Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Inhofe offers two amendments to faa reauthorization

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

fxbat

Sir Airworthiness
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Posts
156
Press Room - Press Releases

INHOFE OFFERS TWO AMENDMENTS TO FAA REAUTHORIZATION


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a pilot with over 10,000 flight hours and a member of the Senate General Aviation Caucus, today offered two amendments to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill that is currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate.

Non-Scheduled Air Carriers Crew Rest and Duty Time Amendment

One amendment deals with flight crew rest and duty time for non-scheduled air carriers. These air carriers play a vital role for the Department of Defense in the movement of troops and materials around the world.

About this amendment, Inhofe said, “It is extremely important that we maintain separate yet safe flight and duty time rules for supplemental carriers. One size should not fit all, because supplemental airlines must continue to have the flexibility allowed under current rules to respond to customer demands; this includes both commercial and military. In more than 15 years, the NTSB has not cited fatigue as the primary cause in any non-scheduled airline accident while flying under the current rules, and there have been no fatalities attributed to any accident where fatigue was even remotely considered a contributing factor.”

Currently, these supplemental air carriers operate under different FAA regulations than those that apply to scheduled airlines in regards to flight and duty time. In 2009, the FAA began the process to revise the current flight and duty time rules. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was released in mid-September 2010. It is expected the final rules will eliminate the difference in regulations. If this occurs there will be no distinction between scheduled and non-scheduled carriers, notwithstanding the significant differences in their operations.


The Inhofe Amendment would require that the FAA consider non-scheduled air carriers separately when promulgating new rules affecting flight crew duty and rest requirements. The amendment does not prevent the FAA from promulgating new safety regulations for supplemental carriers, but will ensure fairness in the process by treating supplemental carriers like the vastly different industry they are.

Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Amendment

The other amendment provides liability protection for non-profit, charitable Volunteer Pilot Organizations that provide free transportation to people in need of specialized medical treatment in distant lands due to family, community or national crises.

About the amendment, Inhofe said, “Volunteer pilots provide free air transportation for people in need of specialized medical treatment, and they step in when commercial air service is not available for middle-of-the-night organ transplant patient flights, disaster response missions evacuating special needs patients, and transport of blood or blood products in emergencies. Despite this goodwill, there is a loophole in the law that subjects these heroes and charitable organizations to frivolous, costly lawsuits. Although volunteer pilots are required to carry liability insurance, if they have an accident, the injured party can sue for any amount of money, and if that amount is higher than the liability limit on a pilot’s insurance, then the pilot is at risk of losing their personal investments, home, business and other assets, potentially bringing them financial ruin.”

Exposure to this risk makes it difficult for Volunteer Pilot Organizations to recruit and retain volunteer pilots and professional staff. Instead of focusing on serving people with medical needs, these organizations are spending considerable time and resources averting a lawsuit and recruiting volunteers.

Additionally, the cost of insurance and lack of available non-owned aircraft liability insurance for organizations since the terrorist attacks of September 11th prevents Volunteer Pilot Organizations from acquiring liability protection for their organizations, boards, and staff. Without this insurance, if a volunteer pilot were to have an accident using his or her own aircraft, everyone connected to the organization could be subject to a costly lawsuit, despite the fact that none of those people were directly involved with the dispatch of the flight, the pilot’s decisions, or the aircraft itself.


Inhofe’s amendment protects these organizations, their boards, paid staff and non-flying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. It will also provide liability protection for individual volunteer pilots over and above the liability insurance that they are currently required to carry, as well as liability protection for the referring agencies who inform their patients of charitable flight services.
 
Wonder how much cabbage the non-skeds steered his way.
 
The current supplemental rules are the only thing that allows us to be make money and be home after a trip! Sure the 11pm trips from Detroit to Toluca are brutal but at least they allow us to fly 91back to the states and to a decent hotel, and the heavy crews make it possible to do the far-reaching out and backs. Far from perfect, but the original proposed rules would kill on demand freight imho.
 
