Why is the FAA so strict?

[Palmpilot]

With a current wait time of 105 days the agency budget request would have to be funded by congress. Do you really want the bureaucracy to grow even larger? Noooooooooooo!

Wouldn't a less restrictive fourth class reduce the number of special issuances?

 

[bbchien]

It would
.But it would require a new sub-line item in the federal budget.

Reagan was right about this business of shrinking Federal G'mnt.

 

[Palmpilot]

It would
.But it would require a new sub-line item in the federal budget.

Reagan was right about this business of shrinking Federal G'mnt.

Considering how overloaded the SI processing system is, maybe reducing the number of SIs would reduce costs enough to pay for administering a fourth class. (Hey, I can dream, can't I?)

 

[Palmpilot]

That's also the problem with AOPA's push for Congressionally mandated rulemaking. The science supports BMI 36 (about 30,000 guys), and the wait will go to 180 days; so congress will be extorted to provide more $$s

I'm of two minds on this. I agree that there is a danger of even more draconian measures being set in stone. On the other hand, there is a benefit in having both sides of an issue argued in a formal process.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Well, we'll add that to you record of being anti-physics, Jay.

Of course you will.

 

[Johann]

What about just changing regs so you need a 2nd Class for aircraft > 12,500 lb.?
That way you can relax the requirements on 3rd class.

I'm sure it's a terrible idea since no one suggested it, but I have to ask.

 

[Palmpilot]

What about just changing regs so you need a 2nd Class for aircraft > 12,500 lb.?
That way you can relax the requirements on 3rd class.

I'm sure it's a terrible idea since no one suggested it, but I have to ask.

Personally, I like the idea, but I bet AOPA would have a fit.

 

[bbchien]

I still don't trust AOPA after five years of Craig, doing , "what looks good to the memberrship".

Craig was never interested in progress, or he'd have taken his in-house recommendations (us) which I have detailed elsewhere.

This appears to be a legal counsel "knee jerk" response.

 

[denverpilot]

One thing to keep in mind, is the goal is to not let the bureaucracy have a bigger blood supply.

So you're saying AOPA Medical Services prescribed Cialis for the FAA, and we're all gonna get screwed by both.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cujet]

The OP must have never gone through a medical in europe or china. The FAA just isn't that bloody opressive.

1) I could not care less about the rest of the world. I don't live there. Much of the rest of the world sucks.

2) The FAA can be very oppressive. And, come to find out, as a civil agency, they don't have to follow their own published rules. They can, and do, require pilots to surrender medicals based on who knows what. In fact, you also have no recourse for such actions.

Just went through a case like this with a pilot I work with. They pulled his medical for an unspecified time, even though the very rules they publish did not apply! And, he was told "tough XXXX", we are a "civil agency" "and we can do what we want" when his lawyer went after them. He was laid off, and his income stopped for a good long time. NO RECOURSE. That's the FAA.

Don't dismiss the occasional, incredible bureaucratic indifference of the FAA, just because it has not happened to you.

Let's look at this another way. The FAA is an arm of the executive branch of government, in other words, law enforcement. Yet, they also write the rules! That's a bit of a conflict, and from time to time people get caught up in the FAA's gears. This is analogous to your county sheriff writing and enforcing the law.

 

[Lindberg]

Not really. Refusal to blow makes the FAA asume you blew over 0.15, puts you in that category, which requires... more stuff, I don't know (more paperwork, maybe an evaluation). But no different from blowing and getting 0.16.
You can still get a first class. It's just that since they don't know if you were 0.01 or 0.28, they assume the worst.

Really? Does this apply to arrests or only convictions? If the former, that's really dumb. Around here if you refuse to blow, they'll usually take blood (if they can) or you'll likely get off if it's a close case. And the guys I know who handle DWI cases almost uniformly recommend that you refuse to blow in all circumstances UNLESS you know you're going to FAIL. The reason being that breathalyzer tests are not all that accurate, and if you failed the SFST, there's already going to be evidence against you, but juries want numbers. OTOH, if you know you're going to fail, it's allegedly easier to defend a bad breath test than a bad blood test. (None of this applies to me, but anyone could be falsely accused.)

