New 3rd Class standards?

G

Gary F

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
8,692
Location
Da U.P.
Display Name
Display name:
Gary F
AVweb contacted senior aviation medical examiner Dr. Brent Blue, who said, "I think the FAA is actually starting to float the idea of either dropping or relaxing third class medicals."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1806-full.html#203880
http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcas...icalCertificate_203881-1.html?kw=RelatedStory

I think that at the very least the FAA should allow an AME a little more discretion in approving 3rd class medicals. AMEs could be given a list of documentation requirements so that less stuff would need to go to Oklahoma City. Another option would be to create a 4th Class medical with some restrictions between 3rd class and LSA which could be issued by an AME without going through the special issuance process. This could fix the problem that prevents those who have been previously rejected from flying under LSA rules.
 
Last edited:
I would love to see the elimination of the third class medical.

If that is too much to ask for what about self certified medical for Recreational Pilot and maybe a fourth class that uses the DOT CDL physical (much less restrictive) for Private Pilot? Heck, just make the third class a DOT CDL physical. You know the one that lets you drive an 80,000lbs semi and is from the DOT who happens to govern the FAA.
 
I think the DOT CDL exam, with, of course, a drug/alcohol conviction background check would serve well as a third class medical.
Really, though, I think the best medical certification comes from a pilot's own judgment (which usually means positioning the ego underneath common sense) for arriving at a fly/no fly decision.
 
Personally, I've always found driving almost anything, especially a CMV, to be much more physically and mentally demanding, and much more stressful, than any flying I've ever done. The sheer number of tasks and decisions, the observation and attention required, the proximity to other traffic, the unpredictability of other drivers... I frankly don't think there's any comparison.

But then again, I live in New York City. There's a reason why ads for truck drivers always mention "NO NEW YORK CITY" if that's true of the job: Professional drivers would rather drive anywhere than here.

As for the DOT medical, it's a pretty comprehensive examination if done properly. The problem is that there are plenty of doctors (along with PAs and NPs, who are also allowed to sign off on them) who just pencil-whip them out. I just let my PCP do my DOT medical in the course of a regular physical exam, but there are standalone mills that specialize in doing only DOT and related physicals (such as the one NYC requires of taxi drivers). I'm told that some of these places will certify almost anyone who walks in with a detectable pulse.

But if the DOT examination is done properly, I think it's more than adequate. It's pretty comprehensive.

-Rich
 
Do you think the elimiation of the third class will prompt some pilots specifically elderly pilots to continue flying past when it is medically advisable?
 
AdamZ said:
Do you think the elimiation of the third class will prompt some pilots specifically elderly pilots to continue flying past when it is medically advisable?
Click to expand...

There are always people with bad judgment. That goes for drivers too.

Still the crux of the matter is safe to fly, and the older pilots I've met are a pretty self-policing bunch.
 
AdamZ said:
Do you think the elimiation of the third class will prompt some pilots specifically elderly pilots to continue flying past when it is medically advisable?
Click to expand...
No, it won't change a thing. Those people are already flying - just without a medical.
 
sba55 said:
No, it won't change a thing. Those people are already flying - just without a medical.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Not about the notion that people fly without a medical. But I believe that there are some pilots that would (a) be honest today with their AME about medical condition (e.g., certain medication) that would be disqualifying and (b) not realize why the medical condition would be unsafe and thus (c) fly
 
I favor relaxing but not eliminating the standards. The DOT physical standards idea is a very good one. A single engine airplane is probably much less of a threat to the public than a tractor trailer. A light sport aircraft is probably almost as dangerous to someone on the ground as a C182 if it falls out of the sky.

A 4th class medical could be easily implemented using existing DOT standards and should allow you to fly something under about 6,000 lbs. It might be a good idea to limit night flying and possibly IFR under a 4th class medical. I am required to get an exam by a Rheumatologist each year for a minor connective tissue disease which has no chance of causing incapacitation. The new 3rd or 4th class standards should be limited to addressing problems such as heart disease and epilepsy.
 
Gary F said:
A 4th class medical could be easily implemented using existing DOT standards and should allow you to fly something under about 6,000 lbs. It might be a good idea to limit night flying and possibly IFR under a 4th class medical. I am required to get an exam by a Rheumatologist each year for a minor connective tissue disease which has no chance of causing incapacitation. The new 3rd or 4th class standards should be limited to addressing problems such as heart disease and epilepsy.
Click to expand...

To limit the amount of rulemaking...what about a 4th Class that gives you "Recreational Pilot" privileges...4 seat, 180 HP, but only one passenger, no night/IFR?
 
