Upcoming FAA Action on DL Medical?

[poadeleted20]

So if this bill passes, I think the responsibility for seeing if someone is fit to fly transfers from the AME to the CFI or DPE.

That would depend on how the regulations are written, but I strongly doubt that. I don't see the FAA ever placing that responsibility on persons not qualified as medical practitioners (other than the existing regulatory requirement for self-certification every flight).

Let me ask you this question. Would you prefer to have an AME or a CFI/DPE make that decision if you are fit to fly or not?

I don't think you'll ever have to make that choice, and I guarantee that as a non-MD CFI, I will never accept that responsibility (even if it were possible for the FAA to saddle me with it, which I doubt).

From what I heard, the AME just examines you for like 10 minutes while a CFI or DPE knows about your strengths and weaknesses in your training.

You've heard incorrectly. An aviation medical should take more than 10 minutes, and instructors/examiners evaluate only your flying knowledge and proficiency, not your medical condition.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm 53 years old and well aware of my medical state. I think I'm capable of determining for myself whether or not I'm medically fit to fly.

Many pilots have taken that position before, and been wrong about it. That's the problem -- not the majority with good enough judgment to ground themselves when appropriate, but the small minority with the arrogance or stupidity (or both) to fly even when they really aren't fit.

 

[DaleB]

Many pilots have taken that position before, and been wrong about it. That's the problem -- not the majority with good enough judgment to ground themselves when appropriate, but the small minority with the arrogance or stupidity (or both) to fly even when they really aren't fit.

And the presence or absence of a medical certificate won't significantly change that. Those few percent who would fly when they're not fit will do so regardless of whether they hold a current/valid medical or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

And the presence or absence of a medical certificate won't significantly change that. Those few percent who would fly when they're not fit will do so regardless of whether they hold a current/valid medical or not.

However, it does allow for insurance and a basis for decision-making, and it does provide more defined rules and sanctions for those caught doing it. As noted by others, the insurance industry is no doubt watching this carefully, and I expect higher rates or more difficulty getting coverage for flying, say, a 36 Bonanza with no medical. We shall see.

 

[tinerj]

The pilots incapable of flying will also reveal it by being incapable of driving a car. As I've said before, It's harder to drive an SUV at night in rush hour traffic during a rainstorm than it is to fly a plane in the day under VFR conditions.

 

[QuiQuog]

So if this bill passes, I think the responsibility for seeing if someone is fit to fly transfers from the AME to the CFI or DPE.

Let me ask you this question. Would you prefer to have an AME or a CFI/DPE make that decision if you are fit to fly or not?

From what I heard, the AME just examines you for like 10 minutes while a CFI or DPE knows about your strengths and weaknesses in your training.

If this bill passes, the responsibility of determining fitness for flying remains on the pilot. That doesn't change. The bill is about removing the AME from the chain, not increasing his power. And are you suggesting that a CFI should sign off on whether you're medically fit to fly? Can you imagine a doe-eyed time building CFI fresh out of school with the power to determine your medical fitness to fly?

 

[DaleB]

However, it does allow for insurance and a basis for decision-making, and it does provide more defined rules and sanctions for those caught doing it. As noted by others, the insurance industry is no doubt watching this carefully, and I expect higher rates or more difficulty getting coverage for flying, say, a 36 Bonanza with no medical. We shall see.

That may well be; like you said -- we'll see. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

With or without a medical certificate, though, the responsibility for determining a pilot's fitness for flight rests squarely and solely on the shoulders of the pilot. The medical certificate means the AME didn't find any specific reasons to DQ you on that particular day. Doesn't mean you're fit to fly the next day; only you can make that determination. Have you taken anything that affects your attention, judgment, reaction time or alertness? Too tired? Too sick? Got that nagging little pain in your chest that comes and goes, but you haven't had looked at yet? The AME isn't going to save you, nor is a CFI nor a DPE. Only you, the pilot.

Originally my FAA medical was nothing more than an added expense. My regular annual checkup was far more thorough. Now it's the one thing keeping me from flying -- although my regular doc (a fellow pilot) and my cardiologist agree that there should be no reason I can't fly safely, an FAA policy says otherwise. So, if that policy changes I'm not going to shed any tears.

