PBOR2 .. cleared for takeoff?!

L

libby2cm

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
28
Yes, campy I know, but s.571 hit 62 sponsors, including Inhofe... time to see some magic happen now..
Maybe??!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Where are we on the class 3 for the current version. I've heard all sorts of different variations.

Also what else of note is in there?
 
pmanton said:
So they'll pass a law and the FAA will say "Unable to comply"
Click to expand...

The FAA would be happy to comply (not that they would have an option with a legislative mandate). Their 3rd class medical relief is stalled at DOT.
 
What does PBOR2 even look like at this point? What version are these legislators co-sponsoring? Is it the version we saw in the Manchin-Boozman amendment? For all we know, it is so watered down as to offer hardly any change at all. It certainly isn't the version that was first proposed.
 
It would be nice if they switched to the same level of justice we have in criminal court, where the FAA must prove the airman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it would also be nice if they could more easily face criminal prosecution charges if they overreach.
 
pmanton said:
So they'll pass a law and the FAA will say "Unable to comply"
Click to expand...

However, the way it's worded, the FAA has 180 days to issue regulations to comply, and if they don't, any enforcement actions taken based upon their non-updated regulations will be null and void.
 
JazzBass said:
Find it here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text
Click to expand...

^^^ refers to "the version that was first proposed" and is almost certainly not the form the bill will have if passed. Behind the scenes, the wording has been negotiated and changed substantially as evident in the Machin-Boozman amendment. It has been heavily watered down since February.

---
"Why hire a band for an hour when you can hire a string bass for a whole evening?" - Michael Scott
 
I do find it interesting that after both EAA and AOPA made such a big deal about reaching 60 co-sponsors and a sure vote, they have been crickets since going over 60?

Carl
 
James331 said:
It would be nice if they switched to the same level of justice we have in criminal court, where the FAA must prove the airman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it would also be nice if they could more easily face criminal prosecution charges if they overreach.
Click to expand...

Seriously?? You want criminal law to replace administrative?
 
RotorAndWing said:
Seriously?? You want criminal law to replace administrative?
Click to expand...

Seems like with every FAA administrative action I've read, it's guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, not quite up to par IMHO.
 
Very glad to see movement. I wish Inhofe was a better public speaker though...
 
I think Doc Bruce wrote on the Red Board that no matter how many Senators co-sponsor S. 571, the only version that's being considered is Manchin-Boozman.

Considering that they did a lot of careful work crafting that one, and that it seriously waters down the original, my gut feeling is that's probably true.
 
azure said:
I think Doc Bruce wrote on the Red Board that no matter how many Senators co-sponsor S. 571, the only version that's being considered is Manchin-Boozman.

Considering that they did a lot of careful work crafting that one, and that it seriously waters down the original, my gut feeling is that's probably true.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clearly true, if you listen to Inhofe's comments on the subject on the Senate floor on Thursday. The 65 cosponsors currently listed for S.571 are pretty clearly cosponsors for a version along the lines of the Manchin-Boozman amendment, not for the version of S.571 introduced February 25 of this year.
 
As pointed out in that speech, the non-medical aspects of PBOR2 has serious implications as to changing the way regulatory enforcement is done.
 
I should delete this thread.. Currently disgusted with the backstabbing by Inhofe and his cronies. Guess we will try again in another 10 years.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
QuiQuog said:
What exactly does he mean when he says that new pilots will have to complete 1 FAA medical review? Does that mean a 3rd class medical?
Click to expand...

"3) Any pilot who has not held a valid medical certificate within the past ten years or new pilots would be required to obtain a one-time 3rd class medical or special issuance to establish a health baseline. Once approved, no further AME visit or FAA certification would be required."

Weird compromise. I don't see how they reasoned up that scheme. Seems to favor the old over the new.

[Edit: Changed "young" to "new"]
 
Last edited:
airbrain said:
"3) Any pilot who has not held a valid medical certificate within the past ten years or new pilots would be required to obtain a one-time 3rd class medical or special issuance to establish a health baseline. Once approved, no further AME visit or FAA certification would be required."

Weird compromise. I don't see how they reasoned up that scheme. Seems to favor the old over the young.
Click to expand...

How so? Seems even to me, everyone needs at least one.

new pilot young or old, needs one
all current existing pilots, young and old, good to go
mothballed pilots, need one. (these guys might have given up due to cost of 3rd class renewal due to various issues, but they may opt in if they only have to pay once to prove worthy, vs. every year, or two)

I'm not referring to the rest of the bill, just the one medical portion.
 
jimbilly said:
How so? Seems even to me, everyone needs at least one.

new pilot young or old, needs one
Click to expand...

Because you are only thinking in the present. Young pilots now will eventually be old pilots. As old pilots, they will not be required to pass a third class medical exam again as long as they were healthy once upon a time even if they have developed conditions that would disqualify a new pilot who must pass the medical exam.

