on my valid, current and unrestricted DL. I held a Class 3 Med that went dormant with my first student certificate in 1984. My local FSDO had no problem with issuing me a new and current Student Certificate Sport pilot certificate, instructors had no problem with accepting and endorsing me on it; you know, like following the Sport Pilot/ LSA rules to the nut and:dunno: getting it done
All good, right?
Even though I just started working at certifying SP, I've been an active AOPA and EAA member since 1979 keeping my head in proper attitude. I've been involved with the push for this PBRO since the get go- what, 3 or 4 yrs ago, writing letters, phone calls the whole deal. Sounded like a great way to go mostly since I don't know any pilots that are stupid. Wasn't crazy about the idea of 18,00 ft, IFR and 6 passengers without a medical, but I figured that was a bargaining chip thrown in.
Then, here on this last big and thankfully dead "Call To Action!!!" I read this about a 10yr limit on last Class 3 medical review. Hang on here, where'd that come from?
Here's the deal: I don't want to even take an outside chance on losing my privilege and I don't (read won't) spend the price or go thru the hassle of having to get SI's. - It's as much on principal as anything else- I followed all the rules to be legal in the left seat.
I'm at the place now where I'm feeling semi-hosed and I have no idea who is holding the nozzle;- should I finish up before this is maybe passed and hope for an exemption rule (sure) or cut my losses and just stop putting money into the GA community that I was fully hoping to support as much as possible for the rest of my days.
I just want to fly; make up your minds.
:dunno:.
 
Re: Just for Nuthin'

In the last few months I've logged 27 hours toward my SP Cert- paid for and passed my written, on track for my check ride and am actively looking for an LSA airplane to buy. Took a while but I made it back.
Did it all with the full OK of my long time Doc (a pilot); and on my valid, current and unrestricted DL. I held a Class 3 Med that went dormant with my first student certificate in 1984. My local FSDO had no problem with issuing me a new and current Student Certificate Sport pilot certificate, instructors had no problem with accepting and endorsing me on it; you know, like following the Sport Pilot/ LSA rules to the nut and:dunno: getting it done
All good, right?
Even though I just started working at certifying SP, I've been an active AOPA and EAA member since 1979 keeping my head in proper attitude. I've been involved with the push for this PBRO since the get go- what, 3 or 4 yrs ago, writing letters, phone calls the whole deal. Sounded like a great way to go mostly since I don't know any pilots that are stupid. Wasn't crazy about the idea of 18,00 ft, IFR and 6 passengers without a medical, but I figured that was a bargaining chip thrown in.
Then, here on this last big and thankfully dead "Call To Action!!!" I read this about a 10yr limit on last Class 3 medical review. Hang on here, where'd that come from?
Here's the deal: I don't want to even take an outside chance on losing my privilege and I don't (read won't) spend the price or go thru the hassle of having to get SI's. - It's as much on principal as anything else- I followed all the rules to be legal in the left seat.
I'm at the place now where I'm feeling semi-hosed and I have no idea who is holding the nozzle;- should I finish up before this is maybe passed and hope for an exemption rule (sure) or cut my losses and just stop putting money into the GA community that I was fully hoping to support as much as possible for the rest of my days.
I just want to fly; make up your minds.
:dunno:.

If I understand what you have written, you are concerned that the Manchin-Boozman amendment version of the PBOR2 would require sport pilots to get a third-class medical.

It would not.

The Manchin-Boozman amendment does not require sport, glider, or balloon pilots to get a medical, any more than it requires ATPs to fly below 18000 feet or with 6 or fewer passengers.

It would require the FAA to create a new exemption to the existing medical requirements for people that satisfy each of the requirements set forth in the statute. It would not affect people who are happy complying with the existing requirements.

If you want to be a sport pilot and are happy flying within the limitations of that rating, keep at it and enjoy. Be proud that you've gotten back in the game and are close to getting your certificate. Don't let fear, uncertainty, and doubt based upon a misreading of the statute get in your way.
 
It's never gonna happen... WE keep flying until we feel we can't pass and then transition to Sport.... I wish I was wrong but between talking with Dr. Bruce and my own AME - both told me to never ever expect it.
 
