We are closer than ever, please contact your representative

noobJohn said:
I don't understand how anyone could go from 3.3% to "there needs to be something."

I guess you could argue that the number would be higher without the current 3rd class medical system.

Or.... How about we attack the other 96.7% of accidents that aren't medically related?
Click to expand...

OK....

Quit making sense and thinking rational.......:mad2::mad2::mad:...........:D
 
Bob Noel said:
Way too many people can't understand the concept of acceptable risk and are unable to grasp the fact that zero risk is not realistic.
Click to expand...
Shhhhh!!! :nono:

Or a certain former poster (with screen name initials "DB") might drop in to hijack the thread... :D
 
Whatever the tiny fraction of "accidents" from medical causes actually is, the question is whether a 3rd class medical is an effect tool for preventing them.

Preventing future incapacity is a difficulty business. I strongly recommend we do not overestimate the ability of a simple medical examination to reduce the already very small number of such events.
 
pilot1956 said:
Whatever the tiny fraction of "accidents" from medical causes actually is, the question is whether a 3rd class medical is an effect tool for preventing them.

Preventing future incapacity is a difficulty business. I strongly recommend we do not overestimate the ability of a simple medical examination to reduce the already very small number of such events.
Click to expand...

And I strongly recommend that such a screening process eliminate the false positives. That is, if we must have a medical examination, then make sure the findings are real problems, not a 1 in 100,000 chance of being a problem in flight.
 
Easy fix
Let's get rid of the 3rd class medical,have them fly at 0-179 degrees odd +250ft and 180-359 degrees even + 250ft.
I know we have some small issues at T.O. and Landing but by percentages we all spend more time enroute.
AS my Dad always said about driving " Speed up, you'll have less time on the road to be in an accident" Always made sense to me.
See always a way;)
 
Dav8or said:
Oh jeez, no kidding. I don't need all that blather about "eliminating risk" again.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

I like how he talked about his low-level mountain and canyon flying, then went on to say that there is no level of acceptable risk. :nonod:
 
Bob Noel said:
And I strongly recommend that such a screening process eliminate the false positives. That is, if we must have a medical examination, then make sure the findings are real problems, not a 1 in 100,000 chance of being a problem in flight.
Click to expand...

Bob, sure, but how is that done? Other than grounding people with unstable angina, known seizure disorders, and overt psychosis, what else is there that meets the requirement of a high ratio of true positive to all positives (high positive predictive value)?
 
pilot1956 said:
Bob, sure, but how is that done? Other than grounding people with unstable angina, known seizure disorders, and overt psychosis, what else is there that meets the requirement of a high ratio of true positive to all positives (high positive predictive value)?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I'm not a doctor.

But I know enough about risk management to know that it is gross overkill to ground everyone that has <fill-in-the-characteristic> when there is some ridiculously low chance of it actually manifesting as a problem in flight.

I'm asking that we have real justification for grounding rather than being risk-adverse or having the "abundance of caution).
 
I had beers with a group of "old guys" at the airport last night. The subject of this legislation came up.

They laughed. They all knew guys with no medicals who continue to fly, safely. To flyers who are just a few years from the grave, a rule from D.C. one way or the other is completely irrelevant.
 
Dav8or said:
Oh jeez, no kidding. I don't need all that blather about "eliminating risk" again.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? He can do an engine out, in a fire filled value, with zero risk. He's that good. And if you can't, you have no business flying.
 
Just got what I hope is my last medical today. Told the very pretty assistant that I hoped I never see her again.

If you guys think it's bad, wait until you get to the new sleep apnea section. I had two strikes because I'm a) male and b) over 50. Seriously.
 
Bob Noel said:
I'm asking that we have real justification for grounding rather than being risk-adverse or having the "abundance of caution).
Click to expand...

Bob, we are in complete agreement. I think I misunderstood, earlier. I agree that the current system generates way too many false positives.

With few exceptions (those I mentioned above), there is little medicine can do to predict sudden future incapacity among currently able adults.
 
Jay Honeck said:
They all knew guys with no medicals who continue to fly, safely.
Click to expand...

LOL

When I worked across the south, I'd estimate that at least 25% of the "pilots" I met weren't fully compliant in one way or another.

They couldn't care less what the FAA does.
 
timwinters said:
LOL

When I worked across the south, I'd estimate that at least 25% of the "pilots" I met weren't fully compliant in one way or another.

They couldn't care less what the FAA does.
Click to expand...

Agreed....
Back in 1980 when I was learning to fly at X04 in Orlando / Apopka.. There were 40 or so planes based at the field.... Only 4 people had a pilots license...:yikes::yikes::redface:
 
Got this email today:

Dear Throttle:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 (S. 571). I appreciate hearing from you.

The safety issues related to a pilot's health are incredibly important, and I believe this is something that should be constantly monitored. I agree that the well-being of commercial and regional pilots and their passengers must be our top priority when we consider these issues.

