We are closer than ever, please contact your representative

[N801BH]

Appearantly I didn't read it carefully and you are right, it's civil. My point really is about an overbearing federal government that intrudes in too much of our daily lives. It seemed from that particular response that was recieved the senator was more interested in keeping government controls than acknowledging our rights. I overstated the constitutional issue, thankyou for pointing it out.

That's the way I see it too, regardless of how the laws are written...

 

[denverpilot]

I love how all the form letters use the same language "protections"... from government.

And yet almost all are non-committal.

Aren't they just precious?

 

[Jay Honeck]

This bill was introduced 2 months ago today, on February 25th.

No progress has been apparent, and no one seems to know why. No updates, no progress reports, not even from the bills sponsors?

I'm sure there's got to be someone who knows something...

 

[N801BH]

This bill was introduced 2 months ago today, on February 25th.

No progress has been apparent, and no one seems to know why. No updates, no progress reports, not even from the bills sponsors?

I'm sure there's got to be someone who knows something...

This bill is like 99% of all the others...... It is called "window dressing"

 

[aventhu]

Appearantly I didn't read it carefully and you are right, it's civil. My point really is about an overbearing federal government that intrudes in too much of our daily lives. It seemed from that particular response that was recieved the senator was more interested in keeping government controls than acknowledging our rights. I overstated the constitutional issue, thankyou for pointing it out.

It's greater than constitutional. It's foundational.

"certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

 

[Clip4]

This bill was introduced 2 months ago today, on February 25th.

No progress has been apparent, and no one seems to know why. No updates, no progress reports, not even from the bills sponsors?

I'm sure there's got to be someone who knows something...

Just because a lobby group is able to get a bill introduced doesn't assure it will ever be heard in commitee let along brought to the floor for a vote. In the end, I belive Nothing will change and AOPA tell it's members they will keep trying.

 

[N801BH]

Just because a lobby group is able to get a bill introduced doesn't assure it will ever be heard in commitee let along brought to the floor for a vote. In the end, I belive Nothing will change and AOPA tell it's members they will keep trying.

And to keep sending MORE money so the staff can live high on the hog....

 

[Dav8or]

Just because a lobby group is able to get a bill introduced doesn't assure it will ever be heard in commitee let along brought to the floor for a vote. In the end, I belive Nothing will change and AOPA tell it's members they will keep trying.

Should we quit trying to change anything? Is reforming federal regulations a lost cause?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Should we quit trying to change anything? Is reforming federal regulations a lost cause?

Most people have already reached this conclusion. It's one of the many reasons that political participation is embarrassingly low.

It's also why our politics are so polarized. Most of the people participating are motivated by their ideology to do so. This tends to attract extremists from both ends of the spectrum.

Throw in the internet, where we can shape our news feeds to satisfy our particular beliefs, and you've got America 2015.

 

[RogerT]

I have little confidence this will go anywhere. AOPA keeps touting it to keep the masses stirred up and keep the money rolling in. Much like the constant stream of stuff from NRA .. "the sky is falling .. but send us money and we'll fix it."

If it was just the 3rd class medical change .. it would probably go through. But reigning in how government agencies operate is going to be a deal killer.

I hope it does ... just not confident.

RT

 

[fiveoboy01]

And to keep sending MORE money so the staff can live high on the hog....

Getting a bit tired of the solicitations in e/snail mail asking for money.

Flying isn't cheap, I don't have any extra to send you, I make peanuts compared to some of your staff. Ask them for some change.

 

[Dav8or]

Basically, pilots want this to happen, but they don't want to do anything further than emailing a cut and paste form letter with their info attached and definitely don't want to spend any money on it. It says that the level of cynicism and pessimism is high in the pilot community.

Many groan about the AOPA becoming more and more like the NRA and its constant barrage of pledge requests. I get it, I do. I get hounded by the NRA too, but I have to ask you all, where would we be now if there was no NRA or similar?

I pretty much know. It would be like Europe, or Australia here now.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Dave, when was the first anyone heard of possible 3rd class medical reform/elimination of the standard?

How long has it been since then and what's its specific status at the present time? When can we expect to know whether the DL medical will be a go/no go?