So what about all "those other guys" who are irresponsible, in denial, reckless, etc? They're out there now, they're flying now, and they will continue to do so. I know there are guys flying with expired or invalid medicals, just like there are plenty of guys flying planes that are out of annual. I could be wrong, but I don't think the proposed change in certification rules is going to have a significant impact on those numbers. Safe, responsible guys are going to continue to be safe and responsible. Reckless idiots are going to continue to be so. Policy isn't going to change behavior much, and enforcement? You still have the same rules in place. Fly with a known deficiency and get caught, pay the price -- medical in your pocket or no.

But hey, like i said, I could be all wet on this. Maybe we'll see flaming balls of crumpled aluminum tumbling into neighborhood schoolyards on a daily basis. If that's the case I'm sure we'll see some swift regulatory adjustments.

 

[steingar]

There is no data suggesting any efficacy of the third class medical. None, and the means to acquire it have been present for decades. I wish government agencies were required to base their policies on actual need illustrated by actual data.

 

[Todd Copeland]

Many pilots have taken that position before, and been wrong about it. That's the problem -- not the majority with good enough judgment to ground themselves when appropriate, but the small minority with the arrogance or stupidity (or both) to fly even when they really aren't fit.

And how is that different from the decision on weather? I don't believe the stats on the medical requirement prove out your claim that people don't know when they are not medically fit to fly. The stats on sport pilots with regard to medically related accidents are very good and they self certify.

 

[poadeleted20]

And how is that different from the decision on weather? I don't believe the stats on the medical requirement prove out your claim that people don't know when they are not medically fit to fly.

I never "claim[ed] that people don't know when they are not medically fit to fly". However, the accident database tells us for sure that there are some people who have flown when they knew or had reason to know they weren't medically fit and crashed, and that there is evidence their medical condition was at least a contributing factor, so we know they're out there and it happens, just not how many and how often.

The stats on sport pilots with regard to medically related accidents are very good and they self certify.

Really? I've not seen those statistics. Can you share them? The only thing I know is that the FAA is looking at and tracking such accidents (especially involving pilots who allowed their medicals to lapse), but I don't know the numbers.

 

[noobJohn]

That part rings true to me. I think you need better eye/hand coordination to drive a car. Better judgement is required to fly a plane. NOTE: This is from the POV of a low time pilot who's flown training aircraft, I'm not trying to say that aerobatics or landing on an aircraft carrier is easy.

It's harder to drive an SUV at night in rush hour traffic during a rainstorm than it is to fly a plane in the day under VFR conditions.

 

[Neil Rubin]

However, it does allow for insurance and a basis for decision-making, and it does provide more defined rules and sanctions for those caught doing it. As noted by others, the insurance industry is no doubt watching this carefully, and I expect higher rates or more difficulty getting coverage for flying, say, a 36 Bonanza with no medical. We shall see.

Do insurers charge more for sport pilots without medicals? Do they offer discounts to owners of LSAs who have current medicals? At least in the non-owned insurance market, it seems like you are charged the same whether you have a medical or not--they simply exclude coverage if the FAA requires a medical for your flight and you don't have one. At least that is how the AOPAIA/Chartis and Starr forms work. Does it work any differently in the owned market? Do open pilot clauses for LSAs ever require a medical?

As far as I can tell, AOPA, Chartis, and Starr non-owned policies currently in effect would cover a pilot who flew under the provisions of the proposed AOPA/EAA exemption or under the GAPPA. (Obviously, read your own policy before you rely on my assessment.) Since the AOPA/EAA petition has been outstanding for a couple years now, you'd think the insurers might have changed their forms if they were really afraid of covering pilots flying under the proposed exemption.

Time will tell, but I suspect that insurers will happily write insurance for folks flying under a driver's license medical, if Congress and/or the FAA make it a reality. If true, that will say a lot about the effectiveness of the third class medical.

 

[poadeleted20]

Do insurers charge more for sport pilots without medicals?

Some do. I know of several FBO/flight school operators requiring a medical to fly their LSA's because of their insurer's requirements to keep the school's total premium lower.

Time will tell, but I suspect that insurers will happily write insurance for folks flying under a driver's license medical, if Congress and/or the FAA make it a reality.

