Third Class medical reform moving forward albeit slowly

poadeleted20

Deleted
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
31,250
From AvWeb:
Also this week, the Department of Transportation said it will complete its overdue review of the FAA's proposed medical reforms on Monday. When the DOT does finish its review, it checks off another step in the rulemaking process that will eventually include a public comment period. The announcements come about a week after AOPA President Mark Baker sent a letter to the DOT, criticizing the agency for taking several months to complete what was supposed to be a 90-day review of the proposal.
As I said before, it wasn't the FAA holding this up.
 
Thanks for the post.the DOT is just another beaurocratic Govt agency.
 
Thanks for the post.the DOT is just another beaurocratic Govt agency.
Perhaps the wheels of government do grind exceeding slow, but (with respects to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and John Bannister Gibson), they do appear to be grinding, albeit only at the speed of government.
 
Perhaps the wheels of government do grind exceeding slow, but (with respects to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and John Bannister Gibson), they do appear to be grinding, albeit only at the speed of government.

Agreed. Better grinding slowly than not moving at all. Perhaps this will be my last medical.
 
Thanks Ron. I appreciate Mark Baker and his efforts. I had not heard the update from AOPA.
 
Can someone tell me what the difference is between "several months" and "90 days"? :wink2:

...AOPA President Mark Baker sent a letter to the DOT, criticizing the agency for taking several months to complete what was supposed to be a 90-day review of the proposal.
 
Can someone tell me what the difference is between "several months" and "90 days"? :wink2:
If Phil was still running AOPA, I'd say just call or email him and ask -- he'd tell you for sure. I don't get the same "personal relationship" feel with Mr. Baker, but you can give it a try if you like.
 
Can someone tell me what the difference is between "several months" and "90 days"? :wink2:

The Avweb article missed a few important details. This AOPA article is slightly better:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...o-complete-review-of-proposed-medical-reforms

Specifically:
"The Department of Transportation has announced plans to complete its review of proposed third class medical reforms on Jan. 26, allowing the FAA’s draft rule to move to the Office of Management and Budget for another round of mandatory reviews."
...
"In the meantime, the proposed FAA rule to reform the third class medical process is scheduled to leave the DOT nearly seven months after the department received it for a mandatory review that was scheduled to take no more than 90 days"

By my estimate, 7 months is about 213 days (365.25*(7/12)). Under normal conditions, 213 > 90.

As to what comes next:
"Once the DOT releases the proposed rule, it will move to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB,) which will also have 90 days to review and comment. Only after that review is complete will the FAA publish the notice of proposed rulemaking for public review. Although DOT announced the schedule on its website, there is no guarantee that the rule will move out of the department as planned. The OMB review could also take longer than the scheduled 90 days."
 
I suspect the DOT is worried about the precedent here. There have been a number of big issues with crew incapacitation on things other than aviation (notably trains and boats), so I suspect they're trying to reconcile some across the board policy.

It wasn't helped by the fact that rather than being unanimous the gosh darn AMA came out against the proposal.
 
Not sure why the DOT cares all that much for class III stuff. There is a big difference between someone who does this for a living and someone carving holes in the sky for fun or personal travel.
 
If Phil was still running AOPA, I'd say just call or email him and ask -- he'd tell you for sure. I don't get the same "personal relationship" feel with Mr. Baker, but you can give it a try if you like.

No need. I was just amused by the AOPA statement, because 90 days qualifies as "several months." (Did you overlook the "wink" smiley?)
 
Last edited:
Not sure why the DOT cares all that much for class III stuff. There is a big difference between someone who does this for a living and someone carving holes in the sky for fun or personal travel.

This, and the reams of the data showing that it's utterly unnecessary.
 
I'm hoping that by the time my medical expires they'll have this done so I don't have to bother.

Is there any semi-solidified word on what the limitations will be? I'd be annoyed if they did something like "under 2500 gross" when I'm at 2550.
 