The cynicism and pessimism are predictable outcomes when you answer those questions.

 

[denverpilot]

I think the opinion that pilots wouldn't put money nor time behind effective things, is wrong.

AOPA has shown to be wholly ineffective. Even after hiring a "Washington insider" to run the place. They have no idea how to win anything their membership wants and haven't for decades.

 

[steingar]

Oshkosh might actually give it a push. It was at Oshkosh that the FAA administrator announced that their own reform had been sent to the DOT. One year anniversaries tend to be a big thing.

 

[Dav8or]

I think the opinion that pilots wouldn't put money nor time behind effective things, is wrong.

AOPA has shown to be wholly ineffective. Even after hiring a "Washington insider" to run the place. They have no idea how to win anything their membership wants and haven't for decades.

Oh, really? And what, or who would be more effective? Why aren't we betting on that horse? So AOPA has no idea on how to win, do you? Does anybody out there?

 

[flyingron]

Wow, that's a reasoned opinion on GAPPA from Diane Black whose one of the most facist congressmen out there. She just spearheaded a bill allowing DC businesses to fire woman who seek contraception.

 

[Dav8or]

Oshkosh might actually give it a push. It was at Oshkosh that the FAA administrator announced that their own reform had been sent to the DOT. One year anniversaries tend to be a big thing.

Oshkosh is a big PR opportunity for the FAA. They will roll out the usual "We're here to help" promo stuff and tell everyone that they are really working on a solution. After the last plane flies out of KOSH, they can go back to doing nothing about it.

Either consciously, or unconsciously the FAA is choosing power and control over their own jobs. By their stonewalling, they are allowing the pilot community to continue to wither. Less pilots means less FAA. They must know this and choose to maintain control and authority rather than preserve pilots, or even oh, I don't know, grow the pilot community and thus preserve many of their jobs.

What is going to preserve aviation in America is not LSA and sport pilot, it's not Next Gen and ADS-B and it's not handing out glossy brochures at Air Venture. It's going to take the driver's license medical and the option for experiment status for certified airplanes. However, both of these mean the FAA will have to give up some power and control and yes, the accident rate will likely go up a little.

And there in lies the problem. The FAA is mandated with making air travel safer, not more prosperous. To a bureaucrat, more rules and regulations are the only route to more safety. To achieve the highest level air travel safety, the most effective way is to remove the amateurs from the cockpit. Eliminate private pilots altogether. That is the direction we headed. Are we now that country?

 

[denverpilot]

Oh, really? And what, or who would be more effective? Why aren't we betting on that horse? So AOPA has no idea on how to win, do you? Does anybody out there?

Really. Because that horse doesn't exist in aviation.

Of course people know how to win. They play in a world with many more zeros on the ends of their budgets. Or they offer power to the politicians.

Do the math. If every member of AOPA gave $1000 right now, how many politicians would that buy?

 

[Dav8or]

Do the math. If every member of AOPA gave $1000 right now, how many politicians would that buy?

I have no idea. I don't know what they cost, I've never tried to buy one. Have you?

What we're asking for is very modest. I doesn't cost the government anything. We're not asking for new fighter jet contracts, or bridges to nowhere. I figure modest contribution should get modest action by the congress creature.

 

[SkyHog]

Do the math. If every member of AOPA gave $1000 right now, how many politicians would that buy?

None. AOPA would stockpile the money to bolster their reserves.

 

[denverpilot]

I have no idea. I don't know what they cost, I've never tried to buy one. Have you?

What we're asking for is very modest. I doesn't cost the government anything. We're not asking for new fighter jet contracts, or bridges to nowhere. I figure modest contribution should get modest action by the congress creature.

No. I've seen the price tag on various votes given in the press when they're caught. Very easy to find that price.

Most recently, the numbers needed in speech payments and donations to a foundation, were set by the former Secretary of State. But there's plenty of data on the topic from history.

Don't be naive. The numbers are available. AOPA isn't even close.

 

[N801BH]

I got my third and last response back... Both Senators and now my one and only rep.......

She must have been bought out by the AME PAC.....

