Status of FAA Third Class Medical Exemption

U

Unregistered

Guest
First, thanks to all the pilots who post on this forum. I have learned much just reading here without posting.

Second, I’m surprised that there has not been any discussion on this forum (that I can find) about the EAA/AOPA medical exemption petition to the FAA.

The latest information I have is that the FAA may act on the petition about March 2013, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the FAA delayed action.

Therein lies my question. I have a third class special issuance medical (hypertension and hyperthyroidism - both well controlled). I plan to take Dr. Chien’s advice and have a through work up with my primary care physician and, if my AME will do it, a pre-third class medical examination before my medical expires in March.

But I worry, as we all do. My question is - would it be better to just wait and see what the FAA does on the petition, even if it means letting the third class expire.

I also wonder if the exemption will only apply to non-special issuance prior third class medicals.

I know that no one knows what the FAA will do, but does anyone have any thoughts or whether I should just wait until the FAA acts?

Thanks in advance.
 
I agree that it isn't likely to happen soon, if at all. Changes like this are going to take significant time to gain traction and acceptance.

Proceed with your plan to gather up all all of the necessary items and have your AME do the review.

Or contract with Dr. Bruce directly (pay his fees), transport yourself to Peoria, and get it all done quickly and right the first time.

Don't bank on the exemption thing to happen. Proceed as usual, enjoy flying, then celebrate if it ever does happen.
 
AOPA President Craig Fuller said about a year ago that the FAA Administrator told him the proposal would be "dead on arrival." AOPA and EAA proceeded anyway. Since then, according to Bruce Chien, the FAA has collected an alarming (at least, alarming to the FAA) number of medical incident reports involving no-medical pilots in LSA's. That is only going to make matters worse.

I recommend acting as though the proposal did not exist, and if by some miracle it happens, you can then alter your plans accordingly.
 
It will happen, but I doubt by March 2013. GAO is auditing the medical process as part of the pilots bill of rights and that report is not due until December of next year (EAA and AOPA have a seat at the table for this). The FAA will wait until they get that report and will likely deal with it and the petition at the same time. (There is some discussion of doing it before the audit to show some progress but the bureaucrats have their heels dug in and it will have to come from above.) March 2014 is a better planning date. Money is very tight these days and there is no opposition outside of the bureaucrats in OKC defending the status quo.
 
This begs the question....why does the FAA always seem to want to reduce the number of pilots? Wouldn't more pilots help them justify expansion of their fiefdom?
 
It will happen, but I doubt by March 2013. GAO is auditing the medical process as part of the pilots bill of rights and that report is not due until December of next year (EAA and AOPA have a seat at the table for this). The FAA will wait until they get that report and will likely deal with it and the petition at the same time. (There is some discussion of doing it before the audit to show some progress but the bureaucrats have their heels dug in and it will have to come from above.) March 2014 is a better planning date. Money is very tight these days and there is no opposition outside of the bureaucrats in OKC defending the status quo.
You seem to have this bizarre idea that the PBOR will allow pilots to wipe away every FAA rule they don't like. That belief is totally unsubstantiated by anything we know so far.
 
This begs the question....why does the FAA always seem to want to reduce the number of pilots? Wouldn't more pilots help them justify expansion of their fiefdom?


Their current mission is to reduce the number of accidents... What better way to do it???

They haven't gotten to the point of trying to justify their jobs yet..
 
You seem to have this bizarre idea that the PBOR will allow pilots to wipe away every FAA rule they don't like. That belief is totally unsubstantiated by anything we know so far.
Hummm... I wasn't aware I thought the PBOR will allow pilots to wipe away every FAA rule they don't like. Thank's for letting me know.

I do think it provides some much needed adult supervision and some of the dumb rules will go. IIRC you decreed the PBOR DOA much like you judge the EAA/AOPA petition DOA. I disagree, IMHO it will pass. Time will tell.

But we agree the OP should not expect it in March.......
 
Number of pilots = 500,000
Number of FAA employees = 50,000

Employee to pilot ration = 1/50

What I'd like to see is the ratio of "hours FAA employees work" to "flight hours of pilots"

I'm thinking each pilot flies about 80 hr year on average; each employee works 2,000 hours per year, so it works out to be FAA employee works 1 hour for ever 4 hours a plane is in the air.

