Says Sub-17-Year-Olds Can't Fly Gliders, Become Students

ANN Reader Frank wrote us, "I am a member of Harris Hill Soaring club in Horseheads (NY) and this was an e-mail recently sent to members concerning a bill before the New York State Assembly. Contrary to what the legislature believes, we actually have responsible young people, with a vision of a career in aviation, working and flying in our club. It is unfair for these lawmakers to brand them as not being responsible enough to fly when the FAA has tested their ability and sanctioned their privilege to fly. Please help get the word out to defeat this bill."

[You bet, Frank! We have some questions for the FAA on this, as well, as we still believe that agency has the sole authority to say who's qualified to fly, and who isn't. When states start crossing this line of federalism, not only is the FAA in trouble -- we all are --ed.]

The bill, introduced last May, when some excuses for pandemonium could have been employed, went nowhere last year; what we cannot understand is why it's been resuscitated.

Nassau County's Bob Barra (R-Dist 14) has put Assembly Bill A03899 on the docket. Among other things, it would

• prohibit the operation of an aircraft over New York state by anyone under the age of 17; and it would also
• prohibit application for pilot certification by anyone of that age.

Barra is fully aware that glider pilots can solo at 14, and that power pilots can make the first solo flight at 16. The FAA says so. In fact, the FAA is the only entity that can say so -- Mr. Barra's interference notwithstanding.

When we talked briefly with the FAA in New York yesterday, spokeswoman Arlene Salac told us, "I can't directly comment on this legislation; historically though, federal laws or federal legislation would preempt local legislation."
Paul Turk, FAA spokesman in Washington, said "The FAA remains very aware of its jurisdiction and exercises that jurisdiction actively."

We called Assemblyman Barra's office...

The bill introduced last year ("It's the same bill," and aide confirmed) never made it out of committee. Why was that? "We're Republicans," the aide explained. The bill, now? "It's sitting in the Economic Development Committee, where it is expected to sit until near the end of the session (late May or June), when the Committee may vote on it." [Note: There are 17 Democrats, plus a Democratic chair, and 6 Republicans in that committee --ed.]

The bill does not have a Senate sponsor. In the Assembly, the bill has three co-sponsors (Thomas Alfano, R; Thomas Kirwin, R; and David Townsend, R -- none of whom is on the committee in question) and three 'multi-sponsors.' We got the impression that, as a Republican-sponsored bill in New York, its future was bleak.

"All our bills go through Legal, before we introduce them. We want to make sure they're legal." I asked one more question. "Possible -- that's another issue," his aide said.

Why?

It turns out that Barra is trying to make some kind of statement about last January's theft of a 172 in Tampa (FL) by 15-year-old student pilot Charles Bishop, who killed himself, purposely flying it into the Bank of America building. "This kid [Charles Bishop] had access [to an airplane]," she said.

If this bill had been passed into law, the reasoning goes, Bishop wouldn't have been taking flying lessons in the first place. Bishop, you may recall, caused only minimal damage to that edifice. [So, it's a teen-suicide-prevention bill? --ed.]

Looking at examples from last year (the NY case already mentioned, as well as similar attempts in NJ and MI; and the infamous Huntington Beach, CA 'banner-towing ban' case) would tend to indicate that Assemblyman Barra's attempt to take over the FAA's jurisdiction won't fly this time, either.

FMI: www.faa.gov; www.ssa.org; http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=014&submit=Go; (Bishop report): www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020110X00053&key=1