Personally I don't know any state that has lower vision requirements then a 3rd class, but I guess some might.....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Committee on
Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform

Western Caucus
Chairman
2nd Amendment Task Force
10th Amendment Task Force
May 12, 2015


Ben Haas
700 Ponderosa Drive
Jackson, WY 83001-9379

Dear Ben:

Thank you for contacting me regarding general aviation issues. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

General aviation plays an important role in Wyoming's economy and its communities. As a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, I continue to work with my colleagues from other rural states to protect small airports and general aviation from unnecessary government intervention.

Recently, I have heard from many members of Wyoming's general aviation community regarding their concerns with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) medical licensing requirements for general aviation pilots. Under current FAA regulations, many general aviation pilots must hold a third class medical certificate which requires a mandatory medical examination by an FAA-designated Aviation Medical Examiner.

I am aware that Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) has introduced legislation to exempt certain pilots from the FAA medical licensing requirement. H.R. 3708, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, would permit eligible pilots to use a valid drivers' license as proof of health instead of undergoing the FAA medical certification process. Under this legislation, pilots flying small aircraft under visual flight rules, not flying for compensation, and transporting no more than five passengers, among other provisions, would be eligible for this exemption.

I understand the importance of the general aviation community in Wyoming. Years ago, I went through the process of obtaining a student pilot's license which required a medical examination. While I appreciate individuals concerns with the current process, I have some reservations about this legislation. Specifically, my concern pertains to vision standards, which are an important aspect of flying. Standards for drivers' license vision requirements vary from state-to-state. Since the bill applies to pilots flying under visual flight rules, I am concerned that the vision exam to obtain a drivers' license in different states may not adhere to the same standards as the vision exam to obtain a pilot's license.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me. I value your input. If you haven't done so already, I would like to encourage you to visit my website at www.lummis.house.gov. There you can sign up to receive my newsletter, and have access to a wealth of other information. I won't flood your email box, but I will provide you with updates once in a while about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Wyoming. I hope you will sign up so that we can stay in close touch, and I look forward to seeing you in Wyoming. Sincerely,

Cynthia M. Lummis
Member of Congress
2120 Capitol Ave., Ste. 8005
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Phone (307) 772-2595
Fax (307) 772-2597 100 East B St., Ste. 4003
Casper, WY 82602
Phone (307) 261-6595
Fax (307) 261-6597 2433 Rayburn

 

[EminiTrader]

Dr. Bruce told me two years ago "don't hold your breath"..... who knows, one day, maybe... guess we'll see

 

[Dav8or]

I got my third and last response back... Both Senators and now my one and only rep.......

She must have been bought out by the AME PAC.....

Personally I don't know any state that has lower vision requirements then a 3rd class, but I guess some might.....

Wow! That's pretty impressive! She wrote you back, but also actually seems to have read the bill and formed an opinion on it. I don't think she's set against it, just that she has a concern to do with vision requirements. I think she's just uninformed about the truth.

Likely she is aware of the vision test for a driver's license in Wyoming and falsely assumes that the FAA 3rd class vision requirements. Other than the color blindness test, the actual vision test is the same as any state's driver's license vision test. Who knows? She may think you can't get a PPL if you wear glasses. I used to think that until I went down and talked to CFI.

 

[N801BH]

Wow! That's pretty impressive! She wrote you back, but also actually seems to have read the bill and formed an opinion on it. I don't think she's set against it, just that she has a concern to do with vision requirements. I think she's just uninformed about the truth.

Likely she is aware of the vision test for a driver's license in Wyoming and falsely assumes that the FAA 3rd class vision requirements. Other than the color blindness test, the actual vision test is the same as any state's driver's license vision test. Who knows? She may think you can't get a PPL if you wear glasses. I used to think that until I went down and talked to CFI.

She did admit to getting a students pilots license, so she knows the requirements....
And, when I renew my Wyoming Drivers License, a color vision test in part of it... She has to do the same for her Wyoming License...

 

[steingar]

And, when I renew my Wyoming Drivers License, a color vision test in part of it... She has to do the same for her Wyoming License...

Dumbest thing on Earth. You don't develop color blindness, you're born with it and should only be tested once.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I mailed a small check to the PAC fund today.

