[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 90 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4174-S4180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3268
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, in a moment I am going to propound a
unanimous consent request. Before I do, I would like to say what it is
on so people will understand the time and effort that has gone into
getting legislation passed. I am referring now to S. 3268.
When John Glenn retired from this body, that left me as kind of the
last acting commercial pilot. Consequently, I ended up getting a lot
more of the complaints and problems within the FAA and the way
accusations are made and enforcement actions are taken. I have gone to
bat for a lot of these people when I believed there was really a
fairness problem.
It was not until I had an experience, a personal experience, that I
realized the depth of the problem. It is very hard for people in this
room to understand. If you have been, as I have been, a private pilot,
commercial pilot, and flight instructor for 55 years, what it would
mean to have that license taken away from you if that were merely at
the whim of some enforcement officer in the field. I think all of us
know--when I was mayor of Tulsa, now and then we had a few police
officers who could not handle the authority. It happens all the time.
Certainly we hear about it with enforcement actions brought about by
the FAA.
What happened to me, and I will share this with you--I think it is
very important--I have probably more hours than most airline pilots
have and I was still active in aviation. I was flying down to the
southern part of Texas, the furthest south part of Texas, way down by
Brownsville, to Cameron County Airport. Papa India Lima is the
identifier for it. In this effort, with several passengers with me, I
was going by the controllers. This is what you do not have to do but I
always do for safety purposes. I went through the Corpus Christi
approach control. He handed me off to the Valley approach control. I
was going into a field that was uncontrolled, so the only control is
the Valley approach control. They are watching on a screen, and they
have all the information they need to direct you and authorize you to
do things. They are looking for traffic and you are squawking, so they
know exactly where you are, how high you are, and all the things that
are happening. Again, you don't have to do that. On this day in
October, a year ago October, I did not have to do it, but I did it
anyway.
As I approached--the wind is always out of the south down there. The
runway is 1 3--that coordinates with 130 degrees. When I was on about--
I would have to go back and listen again to the voice recorder--about a
2- or 3-mile final to runway 1 3, the controller said: Twin Cessna 115
echo alpha, you are cleared to land runway 1 3.
When you do this, you dirty up your plane so you can land. This
happens to be a pretty sophisticated twin-engine plane; you have to let
the flaps down and gears down and all that stuff. You get to the point,
if you have a full plane, beyond which you cannot go around. When I
came in to make a landing, I did not see X on the runway because it was
not very prominent, but nevertheless there was one there. But there
were some workers on the far east side of the runway. This was a 8,000-
or 9,000-foot runway. I only needed 2,000 or 3,000 feet. So I went over
the workers and I landed. Immediately they got upset that I landed.
A lot of people, because I am a Member of the U.S. Senate, started
calling the New York Times and the Washington Post. They had a
wonderful time with this. I started looking at it and talking to the
people who do the enforcement action. I have to say they were good, and
they were responding to a lot of hysterical people, frankly, who did
not like me. So they came with an enforcement action against me which
merely was to go around the pattern with a CFI, a flight instructor. So
I did this. I am also a flight instructor. I had given him his license,
as a matter of fact. I went through this procedure, and everything was
fine.
However, the problem was this: I was denied access to the information
they were going to use against me. When I told them that I was cleared
to land by the controller, it took me, a U.S. Senator, 4 months to get
the voice recording to prove I was right.
Second, there is a thing called Notices to Airmen. NOTAMS are
supposed to be published every time there is work on a runway. Pilots
are supposed to have access to NOTAMS. You look through your resources,
as I always do, to see if there are NOTAMS on the runways where I land.
When I go back on
[[Page S4177]]
weekends, normally I will fly--gosh, I will be at five or six different
towns, but I look up the NOTAMS on all the towns. I had done that.
There were no NOTAMS on Cameron County Airport. We checked afterward.
We could never find any. No one says there were NOTAMS now. So, No. 1,
I was clear to land, and No. 2, there were no NOTAMS that were
published.
What they could have done--they could have very well done is taken my
license away. It doesn't mean much to people who are listening to me
right now because you are not pilots, but it means a lot to the 400,000
members of the AOPA who are watching us right now and to the 175,000
general aviation pilots with the EAA, Experimental Aircraft
Association, who are watching us right now. They know that they, at the
whim of one bureaucrat, could lose their licenses.