Or maybe not. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning. The point is that eventually gov organizations have to justify their budget and reason for being.
 
AOPA President Craig Fuller said about a year ago that the FAA Administrator told him the proposal would be "dead on arrival." AOPA and EAA proceeded anyway.

The petition was a publicity stunt - an alternate proposal to substitute a CDL medical for 3rd Class(which the FAA was more open to) was dismissed out of hand by AOPA. It is obvious that AOPA has no financial interest in actually solving the problems that it was created to address...
 
Number of pilots = 500,000
Number of FAA employees = 50,000

Employee to pilot ration = 1/50

What I'd like to see is the ratio of "hours FAA employees work" to "flight hours of pilots"

I'm thinking each pilot flies about 80 hr year on average; each employee works 2,000 hours per year, so it works out to be FAA employee works 1 hour for ever 4 hours a plane is in the air.

Or maybe not. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning. The point is that eventually gov organizations have to justify their budget and reason for being.

Of those 50,000 less than 5,000 work in Flight Standards. The other 45,000 are Air Traffic Controllers, maintenance (Navaid, airfield, building, etc) support personnel, clerks, office workers, etc.
 
Of those 50,000 less than 5,000 work in Flight Standards. The other 45,000 are Air Traffic Controllers, maintenance (Navaid, airfield, building, etc) support personnel, clerks, office workers, etc.


And of those 500k, how many are active, in country, and flying on a given day?
 
And of those 500k, how many are active, in country, and flying on a given day?

Huh?

Who said 500k (500,000)?

Flight Standards has approximately 5,000 employees, not all are Inspectors. Last time I saw the numbers it was less than 3,000 Inspectors.

As far as your last part, what does that have to do with anything? Not all Inspectors are pilots.
 
You start figuring out what it really costs to have the safest aviation traffic system in the world, and it won't be FAA that downsizes or will be asked to...

Public opinion will sway harder toward user fees. Especially if airlines get all their fuel taxes back in that process.

What we pilot know about FAA (bloated, inefficient, like all large government agencies with no natural competition) isn't what the public will hear in that discussion.

They pay some of the best PR spin people on the planet to represent them, on your dime. Those PR people are not instructed to have the taxpayer's interests at heart when defending their agency, whether its FAA or any other.

100% guaranteed, if the wave of public opinion started crashing ashore that said FAA was too expensive, they would throw GA and everyone else they serve, under the bus and say we all just need to pay more to retain their services as the Galactic Aviation Wondefulness Force.
 
P.S. To steal a popular Presidential phrase... "Let me be clear"...

That's not to say they'd do it with malicious intent. It's just the only tactic they'd have to defend against that particular analysis -- and the one which would have the best chance of their coming out fiscally untouched.

Bigger in fact, once you add the bureaucracy to track down to individual "services rendered" and bill for all of them.

P.P.S. Nice to see R&W back. Howdy.
 
You start figuring out what it really costs to have the safest aviation traffic system in the world, and it won't be FAA that downsizes or will be asked to...

Public opinion will sway harder toward user fees. Especially if airlines get all their fuel taxes back in that process.

What we pilot know about FAA (bloated, inefficient, like all large government agencies with no natural competition) isn't what the public will hear in that discussion.

They pay some of the best PR spin people on the planet to represent them, on your dime. Those PR people are not instructed to have the taxpayer's interests at heart when defending their agency, whether its FAA or any other.

100% guaranteed, if the wave of public opinion started crashing ashore that said FAA was too expensive, they would throw GA and everyone else they serve, under the bus and say we all just need to pay more to retain their services as the Galactic Aviation Wondefulness Force.

In all fairness, and speaking as one who intensely dislikes the federal government in general and believes that better of 80 percent of it should be dismantled, I must say that FAA seems much more efficient and annoys me a lot less than do most federal agencies.

I've been interacting with FAA in some way or another since the late 1970's, when I was in A&P school. I don't recall ever having had any bad experiences when dealing with FAA. When I've called, I've been able to talk to people who had good answers. When I've had occasion to visit in person, appointments have always been kept on-time, and the people I dealt with have been competent. When I've written, I've always received timely responses that accurately addressed whatever matter was in question.

