We are closer than ever, please contact your representative

they die, not people on a park bench? except when he crashes short on rwy 5 at FMY and takes out a few cars on 41. self policing, yea that will work, ever wonder why so many people that cant get a medical are pushing for this. I discussed this with my AME and some of the horror stories he has are interesting. but pilots wont break the rules will they. bet you did not hear about the 121 captain that was finally found out to be flying at 69 year old. lets just fix the medical rules i would feel a whole lot safer if someone that has 20/400 vision and god knows what else is not flying just because he still has a drivers license.
 
Are we closer than ever to watching this bill die in committee?
 
unsafervguy said:
im dead set against this and here is why. the medical standards do need to be completely re-written and brought into the 21 century. however, doing away with them is not the answer. here in florida if you have no accidents or tickets you renew online or by mail. yes, no vision, no hearing, or any test what so ever. do you know how many people we have driving in to buildings by confusing the gas and brake every year. we have blind people driving here because they can renew by mail. please don't tell me that pilots wont do that, they will, i know many that should be or are medically grounded that still fly. lets reform the rules but don't just throw them out.
Click to expand...

Bob, dont you still need a Flight Review every two years. Any CFI in his/her right mind wont sign someone off who cant perform to standards. This will be a good gate on the bumblers, I,ve done this with guys who had medicals, denied to confirm the Flight Review because it was obivious they were struggling to meet PTS standards. They,ll always be docs that let some slip by as well as those that dont fess up at the medical. How would change the rules?
 
N801BH said:
I grew up in Coral Gables and watched the evening news on Channel 4,7 or 10 for 30 years.. At least once a week they had a story of some 90 year old driving down Collins Ave on Miami Beach and going up on the sidewalk and mowing down a group of people sitting on a bus bench.... The driver walks away, the victims are in body bags..:sad::sad:..

With a rogue pilot who does NOT self certify... They die, not innocent victims on a bus bench...:nono:..

The new rules are basically self policing....:rolleyes:.. IMHO.

Darwin is a great theory....:yes:
Click to expand...

Drivers dont get BFR,s, pilots do.
 
Again, how has this worked so well for all those sport pilots if it's such a horrible idea?
 
Seems to me that too many people are worrying about "keeping us safe" and thereby arguing in favor of the medical remaining in place for private pilots as it is. It is simple for me, I need the government to protect our citizens from foreign and domestic enemies. I don't need it to protect me from myself. I am capable, as most people are of making decisions for myself, that includes whether I should fly or not. I trust that other citizens can do the same. This Bill is a small piece of what in my mind is a constant battle for our freedoms in this country.
We may not win this battle, but it is definitley worth fighting. Please continue to contact your representatives and ask them to pass this Bill.
 
Some people will never understand freedom and believe that the nanny state can protect them from all possible forms of harm. These are the same people who believe gun control works and that criminals actually follow the rules. The reality is the people who wouldn't self certify are the same people who will fly without a medical anyway or a flight review or an annual on their plane. Perhaps there should be a test on the medical for this? At least a question on the form.

Are you or have you ever been in need of the government to babysit every aspect of your life? If you answered yes to this question...
 
My interest here is evidence. I don't want to argue about nanny states and freedom, it goes nowhere. Show me the evidence that the FAA medical makes flying safer. Newsflash - there is none.

Modern fitness-for-duty methods involve assessment of performance, not a list of forbidden conditions and medications. Guess what, every state medical board in the US allows neurosurgeons, transplant surgeons, etc. - who have conditions or take medications that the FAA says are incompatible with flying a C-150 - to operate on you and me, every day, and without restriction. Do you ever ask your surgeon if he or she takes Prozac? Still let him/her operate?
 
Last edited:
So we have been "closer than ever" since 2/28. Almost 3 months later, has any progress been made?
 
SkyHog said:
So we have been "closer than ever" since 2/28. Almost 3 months later, has any progress been made?
Click to expand...

