3/C Medical ... Another Perspective

weirdjim

weirdjim

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
4,171
Location
Grass Valley, CA (KGOO)
Display Name
Display name:
weirdjim
In politics, if we see something that is mounting opposition to one of our projects, we ask one of two things ... (1) Is this project as it stands the hill we are willing to die on for this project, or, (2) How can I candy-coat it so that it becomes THEIR idea and gets passed into legislation.

Looks like the opposition is digging their heels in to a "driver's license" medical, so perhaps we ought to rethink the process ...

Suppose, just suppose that we rewrite it so that the piece of paper is still called a "third class medical" but the process is kept as simple as possible. Consider the following:

1. Right now it is an MD that needs to sign off on the medical. MDs need an office with office staff, malpractice insurance, and a goodly number of years of med school to get that certificate to hang on the wall. But other than doing a simple eye check, a hearing test that is done with a whisper, a "pi$$ in the cup test", and a blood pressure/heart rate/valve thump test, what is the medical? More a paperwork chase than anything else. And the $100 check you can give the lady at the front desk, please.

Let another medical professional in on the process. I see no reason that an RN or another medically trained person cannot do a simple 3rd class exam. Do it like I used to do written test exams, in my living room, with all the security a locked safe can give, and I did it for $5 mostly as a service to the local aviation community. Get the mandate for an MD out of the process.

​
2. Right now my MD has to go to OK City every so often for "training" and to pass a special exam.

If the FAA wants training, let THEM come to the local FSDO to do it. And yes, there are things on the 1st and 2nd class medical that need some special knowledge. The third class is of the form "see lightning and hear thunder" variety.

Or, do what they do now with my CFI and A&PIA that need to be renewed biennially ... online with a private company that does the testing for a few bucks and then is submitted electronically for renewal.

​
3. Get the "FAA Office of Aeromedicine" the hell out of the picture for setting standards or we will wind up with a worse problem than we've got right now. I'm not going to get into specifics only to say that I had a sports injury when I was 65 and had to have a special treadmill exam once a YEAR (not once every OTHER year) to prove that a simple knee injury wouldn't disqualify me to fly. Notwithstanding that a month after I had the injury fixed I was out playing championship level softball and have been doing so for 7 years after the injury.

For a few dozen years the trucking industry has had common standards that they "suggest" to the various states to do a commercial driving license, notwithstanding the fact that there are several THOUSAND more trucks on the highways at speeds approaching flight speeds. Get a consortium of CIVILIAN (NOT FAA) folks with medical experience together, formulate what is and is not to be in the standards, and get on with the process. Quite frankly, the FAA OAM is self-serving with nothing but MDs setting the standards.

​
I'm sure you all can come up with some better ideas that we can offer to unstick this process and smooth over the ruffled feathers. Think about it.

JIm
 
what do the GA accident statistics show? we hear over and over and over again that the vast majority of GA accidents are fuel starvation, flying VFR into IMC, CFIT...all poor decisions. as someone once said, "You can't fix stupid".

but I've not heard or read that medical issues is a significant cause for accidents. so...what percentage of crashes have medical causations? and what percentage of those were not apparent at the time of the last medical? does anyone know? I've heard anecdotal remarks that the numbers are very, very, very low and if that's the case then the 3rd class medical seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
 
rk911 said:
what do the GA accident statistics show? we hear over and over and over again that the vast majority of GA accidents are fuel starvation, flying VFR into IMC, CFIT...all poor decisions. as someone once said, "You can't fix stupid".

but I've not heard or read that medical issues is a significant cause for accidents. so...what percentage of crashes have medical causations? and what percentage of those were not apparent at the time of the last medical? does anyone know? I've heard anecdotal remarks that the numbers are very, very, very low and if that's the case then the 3rd class medical seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...


actually, the lack of accidents caused by medical issues would tend to support keeping the third class medical.
 
JeffDG said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Click to expand...

Without a control group, it's not possible to know. I can say that I did see/hear of a few hang gliding fatalities caused by medical incapacitation. The total number of hang gliding fatalities is quite low and they made up a surprisingly large percentage.