The current supplemental rules are the only thing that allows us to be make money and be home after a trip! Sure the 11pm trips from Detroit to Toluca are brutal but at least they allow us to fly 91back to the states and to a decent hotel, and the heavy crews make it possible to do the far-reaching out and backs. Far from perfect, but the original proposed rules would kill on demand freight imho.

It wouldn't kill it. It would mean more augmented or heavy crews. It means more pilots hired. The same pay for less work. Last I checked Atlas, Kalitta etc are making money hand over fist right now and I don't feel too bad for em. I've done the brutally long days and the companies attitude like every other airline is: "It's Legal". Then it's up to you play the Fatigue card and it shouldn't have to be that way.
 
It wouldn't kill it. It would mean more augmented or heavy crews. It means more pilots hired. The same pay for less work.

I do believe that rules need to be changed. Companies should never be allowed to put a crew in a position where they have to "call fatigue". I also believe that Supplementals should not be stamped with the same cookie cutter as sheduled carriers.
However, with all due respect Lion, do you honestly think monthly pay guarantees will not be whittled down as a result. Even with today's (temporary, since the industry is cyclical) "hand-over-fist" income, how can companies afford to effectively double current staffing with their current revenue, yet continue to pay 60 to 70 hour guarantees, especially if crews are only allowed to fly maybe 40 hours under the new regulation?

You really need to look at the whole effect. This won't be a good deal for any of our paychecks.

On the bright side, we'll be well rested for our side jobs! ;)
 
Last edited:
I do believe that rules need to be changed. Companies should never be allowed to put a crew in a position where they have to "call fatigue". I also believe that Supplementals should not be stamped with the same cookie cutter as sheduled carriers.
However, with all due respect Lion, do you honestly think monthly pay guarantees will not be whittled down as a result. Even with today's (temporary, since the industry is cyclical) "hand-over-fist" income, how can companies afford to effectively double current staffing with their current revenue, yet continue to pay 60 to 70 hour guarantees, especially if crews are only allowed to fly maybe 40 hours under the new regulation?

You really need to look at the whole effect. This won't be a good deal for any of our paychecks.

On the bright side, we'll be well rested for our side jobs! ;)

I guess we'll cross the bridge when we come to it. Like all business, the cost should be passed to the consumer. People are still gonna buy stuff off Amazon, Ebay etc. The company I work for still has a valid CBA so we need to go from there. Right now there is no duty restrictions for 121 subpart S (supplemental). You can go until you drop. There's flight time restrictions, but you add in long sits, delays, and the "ol part 91 repo"... well you know where I'm going.
 
Well Sen Inhofe with his 10,000+ hours should get a job with one of these carriers, fly the backside of the clock, numerous time zone changes, min rest's all over the world and see exactly why he is talking out the top of his head!!

Sure we do a vital part in Governmental flights but is he really implying that troops and multi million dollar cargo's aren't worth it???
 
Do you really want him to get into another plane and share the skies with you? Read the accounts of his multiple screw-ups below and be careful what you wish for:


Inhofe defends his piloting ability

Involved in incident
Sen. Jim Inhofe: He landed a plane on a closed runway. The FAA will review that.
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Published: 10/31/2010 2:32 AM
Last Modified: 10/31/2010 9:37 AM

WASHINGTON - After being reminded of an aircraft landing he performed at Tulsa's Jones Riverside Airport that ended up in an incident report, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe said Saturday that his half-century record stacks up well against those of other pilots.

Four incidents after more than 10,000 hours works out to about one every 2,500 hours, the Oklahoma Republican said.

"That's probably better than the average pilot,'' he said in a telephone interview.

Inhofe called back later after he reviewed details of the March 2004 incident on a Federal Aviation Administration report that reminded him of his landing with a damaged wheel fairing and essentially no brakes on one wheel.