Bob Noel said:
I disagree. Not about the notion that people fly without a medical. But I believe that there are some pilots that would (a) be honest today with their AME about medical condition (e.g., certain medication) that would be disqualifying and (b) not realize why the medical condition would be unsafe and thus (c) fly
Click to expand...

I guess that explains why glider and light sport pilots are falling out of the sky on a regular basis for medical reasons.

Oh, wait... It's King Air pilots that are dying in the air.

Never mind.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I guess that explains why glider and light sport pilots are falling out of the sky on a regular basis.

Oh, wait... It's King Air pilots that are dying in the air.

Never mind.
Click to expand...

Glider and light sport pilots do fall out of the sky on a regular basis. The accident statistics on both are even worse than GA. This is particularly appalling for gliders, which are almost purely recreational and rarely experience the duress of bad weather or travel.
 
steingar said:
Glider and light sport pilots do fall out of the sky on a regular basis. The accident statistics on both are even worse than GA. This is particularly appalling for gliders, which are almost purely recreational and rarely experience the duress of bad weather or travel.
Click to expand...
But is this due to medical issues? Hint: No.

Statistics for a glider are much better than G.A. aircraft following engine failures.

LSAs tend to get wrecked by former PPs who are used to driving a truck and don't know what to do when you actually have to fly the *****.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
But is this due to medical issues? Hint: No.
Click to expand...

Never said it was.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Statistics for a glider are much better than G.A. aircraft following engine failures.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not even certain that's true, though it might be. Still nothing to crow about.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
LSAs tend to get wrecked by former PPs who are used to driving a truck and don't know what to do when you actually have to fly the *****.
Click to expand...

While I will not disagree, trying to convince anyone at the FAA, NTSB, DOT, or anyone else hiding behind initials that the 3rd class medical is superfluous with such data and reasoning might be somewhat problematic.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I guess that explains why glider and light sport pilots are falling out of the sky on a regular basis for medical reasons.

Oh, wait... It's King Air pilots that are dying in the air.

Never mind.
Click to expand...

Did I say that lots and lots of pilots would do this? No.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Statistics for a glider are much better than G.A. aircraft following engine failures.
Click to expand...
I'd expect that the statistics for gliders following engine failures are pretty darn good as engine failures in gliders is extremely rare (excluding the self launch/motorglider versions).
 
As I understand the arguments, a medical exam even every two years, no matter how rigorous and thorough, is simply too long a period to be of value, safety-wise. Self-evaluations are the only actions that can make a difference. Another argument against the current standards is that no facts (accident statistics and health physiology) allegedly support its continuance. It is plausible that on passing a physical, a pilot may erroneously fail to perform their own honest health-check preflight because someone else "more qualified" did that for them a year ago.

While these all seem reasonable to me, the arguments do not seem likely to be new to the FAA, so they may operate on the rule that "even if it isn't helping, if it ain't hurting, don't fix it." They may or may not be convinced that besides not helping, it is a waste of time and money. I'm not sure they are ever motivated to reduce such wastes.
 
I can see it from their point of view. Lets say they rescind the 3rd class. The first AK who augurs in because of a coronary will see them sued and hauled before Congress for a very uncomfortable and very public tongue lashing. They already have the infrastructure to handle it, and it gives them some degree of plausible deniability. "Sure the guy had a coronary, but we do as much as we can" would be the argument I see in my mind's eye.
 
Jim Logajan said:
As I understand the arguments, a medical exam even every two years, no matter how rigorous and thorough, is simply too long a period to be of value, safety-wise. Self-evaluations are the only actions that can make a difference. Another argument against the current standards is that no facts (accident statistics and health physiology) allegedly support its continuance. It is plausible that on passing a physical, a pilot may erroneously fail to perform their own honest health-check preflight because someone else "more qualified" did that for them a year ago.

While these all seem reasonable to me, the arguments do not seem likely to be new to the FAA, so they may operate on the rule that "even if it isn't helping, if it ain't hurting, don't fix it." They may or may not be convinced that besides not helping, it is a waste of time and money. I'm not sure they are ever motivated to reduce such wastes.
Click to expand...

I think reducing the waste would be the biggest benefit. I wonder how much money FAA spends every year processing third-class SIs for pilots whose flying is low-risk. I think those resources could probably be better spent dealing with professional pilots who need SIs than someone who just wants to fly his Cessna around the countryside a couple of times a month.

But I'd still feel more comfortable with the DOT medical than the DL medical. At least the DOT medical does insure that the person isn't completely blind and still has the presence of mind to find the doctor's office. And assuming it's done properly, it's a good physical, but one in which the examiner has a certain amount of discretion to approve a less-than-perfect specimen without (literally) making a federal case of it.

