Senator Inhofe introduces "Pilot's Bill of Rights"

SCCutler

SCCutler

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
17,320
Location
Dallas
Display Name
Display name:
Spike Cutler
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is pushing a bill that would protect pilots from "agency overreach" by the Federal Aviation Administration, in response to his own experience at the mercy of the FAA after he "scared the crap out of" airport workers last year when he landed his Cessna on a closed runway.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._ease_desperation_of_pilots_fac.php?ref=fpblg

Inhofe said his bill also would address what he called the "rubber-stamp" approach routinely taken by the National Transportation Safety Board when FAA actions are appealed; would allow a pilot to appeal to a federal court; would simplify the so-called Notice to Airmen system for providing relevant information to pilots; and would require a review of the current medical certification process.

Interesting stuff - although I am not at all certain he has much to complain about from his particular circumstance, but the reforms he suggests are common-sense.
 
Yes, they're self-serving, but, as you say, that doesn't mean that they're not needed. Especially if the "simplify the so-called Notice to Airmen system for providing relevant information to pilots" does what the brief description suggests.
 
It would be interesting if you were entitled to the same treatment as Sen. Inhoffe received...remedial training for an incident that, a tape of the phone call from the crew on the ground that you can get over at AvWeb, said "damn near killed him" (speaking of one of the ground crew), along with a pilot that showed no remorse:

In the days following the incident, Inhofe said, "It's unfortunate, I'm sorry, but I'm not really concerned about it." Regarding NOTAMs, he told TulsaWorld.com "people who fly a lot just don't do it." Last week, TulsaWorld reported that Inhofe "remains convinced he did nothing wrong" and "said he considers the matter closed."
Click to expand...
 
Will one of the rights be 'to land anywhere he pleases to include a closed runway' ?

It's sad to see people getting old and losing it.
 
weilke said:
Will one of the rights be 'to land anywhere he pleases to include a closed runway' ?

It's sad to see people getting old and losing it.
Click to expand...

I think I found the appropriate provision in the law:

Title VII: Additional Provisions
Sec 701: No person who is a United States Senator from the State of Oklahoma will be held responsible for any violations of laws or regulations related to aircraft.
Click to expand...
:mad2:
 
As long as they apply same to other administrative agencies....
 
Regarding NOTAMs, he told TulsaWorld.com "people who fly a lot just don't do it."
Click to expand...

Hmm, funny, I ALWAYS call WX-BRIEF to check for NOTAMs and TFRs. Mostly to cover my ass and get my tail # into the system.
 
Yes, most likely any of us if solo doing the same thing would get remedial training. I don't know why you're so down on the old guy, he may help us out a little. I mean, he is a Senator, he can pull strings, I'm glad, I'd called mine on a few occasions and he got strings pulled for me too. That's what they are there for, to go to bat for us with the bureaucracy. Luckily I had Phil Graham and he was on the Senate Transportation Committee. If you have business at a specific airport and you need to get in, you need to get in. If the runway is marked closed then you have to find another safe surface. This isn't about pleasure, this is about utility. This is about using the national airspace for transportation. He didn't kill anyone, he did not nearly cause an accident, he did not bend any metal, hell, he didn't particularly even endanger anybody. If there is a 4 man crew working on a runway, rarely are they working on all of it at the same time,and then only sealing. If you have a 7000' runway, no big problem to land long, or land on the parallel taxiway. It's not like he was landing at JFK. Those airports do good to get a dozen flights a week.
 
Henning said:
Yes, most likely any of us if solo doing the same thing would get remedial training. I don't know why you're so down on the old guy, he may help us out a little. I mean, he is a Senator, he can pull strings, I'm glad, I'd called mine on a few occasions and he got strings pulled for me too. That's what they are there for, to go to bat for us with the bureaucracy. Luckily I had Phil Graham and he was on the Senate Transportation Committee. If you have business at a specific airport and you need to get in, you need to get in. If the runway is marked closed then you have to find another safe surface. This isn't about pleasure, this is about utility. This is about using the national airspace for transportation. He didn't kill anyone, he did not nearly cause an accident, he did not bend any metal, hell, he didn't particularly even endanger anybody. If there is a 4 man crew working on a runway, rarely are they working on all of it at the same time,and then only sealing. If you have a 7000' runway, no big problem to land long, or land on the parallel taxiway. It's not like he was landing at JFK. Those airports do good to get a dozen flights a week.
Click to expand...