So I really can't lump FAA in with the more typical federal agencies, most of which are staffed by nitwits whose overriding priorities are to remain unavailable, inaccessible, unaccountable, and essentially useless -- and to waste as much money as possible in the process.

I mean, seriously. Compare the experience of calling FAA with a question to that of calling almost any other federal agency. With FAA, after punching a few buttons, you'll get through to a real person who knows his or her job. Better yet, if you know which department handles whatever issue you're calling about and you call that department's published phone number directly, you can most likely skip all the button-pushing, because a real person usually will answer.

Try calling the VA, on the other hand. I tried for the better part of a week to get through to a real person at the VA regarding the mortgage guarantee benefit. No joy. No matter which number you call, you respond to about five minutes worth of prompts until finally you get to the last one, which informs you that no one's available -- and HANGS UP! There's not even a message or callback option.

Now, the fact that I have said nice things about the FAA doesn't mean I think everything they do makes sense. For example (and back to the topic), the third-class medical. They set the standards so high that many airmen who are perfectly able to fly safely are "disqualified;" and then routinely grant "special issuances" to these same "disqualified" aviators after the requisite amount of paperwork changes hands.

On the other hand, they let other aviators (SP) operate using their driver's licenses in lieu of medicals. The possession of a driver's license proves only that the holder wasn't completely blind and had the presence of mind to find the DMV office the last time they renewed their driver's license, which can be up to 10 years ago in New York.

Or more succinctly:

To fly, say, an Evector Sportstar or a Tecnam Sierra, you merely have to prove that you were neither totally blind nor too senile to find the DMV office as many as ten years ago.

But to fly a Cessna 150, you have to prove that you're healthy enough to qualify for the first manned mission to Mars -- except that if you're not healthy enough and are medically "disqualified," there's a better than 90 percent chance you can get certified anyway if you spend enough money, push enough paper, and waste enough of someone's time in OKC.

So how many dollars does FAA spend every year processing third-class SI's? Thousands? Millions? Why not just revise the third-class standards to bring them more in line with modern medicine, since more than 90 percent of SI requests are going to be approved, anyway?

Or alternatively, allow the CDL medical card to be used as an alternative for domestic, non-commercial operations. The physical itself is virtually identical, anyway.

Of course, using the CDL card as a medical wouldn't help perpetuate the myth that flying a light airplane is somehow more physically and mentally taxing than, for example, pulling a fully-loaded trailer (or two, or three) over crowded Interstate highways or through congested city traffic. That could be a problem because it would satisfy neither pilots' desires to feel "special" nor FAA's desire to pretend that setting absurd medical standards, and then routinely waiving those standards, makes some kind of sense from an aviation safety perspective.

No worries. Just add enough meaningless restrictions to keep everyone happy. For example: The CDL card is valid only domestically (obviously, since it wouldn't meet ICAO standards); it must be issued by a physician (as opposed to a PA, RN-P, etc.) to be valid for aviation use; no more than six souls on board could be carried; no aircraft with a MTOW greater than 12,500 could be flown... you know, stuff like that, just enough to perpetuate the respective myths and keep everyone feeling special and important.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
IMO, it was a flippin' miracle that the rules on sport pilot medicals were promulgated, and we are one high profile tragedy away from backtracking. And when it comes, it will be Congress telling the FAA to do it.

Oberstar was retired by his constituents (for reasons unrelated to transportation most likely.) But there are hundreds of Oberstars waiting in the wings willing to leverage publicity and events to "do something" in air transportation.

Hanging one's hat on Congress telling the FAA to relax standards? Bleh. Look at the PBOR. Mostly procedural and a safe pass for Congress, no hot button exposure for the general public to be upset over if something runs off the rails. So to speak.
 
Last edited:
New math after the second cup of coffee

1/10

One FAA employee for each 10 pilots.
 
Huh?

Who said 500k (500,000)?

Flight Standards has approximately 5,000 employees, not all are Inspectors. Last time I saw the numbers it was less than 3,000 Inspectors.