Anyway, I came back and drafted legislation. I have to say this was
way back a year ago now--July 6 of 2011. I introduced a bill with 25
cosponsors that would do three things:
No. 1, it would let the accused have access to all relevant evidence
within 30 days prior to a decision to proceed with an enforcement
action.
No. 2, it would allow the accused to have access to the Federal
courts. As it is right now, the National Transportation Safety Board--
it goes to them, and they rubberstamp whatever the FAA does. In fiscal
year 2010, there were 61 appeals, and of those only 5 were reversed. Of
the 24 petitions in 2010 seeking review for emergency determinations,
only 1 was granted and 23 were denied. It is a rubberstamp. Everybody
knows it. Ask any pilot you can find, and they will tell you that is
what it is.
This way, they would have access to the Federal courts. It is not
going to happen because I can assure you, that inspector in the field,
the enforcement officer in the field is not going to put his reputation
on the line knowing that someone is going to be looking at it with a
sense of fairness. The district court doesn't have to know anything
about piloting an airplane, it is just a fairness issue.
In my case, they would have looked at this and said: Wait, you are
cleared to land by the FAA, and there are no NOTAMS published. What did
you do wrong?
I did nothing wrong.
They would make sure flight station communications are available to
all airmen. They are supposed to be. But if it took me 4 months--and I
am a U.S. Senator--to get a voice recording to show I was cleared to
land at this airport, what about somebody who is not a Senator? What
about somebody who would be intimidated to the point he would lose his
license?
The second thing this does is it forces the NOTAMS--Notices to
Airmen--to be put in a place where they are visible, a central
location.
The third thing. If you talk to the aircraft owners and the pilots
association, of all the problems that they get called to their
attention, 28 percent of all the requests for assistance received by
them relate to the medical certification process. In other words,
someone might lose his medical and then find he has corrected any kind
of physical problem and wants to get it back, and he gets it back.
However, if he happens to live in a different town and there are
hundreds of doctors around to do this, there is no uniformity to it.
So it sets up a process or helps facilitate setting up a process by
having general aviation, having the FAA, having the NTSB, having anyone
who is relevant and interested in this to look at and coordinate the
medical certification process.
That is essentially it. I am prepared to go into a lot of detail. I
know I now have 66 cosponsors in this body. I could have had a lot
more; we quit after we got two-thirds. I think everyone knows that is
normally what you do. I do know we may have one objection to this
unanimous consent request, but I am going to make it now.
As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 422, S. 3268,
that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, reserving the right to object,
first of all, I know this bill is very important to the Senator who is
offering it. I understand that, and I respect the Senator. He is a good
Senator. But my objection is not based so much on what he said, it is
based on the whole concept of public safety.
This is about public safety. We should not have to worry that
potentially unqualified pilots are in the air. We have so many tens of
thousands of airplanes in the air every hour of every day. This bill
would create a process which would be new which could result in the
Federal Government being unable to pursue enforcement action because of
the limited resources. It is a fact of life these days. FAA has to cut
way back. We are having to address other mandated priorities which are
perhaps more important than this one. That could very well mean that
the FAA and the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board, which
are ultimately responsible for making decisions about whether pilots
have violated aviation regulations, could be barred from taking actions
to prevent unsafe pilots from continuing to fly. That is heavy water.
That could have serious safety consequences.
According to the FAA, in some cases which would typically warrant
revocation of a pilot's license, some unqualified pilots would be able
to avoid losing their certificates by avoiding FAA prosecution of the
matter before the NTSB.
This bill, in closing, would stand the FAA's enforcement structure on
its head. As a result, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond. This in no way has anything to do with
safety because we are talking--the first arbitrator is the FAA. That is
not what this is about at all. When we have had a chance to talk, as we
have to almost all the Senators in this body, we have talked about
safety. We bounced that off many people. We had a hearing at Oshkosh
about safety. I had the air traffic controllers support me on this.
They are the ones concerned with safety.