 

[RotorAndWing]

1) I could not care less about the rest of the world. I don't live there. Much of the rest of the world sucks.

2) The FAA can be very oppressive. And, come to find out, as a civil agency, they don't have to follow their own published rules. They can, and do, require pilots to surrender medicals based on who knows what. In fact, you also have no recourse for such actions.

Just went through a case like this with a pilot I work with. They pulled his medical for an unspecified time, even though the very rules they publish did not apply! And, he was told "tough XXXX", we are a "civil agency" "and we can do what we want" when his lawyer went after them. He was laid off, and his income stopped for a good long time. NO RECOURSE. That's the FAA.

Don't dismiss the occasional, incredible bureaucratic indifference of the FAA, just because it has not happened to you.

Let's look at this another way. The FAA is an arm of the executive branch of government, in other words, law enforcement. Yet, they also write the rules! That's a bit of a conflict, and from time to time people get caught up in the FAA's gears. This is analogous to your county sheriff writing and enforcing the law.

I thought about replying to this inane diatribe, but better judgement got the best of me.

 

[bbchien]

Really? Does this apply to arrests or only convictions?

It's not dumb. There are a lotta "social drinkers" out there who really do have a problem. Even if a disgruntled GF called you into the agency, that would count as a medical event. An alcohol related arrest is a medical event that requires evaluation.

If the former, that's really dumb. Around here if you refuse to blow, they'll usually take blood (if they can) or you'll likely get off if it's a close case. And the guys I know who handle DWI cases almost uniformly recommend that you refuse to blow in all circumstances UNLESS you know you're going to FAIL. The reason being that breathalyzer tests are not all that accurate, and if you failed the SFST, there's already going to be evidence against you, but juries want numbers. OTOH, if you know you're going to fail, it's allegedly easier to defend a bad breath test than a bad blood test. (None of this applies to me, but anyone could be falsely accused.)

It's not about you BAC per se, it's about TOLERANCE, and you don't get it.

If you have a BAC of .18 but fall face down on the pavement when you open the door, you're probably just sloppy drunk and not tolerant. But we have guys trying and doing fairly well on the field sobriety tests- that's ALARMING because they have tolerance.

Above 0.20 if you actually are operating a motor vehicle, we think you have tolerance.

That is evidence of chronic repetitive abuse, and you are grounded and need detox, education, monitoring and sponsorship before we'll let you back into the public trust.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I've flown for 58 years. I have never had a run in with the FAA. In fact the only time I've spoken to a rep. Was when an inspector helped me with the paper work on my Cessna 195. ( the former owner lied.) I was line checked once in ocean city maryland but he asked only for my license. I explained my medical was at home, he did not press it. ( I think he really just wanted to look inside my Stearman.)That's it. I've asked friends who fly commercially if they have had trouble, answer was no.( In maryland driving a car is not a right but rather a privilege. Speed or drink too much your in trouble if caught. )Granted I only have around 4000 hours in all that time. I've called the local office twice about ferry permits, they were very helpful. ( I used to hunt with a state cop. Drunken drivers were upsetting to him due to what he had seen at accident sights in 22 years.) statistic show if you were arrested for dwi, you drove drunk at least 5 other times and were not caught.

 

[Johann]

Really? Does this apply to arrests or only convictions? If the former, that's really dumb. Around here if you refuse to blow, they'll usually take blood (if they can) or you'll likely get off if it's a close case. And the guys I know who handle DWI cases almost uniformly recommend that you refuse to blow in all circumstances UNLESS you know you're going to FAIL. The reason being that breathalyzer tests are not all that accurate, and if you failed the SFST, there's already going to be evidence against you, but juries want numbers. OTOH, if you know you're going to fail, it's allegedly easier to defend a bad breath test than a bad blood test. (None of this applies to me, but anyone could be falsely accused.)