As far as your last part, what does that have to do with anything? Not all Inspectors are pilots.


500k is the number of pilots referenced in the previous posts... 500,000 Pilots, some of them inactive for sure.. And 50,000 FAA employees
 
The petition was a publicity stunt - an alternate proposal to substitute a CDL medical for 3rd Class(which the FAA was more open to) was dismissed out of hand by AOPA. It is obvious that AOPA has no financial interest in actually solving the problems that it was created to address...

Why a CDL is better than the third class or even needed to pilot a small airplane going less than 250 knots is well beyond me. Most cars carry far more kinetic energy without such substantial medical certification.
 
So how many dollars does FAA spend every year processing third-class SI's? Thousands? Millions? Why not just revise the third-class standards to bring them more in line with modern medicine, since more than 90 percent of SI requests are going to be approved, anyway?

Or more likely - how many people just neglect to get their next physical that they suspect they'll fail and choose fly to LSA on the premise that "there's no medical cert for LSA"? Yes, we all know that a pilot that has a disqualifying medical condition must ground themselves...and they all do, right?
 
Or more likely - how many people just neglect to get their next physical that they suspect they'll fail and choose fly to LSA on the premise that "there's no medical cert for LSA"? Yes, we all know that a pilot that has a disqualifying medical condition must ground themselves...and they all do, right?

Well, that's a whole 'nuther question. The FAA's guidance as to what, exactly, is disqualifying under the SP rule is a bit vague, to say the least. Using the example of diabetes, they basically just say "talk to your doctor about it." Diabetes is technically grounding, although SI's can be had. But apparently, for SP, if one's doctor says it's okay, they're good to go.

The thing that I think is bizarre is that that the SI itself, by definition, is really a medical cert given to someone who has a disqualifying condition and is therefore ineligible to hold one. FAA looks at various other data (medical tests and so forth) and makes a determination that even though the person is ineligible, they're going to issue anyway because their condition falls within certain parameters.

That being the case, why not just formalize the parameters into the requirements so any AME can issue to an airman whose condition falls within them, and dispense with the SI rigmarole? Either that, or allow the CDL medical as an alternative, strictly as an efficiency improvement.

The real difference between the philosophical approaches to the CDL medical and the FAA medical is that an examiner issuing a CDL medical to a less-than-perfect specimen of a human being can consult with the person's PCP and make a decision whether their medical condition is sufficiently managed to not be disqualifying in their particular case. Some conditions are always disqualifying, but most are not; and in most cases, the examiner gets to make that call without (literally) making it into a federal case.

Other than that, the physical examinations themselves are practically identical.

-Rich
 
Or more likely - how many people just neglect to get their next physical that they suspect they'll fail and choose fly to LSA on the premise that "there's no medical cert for LSA"? Yes, we all know that a pilot that has a disqualifying medical condition must ground themselves...and they all do, right?

1 ) "Disqualifying medical condition" as in not being able to safely act as PIC?
or
2 ) "Disqualifying medical condition" as in unable to obtain a 3rd class medical without wasting an inordinate amount of time and money if it can be obtained at all?

For the first definition, one needs to self ground. For the second, it depends on where you stand with respect to the first.

It's no different than when you do have a medical. If you are not fit due to some medical issue, you are not fit.
 
2 ) "Disqualifying medical condition" as in unable to obtain a 3rd class medical without wasting an inordinate amount of time and money if it can be obtained at all?

You mean a condition which requires monitoring and evaluation to determine whether or not it is qualifying or disqualifying? If the monitoring and evaluation isn't being done, the condition is disqualifying for exactly the reason that it's called out to begin with.
 
Why a CDL is better than the third class or even needed to pilot a small airplane going less than 250 knots is well beyond me. Most cars carry far more kinetic energy without such substantial medical certification.
What estimates of mass and velocity give you 'most' and 'far more', Steingar? I get broadly comparable KE for a spam can and a family car at 'normal cruise' in both.
 
What estimates of mass and velocity give you 'most' and 'far more', Steingar? I get broadly comparable KE for a spam can and a family car at 'normal cruise' in both.

I guess that was what I was getting at. For the same kinetic energy a pilot has to be reamed up the six medically but the driver only need prove they aren't blind. I truly don't see the need for a medical examination to fly most light aircraft.
 