I would say I don't agree with the argument, but I respect the
Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I too object, along with Senator
Rockefeller. I have been on the National Transportation Safety Board,
and I know well the kinds of cases that are pilots' license revocations
and the NTSB process for appeals of those. I understand Senator
Inhofe's explanation for what happened with him and that he is in
somewhat of a disagreement with some of the reporting of that incident.
I also understand the Senator from Oklahoma's long-time record of
being a pilot, and I respect that very much, but I am afraid that what
he is not taking into consideration is most certainly a safety issue.
We have tasked the FAA with air safety, and we have given them the
responsibility for revoking pilots' licenses when there is a need to do
that in their opinion, whether it be for a violation of landing on a
runway that has an X, which pilots know means that runway cannot be
used at that time.
As happened with Senator Inhofe's case, he is saying that he had a
clearance, but the X was there and the FAA cited him for that. They did
not revoke his pilot's license at all, yet he is coming forward with a
bill that not only addresses some of his legitimate concerns, which I
agree with. The FAA's expertise and its mission, which is given to it
by Congress, is to provide for safety and to revoke a private pilot's
license or commercial pilot's license or aviation mechanic's license.
Senator Inhofe's bill that would allow pilots to not have to go through
the appellate process with the National Transportation Safety Board,
which is the appellate authority, which also has the expertise and
experience to know when a revocation would be questionable or if the
FAA was right. They have the pilots, they have the expertise to make
those decisions, and after the NTSB appeal, they then have the right to
go to Federal court if they so choose.
[[Page S4178]]
What Senator Inhofe's bill does is take away the NTSB portion of the
appeals process. Let me say that I have offered to Senator Inhofe--
because he knew I objected to this bill--to do everything in his bill
that he has addressed, including the openness, the requirement that an
enforcement action that the FAA would grant the pilot all the relevant
evidence in 30 days prior to a decision, that it would clarify the
statutory deference as it relates to NTSB. NTSB is not a rubberstamp at
all. I think they have been fair with their expertise. The FAA has the
responsibility for aviation safety. Requiring the FAA to undertake a
notice to the Airmen Improvement Program, I think, is certainly
legitimate. Making flight service station communications available to
all airmen is a legitimate piece of this legislation.
What I object to and have asked Senator Inhofe to let us work
together to do is not to bypass NTSB, but to let the appellate process
go forward, and then at the end, if there is still a feeling of
unfairness on the part of the pilot, that they would have access to the
Federal courts. They can do that now.
So I think Senator Inhofe insisting on bypassing NTSB is holding up
the good parts of his bill because it is very important, in my opinion,
that we keep the expertise for safety in the skies where it is, in the
FAA, the NTSB, and then go to the Federal courts if rights are
violated.
In 2011, the NTSB had 350 appeal cases for administrative law judges
and the number was similar in 2010. Cases are typically disposed of in
90 to 120 days, so there is not a long lag time in which the pilot
doesn't have the access to his or her license. The NTSB held 62 appeals
hearings in 2011 and 36 cases went to the full board. The breakdown of
the cases was private pilots, 48 percent; airline mechanics or aviation
mechanics, 13 percent; commercial pilots, 6 percent; air carriers, 8
percent; and medical with 25 percent.
Senator Rockefeller and I, as the relevant chairman and ranking
member on the Commerce Committee, have agreed to have a hearing on
Senator Inhofe's bill so that this can be fully vetted, and most
certainly I have on many occasions offered to work with Senator Inhofe
to get the notification requirements, the openness requirements--every
part of his bill that would require reforms of the process for fairness
to the pilots--I would agree with and work to help him pass. But I
think taking out the NTSB and going directly to Federal courts is not
necessary, and I think it will hurt aviation safety.
I also believe that a different, extraneous issue is that our Federal
courts are pretty clogged already and the Federal courts do not have
those with pilots' licenses on their staff clerkship rolls, to a great
extent. Maybe they happen to be. But they don't have the familiarity
with the requirements of FAA and the issues that FAA looks at, and they
do have access to Federal courts in the end anyway. But I think the
NTSB part is important so that the experienced pilots in the NTSB have
the appellate authority, as they do now, to decipher what happened with
the FAA and determine if fairness was given to the pilot. It is also to
help determine if that pilot should continue to fly or if it would
endanger aviation safety, which should not be the role of the Federal
courts.
