Third Class Meidcal Exemption

[N918KT]

I think GAPPA covers both day and night VFR. I think you are referring to the AOPA/EAA medical exemption, which only allows day VFR.

 

[steingar]

That's the proper role of the courts, not the executive branch. If somebody harms you, you can seek restitution through the courts. If you harm yourself, well...there is no branch of the government with the responsibility to protect you from yourself.

After all, you are always in a unique position to do harm to yourself that can't be mitigated without putting all citizens in straitjackets and giving them a healthy dose of thorazine.

First, courts don't work without enforcement. Second, state courts don't work across state lines, through which aircraft tend to travel. Third, federal courts need some sort of enforcement that falls under the executive.

In harming yourself you can easily harm others, thus the state has a say. Moreover, the vast majority of people who try and kill themselves do so for transient reasons. Those who are saved are glad to have been down so and usually don't try again. Thus society has a right to try and prevent self harm to individuals in whom society has made a substantial investment.

 

[poadeleted20]

Or issue with a night restriction, do they still do that?

The night restriction goes on your medical, not your pilot certificate. You still have to do the three hours and ten landings at night before you can take the practical test.

The only waiver to the night requirement is if you live in Alaska and do the training in the summer, and then you must complete the night training once it gets dark in the fall. See 61.110 for details.

 

[poadeleted20]

I meant if the PPL candidate didn't have a medical (because it's not required for Day VFR). Ok, I guess in that case a CFI with a medical could act as PIC.

There is no "solo" night time required for the PPL, right?

Right. If it goes as I expect, a DL-only trainee would still have to do the three hours and ten landings at night with a CFI-Airplane, but would not have night privileges until s/he got a medical certificate. However, at that point, s/he would be legal to fly at night without further FAA testing.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think GAPPA covers both day and night VFR. I think you are referring to the AOPA/EAA medical exemption, which only allows day VFR.

I expect the FAA to go with something much like the EAA/AOPA proposal at this point. Don't hold your breath for no-medical night flying.

 

[ClimbnSink]

First, courts don't work without enforcement. Second, state courts don't work across state lines, through which aircraft tend to travel. Third, federal courts need some sort of enforcement that falls under the executive.

In harming yourself you can easily harm others, thus the state has a say. Moreover, the vast majority of people who try and kill themselves do so for transient reasons. Those who are saved are glad to have been down so and usually don't try again. Thus society has a right to try and prevent self harm to individuals in whom society has made a substantial investment.

Ah but we are past saving suicides. BASE jumpers have been charged with careless and reckless(no not in a city with pedestrians below.) BASE jumpers today, acro pilots tomorrow, spam can pilots the day after. Same as the gestapo stops, rare, and the other guy, mostly. Until it is our turn.

 

[steingar]

Ah but we are past saving suicides. BASE jumpers have been charged with careless and reckless(no not in a city with pedestrians below.)

That's new. They are usually charged with trespassing, which they usually do to get to their launch points. But I think some clarification is in order. Careless and Reckless what, exactly? Jump rigs aren't motorized vehicles, so that rules that out. I've not heard of "careless and reckless behavior" being charged of anyone.

 

[Unregistered]

So would new pilots be able to make use of the medical exemption? What about sport pilots, can they move up to something like a 152 or 172 if this were to pass?

 

[dmspilot]

What about sport pilots, can they move up to something like a 152 or 172 if this were to pass?

With only a sport pilot certificate? No.

 

[Unregistered]

With only a sport pilot certificate? No.

So who does the 3rd class exemption benefit then? Or a better way of phrasing the question is: would a person with a sport pilot ticket or anyone looking to become a pilot be able to go for a private pilot ticket without the 3rd class medical and if so what restrictions apply?

 

[poadeleted20]

So would new pilots be able to make use of the medical exemption?

I can't imagine the FAA limiting this to people who already hold pilot certificates on a certain date.

What about sport pilots, can they move up to something like a 152 or 172 if this were to pass?

Sure -- if they complete Private Pilot training and testing.

 

[poadeleted20]

So who does the 3rd class exemption benefit then?

Anyone who wants to exercise that segment of pilot privileges which currently require a Third Class medical but which would allow exercise with only a DL. See the AOPA/EAA proposal for an idea of what I think the FAA will agree to.

Or a better way of phrasing the question is: would a person with a sport pilot ticket or anyone looking to become a pilot be able to go for a private pilot ticket without the 3rd class medical

I should think so.

and if so what restrictions apply?

Whatever restrictions the FAA sets, which I think will be in line with the AOPA/EAA proposal -- Day VFR, 6000 lb MGW, six seats, single engine, etc. I suspect they'd consider relaxing those after a few years' experience if nothing bad happens, but that's pure speculation on my part.

 

[Gary F]

Whatever restrictions the FAA sets, which I think will be in line with the AOPA/EAA proposal -- Day VFR, 6000 lb MGW, six seats, single engine, etc. I suspect they'd consider relaxing those after a few years' experience if nothing bad happens, but that's pure speculation on my part.

And that's a problem. It could be rescinded if there is a spectacular accident and it looks like it might have been the result of pilot incapacitation.

 

[Unregistered]

Thanks Ron. And I agree Gary, that's why an law passed by congress would be better but who knows if that bill will make it anywhere.

 

[poadeleted20]

And that's a problem. It could be rescinded if there is a spectacular accident and it looks like it might have been the result of pilot incapacitation.

Anything is possible, but the likelihood is awfully low that they'd change it based on one incident, and they'd have to go through the full rulemaking process to do it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Thanks Ron. And I agree Gary, that's why an law passed by congress would be better but who knows if that bill will make it anywhere.

What makes you think Congress would be any less sensitive than the FAA to "one spectacular accident"? After all, it was Congress, not the FAA, which forced the 1500-hour rule for Part 121 based on "one spectacular accident".

 

[Unregistered]

What makes you think Congress would be any less sensitive than the FAA to "one spectacular accident"? After all, it was Congress, not the FAA, which forced the 1500-hour rule for Part 121 based on "one spectacular accident".

So true.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

And that's a problem. It could be rescinded if there is a spectacular accident and it looks like it might have been the result of pilot incapacitation.

Unlike those accidents caused by pilot incapacitation with a valid medical.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Pilots with first class medicals never have problems. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71571

 

[Gary F]

Unlike those accidents caused by pilot incapacitation with a valid medical.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Pilots with first class medicals never have problems. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71571

Facts and reason do not matter to the opportunistic people who "want to make a difference". You don't need to explain to me the limitations of the FAA medical certification system.