Support the Third Class Medical Legislation

Some of them will not be on board with this, they will be more loyal to their lobbyist's ($$$) than to their constituents, and will consider their lobbyist's as their main constituents instead of their voters. The ones who are not on board, I would endeavor to lobby against them when it comes time to vote again, and get rid of them.

Done, using the opencongress link above. Very handy.

Done. Thanks for the easy link.

We need to keep bumping this thread for the next bit of time. I just completed the link and added my thoughts to the stock wording:
The third class medical has been proven to NOT enhance small aircraft safety and indeed causes pilots to keep away from any testing that might deny their medical. The very presence of the medical has cost many pilots their lives do to their reluctance to treat conditions that can cost them their lives. The "Sport Pilot" license has been in effect for ten years and there is NO statistical difference in sport pilot safety over private pilots with a medical. Thank You

Here is the response I received. Sounds noncommittal to me. I think he may need to hear from more of us especially if it gets out of committee.

March 25, 2014
Dear Richard,
Thank you for contacting me about the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this issue.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently considering a proposal to change the third-class medical certification requirement. Currently, sport pilots may use a valid driver's license in lieu of the third-class medical certification, and the FAA is considering a request to expand that to more private pilots.
The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots flying under certain limitations to use their driver's license. This would be allowed if the flights are not for compensation, are conducted in visual flight rule (VFR) conditions at or below 14,000 feet, are flying no faster than 250 knots and are in aircraft with no more than six seats and no more than 6,000 pounds of gross takeoff weight.
The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act was introduced on March 11, 2014 and was subsequently referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where it is pending further action. While I am not a member of that committee, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should the legislation come before the full Senate for consideration.
Thank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you.
Sincerely,


Al Franken
United States Senator

My guys said they'd keep my thoughts in mind also.

I received a response back from California Sen. Feinstein. She quoted the House bill and said she would look at a Senate bill if one were to be introduced in the Senate. Her response was dated well after the Senate bill was introduced. Can you say clue-less? We still need to keep trying ............

Marty57

This is more what I had in mind received from Rick Nolan today.









Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3708, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013.


Due in part to your important advocacy, I have cosponsored H.R. 3708, which will ease excessive rules and regulations for general aviation pilots. You should also know that I will continue to support common-sense efforts to make our federal government more efficient.


As a member of both the General Aviation Caucus and House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, and having lived in Northern Minnesota my whole life, I understand the enormous economic benefit general aviation has to the 8th District, Minnesota, and our nation as a whole. Our numerous regional airports are important economic drivers of our business and tourism industries, and critical hubs for visitors and commuters alike. It is vital we ensure their continued success as major employers in our district and across the United States.


To that end, I recently joined 29 other Members of Congress in a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) opposing their demand for additional fees for air traffic services at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh – a move seen as yet another administrative attempt to impose user fees on general aviation.


Furthermore, you may be pleased to know I was the original Democratic sponsor of H.R.1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act, which was signed into law by the President late last year. This measure requires the FAA to update their Aviation Rulemaking Plan and give producers of small airplanes, like Cirrus Aircraft in Duluth, their own set of regulations. Over the past two decades, the small aviation industry in America has been slowly choking due to an outdated, unnecessarily lengthy approval process that increases the price of safety and technology upgrades by up to ten times, costing us jobs and innovation. H.R.1848 will help regenerate those lost jobs, as well as spur investment and accelerate new designs and lifesaving safety features for a whole new generation of small planes being built in the United States.


Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your outreach and advocacy, and do not hesitate to let me know whenever I can be of assistance.


I encourage you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and visit my website at nolan.house.gov to receive daily updates.


Sincerely,

Richard M. Nolan
Member of Congress






Please do not reply to this email. The mailbox is unattended.
To share your thoughts please visit my webpage.

I received the same from Congressman Nolan, very refreshing. I sent him a note of thanks and asked him to encourage our senators to cosponsor S.2103 and other colleagues to support both bills.