The only thing to add to what Bruce said, is that the regulation (or directive or whatever it is) does not say "didn't blow", says the BAC is unknown. If you refused to blow and they took blood from you, then there's a BAC value, and I guess to the FAA that's as good as a breathalyzer test. They want to know how much alcohol you consumed, I don't think they care how they found that out.

As for "the arrest is a medical event" or "a disgruntled girlfriend calling" is a medical event, well, I think that sucks. The arrest OK, except in some very rare circumstances I can see how it's usually true and worth investigating. But anyone with a crazy ex in their past can imagine how it would totally suck and it would be extremely unfair if that happened (and it was false, of course). Not talking about a GF calling the police for an event, since there could be consequences to her for lying in that case, but a letter/call to the FAA has no consequences if she lied, and would bring a world of pain for the pilot.

 

[denverpilot]

1) I could not care less about the rest of the world. I don't live there. Much of the rest of the world sucks.

Best line here so far today. Granted not all of it sucks, but it's sure tiresome to listen to people who've never been anywhere, constantly saying, "But look what they have over there! Whaaa whaaaa whaaaa.", as if everyplace else is the utopia they seek.

 

[JeffDG]

I don't think the issue is if you "don't blow", it's if you are arrested/charged and there is no measure take of BAC. If they do a blood draw and get a BAC from that, the FAA will take that. Don't focus on the technology used to determine BAC, but whether or not that data-point exists

If there's no BAC taken, the FAA has taken the position that it's >0.15.

Simple way to prevent all of this: Don't drink and drive. If you're pulled over by some corrupt cop who charges you anyway, get a blood test showing a BAC of 0.00 and you'll be in great shape.

 

[bbchien]

Simple way to prevent all of this: Don't drink and drive. If you're pulled over by some corrupt cop who charges you anyway, get a blood test showing a BAC of 0.00 and you'll be in great shape.

Pretty amazing how folks overlook this. It's pretty basic.

But anyone with a crazy ex in their past can imagine how it would totally suck and it would be extremely unfair if that happened (and it was false, of course). Not talking about a GF calling the police for an event, since there could be consequences to her for lying in that case, but a letter/call to the FAA has no consequences if she lied, and would bring a world of pain for the pilot

Yeah it sucks. But it is a publically recorded event. The bureaucracy has to investigate.

If you really want to be a PITA call in that the pilot-ex is on psych meds....OMG. I have prepared the response to that, not just a few times.....The fix for this is.....have good judgement as to avoiding crazy young women (or young men, if you're a woman). There are some real doozies out there. This also is pretty basic.

 

[Lindberg]

I don't think the issue is if you "don't blow", it's if you are arrested/charged and there is no measure take of BAC. If they do a blood draw and get a BAC from that, the FAA will take that. Don't focus on the technology used to determine BAC, but whether or not that data-point exists

If there's no BAC taken, the FAA has taken the position that it's >0.15.

And I will reiterate, if that applies to arrests, and not just convictions, it's dumb. I understand perfectly well why you would apply that to convictions with an unknown BAC. But if I get pulled over, am arrested for suspected DWI and refuse to blow, but the case is later dismissed (or there's no case because the DA refuses to prosecute) due to, let's say a determination that there was no probable cause for the stop or arrest, then treating that the same as a DWI with a BAC >.15 is so dumb only the government could come up with it. This has nothing to do with tolerance, or social drinking, or anything else. This is the FAA potentially assuming you're guilty of something when the system charged with making that determination has already found that you weren't.

Simple way to prevent all of this: Don't drink and drive. If you're pulled over by some corrupt cop who charges you anyway, get a blood test showing a BAC of 0.00 and you'll be in great shape.

Again, this makes sense if we're talking about convictions, but arrests without convictions. Surely you don't believe that everyone who gets arrested is guilty? And if innocent people are occasionally arrested, then not being guilty does not assure you will not be arrested.

