Do you think that airport management officials would support GAPPA/DL medical?

N918KT

N918KT

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
716
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Display Name
Display name:
KT
I am wondering if the airport management officials would support GAPPA and the drivers license medical movement.

I think this movement would benefit airports, GA airports in particular. Here is my theory. If the GAPPA or the 3rd class medical reform passes, it would open a lot of more pilots to flying and also introduce student pilot starts. More pilots flying into GA airports might increase sales of fuel, maintenance, and other services at an airport. If an airport has some fees like landing or tiedown fees, it could generate more money for the airport. Overall the measure might increase the economic impact of a GA airport and contribute more money to the local businesses and the economy in the local area.

What do you think? Do you know any airport officials at your local airport who would support the measure? Do you think they would support the measure?
 
Last edited:
Having worked at all kinds of airports and interacting with their Managements, everyplace from O'Hare and LAX to PIA, SAN, CID,STL, ALO and 9C1, I do not think they would care one whit about medical certification of pilots.

Before you look it up, 9C1 was "East Waterloo Airport" in Iowa, where I soloed for the 2nd time, in 1987. 2000 feet of 200-foot wide grass, no longer there.
 
Last edited:
:yes:


I would think they would support it, more pilots = more flying = more airport/services use = more airport money.
 
James331 said:
:yes:


I would think they would support it, more pilots = more flying = more airport/services use = more airport money.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you'd get a rip-roaring response, but you could probably convince them to say, "uhh, yeah, that's a good idea, I suppose. What's for lunch?"
 
Thanks for the response so far everyone. I have both been a member of AOPA and AAAE (the airport management trade organization). In regards to AAAE, having read their newsletter and publications, they do touch on certain GA issues sometimes, like hosting conferences related to GA issues, but they are more involved with the professional training and management aspect of airports in general. As of now, I have not heard of AAAE being involved in the 3rd class medical reform since it is more of a GA issue. But this reform may benefit GA airports indirectly for reasons James and I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Nobody cares in grand scheme of things. Only the people that are hosed care, those not hosed are happy to let others get tossed under the bus. If you have medical standards you gotta ground somebody. Politically adding freedom at even the tiniest hint of decreased safety is a nonstarter. Dude you need to take up sailing, leave airplanes for the cough healthy cough chumps.
 
I don't think monied but medically sidelined participants is what's keeping GA choked. From my vantage point what's keeping GA choked is 1) part 23 and 2) the price of the fuel available to me at the ramp. Opting recreational aircraft out of the part 23 kabuki and lowering the price structure of fuel at the airport pump would go a long way to reinvigorate GA. Can airport management fundamentally impact those dynamics? I don't know. Maybe the fuel angle of that equation.
 
Could they encourage a gas station to open on the airport boundary that offered mogas (and maybe 100ll and jet) to BOTH sides of the fence? I've seen boats and other vehicles filling at the 100LL pump and plenty of planes can run MoGas.
 
I think the DL medical is a good thing, but it's not going to make a huge difference and so the airport managers see it that way too. At small struggling airports they'll see it as a positive as they will take anything they can get. At airports with moderate use, they're likely to be ambivalent and at huge airports with air carriers they're likely to be against the idea.

The DL medical idea will not save GA (as defined here to be piston powered aircraft flown by amateurs) by any means, but it will help prolong our inevitable decline. We are fighting against economics vs. limited utility. That is the real enemy. Average people have less disposable income today, the planes they can afford and their upkeep cost way too much and the utility they provide is too limited.

Only economic prosperity as a country for all people, cost cutting measures to do with regulation and liability and new technology can reverse this trend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top