Hang gliding is of course, not the same as flying a powered aircraft, it has more of a physical component.
 
Bob Noel said:
improper application
Click to expand...

Actually, no, it's a perfect application.

Saying that " the lack of accidents caused by medical issues would tend to support keeping the third class medical." is precisely the point of the post hoc fallacy...one came after the other, and therefore it was caused by it.
 
All the crying and whimpering about whether the 3rd class medical will/won't save lives will/won't add to safety is not and was not the point I was asking for debate.

The 3/c medical is a fact. Kvetch about it all you want. Opposition is a fact, not just from ALPA but from the Administrator's notes from Oshkosh. Of course, you haven't read them, have you?

The debate should be how to phrase the matter and handle it the way we want it and still give the folks that oppose it no place to stand to oppose it. Bitching and moaning about it don't help a single bit.

Thanks,

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
All the crying and whimpering about whether the 3rd class medical will/won't save lives will/won't add to safety is not and was not the point I was asking for debate.

The 3/c medical is a fact. Kvetch about it all you want. Opposition is a fact, not just from ALPA but from the Administrator's notes from Oshkosh. Of course, you haven't read them, have you?

The debate should be how to phrase the matter and handle it the way we want it and still give the folks that oppose it no place to stand to oppose it. Bitching and moaning about it don't help a single bit.

Thanks,

Jim
Click to expand...

what bitching and moaning? i haven't seen any of that in this thread. i asked a series of questions and all of the responses so far have been in response (kinda sort of) to those questions. other threads have delved into the logic and alleged poor wording of the amendment but i wouldn't classify those comments as B&M. as a Sport Pilot i don't have a dog in this hunt until and unless i decide try for my PPL but I am concerned that the current amendment may have a detrimental effect on my SPL.

i 'spose i should've either amended my original questions to focus on GA accidents among sport pilots and not GA pilots at large. even though there may be fewer of us as compared to the GA population at large if medical condition were any sort of factor in SP crashes i suspect we would have heard about them. i took a stroll thru the NTSB Accident Database a few days ago and did a search just on the plane I am checked out in and fly on a regular basis...a Cessna 162. there were several incidents and not one of them appeared to have an underlying medical reason. and my gut is telling me that many sport pilots are former private pilots who are still airworthy but who have allowed their medicals to lapse for one reason or another.

the point is that i haven't seen any argument against reforming the 3rd class that points to any GA incidents in general or SP incidents in particular that would've been avoided or that were caused by a medical condition. even an AME that I know who is opposed to reform tells me it's because each state has a different medical std for issuing driver's licenses and not because medical exams prevent accidents. and until ALPA came out as opposed to reform (or are they opposed to this amendment) i haven't seen any organized opposing arguments. I'm not hearing opposition from legislators, administrators, bureaucrats, pilots...anyone. I'm not even sure where the FAA as an agency is on this. last i heard from AOPA is that the FAA sent the proposal to DOT for comment and review where it has languished in the bureaucracy and black hole that is Washington, DC.

i believe that the 3rd class medical is a solution in search of a problem. if that's B&M, well, then my apologies.
 
JeffDG said:
Actually, no, it's a perfect application.

Saying that " the lack of accidents caused by medical issues would tend to support keeping the third class medical." is precisely the point of the post hoc fallacy...one came after the other, and therefore it was caused by it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The post hoc fallacy is thinking that an event following another is caused by the preceding event. In short, a temporal relationship doesn't prove causation. The issue of the third class medical is not about a temporal relationship and thus post hoc doesn't apply.

Consider a scenario where anyone drinking would not be allowed to drive (imagine the fantasy land where then no one did drink and drive). Sometime later people would notice that drunk driving was not a problem (no accidents due to drunk driving) and therefore wanted to eliminate the prohibition to drinking and driving. Is claiming the lack of drunk driving accidents supports the prohibition a post hoc argument in your mind?

or consider the low number of fuel contimination accidents. That low rate would tend to support continuing to support checking the fuel for contiminates. Or do you think that's a post hoc argument?

