|
|
Post by TCU 2U2 on Jul 12, 2016 7:02:49 GMT -5
On July 11, the House passed the extension to keep the FAA operating through the end of the next fiscal year. H.R. 636, known as the “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016,” House and Senate negotiators have agreed on the provisions in H.R. 636, and it is expected to pass the Senate later this week and then be sent to President Barack Obama to be signed into law before the current FAA extension expires on July 15. ================================== SEC. 2306. CONTRACT WEATHER OBSERVERS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report, which includes public and stakeholder input— (1) examining the safety risks, hazard effects, and efficiency and operational effects for airports, airlines, and other stakeholders that could result from a loss of contract weather observer service at the 57 airports targeted for the loss of the service; (2) detailing how the Federal Aviation Administration will accurately report rapidly changing severe weather conditions at the airports, including thunderstorms, lightning, fog, visibility, smoke, dust, haze, cloud layers and ceilings, ice pellets, and freezing rain or drizzle, without contract weather observers; (3) indicating how airports can comply with applicable Federal Aviation Administration orders governing weather observations given the current documented limitations of automated surface observing systems; and (4) identifying the process through which the Federal Aviation Administration analyzed the safety hazards associated with the elimination of the contract weather observer program. (b) CONTINUED USE OF CONTRACT WEATHER OBSERVERS. —The Administrator may not discontinue the contract weather observer program at any airport until October 1, 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by hlsto2 on Jul 12, 2016 13:03:25 GMT -5
I don't like that last sentence. the FAA will just go full bore with more smoke and mirrors, so they can make another run at us for Oct 2017. it should say 'until further notice.
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Jul 12, 2016 13:33:31 GMT -5
Agreed histo2... The reason that clause is there is because congress needed a majority to pass the bill - and they recognize the roll organized effort on our behalf played in stopping the FAA from doing what it wanted - so the compromise required to get it passed gave the agency a process to proceed IF it addresses the safety concerns of us, the public, and the "stakeholders" - which includes us. They did give us a voice in the next round, which was denied to us this latest battle. Congress is more concerned about safety and the appearance of closed meetings (SRMP) than about us losing our jobs. As my senators have told me, safety gets their attention - congress doesn't really care about money or jobs or how poorly govt is managed - they don't have time... that's why mostly we talk to staffers. Congress punted.
We will have to be ready for the war to intensify next summer, but the FAA will leak some of their new SRMP process in time for us to be ready and plan how to fight... if we remain vigilant.
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jul 12, 2016 15:14:25 GMT -5
Agreed histo2... The reason that clause is there is because congress needed a majority to pass the bill - and they recognize the roll organized effort on our behalf played in stopping the FAA from doing what it wanted - so the compromise required to get it passed gave the agency a process to proceed IF it addresses the safety concerns of us, the public, and the "stakeholders" - which includes us. They did give us a voice in the next round, which was denied to us this latest battle. Congress is more concerned about safety and the appearance of closed meetings (SRMP) than about us losing our jobs. As my senators have told me, safety gets their attention - congress doesn't really care about money or jobs or how poorly govt is managed - they don't have time... that's why mostly we talk to staffers. Congress punted. We will have to be ready for the war to intensify next summer, but the FAA will leak some of their new SRMP process in time for us to be ready and plan how to fight... if we remain vigilant. Which part of that do you feel was a compromise TFN? The extension runs through 9/30/17, I don't believe they could have included any language that goes beyond that date. This would have been a compromise.... Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jul 12, 2016 15:31:42 GMT -5
Eyes on Senate to pass FAA extension
By JENNIFER SCHOLTES and LAUREN GARDNER 07/12/16 10:00 AM EDT EYES ON SENATE TO PASS FAA EXTENSION: Will the Senate clear the patch — which the House approved by voice vote Monday evening — before it’s too late? There’s not much time left and lawmakers might want to do that fast before it disappears into the grass like a Pokemon you wanted to catch. (Come on, members, you can tell us how many you caught over the weekend.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday afternoon that the upper chamber plans to send the bill to the president’s desk this week.
Story Continued Below In one corner: Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster praised the bill’s “limited but critical and time-sensitive provisions” on security and safety, despite it not touching his air traffic control spinoff plan. “With this extension in place, Congress can continue to develop a long-term, comprehensive FAA bill that includes many additional reforms and improvements to our aviation system,” he said in a statement. And the other: Ranking Democrat Peter DeFazio had a more tepid response, calling the bill “acceptable” during the 20-minute debate. “While I would have rather moved a comprehensive long-term FAA reauthorization, this legislation reflects a bipartisan compromise that provides more than a year of certainty. … look forward to working over the next year with my colleagues to address a number of key issues that were not included in this extension,” he said in his statement.
‘Lookback’ language: Lawmakers didn’t actually cast “yay” or “nay” votes on the bill as it passed through the House. But from the sidelines, union leaders have been calling on legislators to vote against the measure because of language that would bar anyone who has been convicted of a major crime (like murder or felony bribery) in the previous 15 years from getting a badge to access secure areas of airports. As we reported for Pros, Rep. Bennie Thompson derided that language before the bill passed. Transportation workers “deserve better than living in fear that they will be able to lose their jobs in the name of homeland security,” he said on the House floor.
Read more: www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2016/07/eyes-on-senate-to-pass-faa-extension-215274#ixzz4EEDRxar0
|
|
|
|
Post by chachiman on Jul 13, 2016 8:04:06 GMT -5
On the Senate's calendar today......H.R. 636 (ORDER NO. 55)
2.—Ordered, That on Wednesday, July 13, 2016, notwithstanding Rule XXII, the Chair
lay before the Senate the Message to Accompany H.R. 636, an Act to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, and for
other purposes, following the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Conference Report
to Accompany S. 524; provided, that the Majority Leader, or his designee, be recognized
to make a motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments and
that the time until 1:45 p.m. be equally divided between the Leaders or their designees;
provided further, that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on
the motion to concur with no intervening action or debate. (July 12, 2016.)
