We are closer than ever, please contact your representative

PeeGee said:
We'll be lucky if they fund the faa, let alone add this to the bill.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to think of a single circumstance where that would bother me.

I was gonna say Oshkosh, but the FAA is still shaking down EAA every July, so that won't change, funding or not.

Flight following? Won't miss it, with ADS-B on board. Control towers? Most of the ones I visit seem to be contract towers. Not sure how they would be impacted by privatization, but most of them are grossly underutilized and could go away.

Airport funding? We would all be better off without them, so long as it means getting all the other D.C. bureaucrats out of our business, too. Get EPA, DNR, and all the rest of them out, too, and maybe we can extend our runway and build some hangars here.

Mmmmm....sorry. I can't think of one reason why I should care if the FAA is funded.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'm trying to think of a single circumstance where that would bother me.

I was gonna say Oshkosh, but the FAA is still shaking down EAA every July, so that won't change, funding or not.

Flight following? Won't miss it, with ADS-B on board. Control towers? Most of the ones I visit seem to be contract towers. Not sure how they would be impacted by privatization, but most of them are grossly underutilized and could go away.

Airport funding? We would all be better off without them, so long as it means getting all the other D.C. bureaucrats out of our business, too. Get EPA, DNR, and all the rest of them out, too, and maybe we can extend our runway and build some hangars here.

Mmmmm....sorry. I can't think of one reason why I should care if the FAA is funded.
Click to expand...

Ummm... you might want to check out how ADS-B works and who keeps it going. You should also check out how much it costs to extend a runway or build a bunch of new hangars and then see if you and your local airport bums could actually come up with the cash.

No FAA, or federal funds = probably around 70% airport closures nation wide. Most airports can not pull their own weight, much less come up with funds for repairs and improvements.
 
Dav8or said:
Ummm... you might want to check out how ADS-B works and who keeps it going. You should also check out how much it costs to extend a runway or build a bunch of new hangars and then see if you and your local airport bums could actually come up with the cash.

No FAA, or federal funds = probably around 70% airport closures nation wide. Most airports can not pull their own weight, much less come up with funds for repairs and improvements.
Click to expand...

Somewhere I was reading that the typical runway (not big Class B runway) was something like $1,000,000 per 1000'.
 
I think what he was saying is that if the FAA isn't funded, aviation isn't going to stop, especially if you fly from a non-towered airport. We would be OK for several decades without building new runways and if you fly off a grass field you're probably more worried about not being able to cut the grass than what the FAA is doing.
 
Henning said:
Somewhere I was reading that the typical runway (not big Class B runway) was something like $1,000,000 per 1000'.
Click to expand...
Yep, and if you've ever been involved with your airport management, you will know why it costs that much.

It used to be called "meddling". Now, it's called the federal government.

Get them out of the picture, and this is what will happen: George and I will rent a bulldozer, order in a bunch of gravel, and push it out 1000'. Bob, who owns the paving company, will give us a great deal because he flies a King Air and could use the extra runway.

Total cost? Unknown: But somewhere around $200K. Divide this by the 18 out-of-town billionaires who own the hangars at KRAS, and you're done.

Sadly, we have slid so far down the rabbit hole that the method of funding I just described is actually illegal.
 
Last edited:
Just got this from one of my Senators today. I had written quite a while back and looks like he recently signed on.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts on S. 571, the Pilots Bill of Rights 2. Like you, I believe that federal regulations should protect the safety of general aviators and their passengers while not being overly burdensome.
In an effort to simplify regulations for individual aviators and expand protections for general aviation pilots, the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 was introduced in the Senate on February 25, 2015. If enacted into law, this legislation would allow pilots of small aircraft in the United States to operate without medical certification or proof of health if they possess a valid driver's license and adhere to aircraft size, weight, altitude, speed, and passenger capacity restrictions. This legislation would also extend due process rights to all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificate holders, as well as enhance those rights with a new appeals process. Additionally, the bill would act as a Good Samaritan Law for volunteer pilots who are following appropriate procedure. Due to these various provisions designed to support pilots, I cosponsored the Pilots Bill of Rights 2 on September 18, 2015.
In addition, on September 2, 2014, I joined ten colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx and Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan urging the Administration to carry out an expedited review of the Federal Aviation Administration's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to modernize third-class medical requirements for small aircraft pilots, based on the lessons learned from the 2004 sport pilot rule. The letter asks for a quick review so that the proposal can be released for public comment as soon as possible and urges the Administration to prioritize and expedite this reform and others, which would lower unnecessary barriers to the general aviation community.
Currently, S. 571 is pending before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As this or other legislation concerning aviation regulations comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.
 
Let's hope it comes up for a vote. Nowadays Congress only passes half the number of bills as compared to 30 years ago. Only 49 bills total passed so far in 2015.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics

October and November are the months most bills are passed, so let's cross our fingers that we get it now.
 
Just talked to someone at the AOPA fly in today. Apparently, they have 67 co-sponsors in the Senate and are going to try to tag it onto the FAA reauthorization bill.

There _will_ be a requirement that you must have (at some point) held a medical and were not denied a medical. Supposedly their proposal covers VFR _and_ IFR ops, which is good!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Does a special issuance (with the letter saying that you don't qualify for a standard third class but that you are being granted special issuance) count as a denial, or is a "denial" (for the purposes of the proposed 3rd class legislation) an across the board denial (i.e. not even granting S.I.)?
 
Omalley1537 said:
Does a special issuance (with the letter saying that you don't qualify for a standard third class but that you are being granted special issuance) count as a denial, or is a "denial" (for the purposes of the proposed 3rd class legislation) an across the board denial (i.e. not even granting S.I.)?
Click to expand...

An SI is a medical, not a denial.
 
Mason said:
An SI is a medical, not a denial.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was probably over-thinking it. I just wasn't sure if you were being "denied" the standard 3rd class when you were being SI-ed. Make sense that issued is issued.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Thanks. I was probably over-thinking it. I just wasn't sure if you were being "denied" the standard 3rd class when you were being SI-ed. Make sense that issued is issued.
Click to expand...


The AOPA rep I spoke with said that an SI would be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Some more details on the Senate bill here (pardon if this has already been posted).
 
So where is this thing at? Is it a stand-alone bill? In committee? Anything scheduled?
 
garyb said:
So where is this thing at? Is it a stand-alone bill? In committee? Anything scheduled?
Click to expand...

Exactly where it has been for the last 6 months - stuck in committee. The chairman of the overall committee is John Thune (R-SD) who is NOT one of the 66 cosponsors. The chair of the Aviation subcommittee is Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), also NOT one of the 66 cosponsors.

If you're from New Hampshire or South Dakota, please write and express how your fervor to vote for them is linked to their support of the bill.

There is no action scheduled that I could find.
 
The House bill is in a similar state - in committee, no movement, no action
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top