So Senator Rockefeller and I do object. I hold my hand out to Senator
Inhofe to work with him on the notification and fairness issues in his
bill, which I support. I just don't think bypassing the expertise of
the NTSB and adding another burden to the Federal courts where they do
not have the expertise is in anyone's best interest in this country,
and I am happy to work with anyone who is interested in this issue and
hope we can resolve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think it would be redundant for me to
go back and repeat what I said before. The Senator from Texas talked
about the X on the runway. I made it very clear by the time you can see
the X on the runway when you are cleared to land and you have a
sophisticated plane that is full of passengers, there is a point beyond
which you can't go in terms of your plane is dirtied up making a go-
around. Obviously it wasn't necessary because I had 7,000 empty feet to
come around, but that is not important because that is not the issue.
I recognize and respect Senator Hutchison in the fact that she was on
the NTSB, and I know that obviously is meaningful to her, as it is to
Senator Rockefeller.
What we are dealing with here is we have a committee--and I have a
lot of respect for the committee for which Senator Rockefeller is the
chairman and Senator Hutchison is the ranking member, and this
committee is the committee of jurisdiction.
Now, what did I do? I introduced this bill a year ago. I talked about
it. We had 25 cosponsors at that time. We had endorsements from all
over the country. We had the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association come in. We sent out ``Dear Colleagues'' to talk to people.
Again, we sent a letter to the Commerce Committee that Senator
Hutchison was on at that time requesting a hearing. We had 32
cosponsors signing that letter, requesting a hearing, some of which
were on the Commerce Committee. Nothing happened.
On September 20, as the months go by, we made more requests. We
talked about this, and every time they said we are going to be doing
this. You finally get to the point where you have to go ahead and get
it done. And that is why we have a rule XIV. I am not a
Parliamentarian, and I don't know exactly how things work.
I remember I had experience with this when I worked in the House of
Representatives, that when something is bogged up in a committee we had
what is called the discharge petition reform of 1994. It was considered
by the Wall Street Journal, or perhaps Business Daily, as the single
greatest reform in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives. It
addressed this same thing. It is a way of bottling up bills in
committees so they could never have hearings and never be able to get
on the floor for a vote. That discharge petition reform became a
reality, and now the light is shining and everything is great.
But when you have been trying to get a hearing before a committee for
a year and you have 66 cosponsors, you have to resort to whatever is
out there available to you for a remedy. That remedy happens to be rule
XIV. Rule XIV will allow me to do this, and with the two people holding
the bill up, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison, I will have no
choice but to file cloture and to go ahead and get a vote on this bill,
recognizing it takes a supermajority when you file cloture. So I would
do that.
I didn't think I would get into this or need to enter it into the
Record. I have an article which I will find here and will submit for
the Record. I think it is very important. It goes into detailed
documentary cases where they have been unable to get fairness through
this system.
How many cases would ultimately go to the district court? I think
very few. The idea that there is going to be an opportunity for a pilot
to take what he is accused of to the district court to see it in a
sense of fairness has nothing to do with how many pilots are sitting on
that district court. It is a sense of fairness, and that is what they
deal with. The people in the district court system don't have expertise
in all of these areas, but they can look at fairness. And I can tell
you in my case, if they had looked at that and said, wait a minute, the
FAA has cleared him to land and there are no NOTAMs published, he
didn't do anything wrong. It finally gets to the point--and I have been
very patient. I have waited a whole year for this and finally I have
come to the point where I have flat given up, so I decided that we are
going to have to do it this way since it is clearly the will of the
Senate to pass this legislation.
So, with that, I have some things I want to have printed in the
Record. First of all, I have the sequence of events, the request that
we made of the Commerce Committee to hear this legislation.
I have an article that was in Pilot magazine by John Yodice, who is
considered to be the single foremost legal authority in this area.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have both items printed
in the Record.
[[Page S4179]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1335, Inhofe-Begich Pilot's Bill of Rights Summary
The Pilot's Bill of Rights Does Three Things
1. Makes the FAA Enforcement Process Fairer for Pilots--
Requires that in an FAA enforcement action against a pilot,
the FAA must grant the pilot all relevant evidence 30 days
prior to a decision to proceed with an enforcement action.
