Med Reform movement?

[libby2cm]

AOPA (baker) sent out an email today claiming action this month.. and didn't even ask for money; only to call your congress critters.

Additionally, I've seen a flurry of new cosponsors added to all 4 bills in the past 2 weeks.

Both of these items have piqued my interest. Regardless, call your congress critters! tick...tock!



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[frfly172]

Sent the e-mails awhile ago. Don't think it's high on their priority list. Aopa and EAA are on top of this .

 

[Archammer]

I really hope that it gets done soon, and it revitalized aviation as much as we hope it will!

 

[SkyDog58]

I really hope that it gets done soon, and it revitalized aviation as much as we hope it will!

I am hopeful that it passes but I am not so hopeful to it being a big boost to revitalizing aviation. I think the Part 23 rewrite will do more. What we really need though is for young people to see flying as super cool once again.

 

[airbrain]

If there was ever a time for our community to get involved, and in one voice advocate for this crucial issue, it is now. - Jack Pelton

Could this be something actually happening behind the scenes? I'm very reluctant to get any hopes up.

Pelton says now is the critical moment

 

[Palmpilot]

Maybe they're just trying to get it unstuck from where Senator Neslon has been sitting on it in committee.

 

[timwinters]

I really hope that it gets done soon, and it revitalized aviation as much as we hope it will!

Revitalization of aviation will take something earth shattering and sweeping that brings young blood into the fold...not something that just allows old farts to continue flying.

Third class medical reform does nothing for 99% of the pilots under 65, except save them about $50/yr.

 

[Bob Noel]

Third class medical reform does nothing for 99% of the pilots under 65, except save them about $50/yr.

other than the waste of getting the medical? (it costs more than the dollars paid to the AME)

other than the risk of missing one stupid check box and having the wrath of an army of bureaucrats descend on you?

 

[Bill]

I just told my wife this week that I'm ready to sell my share. White flag. And then another tempting post comes along and I'm tempted to hang in for a while.

 

[ollopa]

I'm conflicted on this issue. I'd love for people to feel free to visit a doctor and have their ailments treated without fear of losing the medical, but I also like the spirit of the medical certificate. I especially want people to be healthy if they are flying single-pilot and then to fly with another pilot as health deteriorates. I think most of us, if we had a heart attack today, would be thinking more along the lines of "I could die at any minute. I should spend more time in the air before that happens. It wasn't that bad of a heart attack..." than "I should ground myself for everyone's sake."

I agree that this does nothing to revitalize GA. This is a rather expensive hobby that has few to no advantages over car or airline ticket. One has to have both the passion for it and the disposable income, and I think it's the income issue that is preventing most young people from continuing on in GA. The novelty wears off after a while when none of your non-pilot friends and family want to fly, the significant other thinks it's a ridiculous waste of money, you realize a car is 10x cheaper and not that much slower for flights under 3 hours (especially when you factor in ground and preflight time, approach etc.), you'll probably have to rent a car when you get to your destination, etc. It's not that your typical young person making 5 figures can't swing it, but would have to sacrifice quite a bit of lifestyle to do it and may not feel it's worth continuing. Most young people would rather "save" that money for a better car, a newer phone, a bigger TV, and other things that win them the respect and admiration of their friends.

 

[docmirror]

This is a rather expensive hobby that has few to no advantages over car or airline ticket. One has to have both the passion for it and the disposable income, and I think it's the income issue that is preventing most young people from continuing on in GA. The novelty wears off after a while when none of your non-pilot friends and family want to fly, the significant other thinks it's a ridiculous waste of money, you realize a car is 10x cheaper and not that much slower for flights under 3 hours (especially when you factor in ground and preflight time, approach etc.), you'll probably have to rent a car when you get to your destination, etc.

Maybe to you it's a hobby, but to some of us it represents another useful mode of transportation. I visit many cities around TX, which is a big state. This is my job, and when I can get back and forth to Austin in an hour, rather that 3-4 hours, it makes a big difference. 90 min to W Houston, and less than an hour to OKC. Fewer hotel stays, meals, etc. I also have a second home with an airport close that saves me ~8 hours of driving when I fly up there. In spring, I've hit the ski slopes when it opens, head home about 1-ish, be in the air about 2 and landing at home about 6:30, ready for the next work day.