Another way of saying this is that generally people are healthier when they are young and haven't yet had the time for their issues to manifest. If they pass their third class while young, they are good for the rest of their life. The exact same person, if they waited until later years to fly versus starting young, could be disqualified.

When I say it is biased in favor of old pilots, I mean versus new pilots not versus young pilots.
 
But if I read it properly that 70 year old pilot still has to have had one in the past 10 years?
 
Basically, the 1 time medical is to screen out people who avoid going to the AME for the sole purpose that they know they will never qualify for a third class.

Think guys like this: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71239&highlight=bernath

He claims that he's on multiple painkillers and is 100% disabled, flys sport-pilot though, lands his plane because of insufficient fuel, takes off again without getting more fuel, and sues the manufacturer for a "deadly design defect" that caused him to crash.

I think that is one part of the SP experiment that folks would like to fix.
 
ja_user said:
But if I read it properly that 70 year old pilot still has to have had one in the past 10 years?
Click to expand...
Everyone would have to have had a medical this side of 2005 (or so, depending on exactly when it goes into effect, if it goes into effect). So, if you are 70 now, and live to 99 your 2005 medical would have been good for 40 years. If you are 26 now and live to 99, your medical could be good for 83 years.
 
JeffDG said:
Basically, the 1 time medical is to screen out people who avoid going to the AME for the sole purpose that they know they will never qualify for a third class.

Think guys like this: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71239&highlight=bernath

He claims that he's on multiple painkillers and is 100% disabled, flys sport-pilot though, lands his plane because of insufficient fuel, takes off again without getting more fuel, and sues the manufacturer for a "deadly design defect" that caused him to crash.

I think that is one part of the SP experiment that folks would like to fix.
Click to expand...


But if he had thought to get a medical back before he went down the disability route, he would be good to go.

The takeaway here is to get your medical out of the way when you are young if you ever in your life plan to fly an airplane - even if it's just on your list of retirement activities.

And, as a pilot, you should take your children to the AME as infants since they are as likely as not to be pilots also. And, before you say that it can't be done: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/faq/response7/
 
airbrain said:
"3) Any pilot who has not held a valid medical certificate within the past ten years or new pilots would be required to obtain a one-time 3rd class medical or special issuance to establish a health baseline. Once approved, no further AME visit or FAA certification would be required."

Weird compromise. I don't see how they reasoned up that scheme. Seems to favor the old over the new.

[Edit: Changed "young" to "new"]
Click to expand...

This basically means the senators can fly their airplanes forever and don't have to worry about getting a medical anymore. Kind of convenient.

Doesn't do **** for those that can't get issued for stupid reasons.

It's progress, but not enough progress.
 
So let me get this straight....my expired SI from three years ago will meet the requirement of the initial flight physical? I'm about to jump through those hoops again next month. Should I wait?
 
Maybe I need to read it again then, I didn't read it that way,...
 
jesse said:
This basically means the senators can fly their airplanes forever and don't have to worry about getting a medical anymore. Kind of convenient.

Doesn't do **** for those that can't get issued for stupid reasons.

It's progress, but not enough progress.
Click to expand...

Well, the SP people kept whining about the "Catch-22" with people who had been denied medicals, while those who never applied were good.

There were two ways to solve it. Never assume they'll solve it in a way advantageous to you.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA extended the "one time medical" the the SP community if this becomes law to make the playing field level.
 
KeithASanford said:
So let me get this straight....my expired SI from three years ago will meet the requirement of the initial flight physical? I'm about to jump through those hoops again next month. Should I wait?
Click to expand...

I think you could potentially avoid those hoops IF it ever passed. They could kick the can for years or change it again, so I wouldn't base any plans on it.

Upside if you go through it again, get issued and they pass pbr2 before your next round of hoop jumping, you could still benefit later on.
 
JeffDG said:
Well, the SP people kept whining about the "Catch-22" with people who had been denied medicals, while those who never applied were good.

There were two ways to solve it. Never assume they'll solve it in a way advantageous to you.

I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA extended the "one time medical" the the SP community if this becomes law to make the playing field level.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that either Congress or the FAA cares about making playing fields level.
 
ja_user said:
But if I read it properly that 70 year old pilot still has to have had one in the past 10 years?
Click to expand...

Nope. "Once approved, no further AME visit or FAA certification would be required." If he got the class-III 40 years earlier while a kid, that's enough, as long as it occurred no earlier than ten years prior to the bill being enacted. You wouldn't need a new medical every ten years.
 
JeffDG said:
Basically, the 1 time medical is to screen out people who avoid going to the AME for the sole purpose that they know they will never qualify for a third class.

Think guys like this: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71239&highlight=bernath

He claims that he's on multiple painkillers and is 100% disabled, flys sport-pilot though, lands his plane because of insufficient fuel, takes off again without getting more fuel, and sues the manufacturer for a "deadly design defect" that caused him to crash.

I think that is one part of the SP experiment that folks would like to fix.
Click to expand...


Sounds like his problem was due to poor decision making, not anything medical.
 
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