Third Class Meidcal Exemption

[poadeleted20]

Also, it would encourage IFR rated pilots without a medical to NOT remain IFR current because their IFR skills couldn't legally be used.

Give 'em an inch, and they want a mile and a half. No doubt one can come up with all sorts of arguments like this, but the fact is the FAA is about to give pilots what they asked for. Take the money and run, and maybe if we don't screw it up, they'll give us more next time.

 

[poadeleted20]

Glad your sources don't consider it DOA anymore..... They've had a real change of heart.

No, they've had a change of management. And it wasn't my sources who considered it DOA -- those were the exact words the former Administrator told AOPA President Craig Fuller. Both are now gone from their respective positions, and the people in FAA HQ now pushing this weren't even working there at that time. This is a harbinger of a sea change in thinking within Flight Standards, and one which (if it happens) should be applauded roundly, not result in griping about how it isn't more sweeping.

 

[poadeleted20]

Theoretically, cognitive impairment could be detected during a flight review. It might require further training of CFIs to detect subtle problems in airmen they've never met before, though.

Agreed.

I'd worry that the FAA might start requiring cognitive screening for all airmen over 65 or some such age.

I think you're imagining things the FAA hasn't even thought of (at least for Private Pilot operations).

 

[dans2992]

Give 'em an inch, and they want a mile and a half. No doubt one can come up with all sorts of arguments like this, but the fact is the FAA is about to give pilots what they asked for. Take the money and run, and maybe if we don't screw it up, they'll give us more next time.

I agree, but it's like "upgrading" from an abacus to a slide rule. Sure, it's an improvement and we'll take it, but.....

 

[Palmpilot]

No, they've had a change of management. And it wasn't my sources who considered it DOA -- those were the exact words the former Administrator told AOPA President Craig Fuller. Both are now gone from their respective positions, and the people in FAA HQ now pushing this weren't even working there at that time. This is a harbinger of a sea change in thinking within Flight Standards, and one which (if it happens) should be applauded roundly, not result in griping about how it isn't more sweeping.

AMEN!

 

[RJM62]

Agreed.

I think you're imagining things the FAA hasn't even thought of (at least for Private Pilot operations).

Don't give them any ideas!

-Rich

 

[steingar]

You can believe that if you wish, but my information suggests the FAA plan will allow pretty much the same as what the proposed bill would allow.

I hope your'e right Ron, I really do. GA needs all the help it can get right about now.

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

Before we get too excited, there might be some push-back from the insurance industry. Aren't there already instances of clubs and fbo's requiring 3rd class for renting LSAs due to insurance provisions? Some chap in his late 60's wants to trade in his Skycatcher for a Debonair, I can definitely see the underwriter saying, "Not so fast..."

A member of my EAA chapter in his 70's(still has his 3rd class) is already required by his insurer to get annual flight reviews...

 

[bullwinkle]

Before we get too excited, there might be some push-back from the insurance industry. Aren't there already instances of clubs and fbo's requiring 3rd class for renting LSAs due to insurance provisions? Some chap in his late 60's wants to trade in his Skycatcher for a Debonair, I can definitely see the underwriter saying, "Not so fast..."

A member of my EAA chapter in his 70's(still has his 3rd class) is already required by his insurer to get annual flight reviews...

I don't believe this is an issue. I pay approximately the same in insurance for my S-LSA as a friend of mine with an ATP and similarly valued experimental with 10,000-ish hours. I have 105 hours and no medical.

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

I don't believe this is an issue. I pay approximately the same in insurance for my S-LSA as a friend of mine with an ATP and similarly valued experimental with 10,000-ish hours. I have 105 hours and no medical.

Apples <> oranges. The test would come, should this rule be enacted and you try to move up to a bigger bird or your ATP buddy retires and decides to drop his medical. Either could be perceived as a significant increase in exposure by the insuror. Although, both of you having track records with your current insuror would definitely be a positive.

The aviation insurance market is extremely small. I could definitely see the majority of the players requiring some sort of medical screening to insure aircraft over a given weight, speed, complexity or passengers absent an FAA medical cert. Possibly as simple as a questionnaire completed by your PCP. I really doubt that they will be nonchalant over a retirement age pilot without a medical flying a complex bird.

