The International Cessna 170 Association

Here is a link for your support through EAA website.

http://govt.eaa.org/14781/support-gener ... ction-act/

John

Well.... that didn't take long

Doesn't take long at all and actually is pretty slick.

I got a response from one of my representatives yesterday. I thought the wording was interesting.

• Pat Toomey (R-PA) wrote:As a pilot, I understand your concerns about medical certification requirements for general aviation pilots. Specific to your inquiry, S. 2103 was introduced by Senator John Boozman (R-AR) on March 11, 2014. Among its provisions, this bill would prevent the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from prohibiting pilots from operating certain aircraft based on medical reasons if the pilot meets certain conditions, such as maintaining a valid state driver's license.

I underlined the part I found interesting. I had to read it several times.

I've always thought of the regulations allowing one to exercise the privileges of their certificate if they meet certain health criteria. I never thought of them as saying you were prohibited unless you did. Of course either is correct. Is the glass half full or half empty?

That's the way most FARs are written! They don't tell you what you can do, only what you can't do: "No pilot may operate aircraft except as provided in (blah blah blah)..." "No aircraft may be operated in conditions specified in sections ABC unless it complies with sections xyz", and sections xyz say no airplane complies unless it meets requirements abc. Further, nobody may cause an airplane to meet abc unless they hold certificates and qualifications blah blah blah ...

Of course, in this case the law is worded that way because it has a clear target: FAA Aeromedical Branch. FAA may not restrict the flying privileges of any airman meeting certain requirements that are not under the control of FAA.

It's funny that the wording confused Toomey. Welcome to our world, Pat!

I sent it in this morning and got an answer back from my congressman this afternoon. At least I know it got there.

Actually, it just means that your Congressman has the same automation tech for replying to automated messages sent to him

DaveF wrote:That's the way most FARs are written! They don't tell you what you can do, only what you can't do: "No pilot may operate aircraft except as provided in (blah blah blah)..." "

Your right I just didn't expect it in a letter from a congressman.

blueldr wrote:I sent it in this morning and got an answer back from my congressman this afternoon. At least I know it got there.

I too got a reply from my representative pronto. It'll be at least a week, though, before you get a reply from senator DiFi.

David Ross,

I doubt that my congressional representative is smart enough to know that there is a machine to answer emails. He is apparently an "MD"since he uses that title with his name. If he could hack it as a medic he would probably doing it instead of moving to washington DC. Maybe he's in it for the cushy retirement plan.

Miles,

I haven't had a reply from either DiFi or BarBox yet.