Taking care of business

The fund is strictly regulated by the Federal Election Commission and is used by congressional candidates to help defray campaign costs. It is not the most glamorous or wanted aspect of advocacy, but it is a necessity in today’s political process. While there are several national organizations that use voluntary contributions for a particular political party, AOPA PAC is completely nonpartisan and its primary goal is to elect or reelect individuals to the U.S. Congress who, through their actions, are pro-general aviation.

The AOPA PAC helps build and maintain our coalition of GA legislators on Capitol Hill. And without this powerful caucus, it would be far too easy for our elected officials in Washington to overlook the concerns of general aviation pilots because of the thousands of issues, from every industry and special interest across the country, vying for attention. Advocacy includes education, building relationships—and, yes, helping to elect pro-GA members to Congress through AOPA PAC. These tools are integral to AOPA’s advocacy strategy and have been instrumental in winning many battles, large and small, on behalf of GA pilots. It’s a strategy that has recognized AOPA as a top advocacy organization in our nation’s capital.

By contributing through AOPA PAC, your dollars are pooled with contributions from other AOPA members nationwide. And, by acting through the PAC, you are part of a focused and effective campaign to achieve maximum returns from limited dollars. The AOPA PAC helps our issues remain relevant and it allows us to back our friends in Congress who support us day to day in defense of our freedom to fly.

aopa.org/advocacy

AOPA advocacy victories

Time and time again, we’ve won big legislative victories, and defeated disastrous legislative and regulatory proposals that could have severely undermined our freedom to fly. Your past AOPA PAC support helped return pro-GA members to Congress and enabled our advocacy to:

• Enact critically needed third class medical certification reform, now known as BasicMed.
• Win dozens of legislative provisions to strengthen GA today and tomorrow, including the development of STEM aviation curriculum for our high schools.
• Support our nation’s airport ecosystem.
• Defeat the airline-inspired power grab that would have handed over ATC to special interests.
• And win many more legislative and regulatory victories for GA in Washington.

AOPA Air Safety Institute

Under pressure

Accident Case Study: Lake Renegade

By Alicia Herron

Whether during primary flight training or after the checkride, sooner or later a pilot will likely feel time-based external pressure to complete a flight as planned. Maybe we need to get our rental airplane back for the next pilot, make it to a family dinner on time, or land before sunset because of currency or proficiency. It could be a combination of all three.

No matter the specifics, as pressure mounts and the clock ticks, it can be difficult to take a step back, reassess a situation, and spot potential hazards—even for highly experienced aviators. As we gain experience, knowledge, and confidence, it’s important to keep our minds open to the possibility that we can make mistakes. Valuing other pilots’ experience and knowledge can help us make the right decision at the right time.

On July 27, 2017, a Lake Renegade amphibious aircraft arrived at the Oshkosh seaplane base for an afternoon during EAA AirVenture week. After a brief stay, the 33,000-hour airline transport pilot became anxious to load his two passengers, including the right-seat, 2,400-hour CFI, and depart; the trio didn’t have accommodations booked for an overnight stay. Lake Winnebago was choppy and, as the pilot attempted to get underway, the seaplane base staff repeatedly warned the pilot of the danger of taking off in high waves. The pilot ultimately chose to depart despite the poor conditions and advice to stay put.

Watch the AOPA Air Safety Institute’s re-creation of the accident, which follows the events of the day and seeks to understand and learn from the circumstances that led to this ill-fated takeoff.

airsafetyinstitute.org/acs/lakerenegade

Email [email protected]

New from ASI

There I Was: Robert Clark

VFR into IMC continues to be a leading cause of fatal accidents in general aviation. In this episode of the There I Was... podcast, pilot Robert Clark recounts the story of flying his Dyke Delta aircraft through unexpected instrument conditions during an electrical failure at night, and what he did to stay alive.

airsafetyinstitute.org/thereiwas

VFR into IMC: What’s the problem?

One reason VFR into IMC can be hazardous to pilots is because of the possibility for spatial disorientation. Spatial disorientation is the mistaken perception of one’s position and motion relative to the Earth. That means your body will tell you one thing (“we’re turning”) and the instruments will tell you another (“we’re level”).

Since we humans rely on vision for 90 percent of our point of reference information, any condition that deprives a pilot of natural, visual references—like flying in clouds—can rapidly cause spatial disorientation. Pilots can avoid relying on their feelings to guide them in flight by learning to fly by reference to their instruments.

But learning to fly by reference to instruments might not be enough to fully appreciate the confusion that can be brought on by spatial disorientation—VFR into IMC accidents are not limited to VFR-only pilots. There is no requirement to fly in actual instrument meteorological conditions during IFR training, and no requirements to have any under your belt to satisfy the aeronautical experience needed before the checkride. Your first actual IFR flight could end up being single pilot. Instrument flying under a hood with an instructor next to you is one thing—fighting through the leans in actual conditions is another.

If you’ve never experienced spatial disorientation before, ask your CFI to put you under the hood and do their best to disorient you (in VMC, of course). You may be surprised at how challenging it can be to overcome.

airsafetyinstitute.org/spotlight/spatialdisorientation

Turn on your notifications

On your feed

Fly with AOPA

Pilot Protection Services: Legally Speaking

Taking a ‘709 Ride’

What is a reasonable request?

By Ian Arendt

On July 15, 2020, the FAA issued a notice implementing a national policy that, with certain exceptions, all airmen who were tested by and received pilot or flight instructor certificates, ratings, or reinstatement from examiner Michael A. Puehler between October 2008 and December 2019 would be reexamined by an FAA inspector (commonly called a “709 Ride”).

Regarding the purpose for the notice, the FAA indicates the competency of airmen examined by Puehler during the indicated period is in doubt. Initial reports suggest hundreds of airmen will be impacted.

If you are one of many aviators subject to such a reexamination request or a concerned observer, you may be questioning whether the FAA is overstepping its authority by requesting wholesale reexaminations from hundreds of airmen who may not have done anything wrong. After all, the typical reexamination request is made in response to an underlying event (such as an accident or incident) in which a lack of competency could have been a factor.

For better or worse, the FAA has broad authority to request reexamination under 49 U.S.C. § 44709. Precedent from NTSB cases makes clear the sole question in a challenge to a reexamination request is whether the request is reasonable. Previous wholesale reexamination requests have been upheld as reasonable even where there is no evidence of deficient testing specific to the airman. See Administrator v. Santos and Rodriguez, NTSB Order EA-4266 (1994). In such cases, the NTSB has stated, “reexamination requests…must be sustained if the evidence creates even a reasonable doubt as to whether the [airmen] were tested properly.” More important, however, the NTSB appears to have left open the option for an airman to successfully challenge a wholesale reexamination request if she can provide persuasive proof that the test given met all applicable requirements.

Large-scale requests for reexaminations such as this have happened in the past and, unfortunately, may happen again.

aopa.org/pps

Ian Arendt is an in-house attorney with AOPA’s Legal Services Plan.