This 'hobby' attitude is part of why there's little or no movement on medical reform. Even pilots have congress convinced that 'those little toy planes' are just a rich man's waste of money. I haven't even mentioned Alaska yet. What a shame.

 

[Bill]

I'm conflicted on this issue. I'd love for people to feel free to visit a doctor and have their ailments treated without fear of losing the medical, but I also like the spirit of the medical certificate. I especially want people to be healthy if they are flying single-pilot

Yet it's ok for one denied a medical to jump into a 15 passenger van, fill it to the max, and go whizzing down the interstate at 85mph in close proximity to other innocents?

Makes no sense.

In most cases, a GA plane crash results in a smoking hole in the ground and nothing more.

What about the dork that just crashed that Bo in the pacific northwest? Flying in the mountains in IMC with no IR rating and using an iPad with synthetic vision for guidance? Good medical, bad brains.

 

[ronnieh]

Maybe to you it's a hobby, but to some of us it represents another useful mode of transportation. I visit many cities around TX, which is a big state. This is my job, and when I can get back and forth to Austin in an hour, rather that 3-4 hours, it makes a big difference. 90 min to W Houston, and less than an hour to OKC. Fewer hotel stays, meals, etc. I also have a second home with an airport close that saves me ~8 hours of driving when I fly up there. In spring, I've hit the ski slopes when it opens, head home about 1-ish, be in the air about 2 and landing at home about 6:30, ready for the next work day.

This 'hobby' attitude is part of why there's little or no movement on medical reform. Even pilots have congress convinced that 'those little toy planes' are just a rich man's waste of money. I haven't even mentioned Alaska yet. What a shame.

However, you are the rare exception. The vast majority of SE 4 place planes are flown as a hobby, an expensive hobby. Most people who have second homes at ski resorts and use general aviation have professional pilot(s) do the driving. For the most part small (4 place) aircraft have little practical application. It is a great hobby and few hobbies have practical applications.

 

[ollopa]

Maybe to you it's a hobby, but to some of us it represents another useful mode of transportation. I visit many cities around TX, which is a big state. This is my job, and when I can get back and forth to Austin in an hour, rather that 3-4 hours, it makes a big difference. 90 min to W Houston, and less than an hour to OKC. Fewer hotel stays, meals, etc. I also have a second home with an airport close that saves me ~8 hours of driving when I fly up there. In spring, I've hit the ski slopes when it opens, head home about 1-ish, be in the air about 2 and landing at home about 6:30, ready for the next work day.

This 'hobby' attitude is part of why there's little or no movement on medical reform. Even pilots have congress convinced that 'those little toy planes' are just a rich man's waste of money. I haven't even mentioned Alaska yet. What a shame.

I'm sorry -- you're right. Businessmen shuttling themselves to and from their second homes are what are going to revitalize general aviation.

I feel like you're just letting off steam while doing more to support my point.

 

[docmirror]

I don't deny the hobby aspect of GA, why would anyone deny the business/pleasure use? My car has four seats, but almost never filled. Usually one, sometimes two people, just like the rest of the US. My plane has 4 seats, almost never filled. Most times one, sometimes two, rarely three or four. It's a car, that goes direct, at ~160MPH. Why wouldn't I use it if the cost/benefit is in my gain?

Other than some kind of self-flagellation, is there anything to be gained by minimizing the relative use cases?

 

[ollopa]

Yet it's ok for one denied a medical to jump into a 15 passenger van, fill it to the max, and go whizzing down the interstate at 85mph in close proximity to other innocents?

Makes no sense.

In most cases, a GA plane crash results in a smoking hole in the ground and nothing more.

What about the dork that just crashed that Bo in the pacific northwest? Flying in the mountains in IMC with no IR rating and using an iPad with synthetic vision for guidance? Good medical, bad brains.

