Re: DL medical for recreational pilot through legislative action possible without cha
For domestic operations, FAA already has the authority to extend the DL medical to RP or PP without legislation. They could have done it years ago were they so inclined. They're not. There's nothing in it for them. Bureaucracies don't like to give up control unless there's something in it for them.
So why did they create SP? Simple. It actually gave them more control over more pilots, and solved a number of vexing problems in the process. Here's a bit of the history of why.
Prior to SP, a small percentage of pilots operating under Part 103 were bending the USUA and EAA exemptions to the breaking point by conducting sightseeing (and occasionally even air taxi) operations under the guise of "flight instruction." They could be found along makeshift airstrips on rural roads, and most of their "students" were tourists on vacation who were passing through who decided on the spur of the moment that taking a ride in an ultralight looked like a fun thing to do.
Another problem was that the USUA and EAA exemptions allowed for slightly larger, two-place "vehicles," commonly called "fat ultralights," to be used for flight training. But it was very difficult to construct a "vehicle" within those limitations that could really be called "airworthy." Certainly very few of them could be certificated as such. This was fine for enthusiasts who had decided that they really wanted to fly ultralights and had considered all the risks. For passing tourists, not so much.
These factors resulted in a number of inevitable problems. One was that sometimes these flights augered; and when that happened, people tended to get really mad. They had a reasonable expectation, they (or their estate lawyers) insisted, that people who were conducting what were essentially commercial passenger-carrying flight operations would possess some sort of government certification, and that their aircraft would have satisfied some sort of airworthiness standards.
But neither were the case.
The USUA and EAA exemptions delegated responsibility for qualification of ultralight instructors to the respective private organizations to whom the exemptions had been issued, and there were no airworthiness standards for the "vehicles" themselves. They merely had to fall within the weight, fuel quantity, speed, performance, and flight characteristics restrictions of Part 103.
Another problem was, from a bureaucrat's perspective, even thornier: It was very, very difficult to enforce the USUA and EAA exemptions. First of all, the pilots had no FAA certificates to pull. Secondly, what constitutes "flight instruction?" If the pilot / instructor explains a few things about flying during the flight and lets the passenger / student take the controls, then instruction was in fact provided. And most of the fellows doing this sort of thing did in fact enjoy showing off teaching, so practically all of the flights included some amount of instruction.
So it really got down to the intention of the passenger / student: Did they or did they not intend to purchase an instructional flight? If they did, then no laws were broken. If they didn't, then it was illegal sightseeing or air taxi service.
Because the flights were advertised and billed as instruction, and because most passengers / students were required to sign forms stating that they were purchasing an instructional flight before they were taken up (and often were given paper log books afterwards with the "instructional" time duly entered), it was hard to prove otherwise. Even if calling it "instruction" was a guise, a farce, and an end run around the law that was intended to facilitate what was really an illegal sightseeing or air taxi flight, the passengers had signed off on it as instruction and it had been logged as such.
FAA had to do something, and what they did was create the SP rule. It was not primarily intended to get more people flying. It was primarily intended to put the worst of the renegades in the 103 world out of business, to bring the rest under FAA's purview, to establish a means of qualifying and certifying them, to get most of the "fat ultralights" out of the air, and to establish reasonable standards for very light aircraft that wouldn't be so extreme as to make it difficult to build a safe flying machine within those limits.
That it might also bring more new pilots into the fold and spur the creation of new, innovative aircraft were also nice things, but those were not the primary intentions.
At this point, I'd like to mention that I have either met or spoken over the phone with many of the folks who were instrumental in bringing about SP, and they're good people. They gave a lot of thought to what they were doing. And one of the things that they understood (as did everyone in the 103 world) was that a fairly high percentage of ultralight pilots and instructors flew ultralights because there was no way in hell that they could ever get medicals.
That wasn't universally true, mind you. Many people in the 103 world simply liked ultralights, many others simply didn't care for government very much, and many others didn't have the money to fly "real" airplanes. But enough ultralight pilots and instructors had medical issues that the people who crafted the SP rule knew that they had to get around the medical requirement if the program were to get off the ground, so to speak.
What they settled on was what we call the "DL Medical," which at least proves that holders are neither too blind nor too senile to find their way to the DMV every few years to renew. In addition, doctors in most states are required to notify their DMVs if someone becomes medically unfit to drive, and most state DMVs will review drivers for possible revocation if they get into too many accidents or otherwise suggest that they have become unfit to drive. So there was at least some margin of safety built in to the idea.
So why not simply extend the DL Medical to RP and PP?
The answer is simple: Because there's no upside. You don't see too many RPs and PPs along rural highways giving "instructional" flights to passing tourists, in "vehicles" that look like winged lawnmowers. Therefore, there's no problem to solve, and no incentive for the agency to give up control.
Of course, there would be an upside for taxpayers and the flying public. FAA currently spends an inordinate amount of time and money reviewing SIs for non-commercial pilots who do very low-risk flying. Extending the DL medical to RP and PP would save perhaps millions of dollars a year and free up FAA Aeromed to concentrate on SIs for CPs and ATPs.
But bureaucrats don't think that way. It's not even just a matter of self-interest for most so much as they actually believe that terrible things will happen if they lighten up on the regulations even a little bit.
SP didn't lighten up the regulations. Quite the contrary, in fact. It brought more pilots and instructors under FAA's purview; got those instructors who refused or were unfit to come under FAA's purview out of the air altogether; and grounded the vast majority of fat ultralights, almost none of which were ever able to receive LSA airworthiness certificates.
As for the DL Medical itself, my personal position has always been that it's inadequate. I say this because there are people who haven't been seen by a doctor in decades and who probably won't be seen by one, if given their druthers, until they're on the autopsy table. Can someone, especially an older person, really self-certify if they haven't been seen by a doctor since they had to turn their heads and cough at their high school wrestling physicals?
What I would prefer would be that the requirement for all domestic non-commercial operations in light aircraft with 6 or fewer souls on board require a DL, evidence that the individual has undergone an ordinary physical exam in the past year, and a passed color vision test if they want to fly at night.
The physical exam would not need to be reported to FAA, and the examiner would not have to sign off on the airman's fitness. The only thing the airman would need to carry would be his or her driver's license, a receipt or other proof that he or she had been examined within the past 12 months, and the color-vision test results if flying at night.
My thinking is that an annual physical requirement would at least alert the airman of medical problems that tend to be asymptomatic such as high blood pressure, diabetes, early-stage eye problems, and so forth so they can be treated. It would also better enable the airman to intelligently self-certify. But by keeping the exam non-reportable, it would actually encourage airmen to be treated, rather than being a disincentive from seeing a doctor as the current system all too often is.
I think it's a good idea and have suggested it many times. But no one in a position to push for it (least of all AOPA, by the way) seems to agree.
Rich
