WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congress is now on its summer recess. Members will reconvene Sept. 8 for a session of just two weeks and two days. Once it adjourns Sept. 23, the Congress won’t meet again until after the November election.
This is a short time for a quarreling legislative body to accomplish much of what it was not able to in the previous months and years. However, to some, a short schedule is a good thing.
The Texas legislature, for instance, is limited to 140 days every two years. With legislative days cut to a minimum, elected officials must concentrate on main subjects, giving them little time for frivolous issues or enactment of unnecessary legislation.
Unlimited time for legislators to meet also has a connection to state debt. According to Steve Wilson, the Mississippi Watchdog, states with no limits on legislative sessions, or those that stretch sessions for more than 150 days, are among the top 10 states in per-capita debt.
When Congress convenes for those two weeks in September it will have a number of issues to consider, but none directly affecting general aviation are expected be included.
It must pass and send to the President some kind of a spending bill to keep the government going and not repeat the shutdown like the one that occurred in 2013. Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is up. Also there are many nominations to positions which should be considered. These, however, may — and probably will be — deferred.
In this short session, it is expected that much less emphasis will be on the bills themselves than on fodder for the upcoming election and the desire of the Republican Party to maintain control of the House of Representatives and of the Democrats to keep control of the Senate.
It is doubtful that anything meaningful will occur in the coming months. The period between now and after the election is like treading water.
But that doesn’t mean GA’s advocates in Washington can take a break. They need to keep in contact with Congressional staffers and be primed for action when activity resumes.
The one subject pending now is replacing the third class medical with acceptance of a driver’s license. Even this is moving at a snail’s pace. The issue has gone from the FAA to the Department of Transportation, and to the Office of Management and Budget. The General Accountability Office has already said the plan has many flaws. After going through these agencies, it will be returned to the FAA, where it will then be put out for public comment.
Barring any emergencies, no issues directly affecting general aviation are expected to be on the table until after the first of next year. That time will see several issues to keep general aviation activists busy.
Reauthorization will be up for discussion. The outcome of the election will have a direct bearing on what will be talked about and debated. The federal budget and GA’s place in it will be a major topic for the year.
General aviation interests will have a full plate of issues to work on after the uncertainty of an election is ended.
It may be a good thing to have the votes on GAPPA after the elections. If Rs take the senate, that improves the chances, based on sponsorship and support so far.
pilot rights for the general aviation pilot protection act. The hope it will pass among us are anxious to fly we are many who are so poor that we build our own and we really feel cheated when beareaucrats scare and dig into our flesh so that just to get airtime we must sacrifice money to those who control us. The other expense is the airports that have fee’s for anything those airports got you by the privates even before you get in the air. I have been an aviation professional and dreamer as have others and the caught 22 that first flight is not attainable any more. So if we can’t get our butt in the air lets just convert our airplanes into RPV’s sit on the ground and buzz our 150 mph RPV with on board video streaming we will be seeing the same stuff ! That is just absurd as some politician sitting behind some desk lining out pilots rights.
I have a suggestion. How about AOPA and EAA sending a letter to all of its members and encouraging them to vote for their Representatives in the House only if they co-sponsor HR 3708 before the session ends in September 2014. Otherwise, encourage them to vote for their opponents. Frankly, I am dismayed that HR 3708 is quickly becoming a political football that is directly affecting my flight school business. How come common sense is not common practice in Congress and at the FAA?
OK the implication is that Congress is too busy to take up a simple piece of legislation that causes no increase in expenses (actually lowers it sine Special Issuance will cut back significantly), potentially provides a boost to the economy via greater activity in GA and decreases the intrusion of government into our personal lives would not sail through the legislative process. Maybe the members of Congress are too busy making speaches to an emty chamber so their hot air can be on the record or pursuing endless investigations for political posturing. I guess I am just to simple minded but it would seem that with so many supporters in COngress they should be able to agree behind the scenes (where everything really happens) to let it soar through the process and give them something to show as proof that they are working hard for our benifit. But than maybe the opposite is true and they want to play their usual games about how the other party is keeping anything meaningful from getting done. If memory searves me correctly the majority of the co-sponsers are Republican so this could degenerate to an Us vs. Them situation, typical Washington these days.
I would like to stay positive about the prospects for GAPPA being passed in the near future but I am afraid that the negative impact of those aligned against it (AMA, OKC, etc..) might be taking hold. Add to that the FAA claiming they have the solution in hand and that is probably taking away momentum from GAPPA as well. That the FAA will not even hint at the major points of the proposed rule other than “We will be surprised”, I have bad feelings about it actually doing us any good.
