When the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBOR2) was introduced, much ink (physical and digital) was spilled on the many shortcomings of Senator James Inhofe‘s proposed legislation.
Many complained about the initial limitations of only being able to carry one passenger to no more than 10,000 feet in VFR only conditions using a driver’s license as a medical certificate.
None other than Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) leadership weighed in, very much NOT in favor, with its considerable clout. So Inhofe went back to the legislation, red pen in hand.
The revised PBOR2 was introduced, to much bitching and moaning about the new medical requirements. (Wasn’t PBOR2 supposed to fix that, as in get rid of that requirement?)
Aspiring pilots must take an FAA physical exam that will establish a baseline, then take an online medical course every two years, and see their primary physician every four years (and note the above in their logbooks). Lapsed pilots (those without a medical exam in the last 10 years) will need to take an FAA physical like aspiring pilots, then fall in line with the other requirements.
Not exactly the promised “driver’s license medical,” but clearing a bar — that gets higher with each passing year — once rather than repeatedly seems a decent trade-off.
And if you have a current medical, third-class or special issuance, with passage of this bill, you’ll be able to jump in line without taking another medical exam…EVER.
Lost in the medical exam dust-up is the changes to three facets of PBOR2. First, the legislation expands the passenger count to five. Initially, the limit was one. Second, the altitude limit increases to 18,000 feet rather than the initial 10,000 feet. Third, both VFR and IFR flight are allowed, as opposed to VFR only.
Those are significant changes, to the positive, regardless of your opinion of the medical exam portion.
“With 69 cosponsors in the Senate, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 has strong support among lawmakers who recognize the importance of general aviation and the need to give pilots relief from the costly and burdensome third-class medical process,” said Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) President Mark Baker.
“That’s a filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate,” said Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Chairman Jack Pelton in the November issue of Sport Aviation.
If you were hoping to hop back in the cockpit after an extended absence with just your driver’s license in your pocket, I’m sorry. That’s not going to happen with this legislation.
But if you’ve got nothing to fear medically, clear that exam bar ONE TIME and enjoy a lifetime of flying. And who knows what PBOR3 will look like?
The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a markup session for PBOR2 on Wednesday, Nov. 18. Make sure your senators (and representatives) know your feelings.
The AME’s have the ALPA under their thumb’s . It’s all about the AME’s not waning to loose the money.
The altitude limit is 14,000′ not 18,000′.
All this would be unnecessary if the FAA aero medicine branch practiced modern 21 st century medicine.Family practice Mds should be able to clear past medical conditions with a simple condition report.Instead ,FAA aero medical persists in denying medicals for mostly specious reasons requiring 10 s of thosands of dollars on testing,retesting,expert opinons etc.Their current witch hunt and focus on sleep apnea is a perfect example.I know a fellow pilot who decided to report a 10 year old treatment session to rule out sleep apnea at a sleep lab.Ame noted it and issued medical but ( you guessed it )2 weeks later comes a letter recinding medical.That pilot has spent 4500 for sleep monitor testing with no end in sight.Sadly ,many individuals just give up!So with an out of control aero medical branch ,any legislative reform is crucial to the future health of general avation .
Will piston twins and single engine jets be allowed?
I think some folks are missing the “unintended” consequences that this “modified” medical reform language will generate. Since the FAA does not support medical reform (in general), they will now have only one shot at filtering out what they consider “unhealthy” pilots. Therefore, the new medical standards will get much stricter (FAA forms will expand, requiring much more personal and medical background information) and obtaining a certificate will become much more unpredictable, difficult, and/or expensive. Remember, everything has an equal and opposite reaction. FAA’s equal and opposite reaction will not be known till well after the AOPA’s celebration ends.
For those of you already “in the club” (medical certificate less than 10 years old) this bill is great for you and your continued selfish short-sighted support is expected. However, for those existing and/or future pilots (next generation of aviators) requiring a new third class medical certificate with any signs of medical blemish (that do not rise to any pilot’s definition of medically unfit), this bill will be a disaster. It is my strong belief that in the long run, the new “modified” bill will be worse then the current system and will inevitably lead to a reduction of future pilots.
The original objective was to eliminate the Third Class Medical certificate for private pilots. This “compromise” bill will definitely reduce the paperwork/fees for both perfectly healthy pilots and pilots with an existing active medical certificate. However, this “modified” bill will devastate anyone with any medical blemishes in their background (which is the group we were trying to help) by making the third class medical certificate process much more difficult and expensive. It will also deter future pilots from ever seeking a third class medical certificate for fear of losing their LSA qualification. The end result, GA will continue its slow (but steady) decline.
Not sure how this achieves any of the original objectives…
It will be much easier for someone in their 20’s to pass the initial medical no matter what the silly constraints may be. So while it doesn’t help everyone, it does help older current pilots and probably does no harm to those just starting out. That said, it may hinder older pilots just starting out. Oh well, trade offs must be made in any negotiation.
doesn’t help any one the whey it is, a valid drivers License is what is really needed general aviation will contuses to lose and plain prices will drop to used car stacte
You’re probably right.
We shouldn’t have even tried.
We shouldn’t have even fought for and GOT the Light Sport Certificate.
Let’s just go back to the way things were.
Maybe THAT would make you happy?
Man, some people would bitch if they were hanged with a brand new rope.
It is about all we can expect at this time. They will be restricting number of engines, and type of engines, such as small twin jets, plus add a few more restrictions we haven’t seen yet. I hope I can still do flight instruction as long as no additional conditions are added. If it does go thru, there will be a 6 mth comment period and then another 6 mth or a year, to wright it up.
I think this is going to work out perfect, The ten year thing is only fair and of course it includes new pilots. What could be more fair and doable ? Thank you very much for this wonderful life long pleasure…Joe Gutierrez
I suspect this is as good as it’s ever going to get with respect to the medical certification requirements. I doubt ALPA or the FAA in the future will back off any further than this regardless of what the statistics may say. They’ll always be able to scare the weenies in Congress with fertile imagination hypotheses.
I feel if it passes as written above here it will be a worthwhile change, and
Probably as good as we might expect.
That sounds like very good compromise if one has to see it as a compromise. The passenger limit and altitude changes make it worth it.