3rd class medical ruling

CTLSi said:
You insist on missing the point. Rec pilots need a 3rd class med or better. The proposed ruling is about letting DL guys fly four seaters. You know guys that can't pass their 3rd class med or think they can't so don't submit to one. So they are limited to experimental two-seaters and SLSAs. And can't fly above 10k feet or fly at night. They are not rec pilots, they are sport pilots.
Click to expand...
If they change the rules then the previous rules won't apply, and you may have to rethink the way you think about it. But I don't see why you say that it will be unenforceable to allow a pilot to fly a four seater but only have one passenger. I suppose it no less enforceable than seat belt laws in that t's hard to spot until someone is pulled over, but cops hand out plenty of seatbelt tickets. I hope they don't limit it to 1 passenger though, I would be much more useful to me if I could fly my family to different places.
 
CTLSi said:
You insist on missing the point. Rec pilots need a 3rd class med or better. The proposed ruling is about letting DL guys fly four seaters.
Click to expand...
There is no "proposed ruling". There is a bill in Congress with one set of rules, and there is an AOPA/EAA petition with a very different set. What the FAA will actually put forward is not yet known outside the FAA, and even there, it might not be finalized.

You know guys that can't pass their 3rd class med or think they can't so don't submit to one. So they are limited to experimental two-seaters and SLSAs. And can't fly above 10k feet or fly at night. They are not rec pilots, they are sport pilots.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of Experimental 2-seaters which those folks are not allowed to fly. Those folks are limited to LSA's, and there are plenty of non-LSA EXP's.

In any event, the Rec Pilot rules have been around for like 20 years, and they've always allowed Rec Pilots to fly 4-seaters as long as no more than two seats are occupied. Since the FAA has found it possible to make and enforce such a rule for Rec Pilots, there's no reason why the FAA could not do the same for PP's with only a DL for a medical (if that's what the FAA chooses to do, and we don't know yet the details of what they are looking to do).
 
Personally, I think the best thing would be for them to propose that any operation requiring a 3rd class medical now only requires a drivers license. (Maybe, maybe an exception for stuff >12,500 lbs, but even that I'm not sure is necessary.)

Of course, this probably won't happen, but I think it's what _should_ happen... :)
 
Ron Levy said:
Since the FAA has found it possible to make and enforce such a rule for Rec Pilots, there's no reason why the FAA could not do the same for PP's with only a DL for a medical (if that's what the FAA chooses to do, and we don't know yet the details of what they are looking to do).
Click to expand...

If only there was someone with information from inside the Beltway...
:wink2:

Ron Levy said:
Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone who is part of the rulemaking process who spills the beans on the details of the proposed rule before it is officially announced would get into very deep trouble. My sources have access to that information, but they sure as heck aren't going to share those details with me. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with them saying "Have you seen the AOPA proposal? You think that would work?" or "You really want to be listening next Thursday". ;)
 
Ron Levy said:
Be at AirVenture and in the tent when the FAA Administrator gets up to speak, and you won't have to wonder any more. Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Anyone who is part of the rulemaking process who spills the beans on the details of the proposed rule before it is officially announced would get into very deep trouble. My sources have access to that information, but they sure as heck aren't going to share those details with me. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with them saying "Have you seen the AOPA proposal? You think that would work?" or "You really want to be listening next Thursday". ;)
Click to expand...


:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Anyone who is part of the rulemaking process who spills the beans on the details of the proposed rule before it is officially announced would get into very deep trouble. My sources have access to that information, but they sure as heck aren't going to share those details with me. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with them saying "Have you seen the AOPA proposal? You think that would work?" or "You really want to be listening next Thursday". ;)
Click to expand...

What do they gain by treating this like "classified information"? It's not a trade secret like the plans to the next iphone.... :)
 
dans2992 said:
What do they gain by treating this like "classified information"? It's not a trade secret like the plans to the next iphone.... :)
Click to expand...

Stealing your boss's thunder is generally a bad career move.
 
dans2992 said:
What do they gain by treating this like "classified information"? It's not a trade secret like the plans to the next iphone.... :)
Click to expand...
If you think it's bad trying to create rules in a committee, imagine doing it while the public is ridiculing everything you do. Let them make the rules in peace. Then we can ridicule it.
 
dans2992 said:
What do they gain by treating this like "classified information"? It's not a trade secret like the plans to the next iphone.... :)
Click to expand...
It's all part of the rules under the Administrative Procedures Act. Beyond that, ask your Congressional reps, because they wrote those rules -- the FAA (like every other Federal agency) just follows them.
 
Ron Levy said:
There is no "proposed ruling". There is a bill in Congress with one set of rules, and there is an AOPA/EAA petition with a very different set. What the FAA will actually put forward is not yet known outside the FAA, and even there, it might not be finalized.

There are a lot of Experimental 2-seaters which those folks are not allowed to fly. Those folks are limited to LSA's, and there are plenty of non-LSA EXP's.

In any event, the Rec Pilot rules have been around for like 20 years, and they've always allowed Rec Pilots to fly 4-seaters as long as no more than two seats are occupied. Since the FAA has found it possible to make and enforce such a rule for Rec Pilots, there's no reason why the FAA could not do the same for PP's with only a DL for a medical (if that's what the FAA chooses to do, and we don't know yet the details of what they are looking to do).
Click to expand...

So... that being the case, wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to just extend the DL medical to RP, and RP privileges to anyone PP or above when operating under a DL medical?