"In other words, I am a good pilot,'' Inhofe said after recalling in greater detail what it took to get his plane down without even more damage.

To back up his defense of his flying skills, he cited details of another landing at Riverside, this time in 2006 in the same plane after it developed a rudder problem, as well as his much better known emergency landing in 1999 at Claremore.

That landing was necessary because the plane, which was not the aircraft in the Riverside landings, lost its propeller.

A possible fourth incident report could be in the works: The FAA is looking into a landing that Inhofe made this month on a closed runway at the Port Isabel-Cameron County airport in Texas.

One of the key issues for the FAA is expected to be why Inhofe would land on a closed runway, where a crew had been working for several days, despite a Notice to Airmen, NOTAM for short, that the runway was closed.

Inhofe conceded that checking for a NOTAM about a closed runway "probably'' is "technically'' something a pilot should do.

"People who fly a lot just don't do it,'' he said.

The senator said he was not sure of the exact wording of the FAA's regulations regarding NOTAMs, but he added that his frequent flights across Oklahoma would make it impractical for him to check for NOTAMs on every small airport he uses.

When asked whether his experience in Texas would lead him to change his mind on NOTAMs, he said, "I don't want to make any commitments.''

Inhofe also released his statement to the FAA concerning the Texas incident.

His one-page statement continues to blame a negative relationship with an "attendant'' at that airport. He said he tried three different times to radio the Texas airport and did not receive a response.

"It's important to note that I have landed at Cameron County Airport over 200 times and have used the same procedures,'' Inhofe's statement said, adding that in the past he has received information that he needed to know.

When he saw an X and the workers on the closed runway, he wrote, "it would have been marginal as to whether or not I would be able to raise the flaps and go around.''

Inhofe states that he also had no choice but to use the taxiway for a takeoff several days later, another issue expected to undergo FAA review.

Inhofe told the Tulsa World that he followed more procedures in the Texas incident than other pilots would have.

Dr. Brent Bowen, a professor of aviation technology at Purdue University, was asked to review the FAA incident reports by the World.

Bowen made it clear that he would not speak specifically about any pilot's record but said that what was included in the FAA reports did not appear "remarkable.''

He said pilots are obligated to be aware of NOTAMs, which he said are readily available online or by telephone.

Bowen said the FAA has a solid record in its investigations of landings on closed runways.

"It is very serious,'' he said.

"It is considered like a runway incursion, which is one of the top priorities at the FAA today.''

Inhofe agreed. "I would take it seriously,'' he said.

Original Print Headline: 'I am a good pilot,' Inhofe says

Jim Myers (202) 484-1424 [email protected] By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/arti...cleid=20101031_16_A21_CUTLIN512142&rss_lnk=11

Another account:

AVweb: FAA Investigating Senator Inhofe's Closed Runway Landing

AVFLASH NEWS


October 29, 2010
FAA Investigating Senator Inhofe's Closed Runway Landing
Email this article |Print this article
By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor


Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) says he won't guarantee he'll be more vigilant about checking NOTAMs after he landed on a closed runway occupied by maintenance workers ten days ago in Texas. "People who fly a lot just don't do it," Inhofe told the Tulsa World. "I won't make any commitments." Inhofe added that while "technically" pilots should "probably" check NOTAMs, it would be impractical for him to do so on the many flights he makes to small airports in Oklahoma each year. The FAA has confirmed it is investigating the Oct 21 incident in which Inhofe landed a Cessna 340 on an occupied closed runway at Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport, Texas, He was reportedly carrying three others in the light twin when he made the landing on a runway bearing oversized painted Xs, a large red truck, other vehicles, and construction workers. The workers were using loud equipment at the time and didn't hear the plane's approach, so one person ran to warn them. A supervisor immediately reported the incident to the FAA and told TulsaWorld.com he was "still shaking" when he reached the hangar to confront the pilot. For his part, Inhofe said he didn't see the Xs until late on final and was concerned he might not be able to abort safely. He said he landed "well off to the side" of the workers. There were no injuries. A few days after his unorthodox arrival, Inhofe Saturday notified "an airport official" of his intent and used a taxiway for departure, according to The Washington Post. The senator has since spoken with the FAA and will "just wait and see what happens." That hasn't stopped him from offering reporters some form of explanation.
TulsaWorld.com reports that Inhofe said he was unaware of the runway's closure NOTAM because of "a bad relationship he has with one individual, who the Senator said declined to take his phone calls before the flight and did not tell him about the NOTAM." In the Washington Post's coverage, Inhofe said an airport official "hates me, I don't know why." The FAA's current interest is why the landing happened while the runway was clearly marked with the requisite oversized Xs. It will attempt to determine why Inhofe was apparently not aware of a NOTAM about the closure and investigate the circumstances of the taxiway departure. The airport has four runways but according to AirNav all except the main one (13/31) are in poor condition. In his 50 years as a pilot, Inhofe has experienced at least two other publicized incidents. In 1999, Inhofe suffered an emergency landing when his aircraft lost its propeller, and in 2006 he ground-looped a Vans RV-8 built by his son.
 
Part II

Tulsa World

Inhofe takes training program in agreement with FAA

Inhofe
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Published: 2/2/2011 2:21 AM
Last Modified: 2/2/2011 4:04 AM

The Federal Aviation Administration agreed not to pursue legal action against U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe for landing on a closed runway and instead to allow the Oklahoma Republican to take a remedial training program.

Several weeks ago, the FAA issued a letter to Inhofe describing that agreement and the remedial training he completed.

Aviation safety inspector Robert O'Keefe wrote that the Jan. 4 letter will be a matter of record for two years and then be expunged.

O'Keefe's letter states that the senator was "involved in an incident during a landing on a closed runway at Port Isabel, Texas, and you were advised that such an operation is contrary to ... the Code of Federal Regulations.''

In an interview during which he shared the letter's contents, Inhofe, who remains convinced he did nothing wrong, said he considers the matter closed.

He also revealed plans to speak about the incident on the Senate floor Tuesday and introduce legislation later this year to ensure general aviation pilots who are accused of wrongdoing in the future can receive certain information.

That includes documentation of any so-called NOTAM (Notice to Airman) on such matters as closed runways and the recordings between pilots and control towers.

"I was treated very courteously,'' Inhofe said of the FAA's review of the Oct. 21 incident.

"I often wonder, though, if I had not been a United States senator ... somebody who is just a pilot would have gone through this and if they were not able to get the two documents that I want, they could have ended up losing their license.'

FAA spokeswoman Sasha Johnson said the agency "treated Sen. Inhofe the same way we would treat any other pilot in this situation.''

Inhofe said he was given a choice: either face possible legal action or complete the remedial training program.

"I elected the remedial training program because that is something that is very easy to do,'' he said, explaining he took the training in Tulsa from a young man he had trained to fly.

A veteran pilot with a commercial rating and more than 50 years of flying experience, Inhofe again spoke of his actions prior to his landing, which included conversations he had with air traffic controllers.

"Then, approximately three miles on final approach to Cameron County, they said you are cleared for, that's the words I want to get exact, cleared to approach at Cameron County,'' he said.

Inhofe said he did not realize there was work being done on the runway until after he had lowered his gear and flaps on his plane.

"There is a point of no return,'' he said, explaining how he ended up landing on the second half of that runway.

One eye witness, a job superintendent on the runway project, earlier had described the incident as scary and one that endangered both the workers and passengers on Inhofe's plane.

Original Print Headline: Inhofe undergoes training program in agreement with FAA


Jim Myers (202) 484-1424 [email protected] By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20110202_16_A8_CUTLIN676969
 

Latest resources

Back
Top