Third class medical is it history??

[1964-M20E]

I sure hope so!!  I'm healthy but class III medicals serve little or no purpose.

 

I'm sure most of you have probably seen this but we need to write and call our representatives to support this.

 

 

My opinion that this is great but needs to take one step further to include all non-commercial operations including IFR for the 6,000lb and less and 6 seats or less category of planes.

 

 

Please call and write the author, current sponsors and your reps and sens to support this and amend it to include IFR operations as well.

 

From AOPA

 

 

Special Report

New bill would expand driver's license medical

After nearly two years of FAA inaction on the AOPA/EAA third-class medical petition,

Congress has taken matters into its own hands, offering up legislation that would

vastly expand the number of pilots who could fly without going through the expensive

and time-consuming third-class medical certification process. Reps. Todd Rokita (RInd.),

a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, and GA Caucus Co-Chair

Sam Graves (R-Mo.) on Dec. 11 introduced the

 

General Aviation Pilot Protection Act.

The legislation would dramatically expand the parameters for flying under the driver's

license medical standard. Rokita and Graves are both AOPA members and active

pilots.

"We have waited far too long for the FAA to expand the third-class medical

exemption to more pilots and more aircraft," said AOPA President Mark Baker.

"Congressmen Rokita and Graves stepped forward to take decisive action in the best

interests of general aviation when the FAA refused to act. We appreciate their

outstanding leadership on this issue and look forward to seeing this bill move

forward."

The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots to use the driver's license

medical standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000

pounds with no more than six seats. That includes virtually all single-engine airplanes

with six or fewer seats, including Beech Bonanzas, as well as many light twins like

the Piper Aztec, Beech Baron 55 and 58, and Cessna 310. By way of comparison,

most large SUVs on the roads today weigh more than 6,000 pounds and can carry

six to seven passengers, making them larger than the aircraft that would be operated

with proof of a valid driver's license under this new bill.

Pilots would be allowed to carry up to five passengers, fly at altitudes below 14,000

feet msl, and fly no faster than 250 knots. The act also would require the FAA to

report on the safety consequences of the new rule after five years.

"As a pilot, I am pleased to introduce this important legislation with my colleagues

and fellow pilots," said Rokita. "This bill eliminates a duplicative and therefore

unnecessary medical certification regulation that drives up costs for pilots and

prevents the general aviation industry from fulfilling its economic potential."

"For many recreational pilots, the FAA's third class medical certification process is

nothing more than a bureaucratic hoop to jump through," said Graves. "It

discourages new pilots and does not truly improve safety. As a pilot, I have gone

through this process several times. However, like all pilots, I am responsible for

determining whether I am medically fit to fly during the time between my mandated

medical certifications. Expanding the current exemption makes sense and will

promote greater recreational aviation activity across the U.S. without an impact on

safety."

In addition to Rokita and Graves, the bill was co-sponsored by Reps. Collin Peterson

(D-Minn.), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), and Mike Pompeo (RKan.).

All four co-sponsors are members of the GA Caucus.

The legislative action comes after the FAA has repeatedly declined to rule on a

March 2012 petition filed by AOPA and EAA. That petition asked the FAA to expand

the driver's license medical standard already used by sport pilots for nearly a decade.

Under the petition, pilots would be able to operate noncommercial VFR flights in

single-engine aircraft with 180 horsepower or less, four or fewer seats, fixed gear,

and a maximum of one passenger. To participate, pilots would need a valid driver's

license and would be required to take recurrent safety training to help them

accurately assess their fitness to fly.

 

More than 16,000 overwhelmingly favorable comments were filed during the public

comment period on the petition. But despite strong support from the aviation

community and solid evidence that the exemption would maintain or improve safety,

the FAA failed to act, so AOPA turned to supporters in Congress for help.

Building support for the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act will be critical to its

passage, and AOPA will be calling on members to show their support in January

after Congress returns from recess. Look for details about how you can help in

upcoming issues of

 

AOPA ePilot and on AOPA.org.