I mean, call me crazy... but isn't that exactly what's being considered, but via a more circuitous route?

-Rich
 
If they were to make it like the APOA proposal, it's seems like 6 of one and a half dozen of the other whether they were to modify the SP or RP category. Besides the medical requirements, the AOPA proposal looks like RP without the distance restrictions, or the SP different aircraft restrictions. I wonder if they really plan on adding another category with such minor differences from the existing ones.

Don't say it Ron, I know. Just keep your pants on and find out on Thursday.:)
 
They have very good reasons for not leaking the info actually. If it comes out the way a lot of us would like, the price of a a Cherokee 140, 161, cessna 172, and a lot of other aircraft will increase a lot over night. Investors buying for resale would only make that worse in the used market. Knowing anything ahead of time would put a person into a position equivalent to insider trading on the stock market. I have high hopes there will be a suitable resolution but I'm kind of glad used ac that would fit the mold aren't already being traded at prices twice the value they were just worth and that, hopefully, they aren't already in the hands of someone trying to just make a buck if/when it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
RJM62 said:
So... that being the case, wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to just extend the DL medical to RP, and RP privileges to anyone PP or above when operating under a DL medical?

I mean, call me crazy... but isn't that exactly what's being considered, but via a more circuitous route?
Click to expand...
Since I don't know exactly what's being considered, I can't say. However, there are a number of things a PP can do which an RP can't (particularly with regard to XC operations), so just extending Sport Pilot type DL medical authorization to RP privileges would not accomplish what the FAA acceptance of the AOPA/EAA proposal would achieve. That's why I'd really like to see the FAA do that rather than what you suggest.
 
TriGear28 said:
They have very good reasons for not leaking the info actually. If it comes out the way a lot of us would like, the price of a a Cherokee 140, 161, cessna 172, and a lot of other aircraft will increase a lot over night. Investors buying for resale would only make that worse in the used market. Knowing anything ahead of time would put a person into a position equivalent to insider trading on the stock market. I have high hopes there will be a suitable resolution but I'm kind of glad used ac that would fit the mold aren't already being traded at prices twice the value they were just worth and that, hopefully, they aren't already in the hands of someone trying to just make a buck if/when it happens.
Click to expand...
I think that's probably the sort of thing Congress was thinking when they wrote that into the APA -- trying to prevent what amounts to insider trading on future regulations. Not sure it would be that big a deal in this specific case, but I think the general concept is accurate.
 
TriGear28 said:
They have very good reasons for not leaking the info actually. If it comes out the way a lot of us would like, the price of a a Cherokee 140, 161, cessna 172, and a lot of other aircraft will increase a lot over night. Investors buying for resale would only make that worse in the used market. Knowing anything ahead of time would put a person into a position equivalent to insider trading on the stock market. I have high hopes there will be a suitable resolution but I'm kind of glad used ac that would fit the mold aren't already being traded at prices twice the value they were just worth and that, hopefully, they aren't already in the hands of someone trying to just make a buck if/when it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


My point was mainly that if they'd already made the decision, why not just do a press release and be done with it. Why wait until Thursday?
 
Ron Levy said:
Since I don't know exactly what's being considered, I can't say. However, there are a number of things a PP can do which an RP can't (particularly with regard to XC operations), so just extending Sport Pilot type DL medical authorization to RP privileges would not accomplish what the FAA acceptance of the AOPA/EAA proposal would achieve. That's why I'd really like to see the FAA do that rather than what you suggest.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I forgot about the XC restrictions. Thanks for the correction, sir.

-Rich
 
dans2992 said:
My point was mainly that if they'd already made the decision, why not just do a press release and be done with it. Why wait until Thursday?
Click to expand...
For one thing, I don't know that they've already made any decisions. AirVenture provides an artificial deadline for the to meet and they may still be staffing the position. For another, they like making announcements like this at AirVenture -- IIRC, Sport Pilot/LSA was announced there, too. Think of it like the President's State of the Union address -- they decide weeks ahead what they'll say, but they don't say it until the event because putting the word out ahead would spoil the event.
 
The AOPA webcast this week has the Administrator as a part of the program. He hints that the FAA will release a NPRM with a period of public comment before the rule becomes law. Welcome to the war between pilots and the AMA....
 
RotorAndWing said:
Maybe the President can just "do it" with an Executive Order. Who needs congress and the constitution anyway right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because as everyone knows, pilots are millionaires and billionaires who don't pay their fair share..
 
If someone can post what they say, that would be great.
 
WTF was all the secrecy for?!Another "we're thinking about thinking about it".

They must be full of themselves if they thought that statement needed to be kept "top secret".
 
dans2992 said:
WTF was all the secrecy for?!Another "we're thinking about thinking about it".

They must be full of themselves if they thought that statement needed to be kept "top secret".
Click to expand...

Well, that's a step forward.

They could have announced a call for Expressions of Interest to serve on a Task Force to seriously consider thinking about thinking about it.
 
LandSickness said:
That tweet is from 10:19a. Huerta's scheduled time didn't even start until 11:30a. There has to be more. Please tell me he was at least asked some direct questions. :mad2:
Click to expand...

That's my thought too. He wrapped up at 12:45 supposedly but I haven't seen anything about what was said in that 1:15 stretch of time.
 
Didn't they begin the rule making process in May? Is it the rule that they made that's waiting for administrative sign-off? Need more info.
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top