Can someone tell me what the difference is between "several months" and "90 days"? :wink2:

"Several" is typically more than three. A "few" covers up to three.

A "bunch" is more than eight and a "sh*tfull" is way more than that.

:)
 
"Several" is typically more than three. A "few" covers up to three.

A "bunch" is more than eight and a "sh*tfull" is way more than that.

:)

I thought "several" was three or more. Merriam-Webster thinks so too. :p
 
As Dr. Bruce told me not too long ago - "Don't hold your breath".... Sure wish that man was WRONG once in awhile!
 
Nothing is going to change. The jobs that go along with unnecessary Class III's plus all the investment in LSA's and Sport Pilot, will not be thrown away. Gotta keep paying the lobbyist's fees to keep this review going, maybe Congress will file a bill....pay fees....wait on FAA...DOT...pay lobbyist, membership dues....next year....now I hear 2nd Monday in Sept. No last Monday, resceduled for several Mondays away. Ok scrap Third Class, wait on agency review, draft proposed rule, maybe wait on legislation....nahh after the next election. Pay your membership dues, gotta urgent need to pay "our" lobbyist to fight for "us".
 
Last edited:
This, and the reams of the data showing that it's utterly unnecessary.

When has that ever stopped government from regulating something?

In this case, it's even worse because we're asking a bureaucracy to let go of something they're already regulating. That brings out the "cold, dead fingers" side of any bureaucrat.

Rich
 
I heard an OWT probably that the root of "several" was "seven", so that's where you get into several.

Must have been some inarticulately stupid old wives.

Several comes from the latin route separalis meaning separate, distinct.
Seven comes from Germanic roots for the word sieben just meaning the number after six. The roots trace back older languages with variants on that but still meaning seven.

There's no crossover between those words.

The OED puts "several at" a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many. (The chief current sense.)

But it notes in a legal sense, it just means more than one.

"Few" means a small number, not many.
 
Last edited:
In this case, it's even worse because we're asking a bureaucracy to let go of something they're already regulating. That brings out the "cold, dead fingers" side of any bureaucrat.
That phrase always brings to mind Vincent D'Onofrio's statement in Men in Black that "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers," to which the Bug says, "Your offer is acceptable." But unlike D'Onofrio's character in that movie, the Federal government is (fortunately, I think) very, very hard to kill -- despite the best efforts of both internal and external forces for over 200 years.
 
Must have been some inarticulately stupid old wives.

Several comes from the latin route separalis meaning separate, distinct.
Seven comes from Germanic roots for the word sieben just meaning the number after six. The roots trace back older languages with variants on that but still meaning seven.

There's no crossover between those words.

The OED puts "several at" a vague numeral: Of an indefinite (but not large) number exceeding two or three; more than two or three but not very many. (The chief current sense.)

But it notes in a legal sense, it just means more than one.

"Few" means a small number, not many.

wrong_superhero.png
 
Well Monday has arrived and passed. We are on a DOT schedule which has already been revised once and on the revised schedule, the FAA has not submitted its' required input for departmental review and passage to OMB. Given that the FAA will ultimately take some significant period of time to actually write the NPRM, a minimum of 90 days public conmment submission and Secretarial approval, this action appears to me to be cold spaghetti until spring 2016 earliest. Legislative action seems to me the only hope for the change and even that is likely to become bargin bait for negotiations. Whether by departmental collusion or internal design, the strangulation seems to have succeeded.

Although it may have difficulty gaining traction against other congressional business, the legislative approach appears to be the only possible solution. I hope we do better there.
 
Although it may have difficulty gaining traction against other congressional business, the legislative approach appears to be the only possible solution. I hope we do better there.
How would legislation make it happen any faster? They'd have to start over from scratch if Congress gives them anything different than what's already been sent to DoT. The FAA would still have to go through the rulemaking process -- how long did it take to implement the PRIA, the age-65 rule, or the 121 co-pilot ATP rule?
 