Perhaps, but current information suggests they may charge more if they perceive a higher risk. I suspect they'll look at it the same way they do writing for a non-IR PP with a 6-seat HP/complex airplane -- "It's gonna cost ya, chief!"

 

[paflyer]

I wonder what the reaction would be to an old fashioned mail campaign. Do you think that more notice would be taken, and taken more seriously, if a truckload of letters showed up on the steps of the Capitol?

It worked in this case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2YgjSA8Dg

 

[Neil Rubin]

Some do. I know of several FBO/flight school operators requiring a medical to fly their LSA's because of their insurer's requirements to keep the school's total premium lower.

Perhaps, but current information suggests they may charge more if they perceive a higher risk. I suspect they'll look at it the same way they do writing for a non-IR PP with a 6-seat HP/complex airplane -- "It's gonna cost ya, chief!"

Well, a low-time, non-IR pilot very likely does not have the skills or experience necessary to safely pilot a larger, high-performance, and complex aircraft, simply by virtue of his inexperience and lack of qualifications. He is plainly a higher risk flying such an aircraft. Likewise, a private pilot who chooses not to renew his medical and chooses instead to fly under sport pilot privileges is likely (though not necessarily, of course) to be someone with concerns about his ability to qualify for a new medical certificate. So, in today's world, not having a medical is at least evidence that suggests to the insurance company that you are a higher medical risk.

In a GAPPA world, for non-IR private pilots (or even for IR private pilots who don't keep instrument current), flying without a medical will basically become the norm. Why go through the hassle of getting a medical certificate if none of the flying you do requires it? A person could go all the way from their first lesson, through a step up to a Bonanza or Cirrus or whatever, without ever needing to get a medical, so long as they don't want to fly IFR as PIC. It wouldn't be for me--since I like having the flexibility offered by being able to use my instrument rating--but for many it would be a perfectly good option. So all that not having the medical certificate would really tell the insurance company is that the pilot doesn't fly commercially and doesn't care to fly IFR. That doesn't put them in some unusual high-risk group. Rather, it puts them in a group that the majority of current private pilots (and some current commercial and ATP pilots) belong to today. As a group, they may well be a lower risk than the folks who fly IFR and thus need the medical--because the sort of GA single-pilot piston flying that people do in IFR is generally more dangerous than the flying that people do VFR (the pilots may be more skilled and more qualified, but their mission is more demanding and dangerous, on average). I just don't see insurers demanding a significant price premium from pilots with no medical, except perhaps to treat the pilot as not having an instrument rating--regardless of whether they actually have the rating--because they cannot actually use its privileges.

Time will tell, if any of the driver's license medical proposals is ever actually adopted.

 

[Todd Copeland]

I never "claim[ed] that people don't know when they are not medically fit to fly". However, the accident database tells us for sure that there are some people who have flown when they knew or had reason to know they weren't medically fit and crashed, and that there is evidence their medical condition was at least a contributing factor, so we know they're out there and it happens, just not how many and how often.
Really? I've not seen those statistics. Can you share them? The only thing I know is that the FAA is looking at and tracking such accidents (especially involving pilots who allowed their medicals to lapse), but I don't know the numbers.

Yes, I know of accidents where people have been legally drunk. People do stupid things in airplanes and everything else with an engine. People with medical a do this too.
As far as the sport pilot stats, I do not know of a single accident that was attributed to a medical related reason do you?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Yes, I know of accidents where people have been legally drunk. People do stupid things in airplanes and everything else with an engine. People with medical a do this too.
As far as the sport pilot stats, I do not know of a single accident that was attributed to a medical related reason do you?

NTSB[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] DFW06FA184

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed and the subsequent stall. Contributing factors were the low altitude and impairment due to drugs.[/FONT]
The 199-hour, 31-year old pilot, who was occupying the front seat, was a private pilot with ratings for airplane single-engine land. The pilot's most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued January 2005. However, FAA records showed that his last medical was conducted May, 1998. The AME (Aviation Medical Examiners) that signed the pilot's flight medical had her medical license suspended in October 2004, and her AME designation suspended in April, 2005.