As you know, the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 was introduced by Senator Jim Inhofe on February 26, 2015. This bill would expand the third class medical exemption for recreational pilots and broaden the protections provided in the original Pilot's Bill of Rights which was signed into law in 2012. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Although I am not a member of this Committee, I will keep your support in mind if this legislation is considered by the full Senate.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.



Sincerely,

Signature

Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator
 
Clark1961 said:
Got this email today:

Dear Throttle:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 (S. 571). I appreciate hearing from you.

The safety issues related to a pilot's health are incredibly important, and I believe this is something that should be constantly monitored. I agree that the well-being of commercial and regional pilots and their passengers must be our top priority when we consider these issues.

As you know, the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 was introduced by Senator Jim Inhofe on February 26, 2015. This bill would expand the third class medical exemption for recreational pilots and broaden the protections provided in the original Pilot's Bill of Rights which was signed into law in 2012. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Although I am not a member of this Committee, I will keep your support in mind if this legislation is considered by the full Senate.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.



Sincerely,

Signature

Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator
Click to expand...

Not trying to get political, but good luck getting a yes vote from him.
 
Both Mary and I received this response today:

Dear Mrs. Honeck:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (S. 571). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

As you may know, S. 571 was introduced in the Senate on February 25, 2015. This legislation would expand the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) third class medical exemption for many small general aviation aircrafts, grants an individual right to appeal FAA enforcement actions directly to a federal district court, and seeks to improve the accessibility of data regarding prior flight conditions and recommendations issued by the FAA. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for further consideration. As a member of the Senate General Aviation Caucus, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation be considered by the full Senate.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
 
Bonchie said:
Not trying to get political, but good luck getting a yes vote from him.
Click to expand...

So what are you trying to say? You made no comment about the glaring misunderstanding of pilot medical certification that the email expresses. That misunderstanding is rather important.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Both Mary and I received this response today:

Dear Mrs. Honeck:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (S. 571). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

As you may know, S. 571 was introduced in the Senate on February 25, 2015. This legislation would expand the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) third class medical exemption for many small general aviation aircrafts, grants an individual right to appeal FAA enforcement actions directly to a federal district court, and seeks to improve the accessibility of data regarding prior flight conditions and recommendations issued by the FAA. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for further consideration. As a member of the Senate General Aviation Caucus, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind should relevant legislation be considered by the full Senate.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
Click to expand...

I got the same form letter. Why bother with letters? How about each representative have a website where you can click for or against certain bills. It's not like they read them anyway.
 
Bonanza said:
I don't have access to Dr Chien's financial records, but he has abandoned his anesthetic and pain practice in favor of aero-medical so I can assume that it is financially worth his while.

It is good that he has people like you on this board to speak for him. He refuses to come and post here because he does not have the authority to ban or delete the posts of those who disagree with him. He regularly visits this board and reads the posts, he just won't post here presumably because people have the right to disagree with him. Unlike the red board where he is in control and can rule over his empire without fear of contradiction or accountability for his previous public statements.
Stephen.
Click to expand...

Have you met Bruce? He's old, he didn't so much abandon the anesthesia and pain management practice than retire from it. He's surely not making a living off the aeromedical stuff, he doesn't charge enough, and the volume is far too low. I don't know of a single AME where doing Airman Medicals was anything more than a trickle of revenue.
 
Clark1961 said:
Got this email today:

Dear Throttle:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 (S. 571). I appreciate hearing from you.

The safety issues related to a pilot's health are incredibly important, and I believe this is something that should be constantly monitored. I agree that the well-being of commercial and regional pilots and their passengers must be our top priority when we consider these issues.

As you know, the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 was introduced by Senator Jim Inhofe on February 26, 2015. This bill would expand the third class medical exemption for recreational pilots and broaden the protections provided in the original Pilot's Bill of Rights which was signed into law in 2012. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Although I am not a member of this Committee, I will keep your support in mind if this legislation is considered by the full Senate.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.



Sincerely,

Signature

Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator
Click to expand...

I got virtually the same letter from my representative. It seems they all have the same boilerplate response to go with my boilerplate letter I used from EAA.

They won't commit until they figure out what they can get in return from some other legislation.

Politics.
 
jkgoblue said:
I got virtually the same letter from my representative. It seems they all have the same boilerplate response to go with my boilerplate letter I used from EAA.

They won't commit until they figure out what they can get in return from some other legislation.

Politics.
Click to expand...

There's the deal side of politics and that's a given.

The part that bothers me is that the email indicates the legislator's staff has no clue about the different FAA medical certs or which areas of operation require which cert. If the legislators are unaware that the difference between a PP and a CP medical is simply vision requirements, how can they form a valid opinion? Has AOPA provided educational materials? has the FAA?
 
Clark1961 said:
So what are you trying to say? You made no comment about the glaring misunderstanding of pilot medical certification that the email expresses. That misunderstanding is rather important.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't expand on it because I didn't want to offend you in case you were a supporter of his.

But yes, I agree with you that he misunderstands the issue and given his ideology, it's unlikely he'll vote yes.
 