Mark J

I received only a token acknowledgement from my State rep and crickets from the two Senators. Alas, I fear that they will only vote as their dear leader tells them to vote. Those of you in Nevada have to get dear Harry on our side.

Same thing from Sen. John Cornyn in Texas. Very generic reply, not leaning one way or the other. Almost like a form-letter. Said he was not on the aviation caucaus, but would keep my opinion in mind. Between the lines it appeared as if he couldn't care less, whether it went one way or the other.

DesperadoPilot said:

Same thing from Sen. John Cornyn in Texas. Very generic reply, not leaning one way or the other. Almost like a form-letter. Said he was not on the aviation caucaus, but would keep my opinion in mind. Between the lines it appeared as if he couldn't care less, whether it went one way or the other.

Click to expand...

I think you misread his response. I received it as well:

"... S. 2103 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Although I am not a member of that committee, as member of the General Aviation Caucus, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should S. 2103 or other relevant legislation be considered during the 113th Congress. ..."

Somewhere in discussion of HR3708 somebody asked what the chances were of passage. Statistics don't favor success. Seek out and communicate with the subcommittee members who control this bill.

Prognosis. 4% chance of being enacted. This bill has a 18% chance of getting past committee first. Only 11% of bills made it past committee and only about 3% were enacted in 2011–2013. [show factors | methodology]

Click to expand...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3708

Many of our members have senators or congressmen that are sitting on the corresponding subcommittee, even if they're not on the subcommittee, push your representatives to encourage their colleagues to support!

Mark J

FYI

http://transportation.house.gov/subcommittees/subcommittee/?ID=107417

My guy still has it wrong...I'll have to write again and straighten him out:

[h=3]Dave, your letters are on the way![/h]
Your email to Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA-9) sent!
Your email to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D CA) sent!
Your email to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D CA) sent!
You have taken action on "Support the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act"

My quick response:

Sir:


You kindly and thoughtfully responded to my inquiry regarding the 3rd Class Medical proposal for recreational flying. I appreciate your inability to support the legislation in its proposed form due to your conclusion that recreational pilots (and the general populace) are not protected by using he driver's license standard to assess pilot health.


I respectfully urge you to re-think this position as it has a significant flaw.


Your legitimate concern is, of course, that the poor screaming passenger will die an unpleasant death when a private pilot conks out due to a sudden incapacitating event like a heart attack.


The reality is that such instances are a statistical rarity. In fact, the percentage of private (non-commercial) pilots in the general population is very, very small. There are approximately 195,000 private pilots in the U.S and not all of them are active.


Oddly enough, when a private pilot suffers an incapacitating event the outcome is generally pretty good when a passenger takes over. Again, the number of events in any given year across the entire pilot population (private and commercial, which numbers approximately 600,000) can be counted on one hand.


The unfortunate reality is that deaths and injuries from incapacitating events that occur to drivers of automobiles and the unfortunate passengers, bystanders, etc. occur on an almost daily basis.


By your logic, what we should really be doing is applying third-class medical standards to licensed drivers. That's where the lack of heightened medical standards is killing people and endangering the general public on a daily basis. I will, of course, eat my hat the day the Congress of the United States directs the promulgation of such a standard as it is simply not a political reality to restrict millions of drivers and remove their privilege to drive about and kill and maim.


Ok, so what the heck does this mean for business in Maine? Let me give you one example. A popular flying service based near a wilderness wishes to offer outdoor adventure flying on floats, skis and wheels for private pilots. It's upscale, lucrative adventure based tourism at its best. Unfortunately, many of the potential clients have given up battling the FAA bureaucracy on a medical and many of the aircraft used for such endeavors don't fall in the light sport plane category. Slightly expanding the category will open up a tremendous amount of business in Maine and across the country for pilots in the 195,000 returning--safely--to the cockpit.


I appreciate your hearing me out on this matter and respectfully request that you read some more and reconsider your position. Again, you are concerned about a statistical improbability that is dwarfed by the actual statistics of the freely driving public menace.