This is currently not done and often leaves the pilot grossly
uninformed of his violation and recourse. Eliminates the NTSB
rubber stamp review of FAA actions. Too often the NTSB, which
hears appeals from the FAA, gives wide latitude to the FAA,
making the appeals process meaningless. In FY10, of the 61
appeals of FAA certificate actions considered by the NTSB,
only five were reversed. Of the 24 petitions seeking review
of emergency determinations considered by the NTSB, only one
was granted and 23 were denied. The bill clarifies the
deference NTSB gives to FAA actions. Allows for federal
district court review of appeals from the FAA, at the
election of the appellant. Makes flight service station
communications available to all airmen. Currently, the FAA
contracts with Lockheed Martin to run its flight service
stations. If a request is made for flight service station
briefings or other flight service information under FOIA, it
is denied to the requestor because Lockheed Martin is not the
government, per se. However, they are performing an
inherently governmental function and this information should
be available to pilots who need it to defend themselves in an
enforcement proceeding.
2. Improves the Notices to Airmen System--Requires the FAA
undertake a NOTAm Improvement Program, requiring
simplification and archival of NOTAMs in a central location.
The process by which Notices to Airmen are provided by the
FAA has long needed revision. This will ensure that the most
relevant information reaches the pilot. Non-profit general
aviation groups will make up an advisory panel.
3. Requires a Review of the Medical Certification Process--
The FAA's medical certification process has long been known
to present a multitude of problems for pilots seeking an
airman certificate. In fact, 28% of all requests for
assistance received by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association relates to the medical certification process. The
bill requires a review of the FAA's medical certification
process and forms, to provide greater clarity in the
questions and reduce the instances of misinterpretation that
have, in the past, lead to allegations of intentional
falsification against pilots. Non-profit general aviation
groups will make up an advisory panel.
____
Action on Pilot's Bill of Rights
July 6, 2011--Introduced Pilot's Bill of Rights with 25
cosponsors and endorsements from Aicraft Owners and Pilots
Association and Experimental Aircraft Association.
July 11--National Air Traffic Controllers Association
endorses.
July 28--Dear Colleague from Begich and Pryor sent to
Democrats requesting cosponsorship.
July 30--Presented PBOR at OshKosh Airventure.
September 15--Sent letter (with 32 signatures) to Commerce
Committee requesting hearing.
September 20--EAA sends e-Hotline to members regarding
hearing request.
November 10--Roundtable event with Harrison Ford, endorses
PBOR.
November 17--Acquires 60th Cosponsor.
November 19--AOPA makes PBOR front-page story on website.
January 19, 2012--Staff meeting with Gael Sullivan
(Rockefeller), Jarrod Thompson (KBH), and Michael Daum
(Cantwell) to discuss committee consideration of PBOR (staff
requested hearing).
January 25--Sam Graves introduces H.R. 3816, a companion
measure.
March--AOPA publishes story highlighting Pilot's Bill of
Rights.
May 5--Acquires 66th cosponsor.
____
[From the AOPA Pilot]
NTSB: An Impartial Forum for Pilots?
(By John S. Yodice)
Under the Federal Aviation Act, the National Transportation
Safety Board functions as a court of appeals for pilots when
the FAA has suspended or revoked a pilot or medical
certificate. In our increasingly complex airspace system and
the more intensive regulation of our flying activities, no
pilot is immune. This appellate function is given to the NTSB
because it is independent of the FAA, and presumably able to
provide a fair and impartial forum for the hearing of such
appeals. Under the Act, an appealing pilot is entitled to
``an opportunity for a hearing.'' It also provides that an
FAA order of suspension or revocation must be reversed if the
NTSB finds after a hearing that ``safety in air commerce or
air transportation and the public interest do not require
affirmation of the order.''
Decisions of the current NTSB cause us to question its
fairness and impartiality in pilot appeals. Many of these
decisions have been reported in this column, one as recently
as last month (``Pilot Counsel: No `Statute of Limitations,'
'' July AOPA Pilot). Here is another case that raises doubts.