(and lest anyone be confused, I fully support dumping the third class medical).
 
Last edited:
jim, i have been bashed on other groups for just saying the same thing. I am against just removing the requirement. Here in florida, if you have no actions on your drivers license you can renew by mail. no hearing check, no eye check. we have people driving in to buildings and bus stops every week because they confused the brake and gas pedal, or could not see what they were doing. they still had a valid drivers license but should not have been on the road. I dont want to hear that pilots will ground themselves if they are not fit, human nature proves otherwise.

another issue is the drinking and driving convictions, the only place that the FAA sees this is on the medical form. some states are very lax on giving back a drivers license after a couple of DWI's. again, no nation standard with a DL only.

I agree, revamp it, update and eliminate a lot what is disqualifying, and streamline the SI process. let the the AME or as you proposed, a RN or PA trust the word of a specialist that you are fit if you have some condition.

I just think that you should be at a little higher standard than being able to breath which, is all you need in some places to get a DL,to fly over the general populace.

bob burns
 
unsafervguy said:
another issue is the drinking and driving convictions, the only place that the FAA sees this is on the medical form.
Click to expand...

That's just false.

Under 14 CFR 61.15(e), DUI convictions and the like must be reported to the FAA within 60 days, regardless of when your medical is due--or even whether you have a medical. You should know that if you've taken a written exam anytime since the rule was enacted in 1990. Sport, glider, and balloon pilots have to report, too. Failure to report is grounds for suspension or revocation of your pilot certificate and for denial of any new certificate or rating for one year.

The FAA can find pilots that fail to report DUI convictions under 61.15(e) just about as easily as it can find pilots that fail to check the box for such a conviction on their medical.

You think people willing to hide disqualifying conditions under the PBOR2 rules wouldn't be willing to hide them on their medical or fly without a current medical, under the current rules?
 
FormerHangie said:
Without a control group, it's not possible to know.
Click to expand...

Well let's create a control group then.

Let's take those who had 3rd class medicals but are now disqualified and let them fly as if they had a medical, but with a current required second crew member who might also be medically disqualified. The odds of two pilots becoming incapacitated are probably lower than even the healthiest single pilot.

Now you have a control group where you can monitor how often pilots have incapacitating medical issues in flight AND pilots get to fly even when they lose a medical. If someone has a problem, they have a backup pilot who can take over the flight and land to get help.
 
bflynn said:
Well let's create a control group then.
Click to expand...
I think that happened with the sport pilot rule.

And, after ten years, there are no statistics that show any significant increase in the number of aircraft falling from the sky due to "incapacitation".
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I think that happened with the sport pilot rule.

And, after ten years, there are no statistics that show any significant increase in the number of aircraft falling from the sky due to "incapacitation".
Click to expand...

Good enough. Who, other than ALPA, has commented against this?
 
I think Jim might be onto something. By sleigh of hand, we can get the congress to look at it like some kind of works bill, or something. The only thing I see missing is the grease($$$$$) for some HR/senator. That - I think, is a requirement these days for any kind of legislation.

sigh,,,,
 
aventhu said:
Just use the DOT CDL physical.
Problem solved.
Click to expand...

You just don''t get it, do you? No legislator in his/her right mind is going to vote for screaming death from the sky in a schoolyard full of kids in his/her district. You layer a veneer of "medical professional" (be it the DOGCATCHER if you want) and the legislator is absolved from all blame, after all, (s)he put a professional health person in the mix.

Jim
 
Really, if you wanted to blow holes in the "safety" card all you'd have to do is point out that two of the most prominent recent air carrier disasters involved a couple of guys with first class medicals who flew their ships with all onboard into oblivion - on purpose.

Then there is the absurdity of the Sport Pilot rule that somehow trys to convince the public that everyone is safer if a guy is flying a Remos instead of a Cherokee or that, even more absurd, you are safer flying a Champ with no starter or elecrical system as opposed to one that does have a starter and electrical system. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top