3rd Class Medical to become thing of past?

[mcbirdman]

I am surprised that no one noticed that 3 days ago the EAA and AOPA submitted a petition to FAA in order to eliminate 3rd class medicals for day VFR non commercially. The idea is structured in a way similiar to those with Recreational Pilot Certificates.

The positive attrributes are goverment AND individual cost savings as well as reducing the fear of going to the doctor for fear of losing medical.

They would require a course that would help you consider your health before flying but would use the established health baseline of have a drivers license.

This is a big thing. So many people have had to stop flying and as I get older I can see the worry and stress that it causes people just worrying about getting denied. I think this is a HUGE step forward and a Huge announcement. You guys sleeping or did I miss someone else posting about this? This is a very positive change and one that will affect many private pilots.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120320aopa-eaa-file-medical-exemption-petition.html?WT.mc_id=120323epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

[Resasi]

I certainly noticed, and it is huge.

Speaking for those who lost their licences, and in many cases both livelehood and life's passion, to be able to return to flying privately through the NP/Sport Pilot was like being given back a huge part of one's life. This, another such step.

[Russ Hobbs]

It wasn't lost on me, I'm just waiting for the outcome. I truly hope the effort is successful.
Russ

[wadja]

It's called "White coat syndrome", and I have it. I'm a retired truck driver (39 YRS) and had to worry every two years about my blood pressure to pass the DOT physical. It would be fine at home and would go up at the doctors. Loose my medical card, can't drive. Loose your 3rd Class Medical, can't fly... I also hope the effort is successful. This would be a good thing...

[PW_Plack]

It's a big deal, but also probably a long way off.

I don't know if you noticed the EAA story about the FAA's latest predictions for general aviation, but the FAA says the pilot population is growing and will continue to grow. Meanwhile, manufacturer reports from GAMA, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, show declining hours and sales in a free-fall.

So, what's the FAA smoking?

Although GA deliveries slowed for the fourth straight year according to GAMA, the FAA uses estimates of fleet size, hours flown, and utilization from the annual GA Survey as baseline figures upon which assumed growth rates are applied.

Survey of whom? One percent of pilots respond and are counted. Wanna bet that pilots who don't fly anymore also don't respond to the survey, hiding a problem which would become clear in a statistically valid survey?

Until the FAA admits general aviation is dwindling, which seems politically unlikely given what it would mean for the FAA's budget, don't expect much impetus to solve a problem which officially doesn't exist.

[WaspAir]

Don't be misled. The proposal isn't all it seems. Personally, I think it sucks big time.

The original Recreational pilot certificate had limitations connected to it that severely restrict the kind of aircraft, number of passengers, airspace, etc., etc., because of the reduced/training experience required for the rating. It was based on safety issues for minimally trained pilots of low experience. The limitations had nothing to do with the health of a Recreational pilot, and were not in any way based on any data, experience, rumors, or even bad dreams about whether carrying another passenger or having another seat in the aircraft was a factor for pilot incapacitation. It was simply and completely a matter of lack of training.

The AOPA/EAA proposal, on a pilot health issue, now effectively incorporates many of those privilege limitations for you, even if you are a 10,000 hour ATP with absolutely no issues as to minimal training or little experience, even for non-commercial day VFR.

So, to say you won't need a third class medical for non-commercial VFR is a gross overstatement of what they actually proposed. Too many seats, too many passengers, too much horsepower, etc., etc., and the same pilot magically becomes a health risk and still needs the certificate. You can have four seats, but only two can have people in them . . . how is that a health issue? I don't understand how flying a carbureted O-360 is o.k. but a fuel-injected O-360 puts your health at risk, or how you can fly a C-172 with the back seats empty but put a kid in the back and you might have a stroke.

I looked closely at the proposal, and it wouldn't do me a bit of good for the the aircraft I usually fly. My Bell 47, for example has too much horsepower, so I would need a medical to hover it solo non-commercially in day VFR in class G airspace.