Sarah, please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe Huerta hinted that we will NOT be surprised by the proposal. His choice of words was intentionally vague and can be given a positive spin (the FAA proposal basically resembles the AOPA/EAA petition) or a negative one (e.g. they propose to increase the max gross weight limit for LSAs to 1500 lbs so 2 fat pilots can fly together with enough gas to depart the pattern).
What I read was that we would be surprised or at least that was the way I remember the quote. Stating it that way could be a shrewd way to deceive us into thinking we would be getting a great deal and there would be no need to keep drawing Congressional attention to the FAA. Stated the way you recall it is just one big dissapontment and gives us even more reason to push ahead with relief via Congress. Either way we need to keep pushing Congress to put through GAPPA (or similier) and say No Thanks to the table scraps the FAA might offer us.
How about some of our alphabet friends filing a Freedom of Information request to get the wording of the proposal as soon as legally possible so we can tell what this thing is going to look like?
Charles you said “no issues directly affecting general aviation are expected to be on the table until after the first of next year”. What do you know about reinstatement of the accelerated depreciation for purchases of NEW aircraft and equipment. That issue impact a significant segment of general aviation in a big way. The billed passed the House on July 11, but it’s still in committee in the Senate. Do you have any expectations about that?
This could turn out to be a good thing. Even though the FAA said they would not implement the BMI/Sleep Apnea non-sense, sure enough, they have informed their AMEs that starting in Oct they will start sending letters to those with a BMI >39 to require Sleep Studies. Once again, the FAA lied to get Congress off their backs. In the FAAs big announcement at Oshkosh they talked about how they heard us “loud and clear” on 3rd class medical issues, but said absolutely nothing about doing anything about it. They did say that whatever they plan to do should be up for review in November. Once again, I expect them to do nothing (or as little as humanly possible with as long of an implementation period as possible) as bureaucrats never willingly give up power over the minions. Maybe by January others will recognize the FAA has once again lied, and will put sufficient pressure on Congress to take action. We don’t need this as a pre-election feel good stunt. We need this as an inroad to stop a run away, oppressive bureaucracy that is strangling aviation.
That they are sneeking through with the BMI screening seems to be a clear indication that OKC, or at least our Federal Air Surgon will not give up without a fight. To paraphrase a common bumper sticker “I will give up the 3rd class Medical when you pry it from my Cold Dead Hands”. Of course on the flip side that gives extra momentum to GAPPA because it shows that the FAA is not truly interested in providing any relief from 3rd class medical requirements. I think if the administrator was genuine in his efforts he would not let the BMI screening go through at a time like this, espically after the supposed garantees that they would not. Either OKC has gone rougue or they are selling us a big load of manure.
I just checked DOT’s website for significant rulemakings:
http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings
The August 2014 report (click on link on the webpage) was just posted and the DL medical (FAA Item No. 21) schedule was updated to indicate the FAA draft rule was in fact forwarded to DOT for review on 7/24/14. I am not an insider so maybe that draft rule has in fact been circulated to OMB as well. Updating the published schedule of events does not seem to be a priority.
Charles, can you elaborate on and/or provide a link for this statement?
“The General Accountability Office has already said the plan has many flaws.”
I’m assuming by plan you mean the forthcoming NPRM on the aviation medicals that the FAA announced at Oshkosh. This is the first I’ve heard that the GAO has commented publicly on it.
Perhaps you are referring to the report the GAO released earlier this year highlighting issues in the medical certification process and I just misunderstood.
Thanks!
http://www.dot.gov/regulations/significant-rulemaking-report-archive
Actual report is listed, but no page comes up.
This is ultimatley where this linq goes:
Federal Aviation Administration
Medical Self-Evaluation for Certain Noncommercial Operations in Lieu of Airman Medical Certification Black
Popular Title: Medical Self-Certification
RIN 2120-AK45
Stage: NPRM
Previous Stage:None
Abstract: This rulemaking would consider allowing certain operations to be conducted by individuals exercising private-pilot privileges without holding a current FAA airman medical certificate. The intended effect of this action is to provide relief from having to obtain a medical certificate for pilots engaged in low-risk flying, such as private pilots operating a small, general aviation aircraft.
Effects:
None
Prompting action: Secretarial/Head of Operating Administration Decision
Legal Deadline: None
Rulemaking Project Initiated: 02/04/2014
Docket Number:
Dates for NPRM:
Milestone Originally
Scheduled
Date New
Projected
Date Actual
Date
To OST 07/03/2014 08/14/2014 07/24/2014
To OMB 08/04/2014 08/25/2014
OMB Clearance 11/04/2014 11/25/2014
Publication Date 11/10/2014 12/09/2014
End of Comment Period 01/09/2015 03/09/2015
Explanation for any delay: N/A
Federal Register Citation for NPRM: None