Another fellow EAA chapter member just sold his Bonanza and bought an Arion Lightning. Nice bird, but I'm pretty sure that if this individual tried to move back up to the Bo, his insuror would have some pointed questions...

Full disclosure - I am a commercial insurance underwriter(not aviation).

 

[bullwinkle]

The point is that insurance is affordable now for airplanes that are not certified for low time pilots without medicals. I can't imagine that certified airplanes for similarly skilled pilots would be MORE expensive. Especially considering the accident rate for LSA is higher than for certified airplanes.

 

[RJM62]

Apples <> oranges. The test would come, should this rule be enacted and you try to move up to a bigger bird or your ATP buddy retires and decides to drop his medical. Either could be perceived as a significant increase in exposure by the insuror. Although, both of you having track records with your current insuror would definitely be a positive.

The aviation insurance market is extremely small. I could definitely see the majority of the players requiring some sort of medical screening to insure aircraft over a given weight, speed, complexity or passengers absent an FAA medical cert. Possibly as simple as a questionnaire completed by your PCP. I really doubt that they will be nonchalant over a retirement age pilot without a medical flying a complex bird.

Another fellow EAA chapter member just sold his Bonanza and bought an Arion Lightning. Nice bird, but I'm pretty sure that if this individual tried to move back up to the Bo, his insuror would have some pointed questions...

Full disclosure - I am a commercial insurance underwriter(not aviation).

Until enough pilots blow off the insurance companies and fly naked, at least. The airplane flies just fine without insurance.

-Rich

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

The point is that insurance is affordable now for airplanes that are not certified for low time pilots without medicals. I can't imagine that certified airplanes for similarly skilled pilots would be MORE expensive. Especially considering the accident rate for LSA is higher than for certified airplanes.

I doubt the higher accident rate for LSA is due to the aircraft....

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

Until enough pilots blow off the insurance companies and fly naked, at least. The airplane flies just fine without insurance.

-Rich

That's certainly an option if you pay cash and have no other assets that you wish to protect....

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I think if the insurance companies really thought this was a bad idea, we would have heard from them already.

 

[FastEddieB]

I doubt the higher accident rate for LSA is due to the aircraft....

One gotcha is forgetting how much lower approach and landing speeds give crosswinds a lot more "bite".

12g20 might be trivial in a Cirrus or Bonanza, while being quite the handful in a smaller, slower plane.

Fortunately, most LSA accidents seem to happen at relatively low speeds on landing, usually injuring just the pilot's pride. And its not unusual for that pilot to have a lot of time in bigger aircraft.

 

[steingar]

I doubt the higher accident rate for LSA is due to the aircraft....

Kinda is, I was told (by Rod Hightower himself!) that the majority of the accidents are due to pilots used to larger aircraft mishandling the lighter LSA's and doing things such as mentioned by the Fast One. One thing it isn't due to is medical incapacitation.

I don't see the big whoop. AK's older than Odin are driving around in Land Yachts causing all sorts of mischief. Hell, they gave mama Steingar a driver's license renewal and I know for a fact she couldn't see diddly squat at the time. All those fossils are insured despite the fact that they hit buildings, other cars, animals and people and cause all sorts of problems.

 

[Gary F]

Kinda is, I was told (by Rod Hightower himself!) that the majority of the accidents are due to pilots used to larger aircraft mishandling the lighter LSA's and doing things such as mentioned by the Fast One. One thing it isn't due to is medical incapacitation.

I don't see the big whoop. AK's older than Odin are driving around in Land Yachts causing all sorts of mischief. Hell, they gave mama Steingar a driver's license renewal and I know for a fact she couldn't see diddly squat at the time. All those fossils are insured despite the fact that they hit buildings, other cars, animals and people and cause all sorts of problems.

If the insurers started being too selective in writing policies for the elderly it would bring down the wrath of the AARP.

 

[wsuffa]

I wonder what this will do to airplane prices?

Depending on where the weight limit is set, maybe a lot, maybe a little. If it's set at ~2500 lbs, it might help maintain values of 172's, some RVs, and the smaller certified aircraft, but would likely hurt those somewhat over the weight limit (Bo's, Commanders, 210's, etc). If it's set at 3,000, my plane would qualify & I'd have to think long and hard especially since I fly IFR a lot.