I talked to AOPA about it, and their hope is to get a foot in the door this way, with the goal of widening the opening later. But it is illogical, even nonsensical to link health risk with number of empty seats in your aircraft, and I for one think it's a stupid precedent to set.

Up to now, the linkage for privilege limitations for sport pilot and recreational pilots has always been training driven, not health driven.

[mcbirdman]

There isn't any issues as to minimal training as the ratings recieved are a reflection of the training recieved. A Private Pilot which has already accomplished the training required has also demonstrated the skills required.

It makes sense to me that driving commercially requires additional safegaurds and checks to maintain the higher proffesional standards similiar to the highway transportation requirments. The purpose of using vehicles generate different levels of risk and expectation regarding safety. Different designs and different uses of aircraft all have different levels of risk, stress and attention required which must be considered.

I think a flight with a friend in a light, non complex aircraft for an afternoon flight is different than taking more people in a faster high performance aircraft that wants to run all out.

I think it is a step in the right direction for those that want to just go for a friendly afternoon flight in a more "normal" sized aircraft without taking on the possible stressors that occur with full load of people. Maybe it doesn't fit all peoples desires but this tries to include the type of aircraft that most private pilots normally use.

I can't say it sucks just because I may be flying something more complex that requires more attention. Maybe someday I will appreciate that when I step away from a more demanding aircraft that I could still fly something comfortable.

[WaspAir]

It makes sense to me that driving commercially requires additional safegaurds and checks to maintain the higher proffesional standards similiar to the highway transportation requirments.

I'm not arguing that standards should be dropped for commercial flight operations; if they leave the 2nd and 1st class medicals alone I won't complain. I'm talking about day VFR non-commercial flights that require no more than a 3rd class medical certificate.
Different designs and different uses of aircraft all have different levels of risk, stress and attention required which must be considered.

I think a flight with a friend in a light, non complex aircraft for an afternoon flight is different than taking more people in a faster high performance aircraft that wants to run all out.

It is different in that it takes more training. But if you have the necessary training, what does it have to do with your health? Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Neither the FAA, the AOPA, or the EAA have any evidence at all, any statistics, or any accident records, to show that a second passenger in your C-172 is more likely to cause pilot incapacitation, or that the "stress" of flying a 195 horsepower Cessna 172XP provokes health problems that don't arise in a nearly identical 180 horsepower Cessna 172SP. People simply don't have heart attacks, or strokes, or have seizures, or pass out, or suddenly lose their vision when you take both your sisters up for a ride instead of just one.

Even if "stress" were a legitimate concern, many, many helicopter pilots will agree with me that flying a low horsepower low inertia R-22 with one passenger is far more stressful than flying a docile Bell 47 with two passengers. But the proposal would allow only the more stressful choice without a medical.


I can't say it sucks just because I may be flying something more complex that requires more attention.
More attention is a training issue, not a health issue.

Maybe someday I will appreciate that when I step away from a more demanding aircraft that I could still fly something comfortable.
Let's be clear here. Neither this proposal nor the sport pilot rules are intended to let people in bad health fly. If you lose your medical certificate because a health problem was detected, you couldn't self-certify under this proposal and you couldn't fly light sport with a driver's license. Granted, some people may be gaming the system, by not going to get their last 3rd class medical because they know they have a disqualifying problem, and then flying light sport where nobody checks very closely. From the FAA perspective, if you have a known health risk, you shouldn't be in the air at all in any type of aircraft or operation. The issue is not how healthy you are, but how much effort you must put in to certify that you are healthy.

[PW_Plack]

Too many seats, too many passengers, too much horsepower, etc., etc., and the same pilot magically becomes a health risk and still needs the certificate. You can have four seats, but only two can have people in them . . . how is that a health issue?...