Of course, there is the problem of the pencil-whippers, who advertise all over the place, anywhere commercial drivers congregate. Because any physician (or PA, or NP) can presumptively sign off on the DOT physical, it's harder to weed out the scam artists from the legit examiners.

I guess another option would be to accept the DOT physical, but require that it be issued by an AME for aviation use. Yet another would be to just give AMEs more discretion when issuing thirds, without having to go through all the OKC malarkey for every minor ailment.

Incidentally, I have a friend in England who told me about a year ago that England allows private pilots who are flying only domestically to use their driver's license medical. (Apparently anyone in England, including private drivers, has to get a medical exam to drive.) But they can't fly anywhere else in the EU (nor anywhere else) without an aviation medical.

-Rich
 
This will never happen, and it comes from the inside. Rep Mica (R) like Rep Oberstar before him, does not want to be seen as soft on Aviation Safety.

If this is to change it has to come from Congress...
 
steingar said:
I can see it from their point of view. Lets say they rescind the 3rd class. The first AK who augurs in because of a coronary will see them sued and hauled before Congress for a very uncomfortable and very public tongue lashing. They already have the infrastructure to handle it, and it gives them some degree of plausible deniability. "Sure the guy had a coronary, but we do as much as we can" would be the argument I see in my mind's eye.
Click to expand...
The FAA physical is a lousy tool to predict cardiac risk, practically worthless in my opinion.

bbchien said:
This will never happen, and it comes from the inside. Rep Mica (R) like Rep Oberstar before him, does not want to be seen as soft on Aviation Safety.

If this is to change it has to come from Congress...
Click to expand...
This is sad. Public opinion and politics take precedence over science and reason. The FAA physical should be revised. In many ways it is similar to TSA. Both the FAA physical and TSA are necessary but are more geared to providing an illusion of protection than the real thing.
 
Gary F said:
This is sad. Public opinion and politics take precedence over science and reason. The FAA physical should be revised. In many ways it is similar to TSA. Both the FAA physical and TSA are necessary but are more geared to providing an illusion of protection than the real thing.
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=34467&utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=ec49a24fe7-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

"Enter the recreational pilot certificate. Although a 3rd class medical is required for solo, it is also required for any advanced rating, and the candidate will have that requirement out of the way. Moreover, the FAA is conducting a review of the medical requirements of the recreational certificate based on data obtained from sport pilots. No doubt at the conclusion of this study, the self-certification medical will be extended to recreational pilots, further reducing the costs and enhancing the value."

Hal Shevers

I am not confirming the validity of this statement. I am just passing it along.

Rod
 
steingar said:
Glider and light sport pilots do fall out of the sky on a regular basis. The accident statistics on both are even worse than GA. This is particularly appalling for gliders, which are almost purely recreational and rarely experience the duress of bad weather or travel.
Click to expand...

there were 4 fatalities in gliders last year. one was from a mid air collision at a contest in Texas. Most small airplane flying is purely recreational too. most airplane pilots don't have the regular duress of always descending like glider pilots. As expected, most accidents occur during takeoff and landing.

http://www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/ssf_2009_annual_report.pdf
 
Bob Noel said:
I disagree. Not about the notion that people fly without a medical. But I believe that there are some pilots that would (a) be honest today with their AME about medical condition (e.g., certain medication) that would be disqualifying and (b) not realize why the medical condition would be unsafe and thus (c) fly
Click to expand...
Oh, there's no doubt that you're right about this.

But I would think that the percentage of pilots of do not realize that they shouldn't be flying and who are suddenly made aware of this by their DME and who then stop flying is extremely small. Seeing as though almost everybody makes at least some - mostly unintentional - misrepresentations on their medical, it comes down to judgment already (it's very hard to answer questions that start with "have you ever" correctly 100% of the time). You already have to decide if you're safe to fly today, even with a valid medical. I don't think eliminating this mostly procedural requirement would change much (yes, it would make a small difference, but that difference seems hardly proportionate to the cost). Filing out a form every few years doesn't make one safer.
 
sba55 said:
.....Filing out a form every few years doesn't make one safer.
Click to expand...
No, but it makes you insureable. This is generally not (sometimes IS) about your ability to fly. It's about your ability to enforce an insurance payout.
 
bbchien said:
No, but it makes you insureable. This is generally not (sometimes IS) about your ability to fly. It's about your ability to enforce an insurance payout.
Click to expand...
Right. I don't doubt that at all :)

That was my earlier point. I don't think eliminating the 3rd class would change anything safety-wise. There could of course be other implications.
 
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