Setting aside the practical stupidity, I can see due process concerns if someone is arrested with an unknown BAC, tried, acquitted, and then treated by the FAA as though you were convicted.

 

[bbchien]

And I will reiterate, if that applies to arrests, and not just convictions, it's dumb. I understand perfectly well why you would apply that to convictions with an unknown BAC. But if I get pulled over, am arrested for suspected DWI and refuse to blow, but the case is later dismissed (or there's no case because the DA refuses to prosecute) due to, let's say a determination that there was no probable cause for the stop or arrest, then treating that the same as a DWI with a BAC >.15 is so dumb only the government could come up with it. This has nothing to do with tolerance, or social drinking, or anything else. This is the FAA potentially assuming you're guilty of something when the system charged with making that determination has already found that you weren't.

Nah. You were publically arrested for behavior. The agency wishes to know if a professional thinks you have a problem.

Again, this makes sense if we're talking about convictions, but arrests without convictions. Surely you don't believe that everyone who gets arrested is guilty? And if innocent people are occasionally arrested, then not being guilty does not assure you will not be arrested.

Setting aside the practical stupidity, I can see due process concerns if someone is arrested with an unknown BAC, tried, acquitted, and then treated by the FAA as though you were convicted.

The burden is rather small. A good SAP costs about 1.5 hours and <$200.

Hey, it's this way because congress mandated this in 2009.

 

[JHW]

I am completely ignorant to what goes on in other countries when it comes to GA but I have to believe that there is far less General Aviation going on outside of the US.

So my question is...is this a fair comparison? Saying that other countries are more strict with their physicals are we comparing apples to apples? Third class medicals to third class medicals? Or are we comparing other countries commercial physicals with our GA physicals? Just curious.

could it be that one of the reasons there is so much more GA in america is that the government is less strict about it ?

 

[Ted]

The limiting factor on expansion is that you can fly a 177,000 lb aircraft on a 3rd class.

But nooooooo one in their right mind want there to be a FOURTH class (say,<6,000 lbs). Can you say, "even bigger bureaucracy?".

Well, what I said was that they should expand the areas for which a 3rd class is not required, not that it should be eliminated entirely. The current bill saying VFR non-commercial Part 91 up to 6,000 lbs I think is a good example of doing that reasonably.

 

[JHW]

Well, what I said was that they should expand the areas for which a 3rd class is not required, not that it should be eliminated entirely. The current bill saying VFR non-commercial Part 91 up to 6,000 lbs I think is a good example of doing that reasonably.

especially since it's the first proposal like this that includes your plane and mine

 

[Ted]

especially since it's the first proposal like this that includes your plane and mine

Yep. It wouldn't change anything for me personally since most of my flying is IFR and I intend to keep it that way, but for a number of people it would make a difference.

 

[JHW]

Yep. It wouldn't change anything for me personally since most of my flying is IFR and I intend to keep it that way, but for a number of people it would make a difference.

Once we get enroute user fees, I'll throw away the transponder and forget about IFR. It's not like there's a lot of complicated airspace in between central Illinois and Central Kansas

 

[Ted]

Once we get enroute user fees, I'll throw away the transponder and forget about IFR. It's not like there's a lot of complicated airspace in between central Illinois and Central Kansas

Makes sense for the flying you do. In my case, I'll still need IFR for the foreseeable future, user fees or not.

I think a large number of pilots who fit into the proposed rule would be plenty happy with only having VFR flight.

 

[JHW]

Makes sense for the flying you do. In my case, I'll still need IFR for the foreseeable future, user fees or not.

I think a large number of pilots who fit into the proposed rule would be plenty happy with only having VFR flight.

Yeah, we could get to all of our family and our place on the gulf coast no problem. We might have to give up the yearly trip to New York, that will really crush me i'll put the girls on Delta and I'll stay home to "save money"

 

[Ted]

Yeah, we could get to all of our family and our place on the gulf coast no problem. We might have to give up the yearly trip to New York, that will really crush me i'll put the girls on Delta and I'll stay home to "save money"

My mom still lives in New York City. I told her that she gets to come visit us for the foreseeable future, and we'll go visit her eventually. Going to NY is a royal PITA in general. Add in a small child to the mix and NFW are we going.