I would just add that as a pilot and class A drivers license holder. The drivers license medical is tougher. Really tough on things like BP. Further most people consider flying way more dangerous and demanding than driving a truck. Sooooo…. I've never felt the DOT's involvement was anything but a negative and I can't imagine them recommending a drivers license medical.
 
Go fly a LSA or a glider or fly without a medical. Waiting for a happy ending is folly.
 
The Legislative approach is the only one that will work. Expecting the Bureaucracy (DOT, FAA) to take any steps to improve anything is probably folly. We should be focusing all our efforts (and AOPA's, etc) on the congressional bill, especially now that the Senate is actually voting on stuff. Get it through in something that the President needs to sign, and boom, it's fixed. We're probably closer now than ever before, on that front, so keep calling and writing your legislators! :yes:
 
How would legislation make it happen any faster? They'd have to start over from scratch if Congress gives them anything different than what's already been sent to DoT. The FAA would still have to go through the rulemaking process -- how long did it take to implement the PRIA, the age-65 rule, or the 121 co-pilot ATP rule?

Congress passes a law that says "A medical is not required to act as PIC for any aircraft below 6,000 pounds gross weight, any regulation to the contrary is hereby declared void."

Would take effect as soon as the law did without any FAA process at all,
 
Congress passes a law that says "A medical is not required to act as PIC for any aircraft below 6,000 pounds gross weight, any regulation to the contrary is hereby declared void."

Would take effect as soon as the law did without any FAA process at all,
I've never seen Congress pass such a law. Every one like this has directed the regulating agency to create regulations. In fact, such a law might be a violation of the separation of powers. And the ones proposed by Sen. Inhofe and the others are all of the "the FAA shall..." nature, so they'd have to start the legislative process over to do what you suggest.
 
In fact, such a law might be a violation of the separation of powers.

Not likely. The executive branch's creation of regulations is itself an exception to separation of powers.

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..." [emphasis added]​
 
I've never seen Congress pass such a law. Every one like this has directed the regulating agency to create regulations. In fact, such a law might be a violation of the separation of powers.

So how did this happen?

On Dec. 13, 2007,
President Bush signed into law a bill to raise the
mandatory retirement age for U.S. airline pilots to 65. Both the U.S. Senate
and U.S. House of Representatives had
unanimously approved H.R.4343 (to
read the bill, visit Crewroom.alpa.org
and click on the Advocacy tab).
The Fair Treatment of Experienced Pi-
lots Act immediately raised from 60 to
65 the mandatory retirement age for pi-
lots engaged in FAR Part 121 opera-
tions and incorporated ALPA’s Executive
Board recommendations for protecting
pilots’ interests affected by the change.
While the bill was passed as a stand-
alone, the omnibus legislation that it
was part of passed as well and was
signed into law later in December 2007.
“I am pleased to report to our mem-
bers that, pursuant to ALPA’s Executive
Board decision to change ALPA’s policy
on Age 60 in the face of legislation to
change the mandatory retirement age
that was rapidly moving through Con-
gress, your union’s leaders exerted ex-
tensive influence on the legislation that
is now law,” Capt. John Prater says. “The
bill’s language to raise the upper age
limit for airline pilots to 65 is consistent
with ALPA’s Executive Board resolution
adopted on May 23, 2007, in the face
of a change that was certain to come,
given the harmonization with the Inter-
national Civil Aviation Organization stan-
dard. The law represents months of
hard work, from both fellow pilots and
our Government Affairs Department,
which produced a tangible result.”
Age 65: How it works
Many questions about the new law’s
implementation remain. The following
list of facts answers some questions,
but most of the Act’s implications for
pilots will be clarified only in the com-
ing weeks and months.
Effective Dec. 13, 2007, the date
the president signed the bill, FAR Part
121 pilots may fly to age 65.
The law became effective immedi-
ately upon signing by the president and
supersedes the FAA Age 60 regulation
(FAR Part 121.383c), and in fact sun-
sets the regulation out of existence.

 
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