Re: Just for Nuthin'

In the last few months I've logged 27 hours toward my SP Cert- paid for and passed my written, on track for my check ride and am actively looking for an LSA airplane to buy. Took a while but I made it back.
Did it all with the full OK of my long time Doc (a pilot); and on my valid, current and unrestricted DL. I held a Class 3 Med that went dormant with my first student certificate in 1984. My local FSDO had no problem with issuing me a new and current Student Certificate Sport pilot certificate, instructors had no problem with accepting and endorsing me on it; you know, like following the Sport Pilot/ LSA rules to the nut and:dunno: getting it done
All good, right?
Even though I just started working at certifying SP, I've been an active AOPA and EAA member since 1979 keeping my head in proper attitude. I've been involved with the push for this PBRO since the get go- what, 3 or 4 yrs ago, writing letters, phone calls the whole deal. Sounded like a great way to go mostly since I don't know any pilots that are stupid. Wasn't crazy about the idea of 18,00 ft, IFR and 6 passengers without a medical, but I figured that was a bargaining chip thrown in.
Then, here on this last big and thankfully dead "Call To Action!!!" I read this about a 10yr limit on last Class 3 medical review. Hang on here, where'd that come from?
Here's the deal: I don't want to even take an outside chance on losing my privilege and I don't (read won't) spend the price or go thru the hassle of having to get SI's. - It's as much on principal as anything else- I followed all the rules to be legal in the left seat.
I'm at the place now where I'm feeling semi-hosed and I have no idea who is holding the nozzle;- should I finish up before this is maybe passed and hope for an exemption rule (sure) or cut my losses and just stop putting money into the GA community that I was fully hoping to support as much as possible for the rest of my days.
I just want to fly; make up your minds.
:dunno:.

I would just finish your SP. I initially got my SP and then got my PP. I own a S-LSA, so in the end it really doesn't matter. There has been no discussion or rolling back the SP to require a medical beyond the DL.

I have flown all over the country under SP rules. It really isn't that big a deal. If you don't want to fly at night, or in larger planes, get your SP and enjoy your time flying.

Carl
 
The bill you're thinking about is the "Manchin-Boozman" ammendment to the DRIVE Act. It includes the medical reform along with a few other things like mandates reciprocity for out of state concealed carry permits. This amendment to never went ANYWHERE. The DRIVE act passed both houses without the amendment and has gone on to the President for signature. For all practical purposes, that angle is dead though I think AOPA/EAA is committed to find some other bill to see if they can get tacked on to.
Yes, Manchin and Boozman were the "two of the original co-sponsors" that I was talking about. It was introduced as an amendment, and the amendment never went anywhere, but my point was that the fate of the M-B amendment qua amendment to H.R. 422 doesn't mean that this form of the PBOR2 is dead, and especially it doesn't mean that the original form of the PBOR2 isn't dead.

My point was that Inhofe was reportedly on board with M-B. That, if true, implies to me that he is effectively giving up on the more sweeping form he originally proposed, at least for now.

IOW PBOR2 may not be "mired" in committee, but actually dead in its original form, and the form proposed in the M-B amendment, or some modification thereof, may be the way the legislators who are pushing for it intend to proceed.

(It might also be that they've given up on it completely, but based on Inhofe's record, I rather doubt that.)
 
PBOR2 is stuck in the committee (at least in the house) over the non-medical aspects that would likely set a precedent for other people asking for a fair hearing in the real judiciary over regulatory violations. GAPPA is a limitted to the medical aspect.
 
PBOR2 is stuck in the committee (at least in the house) over the non-medical aspects that would likely set a precedent for other people asking for a fair hearing in the real judiciary over regulatory violations. GAPPA is a limitted to the medical aspect.
Again, while what you say may be technically correct, "mired in committee" doesn't explain the fact that M-B had a radically different medical part as compared with the original PBOR2, yet everything else was unchanged. Doesn't that suggest to you that someone realized that the original medical reform clauses were a non-starter?
 
Doesn't that suggest to you that someone realized that the original medical reform clauses were a non-starter?

The new version was crap.

What would have been better would be to require an annual physical from your regular doctor. At least then we would know that any issues were being treated.
 