 

[JHW]

My mom still lives in New York City. I told her that she gets to come visit us for the foreseeable future, and we'll go visit her eventually. Going to NY is a royal PITA in general. Add in a small child to the mix and NFW are we going.

We had 3 years in a row with nephews graduating from West Point. Now my girls have got it in their heads that it's just the springtime trip to make

 

[Ted]

We had 3 years in a row with nephews graduating from West Point. Now my girls have got it in their heads that it's just the springtime trip to make

As kiddo gets older we'll end up going. Some things that are worth seeing there once he's old enough to appreciate them. As for now, flying a few hours for the privilege of 30+% higher fuel costs so we can get stuck in traffic to get yelled at and sleep in a noisy apartment with uncomfortable beds and no parking spaces with a screaming baby sounds like a special form of hell. Having spent 20 years there prior, the novelty has long since worn off.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Getting back to the original topic.

It appears to me that what we would most benefit from is not necessarily removal of the Class 3 (which may not be politically possible), but from a Congressional mandate that the processing of Class 3 approvals be pushed largely to the AMEs, with legal indemnification for liability from issuance of the medical provided to the AME except in the cases of gross negligence. I would guess that for 90%+ of all the deferrals to OKC, a relatively simple checklist could be developed that would allow further screening of the application at the AME-level. Yes, I know there is some progress on this front, but it seems to need a much bigger push to meaningfully improve the processing time for deferrals (which should be no more than 2 weeks, in my view). In all but the most complicated (meaning, most likely to result in a sudden incapacitation event during the duration of the medical), the AME should be allowed to issue - again, with indemnification. I would venture any pilot with an issue needing further evaluation would rather pay their AME another $100 to spend 20 minutes going through a checklist that would likely result in office-issuance than wait for months in the pile at OKC.

Isn't this largely the issue - all this backlog caused by a rather mundane review of patient records at OKC that rarely results in denial?

 

[bbchien]

Getting back to the original topic.

It appears to me that what we would most benefit from is not necessarily removal of the Class 3 (which may not be politically possible), but from a Congressional mandate that the processing of Class 3 approvals be pushed largely to the AMEs, with legal indemnification for liability from issuance of the medical provided to the AME except in the cases of gross negligence. I would guess that for 90%+ of all the deferrals to OKC, a relatively simple checklist could be developed that would allow further screening of the application at the AME-level. Yes, I know there is some progress on this front, but it seems to need a much bigger push to meaningfully improve the processing time for deferrals (which should be no more than 2 weeks, in my view). In all but the most complicated (meaning, most likely to result in a sudden incapacitation event during the duration of the medical), the AME should be allowed to issue - again, with indemnification. I would venture any pilot with an issue needing further evaluation would rather pay their AME another $100 to spend 20 minutes going through a checklist that would likely result in office-issuance than wait for months in the pile at OKC.

Isn't this largely the issue - all this backlog caused by a rather mundane review of patient records at OKC that rarely results in denial?

That would help but I'm talking to FAA once a day- and they clear everything same day. The AME just has to be prepared and have everything on the list.

I do take the added precaution of putting the documents on file at the agency (2 working days prior) so that my colleague at the agency isn't putting his arse out on a limb with documents he hasn't seen.

It's really very simple. No backlogs here.
So the problem, is really at the AME level....it's just not that much work.

 

[mnewb1]

Getting back to the original topic.

