You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
Does anyone actually know the status of this? -Keep hearing people people on both sides speak with authority, but haven't seen a thing concrete. If you know of a link where you can find out what the lawmakers are up to, I would like to see it. PLEASE don't let this one degrade into a fistfight.
Does anyone actually know the status of this? -Keep hearing people people on both sides speak with authority, but haven't seen a thing concrete. If you know of a link where you can find out what the lawmakers are up to, I would like to see it. PLEASE don't let this one degrade into a fistfight.
S. 65 was reintroduced by Sen Inhofe at the beginning of this session of Congress. There are currently 7 cosponsors. It will die in committee; Sen Inouye (Transportation Committee Chair) and Rockefeller (Aviaition Subcommittee Chair) had written rebuttals opposing S 65 in the last session of Congress. As chairmen, they have the power to kill a bill in committee.
Go to thomas.loc.gov. Type in s 65 in search bill text. Select bill number. You will find the latest information on the bill there.
No accompanying bill has been introduced in the House yet. Rep Gibbons (now Gov Gibbons) was the sponsor of HR 65 in the last session. Rep Mica (subcommittee chairman) let it die in subcommittee last time. Oberstar is now committee chairman; he may let it get through in the House. With its companion never making it out of committee in the senate, it doesn't matter.
There is a very good chance that FAA Administrator Blakey will announce a NPRM to change the retirement age. It will take 18-24 months before any change in the rules. It's not a fast process.
With the NPRM, whatever that means, can Blakely override the other hurdles and pass it through? Andy You seem knowledgeable--What's your gut feeling on the very end result? I know it's speculation, but just curious, Also having a heart attack, as I'm on furlough!
With the NPRM, whatever that means, can Blakely override the other hurdles and pass it through? Andy You seem knowledgeable--What's your gut feeling on the very end result? I know it's speculation, but just curious, Also having a heart attack, as I'm on furlough!
A NPRM is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is what the FAA (not limited to the FAA; other federal agencies also use NPRM) uses when it wants to change a rule or make a rule.
I would not expect the FAA to make it a one-shot change to the rule; from what I'm hearing, it will be phased in over several years, giving the FAA the opportunity to turn it off at any time. In other words, have the age increase by 6 mos every year.
If the FAA does a NPRM, ny opinion is that the rule will change. It's then just a question of what form the change takes.
The announced NPRM will take 18-24 months, the normal range for an NPRM that is not expedited. The Blakey announcement of Jan 30th did not address waivers, return rights, expedite the process, etc.
She signaled a win for the pro change group.
The threw ALPA/APA/ ATA a bone by allowing the process to string out for two years or so. AS those groups were very oppositional on as well, with inclusive results.
There are likely to be no phase-ins, as ICAO pilots are already flying in our country, the FAA has given older pilots a thumbs-up and the process itself will be glacial.
That said, proponents of change (APAAD, SWAPA, NPA, SWA, JetBlue) have worked to get new legislation into play. S. 65 has bipartisan support and within one month has accrued 18 so sponsors.
The goal will be to get a certain age change, an expedited process and waivers for those pilots caught in the donut-hole - told they are safe and an asset but slated for the scrap bin due to bureaucratic sloth.
The announced NPRM will take 18-24 months, the normal range for an NPRM that is not expedited. The Blakey announcement of Jan 30th did not address waivers, return rights, expedite the process, etc.
She signaled a win for the pro change group.
The threw ALPA/APA/ ATA a bone by allowing the process to string out for two years or so. AS those groups were very oppositional on as well, with inclusive results.
There are likely to be no phase-ins, as ICAO pilots are already flying in our country, the FAA has given older pilots a thumbs-up and the process itself will be glacial.
That said, proponents of change (APAAD, SWAPA, NPA, SWA, JetBlue) have worked to get new legislation into play. S. 65 has bipartisan support and within one month has accrued 18 so sponsors.
The goal will be to get a certain age change, an expedited process and waivers for those pilots caught in the donut-hole - told they are safe and an asset but slated for the scrap bin due to bureaucratic sloth.
Blakey DID address return rights and waivers. The answer was NO! Watch the full webcast.
A phase in period has been hinted.
S. 65 has 18 cosponsors. Irrelevent. It will never get out of subcommittee. And there is no House companion bill. S 65 is as good as dead.
The NPRM process is underway. Under the timeline Ms. Blakey outlined, it would take until the end of this year simply to complete the ARC. It would then take 18-24 months to complete the NPRM itself. That means it would ot be complete until summer '09 or winter 2010.
In that time frame, we will retire 4500+ pilots due to age 60 - many without pensions.
This is all the more galling since Blakey said A. Older pilots are safe and an asset and B. ICAO foreign pilots enjoy access to our skies that we continue to be denied.
Legislation (S. 65) is no longer entirely focused on the issue of whether or not to change the age; it is focused on expediting the process so as to avoid the process being a mockery.
Another co-sponsor (Grassley) joined the bill this wee, now a total of 19.
We could use your help on the Hill to crank this up.
A Blitz will occur March 6-7-8. Come one day or all. nWe will blanket Congress as our numbers allow. mm Please visit the APAAD website (www.apaad.org) for details as to where to meet, etc.
Similar Threads
Age 60/65 Legislation
Linear Mode