If it works I can say I helped, if it doesn't, I'm not out much money

 

[Rigged4Flight]

While I appreciate individuals concerns with the current process, I have some reservations about this legislation. Specifically, my concern pertains to vision standards, which are an important aspect of flying. Standards for drivers' license vision requirements vary from state-to-state. Since the bill applies to pilots flying under visual flight rules, I am concerned that the vision exam to obtain a drivers' license in different states may not adhere to the same standards as the vision exam to obtain a pilot's license.

Color me jaded, but IMO she is probably sitting on the fence to see what she can trade her vote for. It happens all the time. As you pointed out, the 3rd class vision exam isn't particularly extensive, and certainly not something that any normal driving vision exam couldn't replace.

 

[denverpilot]

Color me jaded, but IMO she is probably sitting on the fence to see what she can trade her vote for. It happens all the time. As you pointed out, the 3rd class vision exam isn't particularly extensive, and certainly not something that any normal driving vision exam couldn't replace.

She's hoping a PAC will come courting with sacks of cash. It's not about serving constituents anymore. If it ever has been in my lifetime.

 

[SkyHog]

I got my third and last response back... Both Senators and now my one and only rep.......

She must have been bought out by the AME PAC.....

Personally I don't know any state that has lower vision requirements then a 3rd class, but I guess some might.....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Committee on
Natural Resources
Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform

Western Caucus
Chairman
2nd Amendment Task Force
10th Amendment Task Force
May 12, 2015


Ben Haas
700 Ponderosa Drive
Jackson, WY 83001-9379

Dear Ben:

Thank you for contacting me regarding general aviation issues. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

General aviation plays an important role in Wyoming's economy and its communities. As a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, I continue to work with my colleagues from other rural states to protect small airports and general aviation from unnecessary government intervention.

Recently, I have heard from many members of Wyoming's general aviation community regarding their concerns with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) medical licensing requirements for general aviation pilots. Under current FAA regulations, many general aviation pilots must hold a third class medical certificate which requires a mandatory medical examination by an FAA-designated Aviation Medical Examiner.

I am aware that Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) has introduced legislation to exempt certain pilots from the FAA medical licensing requirement. H.R. 3708, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, would permit eligible pilots to use a valid drivers' license as proof of health instead of undergoing the FAA medical certification process. Under this legislation, pilots flying small aircraft under visual flight rules, not flying for compensation, and transporting no more than five passengers, among other provisions, would be eligible for this exemption.

I understand the importance of the general aviation community in Wyoming. Years ago, I went through the process of obtaining a student pilot's license which required a medical examination. While I appreciate individuals concerns with the current process, I have some reservations about this legislation. Specifically, my concern pertains to vision standards, which are an important aspect of flying. Standards for drivers' license vision requirements vary from state-to-state. Since the bill applies to pilots flying under visual flight rules, I am concerned that the vision exam to obtain a drivers' license in different states may not adhere to the same standards as the vision exam to obtain a pilot's license.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me. I value your input. If you haven't done so already, I would like to encourage you to visit my website at www.lummis.house.gov. There you can sign up to receive my newsletter, and have access to a wealth of other information. I won't flood your email box, but I will provide you with updates once in a while about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Wyoming. I hope you will sign up so that we can stay in close touch, and I look forward to seeing you in Wyoming. Sincerely,

Cynthia M. Lummis
Member of Congress
2120 Capitol Ave., Ste. 8005
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Phone (307) 772-2595
Fax (307) 772-2597 100 East B St., Ste. 4003
Casper, WY 82602
Phone (307) 261-6595
Fax (307) 261-6597 2433 Rayburn

I wonder if she realizes that Sport Pilots and Glider Pilots don't have an FAA administered vision test already....

 

[denverpilot]

We're soooooo close. The thread is only two months old!

 

[Rigged4Flight]

We're soooooo close. The thread is only two months old!

And we are still "Closer than ever"

 

[bjones]

I got two responces to my request for support of the bill. Senator Gillibrand says she supports the bill, while Senator Schumer doesn't really give a clear opinion either way, but if I were to guess, he's not supporting it.