...What would have been better would be to require an annual physical from your regular doctor. At least then we would know that any issues were being treated.
:yeahthat:
 
The new version was crap.

What would have been better would be to require an annual physical from your regular doctor. At least then we would know that any issues were being treated.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the next iteration had a requirement like that. In the last version it was 60 months, plus you had to "certify" (honor system, probably) that you were being treated/followed for anything that might affect your fitness to fly. Annual sign-off from a non-AME might actually be the way it will go.

I think the handwriting is on the wall that they're not going to give us a simple "DL medical" a la light sport.
 
No, as I stated, the PBOR2 in the house is stuck in the consitutionality committee which to me lends me to believe that the hold up is the de novo trial on FAA enforcement actions.
 
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the next iteration had a requirement like that. In the last version it was 60 months, plus you had to "certify" (honor system, probably) that you were being treated/followed for anything that might affect your fitness to fly. Annual sign-off from a non-AME might actually be the way it will go.

I think the handwriting is on the wall that they're not going to give us a simple "DL medical" a la light sport.

Arguably, it would improve safety. A lot can change in 2 to 5 years and the goal wouldn't be to NOT get diagnosed with something.

I doubt anyone admits to their AME that they occasionally have dizzy spells etc, but remove the fear of losing medical and you remove the fear of actually getting your health concerns evaluated.

Personally, I'd rather share the skies with someone who knows his issues and is being treated than an unknown time bomb.
 
The PBR2 does now have 60 co-sponsors. Hopefully when there recess is over it will be brought out of committee.
 
The PBR2 does now have 60 co-sponsors. Hopefully when there recess is over it will be brought out of committee.


60 in the Senate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Done whining. Start in Remos GX next Friday.
Thanks for the bump, fella's.
and oh yeah, Congress can pound sand- I'm going flying.
 
Done whining. Start in Remos GX next Friday.

Thanks for the bump, fella's.

and oh yeah, Congress can pound sand- I'm going flying.


My god man, it'll be the end of society as we know it! ;)

Have fun.
 
56 actually plus Inhofe himself.
GovTrack.us Email Update
This is your email update from GovTrack.us. To change your email update settings, including to unsubscribe, go to your account settings.

Email Updates
Jul 29, 2015 — New Cosponsor

H.R. 1086: General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2015
New Cosponsor: Rep. Bob Goodlatte [R-VA6]

The bill now has 60 cosponsors (52 Republicans, 8 Democrats).

You are seeing this event because you subscribe to H.R. 1086: General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2015.


I got this July 31, 2015
 
The PBOR 2 that is being promoted and co-sponsored behind the scenes has been watered down into the form that was only made visible when it appeared in the M-B amendment. That's the version that was negotiated in order to get all of those co-sponsors on board. At least that's how I understood the remarks of the EAA advocacy staffer I talked to a month ago.

So, asking your rep to support PBOR2 may not be asking quite what you think.

The odd bias of the modified version towards aging pilots suggests to me that this effort is disintegrating into nonsense and will ultimately dissolve.
 
I wouldn't be so sure of that. A lot of nonsense has been passed by legislators of both parties over the years!
 
Hoping for the best but expecting the worst, I'm going the Sport Pilot route after 40 years as a Private Pilot and lots of wasted money on Class III physicals until either a) I'm dead or b) the end of Class III Physicals.;)

Cheers
 
Gosh, my rep is soooo on top of it.

Got this today.

Note, his staff missed that it was PBOR2 and actually I never mentioned PBOR at all, so they did make the correlation. The letter was about the medical reform stuff.

Pretty sure hell will freeze over and the sun will turn purple before they get anything accomplished.

Letter was sent some time ago before they tossed it all aside and went on recess.

-----

August 31, 2015


Dear Mr. Duehr,


Thank you for contacting my office about Pilots Bill of Rights. Your thoughts on this important issue are valuable to me. I will be sure to keep them in mind when legislation on this matter comes to the House floor. I invite you to stay in touch with me as this issue unfolds. It is truly an honor to serve as your United States Representative.

Sincerely,

Ken Buck
Member of Congress
 
Back
Top