The FAA ordered the suspension of a private pilot's
certificate for 30 days for piloting a Piper Cherokee 140
into the Washington, D.C., Air Defense Identification Zone
(now the ``Special Flight Rules Area''). The FAA said that
the pilot failed to comply with the special security
procedures of the relevant notam, and was ``careless or
reckless'' in the operation. The pilot appealed the order of
suspension to the NTSB. He filed an answer to the FAA's order
admitting the inadvertent incursion, but defending that ``the
special procedures required pursuant to FDC notam 7/0206 are
unique, complex, and ambiguous.'' (To prove the pilot's
point, although it never came up in the case, there have been
thousands of such inadvertent incursions, as opposed to very
few, if any, intentional ones.) He also adamantly denied that
he was ``careless or reckless'' in his operation.
The result of the appeal to the NTSB was that the pilot was
denied a hearing to contest the FAA charges; he was denied a
waiver of the suspension even though he timely filed a report
with NASA under the Aviation Safety Reporting Program
(``Pilot Counsel: ASRP,'' June AOPA Pilot); and he wound up
with a ``careless or reckless'' violation on his public FAA
airman record.
This result was achieved by a series of procedural,
regulatory, and policy interpretations by the NTSB, all one-
sided. To start with, the NTSB has a procedural rule allowing
summary judgment, i.e., no hearing, if there are no factual
issues to be heard. (In my experience the only party
routinely granted summary judgment is the FAA, never the
pilot.) Based on the pilot's admission that he inadvertently
entered the ADIZ, the FAA moved for summary judgment, and the
board granted the motion. What the FAA and the board ignored
in denying a hearing were the three issues raised by the
pilot: one, that he was not ``careless or reckless;'' two,
that ``the special procedures required pursuant to FDC notam
7/0206 are unique, complex, and ambiguous;'' and three, that
he was entitled to a waiver under ASRP.
The FAA has a catchall regulation, FAR 91.13(a), that
provides: ``No person may operate an aircraft in a careless
or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another.'' In a one-sided interpretation, the NTSB has
written out of the rule the required element of proof that
life or property has been endangered. The pilot was never
afforded the opportunity to prove that there was no danger to
anyone or anything. In another one-sided interpretation of
the same rule, the board held that the ``careless or
reckless'' part of the charge is merely ``residual'' to the
ADIZ incursion charge and therefore does not warrant a
hearing.
The board rejected without serious discussion, the pilot's
defense that the security procedures are unique, complex, and
ambiguous. Apparently the board could not bring itself to
acknowledge that there could be something wrong with a rule
that is unintentionally violated by thousands of otherwise
law-abiding and safety-conscious pilots.
The pilot timely filed a report with NASA under ASRP that
should have entitled him to a waiver of the 30-day
suspension. Most pilots charged with inadvertent incursions
have been granted waivers. The board, although conceding that
the pilot raised this issue in his reply to the FAA's motion
for summary judgment, denied that this was an issue for
hearing because, technically, the pilot did not raise it in
his answer. Merely raising it in a different pleading filed
with the board was not sufficient.
Notice that every one of these issues, without exception,
went against the pilot and in favor of the FAA, all without
granting the pilot the hearing, which the Act contemplates,
to put on his side of the case. This case would not be so
remarkable if it stood alone, and not in context with the
many other cases we have seen, many of which we have
reported, in which the NTSB one-sidedly seems to favor the
FAA and disfavor pilots.
Mr. INHOFE. He talks about the decision of the current NTSB calls
into question its fairness and impartiality in pilot appeals. And he
talks about all the notices that have gone out and the problems they
have had with this.
Of the 100,000 pilots who are interested in this today--actually,
well over that--but just those who are involved in this process right
now, they have had documented cases where the fairness is not there.
This would offer fairness, and that is all we are asking, just to be
treated as fairly as every other citizen in the United States.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on the point of the hearing, Senator
Rockefeller and I have agreed certainly with Senator Inhofe to hold a
hearing, which we notified Senator Inhofe we would, and I expect it to
be next month for the hearing schedule. I just hope we can pass a good
part of his bill, which I would like to work with him on, but I think
the motivation should be safety and assuring safety. I know the
personal conflict Senator Inhofe has with what happened to him, and I
am sympathetic, but I don't think passing legislation that could hurt
the aviation safety community is the right approach to meet the
objections of Senator Inhofe.