It appears to me that what we would most benefit from is not necessarily removal of the Class 3 (which may not be politically possible), but from a Congressional mandate that the processing of Class 3 approvals be pushed largely to the AMEs, with legal indemnification for liability from issuance of the medical provided to the AME except in the cases of gross negligence. I would guess that for 90%+ of all the deferrals to OKC, a relatively simple checklist could be developed that would allow further screening of the application at the AME-level. Yes, I know there is some progress on this front, but it seems to need a much bigger push to meaningfully improve the processing time for deferrals (which should be no more than 2 weeks, in my view). In all but the most complicated (meaning, most likely to result in a sudden incapacitation event during the duration of the medical), the AME should be allowed to issue - again, with indemnification. I would venture any pilot with an issue needing further evaluation would rather pay their AME another $100 to spend 20 minutes going through a checklist that would likely result in office-issuance than wait for months in the pile at OKC.

Isn't this largely the issue - all this backlog caused by a rather mundane review of patient records at OKC that rarely results in denial?

Jeff, I think that is what they are working on now with the CACI process. They are developing work sheets to allow AMEs to issue right in the office based on following the guides with appropriate documents on hand. I do believe this will be successful and I do believe with that success this will be expanded, but it will require some patience.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

So the problem, is really at the AME level....it's just not that much work.

Apparently it is too much work for many AMEs - and if all these other AMEs started calling in like you do instead of just deferring, it appears unlikely that OKC could handle the call load - so it's actually working in *your* favor that more AMEs aren't trying to call in.

Point is, Aeromedical needs to be speeding up and enhancing the CACI process rather than coming up with new screenings requiring OKC approval that could be just as well handled at the local level.

Regardless of how noble Tilton's objective was for this BMI screening, the optics of how he's chosen to attempt to implement this are terrible.

 

[Whiskey Romeo]

The FAA needed to prepare for getting out the additional workload created by the BMI >40 decision, before initiating the program. But what can we expect from an administration that couldn't even prepare for something as vast as the ACA?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

But what can we expect from an administration that couldn't even prepare for something as vast as the ACA?

Tilton was appointed under Bush, so I don't know what point you're trying to make. Anyone who thinks the White House cares what goes on at Aeromedical is delusional.

 

[Palmpilot]

The FAA needed to prepare for getting out the additional workload created by the BMI >40 decision, before initiating the program. But what can we expect from an administration that couldn't even prepare for something as vast as the ACA?

What evidence is there that the White House had anything to do with Tilton's decision? I doubt that ANY administration has time for micromanagement of that degree.

 

[bbchien]

Apparently it is too much work for many AMEs - and if all these other AMEs started calling in like you do instead of just deferring, it appears unlikely that OKC could handle the call load - so it's actually working in *your* favor that more AMEs aren't trying to call in.

Well, it's about eight times as efficient. But if you are an AME ho does insurance work, and you have a contract, you cannot bill for the value of that time spent. So most AMEs don't do that.

Point is, Aeromedical needs to be speeding up and enhancing the CACI process rather than coming up with new screenings requiring OKC approval that could be just as well handled at the local level.

Bingo. The same group of AMEs who asked for CACI, in May 2012, included SA in the list, but that one was withheld. It was a "hot potato".

Regardless of how noble Tilton's objective was for this BMI screening, the optics of how he's chosen to attempt to implement this are terrible.

This needs CACI'd.

What evidence is there that the White House had anything to do with Tilton's decision? I doubt that ANY administration has time for micromanagement of that degree.

Dr. Tilton is at the top of the level of "experts" and just one or two levels below the appointed patronage types. WH would not care nor know.

 

[Whiskey Romeo]

What evidence is there that the White House had anything to do with Tilton's decision? I doubt that ANY administration has time for micromanagement of that degree.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

I should not have singled out the current administration. What I was reacting to is the Governments negligence by not preparing the system for the ruling (as occurred with the ACA).

Tilton doesn't seem to have considered what affect his decision would have on medical certification timetables.

 

[Palmpilot]

I stand corrected. Thanks.

I should not have singled out the current administration. What I was reacting to is the Governments negligence by not preparing the system for the ruling (as occurred with the ACA).

Tilton doesn't seem to have considered what affect his decision would have on medical certification timetables.

Amen to that.