Finally, on an editorial matter, I deal with the FAA and DOT often and note the following with regard to how they treat people and companies that are working diligently to follow the rules and make a living: the FAA isn't happy unless you are extremely unhappy. The DOT and FAA regulatory interpretation and enforcement arms bring a whole new meaning to that quaint "arbitrary and capricious" standard that gets bantered about in administrative law classes back at law school. That will be the topic of our next discussion.


Best Regards,


Jeff Russell

I got the same exact letter JP. Go figggr

Jim

Scouter said:

I got the same exact letter JP. Go figggr

Jim

Click to expand...

Staffer...

J.P. I like Scouter got the same letter and was about to post. From the meetings I have been involved with him I thought he was a more open and understanding guy (He wanted to put the wind towers here in town, and did). You can't let some old guy or young with a medical issue the FAA deems unsafe fly a plane but you can load up a bus full of people and cruise down a congested freeway at 70 mph, doesn't make any sense to me. J.P. I'm sending a reply to King saying I 2nd Jeff Russell's reply and will vote for him when he runs against you .

Douten said:

J.P. I like Scouter got the same letter and was about to post. From the meetings I have been involved with him I thought he was a more open and understanding guy (He wanted to put the wind towers here in town, and did). You can't let some old guy or young with a medical issue the FAA deems unsafe fly a plane but you can load up a bus full of people and cruise down a congested freeway at 70 mph, doesn't make any sense to me. J.P. I'm sending a reply to King saying I 2nd Jeff Russell's reply and will vote for him when he runs against you .

Click to expand...

I've had the pleasure of knowing him for years. King is a closet moderate who, unfortunately, has a few staffers from the Left side of the spectrum who believe that government exists to protect people from themselves and that redistribution makes things "fair". Their political power and votes come from slavish adherence to this philosophy. King has been known to change his mind when confronted by facts and logic (see, for example, his evolution on gun control) and it would be nice if we could get a bit of face time with him to discuss this. At minimum he should attend one of our fly ins.

Isn't it interesting, how the perception of a politician is changed, when one compares media information to that of someone who actually knows the individual? This gives me some hope that JP can cause King to change his view, from that which one of his staffers wrote. Just perhaps, he will vote correctly when the time comes?

I got the same letter JP.

That some will disagree should come as no surprise. The House bill now has 98 co-sponsors and the Senate version has 10. Co-sponsorship continues to grow. Keep the effort going by contacting your representatives who haven't signed on and thanking those who have. Momentum is important whether the bills make it out of committee or the FAA offers a compromise to fend off a confessional action. Either is better than what we have now.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3708

skywagon8a said:

Isn't it interesting, how the perception of a politician is changed, when one compares media information to that of someone who actually knows the individual? This gives me some hope that JP can cause King to change his view, from that which one of his staffers wrote. Just perhaps, he will vote correctly when the time comes?

Click to expand...

I hate to say this but do a little research on him. I did a quick internet search and found what big programs he has recently voted for. My belief is this is a "But cars don't fall from the sky." or "What about the doctor jobs?" guy, not a "What, no facts to support continuing this law? Then let's get rid of it" guy.

There should not need to be any complicated argument given to a politician on this. No compromises, no excuses, nothing is needed but the statement of our rights based on our constitution (the governments ONLY franchise to govern us. It should read thus: " A recent, detailed, 10 year study of pilots with 3rd class medicals verses a population of "sport pilots" flying with an automobile drivers license as evidence of physical fitness to pilot an aircraft, has turned up NO statistical difference in flight safety status between the two populations. Based on a constitutional review of a law that serves no purpose, the third class medical requirement must be repealed and you must do your sworn duty and vote to end this useless law!"

Where are the folks who understand what the founding of this country was all about? This isn't complicated.

qsmx440 said:

I hate to say this but do a little research on him. I did a quick internet search and found what big programs he has recently voted for. My belief is this is a "But cars don't fall from the sky." or "What about the doctor jobs?" guy, not a "What, no facts to support continuing this law? Then let's get rid of it" guy.