Hard to say, there have been additional co sponsors on the Bill but the process is aganizing. I am friends with one FAA guy who is high enough up to get some insights and he says that most in the FAA are in favor of it but they are waiting for congress to act removing the blame from them and that is why we haven't seen the EAA/AOPA version hasn't happened at this point. Who knows, it's government and you can't apply reason to what they do. My point here in this is that it can only help our cause by contacting our reps and asking for action.
 
It worries me that there are pilots in favor of retaining the 3rd Class Medical. IMHO, if we can't even unite behind something like this, there's little hope for GA..
 
Jay Honeck said:
It worries me that there are pilots in favor of retaining the 3rd Class Medical. IMHO, if we can't even unite behind something like this, there's little hope for GA..
Click to expand...
If you expect unanimity among pilots on *anything*, then you probably think herding cats is a reasonable activity too. ;)

Personally I would feel more confident about this if there were conclusive evidence that the per-flight-hour rate of medically induced accidents among pilots flying under the sport pilot rules was no higher than among 3rd class holders, but that's a difficult case to make because the denominator (hours flown) is unknown and probably unknowable, particularly in the case of the former group. Again, personally, I approach this from the opposite side: I think there should have to be evidence of an overall safety benefit from the 3rd class medical in order for the government to require it as a condition of private pilot privileges (even under IFR). But that's not the way bureaucrats think, and as has been observed umpteen times before, once won, bureaucratic control is never given up voluntarily. :(
 
unsafervguy said:
they die, not people on a park bench? except when he crashes short on rwy 5 at FMY and takes out a few cars on 41. self policing, yea that will work, ever wonder why so many people that cant get a medical are pushing for this. I discussed this with my AME and some of the horror stories he has are interesting. but pilots wont break the rules will they. bet you did not hear about the 121 captain that was finally found out to be flying at 69 year old. lets just fix the medical rules i would feel a whole lot safer if someone that has 20/400 vision and god knows what else is not flying just because he still has a drivers license.
Click to expand...
As a physician, he should know better than anyone that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"...
 
azure said:
If you expect unanimity among pilots on *anything*, then you probably think herding cats is a reasonable activity too. ;)

Personally I would feel more confident about this if there were conclusive evidence that the per-flight-hour rate of medically induced accidents among pilots flying under the sport pilot rules was no higher than among 3rd class holders, but that's a difficult case to make because the denominator (hours flown) is unknown and probably unknowable, particularly in the case of the former group. Again, personally, I approach this from the opposite side: I think there should have to be evidence of an overall safety benefit from the 3rd class medical in order for the government to require it as a condition of private pilot privileges (even under IFR). But that's not the way bureaucrats think, and as has been observed umpteen times before, once won, bureaucratic control is never given up voluntarily. :(
Click to expand...


And that ma'am, is the largest hurdle of this bill...:mad::mad::mad2::mad2:
 
N801BH said:
And that ma'am, is the largest hurdle of this bill...:mad::mad::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...
Actually, this is far more than an impediment to this bill. It's what has made America uncompetitive and virtually unrecognizable to anyone over age 50.

As I've said before, the day we first needed permission from a bureacrat in D.C. to widen a highway in Texas (or extend a runway) was the day America died.
 
azure said:
If you expect unanimity among pilots on *anything*, then you probably think herding cats is a reasonable activity too. ;)
Click to expand...

lol! I've worked on enough fly ins and fund raisers to know that pilots are absolutely the most independent SOBs on the planet.

That's why I like them :)

But when an issue like eliminating the 3rd class medical comes along, and we can't even agree on something that could really help save our beloved aviation passion -- well, it may be time to despair.
 
Jay Honeck said:
lol! I've worked on enough fly ins and fund raisers to know that pilots are absolutely the most independent SOBs on the planet.
Click to expand...
That was my impression, so I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek - hope you noticed the winky! :)
 
Todd Copeland said:
I am friends with one FAA guy who is high enough up to get some insights and he says that most in the FAA are in favor of it but they are waiting for congress to act removing the blame from them and that is why we haven't seen the EAA/AOPA version hasn't happened at this point. Who knows, it's government and you can't apply reason to what they do.
Click to expand...


Sure you can.

By the above, reason would indicate the decision makers place a higher priority on self-preservation games than on service. Very rational.
 