Yeah, a no-medical weight / seats / speed limitation would seem sensible. But then I guess that's LSA - except the limits have been set too low for personal transport, and it's a hybrid of equipment limits and operational rules that have little to do with the equipment per se.
 
Why a CDL is better than the third class or even needed to pilot a small airplane going less than 250 knots is well beyond me. Most cars carry far more kinetic energy without such substantial medical certification.

Maybe because they tend to carry more chemical energy? :dunno:
 
In all fairness, and speaking as one who intensely dislikes the federal government in general and believes that better of 80 percent of it should be dismantled, I must say that FAA seems much more efficient and annoys me a lot less than do most federal agencies.

I've been interacting with FAA in some way or another since the late 1970's, when I was in A&P school. I don't recall ever having had any bad experiences when dealing with FAA. When I've called, I've been able to talk to people who had good answers. When I've had occasion to visit in person, appointments have always been kept on-time, and the people I dealt with have been competent. When I've written, I've always received timely responses that accurately addressed whatever matter was in question.

This is very timely. I'm generally in agreement with your opinion of the federal gov't. I received a phone call today from a very nice lady in OKC. She was reminding me about a letter that they had sent me earlier this month concerning my records request. Seems they needed a copy of my driver's license to verify my signature and that, if it wasn't rec'd by next week, that I would need to send a new request and start over. Said that she had my file on her desk and if I would be so kind as to fax the copy to her, that she would get the records right out to me.

The letter I had received was very clear about the deadline and I had let it slip my mind. The FAA didn't owe me a phone call.

Extremely nice, courteous and professional! :yes:
 
Number of pilots = 500,000
Number of FAA employees = 50,000

Employee to pilot ration = 1/50

What I'd like to see is the ratio of "hours FAA employees work" to "flight hours of pilots"

I'm thinking each pilot flies about 80 hr year on average; each employee works 2,000 hours per year, so it works out to be FAA employee works 1 hour for ever 4 hours a plane is in the air.

Or maybe not. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning. The point is that eventually gov organizations have to justify their budget and reason for being.

http://youtu.be/t9UBVJOA1aM
 
ROFL... I missed the Red Green did an airplane skit?! Awesome.

I must be slipping on my Red Green watching.
 
Annual Flight review should substute for medical because a pilot that is healthy enough to aviate, communicate and navigate should not have to provide medical records and Xrays and MRIs.
 
Here's a statistic that needs to be figured (that slash means divided by):

accidents related to medical problems/all pilots with medical, hours flown

accidents related to medical problems/all pilots without medical (LSA pilots), hours flown

I believe the ratios would be about the same, or possibly better for LSA pilots because they're not under as much stress that brings on medical conditions in flight. LSA pilots generally are not flying in the high density airports, in IFR conditions, at night, with high performance aircraft, etc.
 
Well actually that has been looked at in reverse:

Frequency of CAD by pilot group age (60-70):

3rd class, 25%
LSA pilots: 40%
Pilots illegally flying 3rd class 60%

Does this prevent accidents? I have a local guy, 78, Afib, sick sinus syndrome, who we did not reapply who was out in his skylane today.....he nearly hit the pumps, just about sandblasted the champ, etc etc etc...
 
Well actually that has been looked at in reverse:

Frequency of CAD by pilot group age (60-70):

3rd class, 25%
LSA pilots: 40%
Pilots illegally flying 3rd class 60%

Does this prevent accidents? I have a local guy, 78, Afib, sick sinus syndrome, who we did not reapply who was out in his skylane today.....he nearly hit the pumps, just about sandblasted the champ, etc etc etc...

Can you show the statistics for the other age groups as well?

I'd also submit that most pilots in that age group are flying light sport because they can't or won't pass a 3rd class medical, not because they necessarily want to fly light sport. I personally know of two or three in that category. So they are not your average PP that would be able to fly their 150 without a medical.
 
Last edited:
That's all the funding Dr. Webster had.

Then I hope the powers making the decisions realize the skewed nature of their data. Of course, they may have already had their minds made up and were just looking for data that would justify their decision...
 
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