Well we take driver's licenses away from people with certain medical conditions too, and I don't think that it's fair to equate aircraft with cars. I don't know about you but I'm glad that most licensed drivers aren't up there in the air with us because they can barely drive down the highway and text at the same time. I don't think we know that most incapacitating events while driving lead to fatal car accidents, but I think it's self-evident that it's a greater risk to passengers and the public in the air than it is on the ground.

I guess your points are that health isn't the leading risk factor in aviation accidents and if you're good enough to drive then you're good enough to fly. I still don't think it's a bad idea to be more aggressive about pilot health than driver health.

 

[JeffDG]

Well we take driver's licenses away from people with certain medical conditions too, and I don't think that it's fair to equate aircraft with cars. I don't know about you but I'm glad that most licensed drivers aren't up there in the air with us because they can barely drive down the highway and text at the same time. I don't think we know that most incapacitating events while driving lead to fatal car accidents, but I think it's self-evident that it's a greater risk to passengers and the public in the air than it is on the ground.

I guess your points are that health isn't the leading risk factor in aviation accidents and if you're good enough to drive then you're good enough to fly. I still don't think it's a bad idea to be more aggressive about pilot health than driver health.

That's not at all "self-evident"

 

[ollopa]

I don't deny the hobby aspect of GA, why would anyone deny the business/pleasure use? My car has four seats, but almost never filled. Usually one, sometimes two people, just like the rest of the US. My plane has 4 seats, almost never filled. Most times one, sometimes two, rarely three or four. It's a car, that goes direct, at ~160MPH. Why wouldn't I use it if the cost/benefit is in my gain?

Other than some kind of self-flagellation, is there anything to be gained by minimizing the relative use cases?

I think it's an entirely separate thing to use aircraft for business purposes where it is helping you make an income than it is to use it for recreational purposes where it is a pure drain on your income. There aren't enough people in your particular situation to create enough demand to revitalize GA, IMO. And I don't think there's room for every American to become a self-sufficient business owner any more than I think that people selling their homemade crap on Etsy are going to be able to quit their dayjobs and afford GA.

If you could put four rotors on a C172, make it radio controlled with an FPV camera and stream HD straight to YouTube then maybe that would revitalize GA

 

[ollopa]

That's not at all "self-evident"

Of course not, not to you. In what world is GA safter than driving? the accident statistics when normalized for the population seem to bear out that it isn't. It isn't only more inherently risky in the best of circumstances. If I'm driving down the freeway with my best friend and my wife and I suddenly check out, one of them can reach over, grab the wheel, and deal with it. We might even hit the car in front of us and still not die. Same situation in an airplane and I likely have two dead or very seriously injured passengers.

 

[Bill]

but I think it's self-evident that it's a greater risk to passengers and the public in the air than it is on the ground.

The average person is far more likely to be injured or killed by another motorist than a GA airplane falling out of the sky.

I guess your points are that health isn't the leading risk factor in aviation accidents

It would be interesting to look at the statistics to see what percentage of GA accidents are attributable to medical issues.

 

[JeffDG]

Of course not, not to you.

If it's not "self-evident" to one person, it's not "self-evident" at all. It basically defeats the purpose of the "word"

 

[write-stuff]

Yet it's ok for one denied a medical to jump into a 15 passenger van, fill it to the max, and go whizzing down the interstate at 85mph in close proximity to other innocents?

Makes no sense.

In most cases, a GA plane crash results in a smoking hole in the ground and nothing more.

Exactly what I've thought for a long time. The difference is a LOT more people drive cars and they have the votes to keep any type of medical exam off the table. These same people couldn't give a shiite about GA. We're on our own.

 

[Stewartb]

the better argument is to separate commercial and private operators. Almost all paid drivers are required to have medical exams. Nothing new there. Private drivers do not. DOT made that distinction long ago.

 

[RichNY]

Don't feed the Ollopa, unless you like mud wrestling.

 

[tmyers]

I have sent in my third set of letters to the congress critters. First was the AOPA standard letter, second was a personal letter based upon my recent medical experiences, and the third was a modified AOPA letter scolding my Ohio congress critters for none of them co-sponsoring the bill when we live in the state with the deepest aviation roots.