In my home state of Washington, the DMV is extending the expiration date of driver's licenses to 6 years. And after 6 years all you do to renew is fill out an online form and make a payment. Even before this change the vision test and an updated photo was only required every 10 years. Not sure what it will be now. Maybe every 12 years? And of course every state is different, so there will be no consistency.

As soon as the bill comes up for serious debate, these issues will be raised...as they should...and I'm afraid it will make it very difficult for many lawmakers to support eliminating the 3rd class medical.

We are pilots, and unlike drivers, we fly our aircraft over homes and private property and public spaces. And therefore I have no problem being held to a higher standard than the driver of an automobile. My preference would be to reform, not eliminate.
 
flytime said:
In my home state of Washington, the DMV is extending the expiration date of driver's licenses to 6 years. And after 6 years all you do to renew is fill out an online form and make a payment. Even before this change the vision test and an updated photo was only required every 10 years. Not sure what it will be now. Maybe every 12 years? And of course every state is different, so there will be no consistency.

As soon as the bill comes up for serious debate, these issues will be raised...as they should...and I'm afraid it will make it very difficult for many lawmakers to support eliminating the 3rd class medical.

We are pilots, and unlike drivers, we fly our aircraft over homes and private property and public spaces. And therefore I have no problem being held to a higher standard than the driver of an automobile. My preference would be to reform, not eliminate.
Click to expand...

So you don't think driving your car on the roads with thousands of others drivers puts them in danger? Flying over a house presents no greater danger to others than cars driving on the roads do. Life is not without risk. I don't need the government protecting us from ourselves.
 
flytime said:
We are pilots, and unlike drivers, we fly our aircraft over homes and private property and public spaces. And therefore I have no problem being held to a higher standard than the driver of an automobile.
Click to expand...

An out-of-control aircraft, even if it crashes in a densely populated area, will seldom injure anyone who's not on board. An out-of-control car is much more likely to be in close proximity to other vehicles or pedestrians, and thus more likely to injure others.

What does make medical problems more dangerous in an aircraft--primarily to the pilot and passengers--is that partial or gradual incapacitation (with, say, an onset of a minute or so) allows a driver to pull over and stop, but affords no similar option for a pilot. That difference potentially justifies a stricter medical standard for pilots than for drivers.
 
Not to mention the fact that so many people avoid getting help for the sole reason of it not being a problem when filling out the medical quest.
 
Why I need medical examination to pilot a vehicle that weighs less than a car and that flies at car speeds is not entirely apparent to me.
 
I sent my congress critters the blanket e-mail AOPA made it so easy to send, but I have been thinking lately that just isn't enough. Recently reading an e-mail from John Pruner (the $100 hamburger guy) I decided to do more and wrote to each of my government dudes with a personal letter relating my personal experiences with getting an SI last year.

I am hoping in some small way I was able to get across to them that the pilots that do not have the integrity to self certify them selves before each and every flight are the same ones that will lie to their AME or fly without a medical at all. Those of us, and I believe it is the majority, that do have that integrity will continue to do the best we can to fly safe and healthy.

The absence of a 3rd class will not change our individual character traits.

Anyway, that's all I have to say about that!!!!
 
Todd Copeland said:
So you don't think driving your car on the roads with thousands of others drivers puts them in danger? Flying over a house presents no greater danger to others than cars driving on the roads do. Life is not without risk. I don't need the government protecting us from ourselves.
Click to expand...
Look, all I am saying is that going from a flawed standard to essentially no standard is probably not wise. If all I need is a driver's license, then I suggest you all come to Washington State. Under the standards here, I will be due for a DMV vision test in another 4 years. At that time I will be 54 years old. And after that my only obligation to the DMV will be to keep my address current. My next vision test won't come until I am 66 years old! As for any other conditions that may arise, it will be entirely up to me to self-attest to my health. And like many, I am ever the optimist that whatever issues I may be struggling with will be only temporary.