Wasp, I think you're taking off down a philisophical path based on a false assumption that the rule is based on more passengers creating a greater health risk. The real issue is more likely that a medical incapacitation event would increase the number of injuries or fatalities.

I also think EAA, but especially AOPA, have lost touch with the low-cost end of general aviation. AOPA calls itself "The Voice of General Aviation," but seems to cater to the wine-&-cheese crowd, which I guess makes sense because advertisers want to reach people with high incomes. A friend of mine said it well - "AOPA has become one big infomercial."

I let my AOPA membership lapse this year, and just received my last issue of AOPA PIlot. Ironically, it's the first issue I can remember for a while with a cover featuring an airplane (Kitfox) that might actually be within my price range one day.

[PW_Plack]

...Let's be clear here. Neither this proposal nor the sport pilot rules are intended to let people in bad health fly. If you lose your medical certificate because a health problem was detected, you couldn't self-certify under this proposal and you couldn't fly light sport with a driver's license. Granted, some people may be gaming the system, by not going to get their last 3rd class medical because they know they have a disqualifying problem...

Wasp, I disagree. I believe the intent is actually to set a looser health standard for flight. Essentially, a Sport Pilot is permitted to use his own judgment (and that of his state DMV and his own doctor) rather than meet a rigid set of one-size-fits-all limits, based on the reduced threats to passengers (because he can only carry one at a time) and people on the ground (due to limited aircraft inertia through caps on mass and speed).

[mcbirdman]

I just see it as simple flying simple aircraft. Same as minimum standards for driving on the road. However, a sporty car or a huge truck or bus carrying a load of people are not just training issues. Complex machinery or complex situations use health requirments as a way to certify that proper judgement and physical abilities meet the demands of the mission. If you are going to drive in a race or fly a rocket there are certain health issues that do affect thinking and judgement that are not tested in a basic driver licence. I know proficifncy is afected by external pressure in addition to health issues.

Flying a basic aircraft requires less physical and mental workload than a fast heavy, full complex aircraft. I think it is reasonable for them to loosen up and realize this. I feel if the bianual flight review demonstrates the abilitiy to perform these basic skillsin a non complex aircraft then I think it is reasonable to fly non complex flights. It is reasonable to allow a pilot to fly himself and a friend if he passes proficiency tests.

Lets be REALLY clear. Who decides what is disqualifying? If you have a little higher blood pressure you can loose your licence. People who are afraid of losing a big part of their life because even natural aging pushes a person towards one edge of what is considered normal may not even interfere with flight. They said in seven (I think) years not one accident attributed to health/incapacitation. I think the health standards have been too high for an average pilot who flys for fun. It seems the health rules for this type of activity seems to be a proffesional standard designed to protect other people who pay for the service also expect certain quality. A standard drivers licence gets you and a few on the road but to drive a big truck or a bus full of people IS different. I think this petition is a reasonable position that should have been taken a long time ago.

I can't see why anyone would actually think this is bad for pilots. Probably high blood pressure is the number one reason for denial. If this allowed higher blood pressure pilots to fly again do you think all of a sudden incapacitations would increase substantially?

I think that AOPA has a point that if you take the fear away from visiting the doctor and causing a bunch of paperwork - I think better
long term health care attention would be accessed which is good for all of us.

I think fear of losing flight privledges may have hurt overall pilots health more adversly than requiring a medical ever helped protect the public.

I am not trying to argue - I think this is a positive thing and can't see how it isn't a step forward towards improving a situation that has continued for too long. What is SO bad about loosening up a bit? The stats show it isn't a problem anyway and seems to justify reconsideration. What is the problem?