 

[scottfromiowa]

Just trying to get them to back off on the sleep apnea nonsense. They will and 3rd class medical will continue...as is. IMO

[orionflt]

I read the proposal and hope it does get passed, I think it will help keep our GA pilots in the air. as for limiting it to VFR only i may be against the majority but i believe that requiring a third class medical to fly IFR is not unreasonable.I have my rating but plan most of my flights VFR utilizing the IFR option if i really need to. that being said I do not mind keeping a valid third class medical knowing that if i ever fail to meet those requirements I can still fly, just may have to shift my itinerary based on the weather.  

[John Pleisse]

Hmmmm....we live in a nation of unhealthy, fat, diabetic, stressed workoholics..... I doubt the FAA would bend and likely become more stringent. And guess what's coming? No more form to fill out (8500-8). Your AME will no longer rely on your honesty..... your digital file will already be at the AME's office waiting for you. It is inevitable.

[bdjohn4]

This will decimate the LSA industry. Nearly every LSA pilot I know is flying one only due to the loss of a medical. Also, in the old days the FAA used to actually review Form 337 (major airframe modification form that must be filed with FAA) but I am told now that they only file them away, with no confirmation.

Hope this law passes.

[chrisk]

It would be nice to see the 3rd class medical go away. 

 

But of course, the problem really isn't with a medical requirement, but with the standard used.   If a 3rd class medical was just a vision test, no one would be concerned with it.

[AndyFromCB]

What's the story with 14,000 feet? More or less stops anyone flying in the mountain regions or with a turbo.

[David Mazer]

Is there any studies that show that the medical, any medical class, is of any value with respect to aviation safety?  Last time I reviewed the litrature some time ago there was no support at all.  With respect to 1st class medicals least of all since there is a second pilot always there.  The idea that you need one in IFR vs VFR makes no sense to me.  If you have a heart attack in clear weather, the ground will be just as hard as it is if there were clouds at 200 ft just above your final resting point.

[Bennett]

I prefer the House's version to the EAA /AOPA petition, although I doubt that either one will go into effect. At least the house version would allow flying Mooneys without a medical. At 78 the thought of being forced not to fly because of some none disabling minor medical condition has a concern. I passed my last medical with no problems, but each medical is approached with a degree of anxiety and trepidation. I self evaluate before every flight, and I think this is more important than a piece of paper. I tried an LSA for about two years, but while it was one of the best designed of the group, and had excellent performance for an LSA, I was never really comfortable with the light weight skins and structure needed to meet LSA weight restrictions. I had thought that I might retire from flying at 80, but if the House bill is successful, I might rethink that decision (provided I think I am physically and mentally capable of flying). I would not mind accepting VFR flight only, and while 14,000' is low, I can still cross the country using the southern routes, and my J performs better at 8-10,000'.

[Cruiser]

I see no problem requiring pilots flying COMMERCIAL jobs to continue getting FLIGHT medicals (the OSA issue is ridiculous) but private pilots flying for personal reasons should not have to jump through hoops just to fly.

 

As for the restrictions, we have to start somewhere. The bill requires FAA to report on five years of data. That will either kill or support further freedoms.

[bdjohn4]

The altitude restriction is no doubt related to hypoxia, in particular, prevention of cardiac ischemia that leads to a heart attack. And/Or, perhaps risk of neurological consequences of hypoxia (although here, I can't say I'm as read-up on the literature).

 

Like the FMCSA (who regulates truck driver medical certification and JUST overhauled there process, making it stricter I might add), the FAA Medical Branch, I would imagine, is most concerned with risk sudden incapacitation. Fact is, episodes of sudden incapacitation are very rare and difficult to predict in many cases. Since only a tiny fraction of one's year is spent literrally in the cockpit, even with half-clogged coronaries the chance/probabillity that you will have your heart attack while at the controls is miniscule.

 

Would be interesting to see how this meshes with the FAA Medical Branches recent push to use BMI as a screening tool for AMEs to require sleep apnea testing. My bet is that Congress will have to push this, as the FAA Medical Branch will be kicking and screaming against this. Bottom line is that since implementing the Light Sport Pilot program, not a single fatal crash has occurred that could be traced back to a suspected bout of sudden incapacitation (ie. Heart attack, stroke, etc). We'll see. I've met some completely physically healthy pilots that simply made some very foolish decisions that had them pay the ultimate price.   