As an aside, my 3rd class medical exam is coming up next month. I would love nothing more than to save the $180 that it will cost me and spend it on avgas instead, however the fact that I have to pass it to keep flying has been highly motivating to my health and exercise habits. I am getting to the age where I cannot take good health for granted, and in fact I have had to make some lifestyle changes to keep my blood pressure in the green (for some of us, it's simply a matter of genetics that it will become a problem). I absolutely believe that I am healthier (and safer) as a result of that pesky biennial requirement to prove it to my doc.
 
"We are closer than ever, please contact your representative "

And yet as far away as ever.
 
flytime said:
Look, all I am saying is that going from a flawed standard to essentially no standard is probably not wise. If all I need is a driver's license, then I suggest you all come to Washington State. Under the standards here, I will be due for a DMV vision test in another 4 years. At that time I will be 54 years old. And after that my only obligation to the DMV will be to keep my address current. My next vision test won't come until I am 66 years old! As for any other conditions that may arise, it will be entirely up to me to self-attest to my health. And like many, I am ever the optimist that whatever issues I may be struggling with will be only temporary.

As an aside, my 3rd class medical exam is coming up next month. I would love nothing more than to save the $180 that it will cost me and spend it on avgas instead, however the fact that I have to pass it to keep flying has been highly motivating to my health and exercise habits. I am getting to the age where I cannot take good health for granted, and in fact I have had to make some lifestyle changes to keep my blood pressure in the green (for some of us, it's simply a matter of genetics that it will become a problem). I absolutely believe that I am healthier (and safer) as a result of that pesky biennial requirement to prove it to my doc.
Click to expand...

We have laws already to cover your vision problems, it's called "gross negligence" and you can be sued for it.

As far as your personal motivations toward health, they have no bearing on whether or not a regulation needs to exist.
 
flytime said:
Look, all I am saying is that going from a flawed standard to essentially no standard is probably not wise. If all I need is a driver's license, then I suggest you all come to Washington State. Under the standards here, I will be due for a DMV vision test in another 4 years. At that time I will be 54 years old. And after that my only obligation to the DMV will be to keep my address current. My next vision test won't come until I am 66 years old! As for any other conditions that may arise, it will be entirely up to me to self-attest to my health. And like many, I am ever the optimist that whatever issues I may be struggling with will be only temporary.

As an aside, my 3rd class medical exam is coming up next month. I would love nothing more than to save the $180 that it will cost me and spend it on avgas instead, however the fact that I have to pass it to keep flying has been highly motivating to my health and exercise habits. I am getting to the age where I cannot take good health for granted, and in fact I have had to make some lifestyle changes to keep my blood pressure in the green (for some of us, it's simply a matter of genetics that it will become a problem). I absolutely believe that I am healthier (and safer) as a result of that pesky biennial requirement to prove it to my doc.
Click to expand...

If you can't see to drive, you sure as hell can't see to fly......And unless you walk to the airport to get your plane to go flying,, you will need to correct your vision to operate a vehicle...
 
flytime said:
We are pilots, and unlike drivers, we fly our aircraft over homes and private property and public spaces. And therefore I have no problem being held to a higher standard than the driver of an automobile. My preference would be to reform, not eliminate.
Click to expand...

And there is the crux of the issue. Congress folks and the FAA have to weigh the risk to the innocent folks just sitting at home, watching Wheel of Fortune when a Cherokee Six comes crashing through the roof. It does happen. Don't think so? Just Google "Airplane crashes into house" or something like that and then click on images.

On the flip side, Congress needs to think of the broader picture of America, our freedoms, an important defense industry and the economy. We have always been proud of our aviation history here and it is in trouble.

Eliminating the 3rd Class at the risk of a few ground fatalities in the future is IMO, worth it. This is the argument that needs to be made. Don't ask me how to convince a person that has no love for airplanes to give up a level of safety just so that more guys can fly around over their heads. Not my department and it'll take a hell of a salesman to do so, but I'll try.


Todd Copeland said:
So you don't think driving your car on the roads with thousands of others drivers puts them in danger? Flying over a house presents no greater danger to others than cars driving on the roads do. Life is not without risk. I don't need the government protecting us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

But others do. In fact they vote that way all the time. It's just a fact, so going on about personal freedoms, libertarian ideals, or bringing up the "nanny state" in a argument is not constructive and won't work. Work on an answer as to why it is we should allow damn near anybody to fly airplanes over our houses. Make it really persuasive and you might have something.