[WaspAir]

Wasp, I think you're taking off down a philisophical path based on a false assumption that the rule is based on more passengers creating a greater health risk.
I know that the intent of the proposed rule is not that, but intent and basis are different things. The intent is to chip away at medical certification requirements. The basis on which the FAA has been asked to approve it is limitations that make no sense unless there actually is a passenger count-linked health risk, and that's not reality. The proposal doesn't deal with real risks, but is somebody's idea of how to make political progress on this topic. AOPA/EAA are pushing a fiction as the basis of rule making, and that can have all sorts of nasty future consequences, from getting stuck with those limitations and never broadening them (thwarting the ultimate goal that might have been achieved differently) to unintentionally prompting the FAA to adopt that fiction as a basis for imposing other restrictions elsewhere. Where regulators are involved, the adage "be careful what you wish for" applies all the more strongly. Fictions can become fact when treated as if they are.

Today, I can fly with two passengers in a Schweizer 2-32 glider, or a dozen passengers in a Cameron balloon without even a drivers license. Start linking passenger count to health certification requirements as a legitimate basis for rulemaking, explicitly endorsed as legitimate by AOPA/EAA, and we're inviting an end to that era.

When I made my complaints to the AOPA about no connection existing between the proposed operations limitations and any health issue, they said (quoting from their first e-mail reply) "you are absolutely right, and your logic is unassailable", and then went on to explain that they were proceeding this way only because they thought it would be easier to squeeze in a wedge if they did it through an admittedly irrelevant but pre-approved regulatory structure such as the Recreational Pilot rules, hoping to broaden the gap at some later date.

Wasp, I disagree. I believe the intent is actually to set a looser health standard for flight. Essentially, a Sport Pilot is permitted to use his own judgment (and that of his state DMV and his own doctor) rather than meet a rigid set of one-size-fits-all limits, based on the reduced threats to passengers (because he can only carry one at a time) and people on the ground (due to limited aircraft inertia through caps on mass and speed).
The FAA doesn't seem to view it that way. One who loses his medical CANNOT fly as a Sport Pilot under "looser" standards. If your blood pressure is just a bit too high for a 3rd class and the AME says "no", you don't get to fly light sport under a more tolerant BP threshold number for those pilots. It is a lower level of certification and scrutiny, not a lower level of required health.

If this rule goes through and it is convenient for some of us, I'll be happy for those pilots. But for my personal flying welfare, I see little benefit coupled with potential for harm. If AOPA/EAA wanted to do an attack on the 3rd class medical based on real data, not fictions, I would throw all my support behind that.

[PW_Plack]

...Probably high blood pressure is the number one reason for denial. If this allowed higher blood pressure pilots to fly again do you think all of a sudden incapacitations would increase substantially?

Probably not. I don't believe there has yet been a single fatal LSA accident attributed to medical incapacitation, which is what is driving this effort by the associations.

But we look at this all wrong, in my opinion. You can pass an FAA 3rd with a blood pressure of 155/95. My doctor says that makes one four times as prone to heart attack or stroke than someone under 120/80. At some point, staying alive is more important than staying in the air.

We need to solve the underlying health issues, not keep lowering the bar.

[WaspAir]

I also think EAA, but especially AOPA, have lost touch with the low-cost end of general aviation. AOPA calls itself "The Voice of General Aviation," but seems to cater to the wine-&-cheese crowd, which I guess makes sense because advertisers want to reach people with high incomes. A friend of mine said it well - "AOPA has become one big infomercial."

I let my AOPA membership lapse this year, and just received my last issue of AOPA PIlot. Ironically, it's the first issue I can remember for a while with a cover featuring an airplane (Kitfox) that might actually be within my price range one day.

No argument on AOPA being out of touch. If you have a pressurized turbine twin, you're their kind of people, but the Average Joe isn't so important.

I have a perpetual complaint against them. They seem always to treat the first "A" in AOPA as if it stood for airplane, not aircraft. They are especially sloppy about how they use the word "aircraft". If you fly gilders, helicopters, gyroplanes, ballloons, powered chutes, etc., they act as if you don't exist.

