Senator proposes new self-defense rules against FAA | FerrariChat

Senator proposes new self-defense rules against FAA

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by toggie, Jul 10, 2011.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. toggie

    toggie F1 World Champ
    Owner Silver Subscribed

    Nov 30, 2003
    19,036
    Virginia
    Full Name:
    Toggie (Ron)
    I like this idea. Senator Inhofe says it isn't a fair fight when you try to defend yourself against an FAA violation. He is proposing some common sense changes to the rules when the FAA is trying to take away your pilot license.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/10/sen-inhofe-strikes-back-at-faa-after-runway-run-in/

    Senator Inhofe Strikes Back at FAA After Runway Run-In

    WASHINGTON -- After Sen. James Inhofe landed his small plane on a closed runway at a rural South Texas airport last October and sent workers on the ground scrambling, the Federal Aviation Administration ordered him to take remedial piloting lessons.

    Now it's FAA officials who are getting a lesson from the 76-year-old Oklahoma Republican on the pitfalls of crossing a senior lawmaker.

    Inhofe, who's been flying for 50 years, is sponsoring a bill to strengthen the position of pilots when contesting FAA enforcement of safety regulations in cases like his.

    "With any bureaucracy that has the power to take action against an individual, it's our job in Congress to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place to prevent agency overreach," Inhofe said in a speech to the Senate before introducing the bill last week.

    Pilots sometimes aren't given access to all the evidence that might help their case, he said. They can be punished for not following notices on safety conditions at specific airports even if the notices weren't publicly available before the flights, he said.

    Pilots can appeal FAA decisions to the National Transportation Safety Board, but the board usually "rubber stamps" the agency's recommendations, Inhofe said.

    "I was never fully appreciative of the feeling of desperation until it happened to me," he said. "I did nothing wrong but at any time I could have suffered a revocation of my license."

    There were trucks and workers on the closed runway, which was marked with a giant yellow X. Inhofe said he didn't see the workers until it was too late to safely abort the landing. The FAA didn't post a notice online warning pilots of the runway closure until days after the incident, he said.

    Inhofe's bill is backed by private pilots' groups. They include the powerful Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which has about 400,000 members, and the Experimental Aircraft Association, which has about 170,000 members. One-quarter of the Senate had agreed to co-sponsor the bill before it was introduced.

    The matter is very important to "the single-issue people who fly airplanes," Inhofe told senators.

    "People say they are all fat cats. ... They are not wealthy people. They are single-issue people."

    In Washington parlance, "single issue" refers to people who vote and direct their political contributions based on one issue they feel passionately about. The owners and pilots group sometimes is referred to in Congress as the National Rifle Association of aviation because of its grass-roots political clout.

    "We at AOPA are pleased to see that this measure has received broad support from so many U.S. senators because it will help provide a degree of certainty, enabling pilots who follow the complex regulations governing aviation to fly with confidence," said Craig Fuller, the group's president.

    FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown declined comment on the specifics of Inhofe's allegations or his bill.

    "The FAA's primary concern is the safety of the aviation system. We will review the proposed legislation," Brown said in a statement.

    Last year, about 450 people were killed in nonairline aviation accidents in the U.S., according to NTSB. The board recently designated improving the safety of private and non-airline commercial aviation as one of its top safety priorities.

    The bill would:

    --Require FAA make all evidence in enforcement cases available to pilots 30 days prior to a decision.

    --Allow pilots who wish to bypass the NTSB to take their appeals of FAA decisions directly to court.

    --Require FAA improve its system of providing safety notices to pilots based on recommendations from an advisory panel composed of pilot groups.

    --Require FAA improve its system of certifying pilots as medically fit for flying based on recommendations from an advisory panel composed of pilot groups.

    --Make weather and other preflight information pilots routinely receive from FAA before flying available later to pilots who request it for use defending themselves against enforcement actions.

    Several safety experts said the bill's provisions on making information available to pilots are reasonable. But they disagreed that NTSB doesn't give pilot appeals a fair hearing.

    "The vast majority of times the FAA does make a good case," said former NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker. "That doesn't make (the board) a rubber stamp."
    .
     
  2. kverges

    kverges F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    3,179
    Dallas
    Full Name:
    Keith Verges
    The rules seem sensible enough, but I guess this also illustrates the chutzpah of politicians.

    Me, if I'd landed on a runway with big "Xs" painted on it - I'd take my remedial training and be ashamed of myself, not ask for a better way to defend against enforcement action.
     
  3. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
    Its funny he probably wouldnt do a darn thing about the FAA if something like that had'nt happend to him; however, its sensible and the feds definately need some overhaulin. I guess we need more lawmakers to screw up and deal with their own bureaucracies to bring forth postive changes.
     
  4. 2000YELLOW360

    2000YELLOW360 F1 World Champ

    Jun 5, 2001
    19,800
    Full Name:
    Art
    +1000

    Landing on a closed runway is stupid. Too late to go around??? Bull. Only if he landed more than half way down the runway and it was short.

    Art
     
  5. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    8,017
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    Hey! Don't you know that congressmen are immune to normal thinking and logic? They are also excused from abiding the same laws that we do. They sometimes are lawyers and most of the time above the level of other human beings...they think. An X on the runway means NO LANDING! But, then, some people are simply too important to obey things like OFFICIAL WARNINGS that there may be a bull dozer on the runway that is being torn up..
     
  6. JLF

    JLF Formula 3

    Sep 8, 2009
    1,704
  7. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,163
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    #7 tazandjan, Jul 19, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  8. themanwithnoferrari

    Jul 18, 2011
    54
    Plymouth, MA
    Full Name:
    Darryl
    Internationally the rules vary as far as published NOTAMS. That said, I am sure that at a public airport, (I haven't really researched this, but obviously the airport was not towered), that there was a published NOTAM before the ground crews commenced their ops. The Senator should have contacted FSS before taking off, plain and simple. Yes, granted DUATS will provide you with some information, however a wise pilot would probably use FSS (1-800-WXBRIEF for those that have forgot). Too late to go around? Was the landing a CATIII approach down to minimums? Obviously not, as approach control would know not to land a plane on a closed runway. Yep, I really can't come up with a logical reason (or excuse) for landing on a closed runway; sounds like bull. Furthermore, I think that the FAA was lenient with the senator, remedial flight lessons? That would probably have ended my flight career. Is it fair that any of body outside of politics would be in serious trouble if they did this, but this senator screws up and, ok, I will just pass a new bill so I can get myself out of trouble. Thats one of the problems with our politicians, none of them care about law etc. until it is them under the gun, now things need to change. As far as this new bill is concerned I agree that the FAA should have to furnish their evidence before any proceedings. However, it seems that this bill is trying to make it so that for some cases, the preceedings will be brought to court. This could be a backfire against us though, as judges (and juries if there were to be any) will probably not be pilots and therefore not really see things through the eyes of the pilots. Also, the punishments will actually probably become more severe. I think I have run out of things to run my mouth about right now.
     

Share This Page