An airplane flying over a house is not a greater danger than driving down the road, but it is an additional danger. The driving we have to do, but why do guys in their airplanes have to fly over the houses?

The average citizen drives a car or at least rides in a car regularly, but the average citizen doesn't go anywhere near a GA aircraft. What benefit is it to the average citizen to allow more of us to fly overhead with less regulation?

steingar said:
Why I need medical examination to pilot a vehicle that weighs less than a car and that flies at car speeds is not entirely apparent to me.
Click to expand...

That's a really dumb argument. If you're flying an airplane that flies at car speeds, you already don't need a medical. It's called Light Sport, or Ultra Light. The huge majority of us fly much, much faster then cars and for a lot of us, that's exactly why we fly. To get places faster than a car. Please don't use this argument to pursuade anybody. It won't.

Let me be clear, I am all for the elimination of the 3rd Class, (and also an experimental category for certified airplanes, but that's another thread! :D) but I think we need to be smart about it and come up with better arguments. I'm playing Devil's advocate in an attempt to get people to see the other side of it and come up with more persuasive things to say than just "Because I want to and you'll hardly ever get killed by an airplane."

I think the best arguments I have heard are, preserving the aviation industry in America is very, very good for our economy and our own national defense and the check to balance the loss of the 3rd Class is the BFR.

Scrutiny of pilot performance which includes pilot health will be put in hands of local control. This frees up the FAA to reallocate resources to other needs instead of keeping medical records, reviewing those records and arguing with pilots. This saves the FAA and by extension, the tax payers money.

As to the National Defense angle, I use a computer analogy. Everyone agrees that having cutting edge computing technology is good for national defense, right? The best way to keep that edge is to have a robust computer industry with thousands of engineers employed here.

Which employs more computer engineers, the defense department and military contractors, or personal computing? The personal computing market allows for a large pool of talent here on our shores, some of the best of which can go work on national defense projects and implement the latest ideas there.

The same works for aviation albeit on a smaller scale. By expanding GA, even in the area of us little bug smashing guys, means more gainfully employed aeronautical engineers here, in our country and a bigger pool to pull from for important projects. In addition, it's always nice to have a large pool of pilots to pull from in a true war time national emergency.
 
Dav8or said:
And there is the crux of the issue. Congress folks and the FAA have to weigh the risk to the innocent folks just sitting at home, watching Wheel of Fortune when a Cherokee Six comes crashing through the roof. It does happen. Don't think so? Just Google "Airplane crashes into house" or something like that and then click on images.
Click to expand...

Your post assumes that elimination of medical requirements will increase the accident rate measurably. Has this even been demonstrated?
 
If they do-away with the 3rd class, why not the other two also? HMMMM.
 
I'm guessing that most people in the general public as well as most people here know folks who have valid drivers licenses who, perhaps, shouldn't be driving.

The question is whether or not people will self-ground when their situation warrants it.

How many fewer ground vehicle accidents would there have been if standards for motor vehicle licenses were as strict as for aviation medicals? Do you think it would be statistically significant? That's not to say that I'm against abolishing the third class medical. I'm just stating how it might look to the general public.
 
denverpilot said:
We have laws already to cover your vision problems, it's called "gross negligence" and you can be sued for it.
Click to expand...

You can also be sued for driving too fast and causing an accident, because that is also gross negligence. Does that mean we should abolish all speed limits, and just let the trial attorneys take over? Call me crazy, but I think that is a bad idea.

denverpilot said:
As far as your personal motivations toward health, they have no bearing on whether or not a regulation needs to exist.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the regulations being debated here were not intended to encourage ME to live a healthy life for its own sake, they were intended to make general aviation safer by influencing pilots' behavior relating to health. Remember, the entire purpose of ANY regulation is to influence behavior. No regulation can prevent any particular action. It can only discourage it. And in the case of a required medical exam, the primary purpose is to discourage an unhealthy pilot from flying. But there is a secondary purpose as well, and that is to encourage pilots to maintain their health so that they can continue to fly. The influence of behavior by regulation is indeed the heart of the issue.
 