 

[QuiQuog]

NTSB[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] DFW06FA184

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed and the subsequent stall. Contributing factors were the low altitude and impairment due to drugs.[/FONT]
The 199-hour, 31-year old pilot, who was occupying the front seat, was a private pilot with ratings for airplane single-engine land. The pilot's most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued January 2005. However, FAA records showed that his last medical was conducted May, 1998. The AME (Aviation Medical Examiners) that signed the pilot's flight medical had her medical license suspended in October 2004, and her AME designation suspended in April, 2005.

Are you posting this in response to the question about medical related LSA accidents? The drug they mentioned was marijuana. No mention of it being medicinal purposes though.

 

[bullwinkle]

I never "claim[ed] that people don't know when they are not medically fit to fly". However, the accident database tells us for sure that there are some people who have flown when they knew or had reason to know they weren't medically fit and crashed, and that there is evidence their medical condition was at least a contributing factor, so we know they're out there and it happens, just not how many and how often.
Really? I've not seen those statistics. Can you share them? The only thing I know is that the FAA is looking at and tracking such accidents (especially involving pilots who allowed their medicals to lapse), but I don't know the numbers.

But, there are those who fly even when their medical has expired or been revoked, too. It's folly to make up the rules based on those that will choose to ignore any rules you craft.

Some people will drive drunk, but we don't remove all alcohol selling establishments from public roadways.

 

[Old Geek]

Do insurers charge more for sport pilots without medicals? Do they offer discounts to owners of LSAs who have current medicals? At least in the non-owned insurance market, it seems like you are charged the same whether you have a medical or not--they simply exclude coverage if the FAA requires a medical for your flight and you don't have one. At least that is how the AOPAIA/Chartis and Starr forms work. Does it work any differently in the owned market? Do open pilot clauses for LSAs ever require a medical?

Snip...

I'm a PP-ASEL holder and S-LSA owner. I've gotten several insurance quotes over the last three years. None of the companies cared whether or not I had a third-class medical. And I would have gotten one if it would have made a difference.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Are you posting this in response to the question about medical related LSA accidents? The drug they mentioned was marijuana. No mention of it being medicinal purposes though.

He was flying a J-3 without a medical and was using stuff that is FAA medical disqualifying.

I haven't run into any "Sport Pilot sudden death in the air" accidents yet.

 

[TommyG]

The reality is, even if someone is medically unfit they can still get a medical. If they answer the medical questions the right way, don't disclose any medical problems or medication they are on. There's a pretty goog chance he will get a class 3. Really what does the doctor do, check your heartbeat, vision, maybe hearing. Most people assume that when someone fills out the paperwork they are completely honest. I will bet there is a percentage of pilots that know they have sometning that will disqualify them for a medical but don't disclose it.

 

[weirdjim]

As far as I know, people have been flying gliders since the Wrights started messing around with them in the latter part of the 19th century. All without medicals. All without flaming balls of wreckage in the schoolyard. Don't tell me over 100 years of flight with self-regulated medicals will not give a huge amount of data from which to draw valid conclusions.

As a CFI-G as well as a CFI-A I can assure you that PIC in an aircraft without an engine to pull your sorry ass out of a situation you hadn't considered is one hell of a lot more stressful without that fan up front to cool you off.

Jim

.

 

[Palmpilot]

...Some people will drive drunk, but we don't remove all alcohol selling establishments from public roadways.

That's been tried, and then some! (It didn't work out too well.)

 

[Silvaire]

The reality is, even if someone is medically unfit they can still get a medical. If they answer the medical questions the right way, don't disclose any medical problems or medication they are on. There's a pretty goog chance he will get a class 3. Really what does the doctor do, check your heartbeat, vision, maybe hearing. Most people assume that when someone fills out the paperwork they are completely honest. I will bet there is a percentage of pilots that know they have sometning that will disqualify them for a medical but don't disclose it.

One can also develop a condition or be prescribed a medication within the two year cycle span of the medical which is the whole point of this issue. The third class medical is nothing more than an unnecessary ball of red tape. It doesn't serve any real purpose. In the end the pilot is ultimately self certifying each time he get's in his airplane. The only people who ever get caught lying on their medical forms are the ones who say they are healthy while collecting government disability checks for the condition they just swore they didn't have.