From time to time I annoy them with e-mails when they list an airplane company as having delivered the most piston "aircraft" in a year, completely ignoring Robinson helicopter with bigger shipments than all those folks combined, or when they advise someone that almost all "aircraft" are required to have ELTs, not recognizing that ELTs are not required for any glider, balloon, gyroplane, helicopter, airship, weight-shift, tilt-rotor, or powered parachute.

EAA is much better if for no other reason than the local chapter structure helps keep things real and gets more done.

[PW_Plack]

When I made my complaints to the AOPA about no connection existing between the proposed operations limitations and any health issue, they...went on to explain that they were proceeding this way only because they thought it would be easier...

I agree with your concern. Every attempt to get the Part 103 weight limit increased has been met with the reply from the FAA that "the stakeholders came up with this number, not us." There is certain risk in this approach.

The FAA doesn't seem to view it that way. One who loses his medical CANNOT fly as a Sport Pilot under "looser" standards. If your blood pressure is just a bit too high for a 3rd class and the AME says "no", you don't get to fly light sport under a more tolerant BP threshold number for those pilots. It is a lower level of certification and scrutiny, not a lower level of required health...

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or FAA legal expert, and claim no knowledge of the FAA's internal process leading to the SP and LSA rules. I am not recommending anyone fly an LSA who can't pass a 3rd medical. I don't and wouldn't do it myself. But this is my layman's opinion:

Call me a cynic, but I do not believe the FAA expects the same health standard for Sport Pilots. I believe it is politically expedient for the FAA to create plausible deniability in not having that lower standard of health as a matter of official record. The Sport Pilot rule does not say you must meet the 3rd Class health standard. It says only, and I quote (61.303), that you must not "know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner."

Note that it doesn't even say "unable to operate an aircraft" in a safe manner. It implies that the standard for what makes one unable to safely operate "a light-sport aircraft" is different from what it takes to safely operate a C172.

So, if I have a BP of 160/100 or an A1C of 10, (or have no idea what either number actually is,) and believe I am able to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner, I've satisfied the letter of the law. If I know I'd fail a 3rd and so don't go for the test, I can still have satisfied the letter of the law. Only if I'm foolish enough to create a recorded denial, potentially embarrassing the FAA in a later accident, am I grounded.

My suspicion is the FAA doesn't want a highly publicized NTSB finding that someone officially found too unhealthy to safely fly a C172 was allowed to go fly the Skycatcher. I believe the gray area is intentional.

[mcbirdman]

Interesting points of view I must say. I agree the cost driven pilots are not always heard as loud by the orginization but I think something like this will mostly affect this level of pilot and this may get done.

Remember when Sport Pilot seemed like a dream that wouldn't come? The manager at our airport couldn't even believe such a change could happen and when it did- he acted like it was still just a fantasy. I think it reopened doors for others that previously felt they were shoved towards the exits.

[mcbirdman]

AOPA sent anothern email indicating that time is runnng short to comment on new proposed medical exemptions. Open comments are still being taken and AOPA is urging everyone to send in comments in while they still can for this important exemption. Evidenty you will have a choice for the medical or to take an online fitness/ self assesment cours. Apparently thehave about 3000 replies but would like 10,000 comments to express to the FAA how such a change is reasonable and would contribute to strengthen aviation.

Here is a link to help you start: http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/120329tips-to-filing-comments-medical.html

Some of you think it can't happen and thought the same about sport pilot. That is was highly unlikely to pass but it did and it helped grow the aviation industry. This is a positive thing that is reasonable and could also boost the aviation community. Please don't just sit there and say it can't be done. It can happen with your help. Not looking to argue, just hoping that we can come together to make some reasonable changes.

[Russ Hobbs]

James

I agree and I'll send in my thoughts. It would help if each of you reading this could find the time this weekend while it fresh in your mind.

[Russ Hobbs]

That was easy, it took all of 5 minutes to air my thoughts on line. Simply agreeing with the AOPA and The EAA stand would be enough to count, that would take less than two minutes.
You can do it!