 

Last I heard, in the UK, if you want to be a RECREATIONAL scuba diver, you have to have a medical clearance, much like a 3rd class. No evidence that that prevents diving injuries to my knowledge.

 

John L. MD MPH

Occupational Medicine

Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine

[1964-M20E]

All good discussion the main point is to contact our reps and sens if you are in favor of this if not please keep to yourself as far as your reps are concerned.     As for IFR I feel that in my IFR flights are much less stressful flying than VFR I have less worries about the weather.  VFR I have to worry about any clouds IFR I only worry about convective, icing and fog.  Besides if a pilot kills 5 other people and himself does it really matter if it was IMC or VMC?

 

There are no restrictions against driving an RV motor home with 12 or more people in driving rain or fog on the interstate and the GVW most likely is above 12,000lbs.

 

I for one want to see this pass (with IFR included) and we can make it happen if we push our reps and sens to do it.  AOPA is not going to push it because it is not their idea and the FAA will not get off their butts to do this on their own.  I think any non comercial persoanl flying should be able to be done without a medical.

 

While we are at it we need to get the same reps to make the same type of bill for the Noncommercial standard category class of aircraft.

[N201MKTurbo]

I don't get the IFR restriction. Am I more likely to keel over in the clouds and crash into a school yard then when I am VFR?

[N201MKTurbo]

BTW I just got my 3rd class. and as far as I could see, if I was healthy enough to make it to the examiner, I would pass.

 

I would rather spend the $90 on avgas.

 

I have known a few pilots who had a hart attack and never flew again. They were perfectly capable of flying.

 

How many fatalities are caused by incapacitated pilots? I have to figure that blown tires kill more people.

[Mooneymite]

I see no problem requiring pilots flying COMMERCIAL jobs to continue getting FLIGHT medicals (the OSA issue is ridiculous) but private pilots flying for personal reasons should not have to jump through hoops just to fly.

 

As for the restrictions, we have to start somewhere. The bill requires FAA to report on five years of data. That will either kill or support further freedoms.

And there's the rub.  We can all see why "some" should and "some" shouldn't, but everyone has a different reason and draws a different line.

 

If a rule were to be made to drop the physical exam requirement, it should be for pilots of aircraft requiring two qualified pilots.  What's the chance of two medically incapacitaed pilots?  Whereas single pilot cockpits have no backup.

 

For ease of administration, "All pilots", or do away with them completely.

[David Mazer]

The problem I see, even in the opinions expressed here, is a willingness to create or accept restrictions without basis.  There shouldn't be a medical if there is strong proof that the medical doesn't promote safety (and I've never found any).  Calss 1, 2, or 3.  There shouldn't be a commercial restriction or and IFR restriction or an altitude restriction unless one can demonstrate that it is protective (and I've never found any).  It is totally unacceptable to me that anyone in government should be sitting around dreaming up restrictions just to dream up restrictions and create more government jobs.  Even if these rules don't create harm directly, and I think they do, they divert attention and resources from activities that do or might.  If, after some period of time, these rules don't demonstrate benefit they should sundown out of existence.

 

Above someone said I can see commercial medicals, but why if they don't improve safety?  Another guessed at the altitude restriction, we shouldn't need to guess as the basis should be provided.  At least two of us are confused by the IFR restriction but another accepted it.  The government should only interfere with our lives where there is a clear demonstration of public good in so doing.

 

Call me a Libertarian!

[Marauder]

Libertarian          

[RocketAviator]

The problem I see, even in the opinions expressed here, is a willingness to create or accept restrictions without basis.  There shouldn't be a medical if there is strong proof that the medical doesn't promote safety (and I've never found any).  Calss 1, 2, or 3.  There shouldn't be a commercial restriction or and IFR restriction or an altitude restriction unless one can demonstrate that it is protective (and I've never found any).  It is totally unacceptable to me that anyone in government should be sitting around dreaming up restrictions just to dream up restrictions and create more government jobs.  Even if these rules don't create harm directly, and I think they do, they divert attention and resources from activities that do or might.  If, after some period of time, these rules don't demonstrate benefit they should sundown out of existence.