May 8, 2015


Dear Mr. Jones,

Thank you for taking time to contact me regarding your support for S. 571, The Pilot's Bill of Rights 2, introduced by Senator Inhofe. I welcome feedback from my constituents, and I appreciate your interest in this issue.

The Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 builds upon S. 1335, Pilot's Bill of Rights, which was signed into law by President Obama on August 2, 2012. This legislation would take away the requirement for a medical certificate for many private pilot flights in small aircraft. I support this part of the legislation because the data has shown that the cost of administering these certificates has not delivered a meaningful safety benefit and has cost pilots millions of dollars every year. However, I am concerned with other parts of this legislation that would limit the FAA's ability to request documents from entities under investigation or allowing appeals of FAA enforcement cases to be heard in federal district courts instead of exclusively by the National Transportation Safety Board who are experts in aviation safety.

Thank you again for writing to express your concerns, and I hope that you keep in touch with my office regarding future legislation. For more information on this and other important issues, please visit my website at http://gillibrand.senate.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.


Sincerely,
Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senator


Dear Mr. Jones:

Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 2103, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act. I share your belief that aviation safety is important and must be addressed.

The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act, or S. 2103 is a bill designed to relax FAA restrictions that require pilots of small aircraft to have specific medical certification. I believe that aviation safety and reform is an extremely important issue, and I have worked on a number of avenues to address various aspects of the situation. I am the author of S. 1008, the Keep Knives Out Of Our Skies Act, a bill that would prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from changing the list of TSA prohibited items to allow small non-locking knives through airport security. I also supported S. 223, a 2012 bill that reformed the FAA in various ways such as increased funding for next generation air transit systems and modernized air traffic control, safety features like requiring tamper proof pilot licenses and smart cards with iris and other biometric identifiers, changes to airline regulation, and many other reforms. I am happy to report that this was passed and is now law.

There have been many legislative advancements made in the area of aviation, but I am aware that there is still much to do. I remain committed to seeing that these improvements are made.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please feel free to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter.


Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at https://www.schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm . Thank you.

 

[fiveoboy01]

She supports "parts" of the bill.

Chucky doesn't like anything that gives the citizens more freedom. You can definitely rest assured he doesn't support it.

 

[QuiQuog]

I wonder if she realizes that Sport Pilots and Glider Pilots don't have an FAA administered vision test already....

If you were to help her understand that her concerns are unfounded, then there would be one less beast to fight in this battle.

 

[unsafervguy]

im dead set against this and here is why. the medical standards do need to be completely re-written and brought into the 21 century. however, doing away with them is not the answer. here in florida if you have no accidents or tickets you renew online or by mail. yes, no vision, no hearing, or any test what so ever. do you know how many people we have driving in to buildings by confusing the gas and brake every year. we have blind people driving here because they can renew by mail. please don't tell me that pilots wont do that, they will, i know many that should be or are medically grounded that still fly. lets reform the rules but don't just throw them out.

 

[RalphInCA]

What is the FAR that says, in essence, that we cannot fly if we know there is something that may keep us from flying safely?

 

[RalphInCA]

I think I may have answered my own question: 14 CFR 91.13.a

 

[N801BH]

im dead set against this and here is why. the medical standards do need to be completely re-written and brought into the 21 century. however, doing away with them is not the answer. here in florida if you have no accidents or tickets you renew online or by mail. yes, no vision, no hearing, or any test what so ever. do you know how many people we have driving in to buildings by confusing the gas and brake every year. we have blind people driving here because they can renew by mail. please don't tell me that pilots wont do that, they will, i know many that should be or are medically grounded that still fly. lets reform the rules but don't just throw them out.

I grew up in Coral Gables and watched the evening news on Channel 4,7 or 10 for 30 years.. At least once a week they had a story of some 90 year old driving down Collins Ave on Miami Beach and going up on the sidewalk and mowing down a group of people sitting on a bus bench.... The driver walks away, the victims are in body bags....

With a rogue pilot who does NOT self certify... They die, not innocent victims on a bus bench.....

The new rules are basically self policing...... IMHO.

Darwin is a great theory....