Until enough pilots blow off the insurance companies and fly naked, at least. The airplane flies just fine without insurance.

-Rich

.... except in those states where insurance is mandatory (Virginia is one).

If the insurers started being too selective in writing policies for the elderly it would bring down the wrath of the AARP.

I'd bet against it. Maybe, but AARP will focus on the interest of the greatest population - which would include Social Security, Medicare, etc. There's not a lot of pushback from AARP on certain restrictions for elderly & autos.

 

[steingar]

If the insurers started being too selective in writing policies for the elderly it would bring down the wrath of the AARP.

They would if it made them enough money to justify the hassle. My guess is there are so many seniors driving that the ones that get into dutch are a vast minority and don't really budge the bottom line.

 

[Gary F]

They would if it made them enough money to justify the hassle. My guess is there are so many seniors driving that the ones that get into dutch are a vast minority and don't really budge the bottom line.

Somebody is fighting restrictions on elderly drivers tooth and nail. Otherwise there would be mandatory periodic road tests for drivers over 80.

 

[tmyers]

Kinda is, I was told (by Rod Hightower himself!) that the majority of the accidents are due to pilots used to larger aircraft mishandling the lighter LSA's and doing things such as mentioned by the Fast One. One thing it isn't due to is medical incapacitation.

I don't see the big whoop. AK's older than Odin are driving around in Land Yachts causing all sorts of mischief. Hell, they gave mama Steingar a driver's license renewal and I know for a fact she couldn't see diddly squat at the time. All those fossils are insured despite the fact that they hit buildings, other cars, animals and people and cause all sorts of problems.

Did you just call Mrs Steingar a fossil?????

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

Somebody is fighting restrictions on elderly drivers tooth and nail. Otherwise there would be mandatory periodic road tests for drivers over 80.

Prob'ly more that the politicians and bureaucrats are avoiding the bad optics of cracking down on Grannie...

 

[dukeblue219]

Suppose you are a pilot with a third-class medical that restricts flight at night. If this measure was adopted as Congress suggested, that pilot could now fly day or night VFR. Would the previous restriction apply indefinitely in the same way that a previously-failed medical blocks the SP self-certification?

It would be interesting as an IFR pilot because I'd like to maintain my medical to continue to fly IFR, but then I'd have to accept the night restriction that otherwise could drop away if I let the medical expire.

I'm not sure there's any analog for the current rules -- is there any reason currently why a pilot would want to intentionally expire their current medical in order to fly SP with a DL such that they gain more privileges?

 

[steingar]

Did you just call Mrs Steingar a fossil?????

Never, never and never. My sweetie can see better than me, and always spots traffic and airports before I do. I doubt she can drive good as me, but that has nothing to do with age and everything to do with the fortunate lack of a Y chromosome.

 

[nddons]

Did you just call Mrs Steingar a fossil?????

Ruh ro. Someone's going to be doing a LOT of chores this weekend.

 

[nddons]

Never, never and never. My sweetie can see better than me, and always spots traffic and airports before I do. I doubt she can drive good as me, but that has nothing to do with age and everything to do with the fortunate lack of a Y chromosome.

She's looking over your shoulder, isn't she?

Hi Mrs. S!

 

[Gary F]

She's looking over your shoulder, isn't she?

Hi Mrs. S!

In his defense, he spoke very highly of her at the POA picnic at Oshkosh a few years ago. (You owe me for this one).

 

[RJM62]

That's certainly an option if you pay cash and have no other assets that you wish to protect....

What I mean is that insurance companies have to write insurance. That's how they make their coin. So if a large number of pilots decide to blow off the third-class simply because they no longer need it to do the kind of flying that they want to do, eventually the insurance industry will have to start writing policies for them. They may be more expensive, but they'll write them.

The reason I say this is because there are a whole lot of pilots who currently have medicals, but for whom the privileges the rumor mill is saying might be extended under the DL would work out just fine. Unless they get some sort of special joy from being poked and prodded, I suspect that many, many of these pilots would just let their medicals expire simply because they no longer need them to do what they want to do.