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Jul 13, 2016 13:04:13 GMT -5
Good info folks, thanks for researching more than I have time for  ... Compromise as a political term means that no one gets exactly what they want, but that something near a political middle is deemed "acceptable" by enough of a majority to pass - that's the way politics works (or is it doesn't work...). Some of the members of congress HATE lobbying interference, some depend on the info lobbyists bring them. Some hate organized labor, some are labor's lap dogs - and of course, most are somewhere in between - we are seen as a singular special (self) interest group as well as being org labor. The key is to emphasize SAFETY - that gets their attention - make sure our specialized knowledge gets used to our advantage. They've seen enough politicking to be certain there are at least 2 sides to every issue that comes before them. You can bet that the FAA is pushing hard for what they want too - and using us as a football, a tool to lever more money from congress. We have great arguments for keeping our program alive, but no one outside of our field and those who have educated themselves have any comprehension of how necessary and important we are to the safety of the NAS and the flying public - congress (and our user groups) need to receive that education from us. Warning: congress does not have time to listen to a full education about our program - not that they aren't interested, they're just busy. Congress members that are pilots or have connections to aviation are much easier to persuade. Keep up the great work, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jul 13, 2016 14:46:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Jul 14, 2016 13:52:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jul 14, 2016 14:32:08 GMT -5
LOL. Did the writer of the article at the second link even read the bill that was passed? The Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act that the article was about and that the writer has a problem with wasn't included in the extension. From the comments: friend • an hour ago The FAA Reauthorization bill was just passed by both houses this week. The bill to “privatize” the air traffic control system was not part of it. • Reply•Share › |
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jul 14, 2016 14:59:35 GMT -5
Here's a more accurate account of what happened, that townhall link is inaccurate: www.bna.com/faa-patch-clears-n73014444702/House Hijacked Long-Term Bill: Moran The policy changes in the bill are not enough, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, said on the floor before voting against the FAA bill. Moran—whose state is home to the aircraft manufacturers Cessna Aircraft Co., Beechcraft Corp. and Bombardier Inc.'s Learjet Inc.—said the bill should have included more changes to FAA functions, including an overhaul of the agency's aircraft certification process. Those kinds of measures were included in both the Senate-passed and House-committee approved long-term FAA reauthorizations. But instead of moving forward with those policy provisions, House lawmakers held long-term FAA reauthorization hostage in an attempt to try to leverage an “unpopular” air traffic control overhaul plan, Moran said. Both congressional appropriators and tax writers with jurisdiction over the FAA objected to the proposal to remove air traffic control from the agency and transfer control to a nonprofit corporation that would be headed by air traffic controllers and national airspace users, including major airlines. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) said he will try to build support for the idea over the next year (See previous story, 03/24/16). |
|
|
|
Post by coldlover on Jul 17, 2016 13:39:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by toofarnorth on Jul 18, 2016 17:10:16 GMT -5
Townhall is a bunch of conservative opinions... and GREAT cartoons. I posted links because of interest - the issue got some national interest anyway...
Muckrakers (at least one idiot) in the FAA are now trying to cut what we do - especially climatological stuff - another tactic to close us by showing we don't do much. Watch for another (unanticipated) rewrite to 7900.5... forgive my cynicism, but these clowns don't know defeat when they see it, and they hate weather and any cooperation with the NWS.
|
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jul 18, 2016 20:34:13 GMT -5
Townhall is a bunch of conservative opinions... and GREAT cartoons. I posted links because of interest - the issue got some national interest anyway... Muckrakers (at least one idiot) in the FAA are now trying to cut what we do - especially climatological stuff - another tactic to close us by showing we don't do much. Watch for another (unanticipated) rewrite to 7900.5... forgive my cynicism, but these clowns don't know defeat when they see it, and they hate weather and any cooperation with the NWS. Why is maintaining "climatological stuff" something the FAA should be responsible for? |
|
|
|
Post by skobie on Jul 18, 2016 23:18:08 GMT -5
You're right Rich, in that the FAA shouldn't be responsible for it, but the NWS should. In fact, they should throw a few bucks in to the CWO program and maybe we can all pick up some side money! I know, that's just a dream and would involve governmental cooperation anyway.....however, everyone should be interested in preserving climate, not just the NWS and some of us. With climate data, businesses (including the FAA) can calculate energy costs, predict the average amount of delays per airport based on bad weather occurrences, know how many people to hire (especially in winter when this thing called snow occurs and slows everyone down), just to name a few.
skobie
|
|
... Compromise as a political term means that no one gets exactly what they want, but that something near a political middle is deemed "acceptable" by enough of a majority to pass - that's the way politics works (or is it doesn't work...). Some of the members of congress HATE lobbying interference, some depend on the info lobbyists bring them. Some hate organized labor, some are labor's lap dogs - and of course, most are somewhere in between - we are seen as a singular special (self) interest group as well as being org labor. The key is to emphasize SAFETY - that gets their attention - make sure our specialized knowledge gets used to our advantage. They've seen enough politicking to be certain there are at least 2 sides to every issue that comes before them. You can bet that the FAA is pushing hard for what they want too - and using us as a football, a tool to lever more money from congress. We have great arguments for keeping our program alive, but no one outside of our field and those who have educated themselves have any comprehension of how necessary and important we are to the safety of the NAS and the flying public - congress (and our user groups) need to receive that education from us. Warning: congress does not have time to listen to a full education about our program - not that they aren't interested, they're just busy. Congress members that are pilots or have connections to aviation are much easier to persuade. Keep up the great work, thanks.