[[Page S4180]]
I would love to have a hearing and have all the witnesses he would
put forward to get an objective look at what this would do to taking
the expertise and the mission from FAA and allow it to be bypassed at
the NTSB level and go to Federal courts where there is not the
experience and the aviation safety mission that is well protected
today.
I hope we can work together on this. I understand the Senator's
frustration, but I don't think this is the right solution for what
happened to him with one incident.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, I am not aware that I was offered a
hearing. But let me make sure I have in the Record, and I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated September 15,
2011, which was 9 months ago, signed by 32 Members of this Senate,
including the occupier of the chair right now, the Senator from West
Virginia.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2011.
John D. Rockefeller,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison: A
bill that was recently introduced by Senator Inhofe, S. 1335,
the Pilot's Bill of Rights, has been referred to your
committee. It currently has 32 cosponsors, 13 of which are
members of the Commerce Committee. With a majority of
committee members having already voiced their support for
this legislation, we respectfully request that you hold a
committee or subcommittee hearing and markup of this
legislation.
During the drafting of this legislation, Senator Inhofe
worked extensively with the Aircraft Owners and Pilot's
Association and the Experimental Aircraft Association, both
of which have strongly endorsed this bill, as well as private
aviation attorneys. It became clear during this process that
several common sense changes should be made to enhance the
relationship between the FAA and general aviation, and those
were incorporated into the bill.
First, the bill requires that in an FAA enforcement action
against a pilot, the FAA must grant the pilot all relevant
evidence, such as air traffic communication tapes, flight
data, investigative reports, flight service station
communications, and other relevant air traffic data 30 days
before the FAA can proceed in an enforcement action against
the pilot. This is currently not done and often leaves the
pilot grossly uninformed of his alleged violation and
recourse.
Second, the bill also allows for federal district court
review of appeals from the FAA, at the election of the
appellant, and states that the NTSB shall not grant deference
to the FAA in an appeal, should the pilot choose to go the
NTSB route. Both of these things are done because too often
the NTSB rubber stamps a decision of the FAA, giving wide
latitude to the FAA and making the appeals process
meaningless.
Third, this bill requires that the FAA undertake a Notice
to Airmen Improvement Program, requiring simplification and
archival of NOTAMs in a central location. The process by
which Notices to Airmen are provided by the FAA has long
needed revision. This will ensure that the most relevant
information reaches the pilot. Non-profit general aviation
groups will make up an advisory panel, which we believe will
give pilots a seat at the table when deciding how the NOTAM
system can be improved.
Fourth and finally, the FAA's medical certification process
has long been known to present a multitude of problems for
pilots seeking an airman certificate. The bill simply
requires a review of the FAA's medical certification process
and forms, to provide greater clarity in the questions and
reduce the instances of misinterpretation that have, in the
past, led to allegations of intentional falsification against
pilots. Non-profit general aviation groups, aviation medical
examiners, and other qualified medical experts will make up
an advisory panel to advise the Administrator, again giving
the right people a voice in the overall determination.
Again, we hope that you will schedule a hearing and markup
of this legislation that is extremely important to the
general aviation community. As many of us sit on your
committee, we look forward to being an active part of this
process.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe; John Hoeven; Jim DeMint; Roger F.
Wicker; Dean Heller; Pat Toomey; Joe Manchin III; Lisa
Murkowski; Mark Begich; Kelly Ayotte; Jerry Moran;
Lamar Alexander; Roy Blunt; John Boozman; Marco Rubio;
John Cornyn; Olympia J. Snowe; Michael B. Enzi; James
E. Risch; Richard Burr; John Barrasso; Pat Roberts;
Mike Crapo; Mike Johanns; Tom Coburn; Ron Johnson;
Saxby Chambliss; Mark L. Pryor; Debbie Stabenow; Susan
M. Collins; Daniel Coats; Jeff Sessions.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't think anyone is going to say we
haven't done everything we could to go through the committee process to
get a hearing. I just flat gave up. That is why we have this rule.
I will be looking forward to taking the next steps. I know there are
a lot of people out there who want to have this type of justice
afforded the pilots of the United States of America, the same as every
other citizen enjoys.
With that, I appreciate the patience of my colleagues, because I know
we have other business, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I rise to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.