EAA AOPA medical proposal

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Merlinspop]

We have forum members who are on both ends of the political spectrum. When one of us cast dispersion on the other point of view, it does nothing but piss off people. I have to think that is the intent.

I hope no one misinterpreted my comments as being political. They are about the PROCESS. Love 'em or hate 'em - doesn't matter. If the administration's position is counter to this (or any non-appropriation) bill, and the Senate majority is aligned with the President and doesn't want to expend the capital required to swim against the tide, it can wither on the vine. This is entirely non-partisan. It'd be the same way if everything was the other way around.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[drseti]

Good nonpartisan summary, Bruce.

[Merlinspop]

Maybe I've lived in DC too long. There is NO way the FAA Flight Surgeon would have come out with the sleep apnea thing without getting the ok from the FAA Administrator. The Administrator would not approve anything that big that doesn't fall in line with the DOT and administration's overall intentions. Period. That's how DC works.

This bill isn't just 180 degrees off of the FAAs position on medicals, it's several turns around that point and then 180 degrees off. The FAA will come out strongly against it. Transportation will say it supports the FAA. The White House (if it even addresses it) will say that Public Safety is paramount and that will be that.

I hope I'm wrong, because this bill would benefit me a whole lot.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Wm.Ince]

Maybe I've lived in DC too long. There is NO way the FAA Flight Surgeon would have come out with the sleep apnea thing without getting the ok from the FAA Administrator. The Administrator would not approve anything that big that doesn't fall in line with the DOT and administration's overall intentions. Period. That's how DC works.

This bill isn't just 180 degrees off of the FAAs position on medicals, it's several turns around that point and then 180 degrees off. The FAA will come out strongly against it. Transportation will say it supports the FAA. The White House (if it even addresses it) will say that Public Safety is paramount and that will be that.

I hope I'm wrong, because this bill would benefit me a whole lot.

Bruce,

I think you are spot on.
The proposed bill would greatly benefit me also.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[Merlinspop]

I think the Republicans in the house will kill it because it might help a minority.

Who is bringing up politics now? Or do you mean a minority of the pilot population?

Back to the bill's prospect of moving forward... I think right now it is very important for the alphabet groups to really double down on their efforts to convince the FAA, DOT and administration to support this. If they can get that, then the Senate version can be something that is watered down significantly with something that looks a lot like the EAA/AOPA proposal coming out of the joint committee. IF they can get the Administration & bureaucrat side to agree to give it a try.

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[FastEddieB]

My "oxymoron" comment was just a joke.

Really.

<Political> no more than "insane Republican" is, Eddie...</Political>.

I'm sure you meant "sane Republican", BTW -

[Jack Tyler]

If we stay with the 'process' - and as pilots, shouldn't we care about this legislative process more than anyone? - then I have to ask: How many of us have written/emailed/called our Congressman/woman to express initial support for the bill as filed? [Notice the long silence...] The House GA Caucus (very different from the Senate aviation caucus) includes over half the House members, which suggests that at least half of us would be speaking directly to someone who climbed on that particular bandwagon. What would a GA Caucus member think if, after the news splash about this new bill, s/he hears nothing from those who are its claimed benefactors? My suggestion: take 5 mins from our normal forum/on-line activities and post something to our Rep in Congress. I happen to live *exactly* on the dividing line between a staunchly conservative House member and a extremely liberal one...and they'll both hear from me pronto.

[CharlieTango]

Deleting every other post turns this conversation into a mystery.

[FastEddieB]

Deleting every other post turns this conversation into a mystery.

I hesitated to post on this in the other thread - FFF lives nearby, seems like a nice enough guy, and I'd like to stay on his good side.

But this "delete" habit is just plain weird. Not to mention rude.

"A man's word is his bond". Something posted to a site for the edification of others should not be so transient in nature.

If what one is saying will not stand the test of time, don't post it.

I'm close to putting FlyingForFun on ignore, which would be a shame and would not really cure the disjointedness imposed on threads by his hit-and-run posts.

Hard to know what else to do, though.

I'm not sure if this is an explicit or implicit violation of rules* and/or protocol, but it really should stop.

Mods?



*can't seem to find the forum rules on first blush. Can anyone point me to them?

[FlyingForFun]

I'm not posting or participating here anymore. This is my last post. Thanks everyone.