I believe that this would be a viable means of addressing the LODA issue (as it currently sits for certain categorizations). However, it runs the real risk of, just like the originating incident, that once the door is opened, the end result is uncertain and bad results could happen. The current LODA situation / status arose because someone chose to fight the FAA and now there is a court ruling that, even though the ruling is not immediately binding, the FAA feels necessary to comply with.
Wouldn't it have been better if the original fight was avoided, the rules followed, and the then-status quo remained?
I worry that there may be unintended consequences of pursuing this action particularly in the current environment in D.C. where government activism / control is not entirely viewed with disfavor.
The REAL issue here isn't necessarily the LODA itself. The 800 pound gorilla in this room is the change in language regarding flight instruction that the FAA Legal types adopted without consulting anyone. THAT is what the Congressional bills are really about.
The policy on flight instructing has for many, many decades been that a flight instructor is NOT flying or operating an aircraft. A Flight Instructor, in this definition, is in fact providing "Instructional services", which may occasionally involve demonstrating something, but the primary function is instruction, NOT operating the airplane.
The FAA Legal team (trying to be kind with terminology here, though I don't know why) adopted, as a result of this case, the language that a flight instructor is in fact, "operating an aircraft for compensation or hire". Which means several things.
First, it means every flight instructor MUST possess a second class medical certificate. Lots currently don't.
Second, it MAY significantly change the way the insurance industry looks at flight instruction.
Third, down the road, bear in mind that virtually every situation where a pilot is "operating for compensation or hire" requires an operating certificate. At present, Part 141 schools are the only flight instruction programs that require an operating certificate. In fact, there are major disincentives to operate under Part 141....trust me.
So, there are a lot of issues involved here. There are in fact some pretty experienced pilots who post on this forum who I suspect are operating under Basic Med. IF this new language now becomes policy (and it will as things stand), those folks will NOT be able to flight instruct unless they acquire a second class medical.
As to unintended consequences, consider the Congressional action that created Basic Med, which, by the way, was introduced and sponsored by the same two Congressional reps: Inhofe and Graves. There were no "unintended consequences" associated with that bill, and the bill literally flew through Congress.
It's likely the same could happen with this bill. Frankly, lots of folks in Congress kinda like a bill that's non controversial, and they can say they supported it. Especially if it involves "correcting a wrong" created by a federal agency.
Please folks, consider writing to your Congressional representatives and ask them to support these two bills.
MTV