In addition, there would be other pilots who have expired medicals who might get back into flying, SPs upgrading to PPs, and new students who are getting into aviation specifically because of the DL medical. How many, I don't know; but collectively, there would be enough people interested in flying with a DL medical that the insurance companies would have to be boneheads to turn their backs on the whole market. They'd have to crunch some numbers to come up with actuarial data and set their rates, but I seriously doubt that they'd write off the whole lot of them as uninsurable -- especially if enough pilots chose to take the risk and fly naked.

So in a nutshell, if the insurance companies see the naked backsides of a whole lot of insureds as they walk away, eventually they're going to want to bring them and their dollars back into the fold -- medical or no medical. That's just my opinion.

-Rich

 

[FastEddieB]

She's looking over your shoulder, isn't she?

Hi Mrs. S!

Whenever we fly, Mrs. B is looking over mine:

We ain't fossilized....YET!

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

What I mean is that insurance companies have to write insurance. That's how they make their coin. So if a large number of pilots decide to blow off the third-class simply because they no longer need it to do the kind of flying that they want to do, eventually the insurance industry will have to start writing policies for them. They may be more expensive, but they'll write them.

So in a nutshell, if the insurance companies see the naked backsides of a whole lot of insureds as they walk away, eventually they're going to want to bring them and their dollars back into the fold -- medical or no medical.

Not really. A "large number of pilots" is still a small number of potential customers. I've seen companies walk away from much larger business segments(just ask anyone trying to buy homeowners insurance in Florida). I went to HCC's(Avemco's parent) web site out of curiosity, and their total aviation writings is less than half of what just my branch(just one commercial segment in a regional office) writes. I'm guessing private pilots is just a small fraction of that. I've often wondered why the few companies that write us even bother.

It takes a lot of capital to run an insurance company, and companies will deploy that capital where they will get the best return. While it might feel good to think that they need us more than we need them, that may not be the case. They may just move on to a more profitable market - again, just ask homeowners in Florida.

Companies will not be forced to write pilots without medical screening. They will either price the risk accordingly or decline; choosing to move on to the next applicant. More likely IMO, they'll ask for additional underwriting information; which may include either an FAA medical(an established protocol), a questionnaire completed by a physician or a medical exam such as is already common for life insurance. To think that they'll simply accept the "new reality" without changing their strategy is a bit naive. I've been in this business for 35 years and I've watched my employers and others adapt to changes in the business environment. One thing's for sure - if safety is adversely affected by this change, you can expect the insurers to react quicker than the regulators.

BTW, I'm not trying to defend the insurance industry. Our sorry reputation is pretty well deserved....

 

[RJM62]

Not really. A "large number of pilots" is still a small number of potential customers. I've seen companies walk away from much larger business segments(just ask anyone trying to buy homeowners insurance in Florida). I went to HCC's(Avemco's parent) web site out of curiosity, and their total aviation writings is less than half of what just my branch(just one commercial segment in a regional office) writes. I'm guessing private pilots is just a small fraction of that. I've often wondered why the few companies that write us even bother.

It takes a lot of capital to run an insurance company, and companies will deploy that capital where they will get the best return. While it might feel good to think that they need us more than we need them, that may not be the case. They may just move on to a more profitable market - again, just ask homeowners in Florida.

Companies will not be forced to write pilots without medical screening. They will either price the risk accordingly or decline; choosing to move on to the next applicant. More likely IMO, they'll ask for additional underwriting information; which may include either an FAA medical(an established protocol), a questionnaire completed by a physician or a medical exam such as is already common for life insurance. To think that they'll simply accept the "new reality" without changing their strategy is a bit naive. I've been in this business for 35 years and I've watched my employers and others adapt to changes in the business environment. One thing's for sure - if safety is adversely affected by this change, you can expect the insurers to react quicker than the regulators.

BTW, I'm not trying to defend the insurance industry. Our sorry reputation is pretty well deserved....

Actually, PF, my experiences with insurance companies have been much better than my experiences with establishments who enjoy much better (but questionably-deserved) reputations for altruism and warm fuzzies.

Really. I'm serious.

I honestly haven't had any problems with insurers. I gripe about them mightily in social settings because it's fashionable to do so; but in moments of drunkenness honesty, I will grudgingly admit that on the relatively few occasions when I've used my various insurances, my claims have always been handled promptly and fairly, and I've always been satisfied that I got my money's worth.