You're kidding....right?

If that is the thought process then we should remove all barrels, cones, concrete barrier and let everyone have at it on the roadway too. Rules are there to protect the workers and provide a safe work zone. Next we'll be doing away with maritime navigational rules, heck who needs river pilots anyway!

I've been working on a runway and have had a plane come over workers and land. The pilot was lucky he didn't get the crap kicked out of him. I don't want or need anyone in my corner, senator or not, that thinks they are above the law, the dumb a$$ should have at least gotten remedial training.
 
Henning said:
If there is a 4 man crew working on a runway, rarely are they working on all of it at the same time,and then only sealing. If you have a 7000' runway, no big problem to land long, or land on the parallel taxiway. It's not like he was landing at JFK. Those airports do good to get a dozen flights a week.
Click to expand...

How about landing short, hopping over the crew, and then landing out long? Because that's what the Senator actually did.
 
GMascelli said:
I've been working on a runway and have had a plane come over workers and land. The pilot was lucky he didn't get the crap kicked out of him.
Click to expand...
Why is that? They've been doing it at Addison all summer. :rofl:
 
GMascelli said:
You're kidding....right?

If that is the thought process then we should remove all barrels, cones, concrete barrier and let everyone have at it on the roadway too. Rules are there to protect the workers and provide a safe work zone. Next we'll be doing away with maritime navigational rules, heck who needs river pilots anyway!

I've been working on a runway and have had a plane come over workers and land. The pilot was lucky he didn't get the crap kicked out of him. I don't want or need anyone in my corner, senator or not, that thinks they are above the law, the dumb a$$ should have at least gotten remedial training.
Click to expand...

A river pilot is a mate, an FO, what does that have to do with anything? As far as that goes, unless you are operating a vessel for hire, there is no need to have any licensing at all to run any sized vessel, so in this case your argument rings hollow.

Maritime Rules are actually a GREAT example to use because they start with the phrase "When risk of collision exists", if you don't see a risk of collision, they don't apply. Risk of collision is a very simple thing to determine, "Continuous bearing & diminishing range, you need both. If you don't have both, risk of collision does not exist. If he saw the people would pass under him, no risk of collision existed. I see people misapply the "Pass Port to Port" all the time when they when set up with a perfectly clear Starboard to Starboard meet will suddenly turn across my bow to meet port to port for no reason. The actually ad risk to follow their misperception of a rule that didn't apply.

Did the Senator land in the middle of or through their work zone? Highway workers deal with a lot more much closer traffic than airport maintenance people and it's all day long. What makes you think you need an antire airport shut down to work on 20' of runway? They don't close I-95 to do road repairs, just the bit that's being worked on at the moment and the cars squeeze to the side.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
Why is that? They've been doing it at Addison all summer. :rofl:
Click to expand...

I was gonna say...

...as for what actually happened at Cameron County, "...he said, she said..." -- I was not there, cannot confirm any version of events.
 
JeffDG said:
I think I found the appropriate provision in the law:

:mad2:
Click to expand...


Jeff,

I think you're close, but to be absolutely accurate the bill will not have the words "from the state of Oklahoma." All senators, regardless of state or party affiliation are basically above the law, at least in their own minds.

Doc
 
MBDiagMan said:
Jeff,

I think you're close, but to be absolutely accurate the bill will not have the words "from the state of Oklahoma." All senators, regardless of state or party affiliation are basically above the law, at least in their own minds.

Doc
Click to expand...

Yes, but the law is being proposed by Sen. Inhoffe, and in his mind, he in particular, is special.
 
Regardless of his particular incident, I think the bill itself could be a good thing indeed.
 
Shortly after Inhofe landed, Sidney Boyd, who was supervising construction on the closed runway, called the FAA to report that Inhofe’s plane, a twin-engine six-seater, initially touched down on the runway and then “'sky hopped' over the six vehicles and personnel working on the runway, and then landed.”

Hey, helmet guy, YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT? What are you thinking....or not....:hairraise:
Thank goodnes for the "block" button, don't want to read any more of this kind of opinion. :nono:

The Senator should have had his ticket pulled, just like any of us would have had done to us. He's a dangerous idiot with an airplane. But since he's trying hard to be OUR idiot, I guess we have to appreciate any changes he can get made to the stormtroopers at the FAA. Too bad it had to come to this. Like the whole Bob Hoover nightmare wans't enough to show they really aren't happy until we're not happy......:yesnod:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top