Luigi said:
Don't be disingenuous, this has been discussed ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it has but to what end? Is a paid passenger's life more valuable than other's? We know it's not so why should any pilot have to go through an FAA physical? The 1st class physical doesn't make me feel any healthier than a visit to my family doctor where I get yearly blood work done, heart check, prostate check, vision check, etc.. The FAA doc doesn't do half that! Let's do away with any physical and abolish the stupid age 65 rule for air carrier folks which is absolutely DISCRIMINATORY! Let the company doctor decide when it's time to furlough these people!:mad2:
 
flytime said:
You can also be sued for driving too fast and causing an accident, because that is also gross negligence. Does that mean we should abolish all speed limits, and just let the trial attorneys take over? Call me crazy, but I think that is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Ok you're crazy. We need more laws. That'll fix every possible form of human behavior. LOL. Right.

flytime said:
While I agree that the regulations being debated here were not intended to encourage ME to live a healthy life for its own sake, they were intended to make general aviation safer by influencing pilots' behavior relating to health. Remember, the entire purpose of ANY regulation is to influence behavior. No regulation can prevent any particular action. It can only discourage it. And in the case of a required medical exam, the primary purpose is to discourage an unhealthy pilot from flying. But there is a secondary purpose as well, and that is to encourage pilots to maintain their health so that they can continue to fly. The influence of behavior by regulation is indeed the heart of the issue.
Click to expand...


Really? To make General Aviation safer. Can you quote specific documentation published at the outset of the medical requirements that objectively shows that relationship, and analyzed the cost/benefit to the country? You're propagating an assumption which is what most folks (including your friend at FAA) says is a falsehood.
 
denverpilot said:
Ok you're crazy. We need more laws. That'll fix every possible form of human behavior. LOL. Right.
Click to expand...

Laugh all you want, but what you are really saying is that we need fewer laws and more civil suits. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but what I am suggesting is smarter laws, not more laws. When I say reform the regulations, that is what I mean.

denverpilot said:
Really? To make General Aviation safer. Can you quote specific documentation published at the outset of the medical requirements that objectively shows that relationship, and analyzed the cost/benefit to the country? You're propagating an assumption which is what most folks (including your friend at FAA) says is a falsehood.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I cannot quote you the specific studies or analysis that was relied upon to formulate the regulations that currently exist. And I have no friends at the FAA that could help me with that either. But it does not take a genius to figure out that these regulations were intended to increase the safety of general aviation. You can mock the FAA and all the bureaucracy that it entails all you like, but their core mission is to promote aviation safety, plain and simple.

The intent of the regulations and the effect of the regulations are of course two different things. I was referring to the intent, and that is without question to increase safety. Are they effective at doing so? I would argue yes, but not perfectly, and probably less so when measured by cost vs. benefit. I believe the system could be improved and simplified, and made more cost effective to both government and individual, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. General aviation has become safer over the past few decades for a variety of reasons, and I am willing to give the FAA at least some credit for that.

The problem is that we won't really know how effective the 3rd class medical has been at making aviation safer until it is gone and we have a few years of accident statistics to evaluate. Meanwhile, every time there is an accident related to a medical issue (and there are already plenty), the press will do what it does and sensationalize the issue to the point where there is legislative backlash. Pushing for outright elimination could turn into the classic example of being careful what you wish for.
 
flytime;1784148........... but what I am suggesting is smarter laws said:
Horse crap... ALL guvmint agencies are making DAMN sure they put the public UNDER their rules and grow the "machine" to make sure they can get to 53 years old and get a full retirement...

They don't give a damn about logic, common sense or ANY rule that would streamline their duties.....

There is a reason the U.S is 18 TRILLION in debt and another 80 TRILLION behind in unfunded liabilities like SS, Medicare /Medicaid/ Welfare / and the biggest not on the balance sheets is Government employees pensions....

Stay tuned for another 10 years or so and watch the house of cards collapse...:redface:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top