Two Pilots in Congress, One Convention in Las Vegas, and the Question of Who Speaks for Aviation on Capitol Hill

At the NBAA-BACE convention in Las Vegas this week, two sitting members of Congress made the case that their pilot certificates make them better lawmakers. Representative Sam Graves (R-MO) and Representative Jay Obernolte (R-CA) spoke publicly about how active flying shapes their approach to aviation legislation - a distinction that matters for every pilot who has ever felt like policy happens to them rather than with them.

Who Are These Pilot-Legislators?

Sam Graves is not a peripheral aviation supporter. He has been one of the most consistent voices for general aviation on Capitol Hill for more than two decades and currently chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. That chairmanship means aviation legislation in the House moves through his committee. He controls how the FAA gets funded, how air traffic control modernization gets authorized, and how regulations affecting certificates and aircraft get written or rewritten. He also holds a private pilot certificate and has been known to fly himself to events when logistics allow.

Jay Obernolte represents a district in California’s high desert and is a licensed pilot who has framed general aviation in terms of rural connectivity and access. His seat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee gives him direct standing in conversations about advanced air mobility, unmanned systems, and aircraft electrification - the technologies that will define the next generation of airspace.

Two pilots. Two different committee assignments. Two different regions of the country.

Why a Pilot in Congress Sees Aviation Differently

Their message, as reported by AOPA, was direct: when you fly, you understand aviation in a way that no briefing document can replicate. You understand which regulations are well-designed and which create friction without adding safety. You understand workload, risk, and what it actually costs - in time, money, and training - to stay current and proficient.

That understanding changes how they evaluate proposals, how they question FAA officials during oversight hearings, and critically, how they explain aviation to colleagues who have never left the ground.

Most members of Congress travel commercially. Their experience of aviation is the experience of a passenger - real, but it does not produce intuition about airspace design, instrument approach procedures, or the operational difference between a temporary flight restriction and a permanent prohibited area. When an FAA official testifies using technical language, a pilot in the room notices something a non-pilot cannot: when an answer sounds correct but misses operational reality, and when a proposed rule would create unintended consequences for a pilot hand-flying an approach in actual IMC.

How Aviation Advocacy in Congress Developed

Federal oversight of aviation began with the Air Commerce Act of 1926, passed largely at the industry’s own request because airlines understood that public confidence in air travel required uniform safety standards. The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 created the Civil Aeronautics Authority, which eventually split into the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the FAA as it exists today. The catalyst was a mid-air collision over the Grand Canyon on June 30, 1956, between a United Airlines Douglas DC-7 and a TWA Lockheed L-1049 Constellation that killed 128 people and exposed the absence of unified airspace management.

Through each of those legislative milestones, aviation required advocates in Congress who understood what they were voting on. The Congressional Aviation Caucus exists today as a bipartisan group of members who support aviation broadly - but caucus membership and a pilot certificate are two different things. The non-flying caucus member has the right values. The member who holds a certificate has the right values plus firsthand knowledge.

What This Means for Business Aviation Policy

The timing of the NBAA appearance carries weight. Business aviation has faced a complex policy environment in recent years, with ongoing debates in Washington about whether business aviation pays its fair share of the taxes and fees that fund the aviation trust fund. Proposals have surfaced at various points to increase fuel taxes on Jet-A, alter the user fee structure for air traffic control, and add new fees on business aircraft operations that would not apply to commercial carriers.

These debates look different when the evaluator has sat in the left seat of a business aircraft. When a small business owner can fly from a regional airport to a meeting in a city without commercial service and return the same day, that is an economic productivity story that does not surface in a simple discussion about fuel tax rates. Graves’s committee chairmanship gives him leverage in those debates that most aviation advocates on the Hill do not have.

The priorities of a flight department operating a Gulfstream G650 are not identical to those of a pilot flying a Piper Archer out of a small municipal airport - but they share airspace, they share the FAA, they share the trust fund, and they share the regulatory framework. What happens to business aviation policy eventually reaches down the fleet in one direction or another. Having legislators who understand that interconnected system is a structural advantage for all of GA.

How Pilots Can Strengthen That Advocacy

When a congressman who holds a certificate walks into an FAA oversight hearing, he carries the weight of every constituent who has contacted him about GA issues. If that pile of contacts is small, his leverage is smaller. If it is large, his leverage grows. It is, in the end, a numbers game - and the numbers are made up of pilots who chose to participate.

AOPA and EAA both run active advocacy programs that connect directly to Capitol Hill. AOPA Pilot Protection Services, the EAA government advocacy program, and the letters and calls that congressional offices track when preparing for oversight hearings are not symbolic gestures. They are the mechanism by which pilot perspective reaches the people writing aviation law.

The two representatives who showed up in Las Vegas and talked about their flying were not claiming special wisdom. They were claiming informed perspective. In a legislative body that governs every flight you take, informed perspective is not a small thing.

Key Takeaways

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and an active private pilot, is one of the most powerful figures in U.S. aviation policy.
Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), a licensed pilot on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has a direct lane into emerging aviation technology legislation.
Both appeared at NBAA-BACE 2026 in Las Vegas to argue that their pilot certificates give them operational insight that non-flying colleagues lack during FAA oversight hearings.
Business aviation policy debates - including fuel taxes and ATC user fees - affect the entire GA fleet, not just business jet operators.
Pilot advocacy through AOPA and EAA programs directly amplifies the leverage of pilot-legislators on Capitol Hill; the contacts congressional offices receive are counted.