 

[ronnieh]

Don't feed the Ollopa, unless you like mud wrestling.

The personal attack was not needed. Ollopa was simply stating statistical facts. Private pilots in small planes is a dangerous activity compared to driving an automobile. But, I also think it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I have never understood the need for a medical for a private pilot. Even when introducing the relative danger of flying it makes no sense. I ride a motorcycle. Statistically it is in the realm of flying a small plane by a private pilot as being dangerous. I am not required to have a medical to operate the motorcycle. I doubt that the general public is in any more danger from falling planes than from crashing motorcycles. I would think the risk to the passenger is equivalent. Commercial activity, of course, should require a medical.

Does aircraft complexity fit in this anywhere? Should any pilot flying a pressurized twin require a medical? I am not sure. There may be no simple answer that satisfies all people. It does seem the medical for the PP in lite aircraft has run its course and is due for a significant change. I don't think it will have a significant effect on GA but, it needs to be modified to some extent.

Edit: Deleted due to incomplete understanding or just being wrong.

 

[Palmpilot]

Edit: Let me add that I hope some kind of alcohol/drug abuse monitoring system is kept in place if the medical is dropped. Currently the medical is used for that. There does need to be a mechanism in place to cull the drunks from our ranks both private and commercial.

Reporting alcohol-related and drug-related motor vehicle actions is required whether the pilot is required to have a medical certificate or not. I don't see what requiring a visit to an AME adds to that. If the person has a problem that is not bad enough to result in a motor vehicle action, do you really think they're going to answer "yes" to the questions about alcohol or drug abuse?

 

[SkyHog]

Of course not, not to you. In what world is GA safter than driving? the accident statistics when normalized for the population seem to bear out that it isn't. It isn't only more inherently risky in the best of circumstances. If I'm driving down the freeway with my best friend and my wife and I suddenly check out, one of them can reach over, grab the wheel, and deal with it. We might even hit the car in front of us and still not die. Same situation in an airplane and I likely have two dead or very seriously injured passengers.

In a plane, they don't even have to reach over your dead body to fly the plane, they can just reach for the controls in front of them....

 

[azure]

I'll chime in in support of Doc's position here. I'm not in business, don't make six figures and I don't have a second home. I reside in VT now but am originally from MI and have friends and a condo there that I used to live in. Last month I traveled back there to clean out my condo and put it up for rent, and to visit friends. I could have driven there in about 15 hours total, spread over two days, flown in the aluminum tube in 6-8 hours counting layovers, or flown myself in my little 4-seater in 4 hours. Guess which I chose? It was certainly the most expensive of the three ways to travel, but I value my time and serenity more than the difference in cost.

When I went to interview for my present job, I also used the plane to transport myself to and from the site. When I travel to conferences east of the Rockies, I am likely to use the plane for that too, for the same reasons as given above. I also use it for pleasure travel, day trips to places I'd like to visit, using a bicycle as ground transportation. It's a convenience, hardly a necessity, but it's a convenience I've come to value and would not like to give up. Sure, it's also a hobby, but it's also a useful mode of transportation for some of us.

 

[ronnieh]

Reporting alcohol-related and drug-related motor vehicle actions is required whether the pilot is required to have a medical certificate or not. I don't see what requiring a visit to an AME adds to that. If the person has a problem that is not bad enough to result in a motor vehicle action, do you really think they're going to answer "yes" to the questions about alcohol or drug abuse?

Whether you answer truthfully or report as required the odds are good the FAA will find out. My point, the revoking of your medical is the way the drunks and addicts are culled at least that is my understanding.

 

[ronnieh]

In a plane, they don't even have to reach over your dead body to fly the plane, they can just reach for the controls in front of them....

Provided they are in the front seat and the plane is equipped with dual controls.

 

[azure]

Whether you answer truthfully or report as required the odds are good the FAA will find out. My point, the revoking of your medical is the way the drunks and addicts are culled at least that is my understanding.

And that would obviously have no effect on drunks flying without medicals (e.g. under light sport rules), so my guess is that your understanding is probably wrong, or at least incomplete. I would assume that failure to report a DUI could also prompt revocation of pilot certificates, if they felt it was warranted.