Click to expand...

I personally don't know him from a hole in a wall. I have always been of the opinion that he was to the left of center. During the last election he ran as an independent in order to hide his leanings. He did manage to convince the voters of Maine to overwhelmingly elect him. I had been of the opinion that the voters of Maine had learned their lesson as he had been in office in the past.

qsmx440 said:

" A recent, detailed, 10 year study of pilots with 3rd class medicals verses a population of "sport pilots" flying with an automobile drivers license as evidence of physical fitness to pilot an aircraft, has turned up NO statistical difference in flight safety status between the two populations.

Click to expand...

I don't question that this study may exist, however I have only heard that it exists. And hearing that it exists does not make it so. Are you able to provide a link to the study so that I may read it for myself. I am inclined to think that your statement is correct, I just need to see the documentation. Thanks.

qsmx440 said:

I hate to say this but do a little research on him. I did a quick internet search and found what big programs he has recently voted for. My belief is this is a "But cars don't fall from the sky." or "What about the doctor jobs?" guy, not a "What, no facts to support continuing this law? Then let's get rid of it" guy.

There should not need to be any complicated argument given to a politician on this. No compromises, no excuses, nothing is needed but the statement of our rights based on our constitution (the governments ONLY franchise to govern us. It should read thus: " A recent, detailed, 10 year study of pilots with 3rd class medicals verses a population of "sport pilots" flying with an automobile drivers license as evidence of physical fitness to pilot an aircraft, has turned up NO statistical difference in flight safety status between the two populations. Based on a constitutional review of a law that serves no purpose, the third class medical requirement must be repealed and you must do your sworn duty and vote to end this useless law!"

Where are the folks who understand what the founding of this country was all about? This isn't complicated.

Click to expand...

Your observations are factually correct. And your facts about the 3rd Class medical are likely correct.

The reality on the ground is far different. Being a politician with the ability to make law is only about one purpose: the power to control how much and to whom money goes, period. And money goes directly to the constituencies who share your view of the world and will vote to keep you in power.

How does this relate to flying?

Simple--your privilege to operate an airplane is viewed by an ever increasing number of people as an inimical, elitist activity fueled by wealth that you have unfairly taken from others. Those who share this view have been promised that in exchange for a vote to place someone in power this inequality will be addressed and the wealth properly and fairly redistributed. In fact, there is an entire political faction that is devoted--slavishly--to this philosophy and won the electoral college, handily, twice in a row. It is now the majority view.

Social scientists, demographers and political scientist have all put forth studies portraying this as the way our country is inevitably headed and/or has arrived. You be the judge.

skywagon8a said:

I personally don't know him from a hole in a wall. I have always been of the opinion that he was to the left of center. During the last election he ran as an independent in order to hide his leanings. He did manage to convince the voters of Maine to overwhelmingly elect him. I had been of the opinion that the voters of Maine had learned their lesson as he had been in office in the past.


I don't question that this study may exist, however I have only heard that it exists. And hearing that it exists does not make it so. Are you able to provide a link to the study so that I may read it for myself. I am inclined to think that your statement is correct, I just need to see the documentation. Thanks.

Click to expand...

The "study" so called by me, is the real world experience of the sport pilot flying safety record. I am going by what has been stated over and over about the safety record. I tend to believe it since no credible defense has been put up by the doctors or the FAA or any one else who would be able to refute the safety record (concerning the medical). If they had had the evidence that pilots without the third class were more dangerous they would have gone public by now. It's a study because it's been going on for almost ten years now and thousands of test subjects are in each group. The FAA has been collecting the info on accidents and "apparently" there is no difference hence the law is unconstitutional just like making people sit in the back of the bus because of their skin color. It is a law without a purpose.

As an aside I believe the safety record is the same because both groups have to take biennial flight tests by persons actually qualified to test the fitness of a pilot in the real world.

qsmx440, Now I get your point of a "study". I had heard other references to a "study", so I had thought that there had been some data put together for publication. I happen to agree with your points.