Finally got responses from Cruz and Cornyn.

Both of them were robot answers. Nothing of substance...
 
I got the following response yesterday from my Senator. Apparently reading comprehension isn't his aides' forte. Or they're getting so inundated with "you're a felon" email that they don't have any other response available! :)

Dear Mr. Winters,

Thank you for your letter regarding U.S. policy toward Iran.

As you know, Iran's government has a history of consistently disregarding the international community's warnings to halt support for international terrorism and abandon their nuclear program. Although Iranian President Hassan Rowhani is seen by some as a moderate who may provide an opportunity to advance negotiations to end Iran's nuclear programs, I remain worried about Rowhani's past statements expressing support for Iran's nuclear programs. I also remain concerned that, despite the new presidency, power resides largely with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has repeatedly demonstrated resistance to any slowdown of Iran's nuclear activities.

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to the Middle East's stability and to our national security. Iran has repeatedly refused to abide by international agreements that require inspection of nuclear facilities, details of facility designs, acquisition, and production and management of nuclear materials. Diplomacy certainly sounds like the best option, but I am concerned that current negotiations rely too heavily on recent statements by Iranian leaders without considering them in the broader context of Iran's repeated resistance to ending their nuclear programs.

In the 114th Congress, I am an original cosponsor of the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, which significantly increases Congressional oversight in the Iran nuclear negotiations. Specifically, the bill would allow Congress to review the terms of any agreement before the president can waive, defer, or suspend sanctions against Iran. If Iran fails to reach an agreement on its nuclear program by July 6, 2015, the bill re-imposes sanctions waived against Iran during the interim agreement, and new sanctions are implemented each month starting in August 2015.

On March 9, 2015, I signed an open letter to Iran's leaders with forty-six of my Senate colleagues to explain Congress's role in negotiating international agreements. As discussions proceed, it is important that Iran clearly understands the U.S. constitutional system as it relates to international diplomacy.

If President Rowhani and the Iranian government show consistent, measurable progress toward ending Iran's destabilizing nuclear program and cracking down on terrorism, Congress should quickly reevaluate sanctions. However, we simply have not seen measureable evidence of such an effort at this time. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue, and I will continue to closely monitor our engagement with Iran's leadership.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards,

Roy Blunt
United States Senator
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I got the following response yesterday from my Senator. Apparently reading comprehension isn't his aides' forte. Or they're getting so inundated with "you're a felon" email that they don't have any other response available! :)
Click to expand...

Tim, Tim, Tim.....

You should have NEVER mentioned the "other hot story" in DC this week.... Clearly they have a canned response to ANY incoming comments...


And to think... These IDIOTS are running our country...:yikes::yikes::mad::mad2:
 
Just got this from Sen. Mike Crapo:

Dear Gary:

Thank you for contacting me about changes to medical certification requirements for general aviation pilots. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

The Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2, S. 571, was introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R - Oklahoma) on February 25, 2015. This bipartisan legislation would build upon the Pilot’s Bill of Rights passed in 2012. Among other provisions, the bill would amend The Pilot’s Bill of Rights to extend medical certification exemptions to recreational and private pilots, eliminating costly medical examinations currently required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The legislation would also facilitate certificate appeals and greater due process protections to individuals facing enforcement actions under the FAA. S. 571 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for further consideration.

I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in co-sponsoring S. 1335, the Pilot’s Bill of Rights, signed into law on August 3, 2012. I am encouraged by the continued success of this law in securing appropriate protections to private aviation under FAA enforcement and look forward to consideration of S. 571.

Like you, I recognize the vital service the aviation sector plays in the lives of Idahoans and others from rural states. Aviation is key to enhancing the accessibility of many communities in Idaho, especially during emergencies and natural disasters. Thousands of Americans are employed in the field as small business owners, part manufacturers, pilots, recreational guides, technicians, and in many other direct and indirect jobs.

As an advocate for their unique needs, I am a member of the Senate General Aviation Caucus. The Caucus provides a mechanism to help educate Members ofCongress and the public about the policies and practices that most affect the industry. Moreover, it serves as a forum to discuss the best ways to address the needs of the general aviation sector.

Please rest assured that I will continue to make decisions to reflect the interests of general aviators as well as the safety of Idahoans and the American people.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.

Sincerely,
mdc_sig_bw.gif

Mike Crapo
United States Senator
Click to expand...

I highlighted the red part. Sounds non-committal to me.
 
I'm all for reforming the process, but let's not kid ourselves. There is truly no way of knowing how effective the 3rd class medical has been toward making GA safer until after it's been gone for 5 or 10 years. After all, as easy as it may be to pass the exam, 100's of pilots still lose their medical each year. Let all of them keep on flying and after long enough the statistics will tell the story.
 
Memories of the Germanwings crash may make legislators hesitant to enact a weakening of any aviation-related medical requirements right now.

On the other hand, in the absence of any further sensational revelations about the crash, it may soon be forgotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top