 

Above someone said I can see commercial medicals, but why if they don't improve safety?  Another guessed at the altitude restriction, we shouldn't need to guess as the basis should be provided.  At least two of us are confused by the IFR restriction but another accepted it.  The government should only interfere with our lives where there is a clear demonstration of public good in so doing.

 

Call me a Libertarian!

Well said David!  This type of idea and approach should be used on all government regulations and law making..... but that is about a likely as snow in July in Florida...

[David Mazer]

but that is about a likely as snow in July in Florida...

Hallelujah!  There is hope.  I've encountered icing at 19,000 ft in August over JAX.  Does that count?

[1964-M20E]

David 

 

I agree with you.

 

 

We need to get gov’t out of our lives as much as possible.   When contacting you reps and sens ask them to support this and push to eliminate all FAA physicals.

 

 

Also for those of us who frequent other boards start a topic and ask them to support it as well and push for fewer gov’t regulations.

[aviatoreb]

I don't get the IFR restriction. Am I more likely to keel over in the clouds and crash into a school yard then when I am VFR?

 

I think you are more likely to crash into a school yard with the minivan while trying to pick up your kid.  But no one is giving 3rd class medicals to minivan drivers.

[aviatoreb]

 

Above someone said I can see commercial medicals, but why if they don't improve safety?  Another guessed at the altitude restriction, we shouldn't need to guess as the basis should be provided.  At least two of us are confused by the IFR restriction but another accepted it.  The government should only interfere with our lives where there is a clear demonstration of public good in so doing.

 

Call me a Libertarian!

 

Ok I will. You Libertarian!

 

Haha - actually I agree with everything you said, and usually I am not the Libertarian, but quite right your stance on this position is Libertarian and so is mine it seems.

 

I seriously do not believe there should be any medical at all.  I mean school bus drivers who drive kindergardeners to school (single pilot at that, and through nasty conditions sometimes), just show up and off they go.

 

As someone already said - but in my words, baby steps.  5 years of no medical issues in LSA, that is an argument to change the 3rd class medical.  Maybe 5 years more and medicals could be dropped entirely?

[kmyfm20s]

I have sooooo many scary student at my home field I would like tighter restriction. Tonight when I fly home from work there will be 10 planes that you cannot understand in the pattern, doing 8 mile downwind legs for sequencing by the tower, all nicely confined by a Class B tunnel. My TIS will be max out with targets, the tower will have to slow down to 80 kts to join in the sequence on final and I will pray I don't have to do a go around. Yes, I'm being self serving:)

[David Mazer]

I have sooooo many scary student at my home field I would like tighter restriction. Tonight when I fly home from work there will be 10 planes that you cannot understand in the pattern, doing 8 mile downwind legs for sequencing by the tower, all nicely confined by a Class B tunnel. My TIS will be max out with targets, the tower will have to slow down to 80 kts to join in the sequence on final and I will pray I don't have to do a go around. Yes, I'm being self serving:)

I fail to see how any medicals will help with your concerns.  Most students are probably young enough that no medical restrictions could be relevant and, if more training would be helpful, why should we spend the available resources on medicals rather than training?  Actually, the bienial has been determined to be of no safety value per the FAA itself so that might not be a great example.  Doesn't change the requirement but they know it is a waste of time and energy too.

 

My point is the FAA should focus on things that do or may help and stop dealing with things proven not to.

[kmyfm20s]

I fail to see how any medicals will help with your concerns.  Most students are probably young enough that no medical restrictions could be relevant and, if more training would be helpful, why should we spend the available resources on medicals rather than training?  Actually, the bienial has been determined to be of no safety value per the FAA itself so that might not be a great example.  Doesn't change the requirement but they know it is a waste of time and energy too.

 

My point is the FAA should focus on things that do or may help and stop dealing with things proven not to.

I wasn't serious, the joke was since I have my license I wanted more barriers of entry for the others. Although the high volume of trainers in my area is a real frustration and a safety issue for me.  Anyway only 3 in the pattern when I arrived tonight which I could clearly understand and the tower only made me slow to 100 kts for my approach. Life's good!