Doc Bruce, as usual, would have the complete skinny on this.

 

[Palmpilot]

Whether you answer truthfully or report as required the odds are good the FAA will find out. My point, the revoking of your medical is the way the drunks and addicts are culled at least that is my understanding.

I knew a pilot who was a captain for United Airlines for many years. During his time off, he drank like a fish, and then he would stop eight hours or more before he was due to go on duty. Nobody found out a thing, and he ended up retiring at the mandatory age, which was 60 at the time. A few years later, he died of liver failure. So perhaps you can see why I don't have all that much faith that "the FAA will find out."

 

[ronnieh]

Palm, they likely would have found out if he had any charges of operating under the influence. You are correct that all of the drunks will not be culled regardless.
Azzure, I was in fact under the impression that the medical branch oversaw these issues and the appropriate consequences. As you have so skillfully pointed out that is not the case. You have pointed out that the FAA would revoke or suspend as they thought appropriate without any input needed from medical. Since I am wrong or at least deficient in my understanding I will delete my concerns in my previous post. Thank you for the info.

 

[Palmpilot]

Palm, they likely would have found out if he had any charges of operating under the influence.

My point is that this is true whether the pilot has a medical certificate or not, is it not?

 

[jimson]

I think most of us, if we had a heart attack today, would be thinking more along the lines of "I could die at any minute. I should spend more time in the air before that happens. It wasn't that bad of a heart attack..." than "I should ground myself for everyone's sake.".

I think middle aged men who have passed a medical and don't yet know they will have a heart attack are more of a risk than those who have had their stent or bypass and are currently under a doctor's care.

 

[ronnieh]

My point is that this is true whether the pilot has a medical certificate or not, is it not?

Most likely. The point, which was an afterthought to my OP, was that since the medical is the means that is currently in use, something else would be needed. Some have pointed out that the Feds will simply suspend/revoke the license rather than the medical.
It has been my understanding (obviously in error) that the aeromedical board did the records checking, cross checking medicals with driver's license information from the states. Apparently that is not true. But, I concede it would not be much of a big deal to continue a program of cross checks against certificates rather than medicals.
Obviously my concern in my earlier post is not valid.

 

[ollopa]

Provided they are in the front seat and the plane is equipped with dual controls.

And they know how to fly / land, which mine don't.

 

[Archammer]

There's one part that is getting missed somehow, and I wonder why that continues to happen with this topic. Why does the 3rd class medical have ANYTHING to do with "old" people or anything of the sort?

We need the 3rd class medical system removed to get YOUNG people back into aviation, not old people! The older pilots getting to fly again is great, but not the point of this movement.

There are so many disqualifying factors for young people right now that can afford aviation, and cannot fly because of one of those completely benign factors. Let's not forget that we voted these blowhards into office that decided "everyone is special" and let's just drug the one's that stand out too much. So now, because of that malarkey, and absolutely no ill effects, that young man or woman can't fly.

What about people of all ages with controlled Type 2 Diabetes? What about young people with controlled MS? I could go on and on. Granted, there are some very NECESSARY disqualifications that we all understand. And YES, just because you're stable enough to drive a car, does not mean you are stable enough to fly an aircraft. However, that doesn't mean the two are that far apart.

The point is, that getting hung up on this being an "elderly assistance" is nonsense. This is very important to get changed if we have ANY hope of growing aviation in all the other ways we need to. This is the building block to work from, and there is no better basis to start.

We need to make aviation just another "safe" form of transportation for the masses, period. This "holier-than-thou" crap is going to stop. We need aviation to be a nominal form of transportation FIRST, then we can have our special little airplane gangs and social clubs. But you can't have one without the other, remember that.

 

[Everskyward]

While I agree that the driver's license medical would be fine for third class, I think part of the problem is that there is a whole lot of history to overcome. Medicals for pilots (even private pilots) have been around since 1927. The public and the legislators just accept the fact that it's the way it's always been.

http://www.faa.gov/about/history/people/media/medical_examiners.pdf