So there. Now it's out in the open. I don't hate insurance companies.

That being said, I know that insurance companies are businesses, and I also believe in the "build it, and they will come" school of thought. If there's a market, especially one perceived to have money (like pilots), someone will chase it.

But yes, I absolutely agree that it may cost more; and yes, it may require a visit to a PCP (totally reasonable, in my opinion) to make sure the insured has at least one foot out of the grave, or maybe even an annual flight review rather than a BFR. But I seriously doubt that insurance would become completely unavailable. I mean, I had no problem getting insured without a medical, and my days of being in perfect health are well behind me.

So although I defer to your expertise, I still have to believe that where there's money, there will be people chasing that money. That's been my observation for all my life.

-Rich

 

[Clip4]

Until enough pilots blow off the insurance companies and fly naked, at least. The airplane flies just fine without insurance.

-Rich

Some pilots are named Rich and others borrow.. If you have a note on your plane, you are going to need insurance.

 

[Papa Foxtrot]

Actually, PF, my experiences with insurance companies have been much better than my experiences with establishments who enjoy much better (but questionably-deserved) reputations for altruism and warm fuzzies.

Really. I'm serious.

Thank you! Most of us really do try...

But yes, I absolutely agree that it may cost more; and yes, it may require a visit to a PCP (totally reasonable, in my opinion) to make sure the insured has at least one foot out of the grave, or maybe even an annual flight review rather than a BFR. But I seriously doubt that insurance would become completely unavailable. I mean, I had no problem getting insured without a medical, and my days of being in perfect health are well behind me.

And that brings us back to precisely the point that I entered this thread....

 

[tinerj]

Insurance is based on statistics. If heavy, fast planes with DL medical pilots do more damage and cause more injuries the rates will be greater for them. Notice the "if".

 

[poadeleted20]

I agree, but it's like "upgrading" from an abacus to a slide rule.

No, it's not. It's more like being told by your parents that after careful consideration, they are no longer going to limit you to daytime driving to and from school/work, and you can now take the car out after dark for recreational purposes, but only solo and only if you're home by 10pm. Argue with such limitations, and it may be a lot longer before you get them to agree to anything else -- and they might even withdraw some privileges.

 

[poadeleted20]

Suppose you are a pilot with a third-class medical that restricts flight at night. If this measure was adopted as Congress suggested, that pilot could now fly day or night VFR. Would the previous restriction apply indefinitely in the same way that a previously-failed medical blocks the SP self-certification?

There is no way to say exactly what the may propose in any new regulations they are considering. However, as I said above, I expect that whatever they might put out in an NPRM this year will include a Day VFR-only limitation just like the current Sport Pilots.

It would be interesting as an IFR pilot because I'd like to maintain my medical to continue to fly IFR, but then I'd have to accept the night restriction that otherwise could drop away if I let the medical expire.

I don't see how you would have to accept a night restriction if you keep your medical unless your night vision deteriorates to the point where a night restriction is put on that medical, in which case I don't see any way any new regulations would permit you to continue flying at night under any circumstances.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

No, it's not. It's more like being told by your parents that after careful consideration, they are no longer going to limit you to daytime driving to and from school/work, and you can now take the car out after dark for recreational purposes, but only solo and only if you're home by 10pm. Argue with such limitations, and it may be a lot longer before you get them to agree to anything else -- and they might even withdraw some privileges.

Do you actually view the FAA as a parental figure that we can't purposefully argue with through comments on NPRMs and our Congressional representatives with fear of reprisal?

 

[tinerj]

No, it's not. It's more like being told by your parents that after careful consideration, they are no longer going to limit you to daytime driving to and from school/work, and you can now take the car out after dark for recreational purposes, but only solo and only if you're home by 10pm. Argue with such limitations, and it may be a lot longer before you get them to agree to anything else -- and they might even withdraw some privileges.

I have never experienced with my parents, teachers, or others in authority that the more I argued the less I got. I usually got more. Read Luke 18:1-8 for a two thousand year old example.

 

[bullwinkle]

The government is not our parents, and we are not children.