Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, the FAA is responsible for administrating and certifying pilots in the United States. The certification of these pilots takes place in the form of written tests administered at a test center, but also in the form of practical tests that are usually administered in an aircraft or in a simulator.

These practical tests are conducted by either FAA examiners or, more usually, designated pilot examiners. This is a system that has worked well for decades, but a recent problem has arisen where pilots who are applying for certification, who need practical tests are encountering large and unacceptable delays in the scheduling of those tests.

In fact, some of the pilots that I have spoken to in the preparation of this amendment had to wait over 12 months for the scheduling of a practical test. I think we can all agree that that is unacceptable.

It is not fair to the airmen, it is not fair to the FAA, it is not fair to the pilot community, and it is detrimental to the advancement of the aviation industry.

This amendment is a very simple fix to that problem: It would direct the FAA to implement an accountability program to ensure that no applicant has to wait more than 2 weeks for the administration of a practical test.

I think this is a commonsense solution. It works for the FAA and for the applicants, and I would urge its adoption.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I would strongly object to the characterization of this amendment as burdensome. If you want an example of burdensome, think about a student pilot who has applied to get their pilot's license.

Mr. Chair, I have been a certified flight instructor for almost 30 years. This is a situation that I have experienced. When you are a student pilot, you don't know exactly when you are going to reach the level of proficiency required by the Federal aviation regulations, so you train and you train and you train and you sweat and you work, and finally your instructor says you are ready to take the test.

Now, imagine a student in that position applying for a test and being told it is going to be months before they can be examined.

Mr. Chair, I can tell you from personal experience that flight proficiency is a perishable commodity. You cannot go several months without flying, hop into a cockpit, and expect to be at the same level of proficiency that you were.

We are adding burdensome regulation on our student pilots when we expect them to maintain their proficiency for however long it takes the FAA to schedule that exam.

To be clear, this amendment does not direct the FAA to make its inspectors available; it directs the FAA to make the resources available to implement an accountability program to make sure we have a sufficient number of pilot examiners to make this situation better.

Two weeks is an industry standard consensus. The FAA has agreed that that is a reasonable period of time. This just makes sense.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, to be clear: This is not a scheduling problem on the part of the applicant. The applicant doesn't know exactly when they are going to be ready. The applicant doesn't know when the weather is going to cooperate. Particularly for the base level of pilots' licenses, you need good weather to be able to take the test.

This is just talking about the amount of time after an applicant says I am ready before which a designated pilot examiner can administer that exam. I think we can all agree that that should not be a year.

This is a commonsense amendment that would solve that problem, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I have a further amendment at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, aviation fuel is one of the few fuels remaining that still contains lead. It has been universally acknowledged that lead is not good for our environment. It is not good for our children. It is not good for human ingestion. It causes serious health problems.

The industry has conducted a decades-long study and process to try to develop an alternative fuel that takes the lead out of aviation fuel. However, this has become a very, very troublesome and difficult task because the only suitable solutions would have to be suitable for all types of aviation engines and some aircraft feature engines that are higher horsepower and higher compression that depend on the presence of lead to be able to operate safely.

Finally, we are approaching a consensus standard on an unleaded replacement for aviation gas; however, there is a problem that has arisen. Airports accept grant funds from the Airport Improvement Program, and in return, they give the FAA grant assurances that they will keep their airports open.

In 2018, when FAA was reauthorized, it was agreed by this body that an airport should not be able to withdraw the sale of fuel completely and that that would be a violation of its FAA AIP grant assurances.

I think that that is still true, and I hope we all still feel that way. However, most airports only have a single infrastructure for the delivery of avgas. If an airport seeks to switch from this current standard, which is 100 low lead to an unleaded replacement, a question has arisen as to whether or not that would be a violation of its grant assurances.

This amendment clarifies that situation and states that when an industry standard consensus fuel emerges that it is not a violation of grant assurance for an airport to switch from leaded aviation fuel to unleaded aviation fuel.

I think that this protects the interests of our airports, of our pilot community, and also protects our environment at the same time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I hope there has been no confusion here. We are all on the same team. We want to get the lead out of aviation fuel. This amendment allows us to do that. The current situation is that when an industry standard consensus fuel emerges that airports will not be able to switch over to it because if you only have a single infrastructure, a single fuel truck, or a single fuel tank, the current grant assurances require you to continue offering the leaded fuel.

Airports will be faced with an impossible choice: The choice between maintaining a leaded fuel, even though an unleaded replacement is available, or buying an entirely different infrastructure for the delivery of the unleaded fuel.

I think we can all agree that makes no sense. This is just a commonsense solution to that problem. We have worked with committee staff on this. We have worked with industry on this. I think this is something that everyone should be able to get behind.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, to be clear, we are trying to give airports the option of a transition to an unleaded aviation fuel when that option becomes available to them. Some language is needed to do this because airports are confused about whether or not doing this is a violation of their FAA grant assurances. This amendment clarifies that it is not. An amendment, to be clear, is needed to clarify this situation.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source