[gyroplanes]

It's easier than it first looks. All of the boxes on the left are NOT manadatory to fill out.
Do your part, I did

[choppergabor]

Did it :) Takes only a few minutes.

[WHY]

Me too !!

Tony

[RotorRambler]

The process is painless and writing my comments made me actually think more deeply about my opinion.

[mcbirdman]

An email tidbit from AOPA:

Government Advocacy More time for medical exemption comments sought

By Alyssa J. Miller

Share on google_plusoneShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services0.

A move that has the potential to impact pilots on a personal level and the general aviation industry as a whole deserves more than a 20-day window for the community to comment.

AOPA and the Experimental Aircraft Association are seeking a 70-day extension to the comment period for the medical exemption request that would allow pilots to complete an online medical awareness course, do a self-assessment before every flight, and use their driver’s license in lieu of a third class medical to fly some of the most popular aircraft on the market during day-VFR conditions. The comment period for the medical exemption petition officially ended July 2, and the FAA has not yet granted the request for addition time to comment.

The request for the medical exemption would make an estimated 86,000 to 114,000 familiar (and many pilots’ favorite) piston single-engine aircraft with 180 horsepower or less—including many Cessnas and Pipers, tailwheels and nosewheels alike—available for flight if the pilots complete the online course, self-assess their fitness level, and use their driver’s license. The aircraft must have fixed landing gear and four seats or fewer, and pilots may not carry more than one passenger at a time, among other requirements.

This move, AOPA asserts, would allow pilots who stopped flying because of the expense, hassle, or fear associated with getting a medical, to get back in the air, fire up those underutilized aircraft, and help boost GA activity. It also could improve safety, according to the association, because pilots would be flying familiar aircraft, in some cases the type of aircraft in which they completed much of their flight training. The added educational component of the online course would delve deeper into aeromedical factors than current FAA materials, boosting pilots’ knowledge and enabling them to make more informed go/no-go decision based on fitness for flight.

“This has the potential to increase GA activity and the pilot population, as well as the GA community’s morale,” said Rob Hackman, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “Pilots are passionate about this issue, as is evidenced by the more than 14,000 who have commented already. We want everyone’s voice to be heard, and that’s why we are requesting 70 more days to comment.”

The extra days would bring the total comment period to 90 days. Pilots will have to opportunity to hear more about the proposal during seminars at EAA AirVenture; members can submit their comments at the AOPA Tent throughout the show. The exemption request is still on the Regulations.gov website, and the capability to submit comments is still active even though the deadline was July 2. As long as the online docket continues to make the comment functionality available, AOPA encourages pilots to submit their comments. Review the AOPA/EAA Guide to the Medical Petition, or consult the frequently asked questions to learn more about the exemption request. Identify Docket FAA-2012-0350 in your comments.

[mcbirdman]

An email tidbit from AOPA:

Government Advocacy More time for medical exemption comments sought

By Alyssa J. Miller

Share on google_plusoneShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printMore Sharing Services0.

A move that has the potential to impact pilots on a personal level and the general aviation industry as a whole deserves more than a 20-day window for the community to comment.

AOPA and the Experimental Aircraft Association are seeking a 70-day extension to the comment period for the medical exemption request that would allow pilots to complete an online medical awareness course, do a self-assessment before every flight, and use their driver’s license in lieu of a third class medical to fly some of the most popular aircraft on the market during day-VFR conditions. The comment period for the medical exemption petition officially ended July 2, and the FAA has not yet granted the request for addition time to comment.

The request for the medical exemption would make an estimated 86,000 to 114,000 familiar (and many pilots’ favorite) piston single-engine aircraft with 180 horsepower or less—including many Cessnas and Pipers, tailwheels and nosewheels alike—available for flight if the pilots complete the online course, self-assess their fitness level, and use their driver’s license. The aircraft must have fixed landing gear and four seats or fewer, and pilots may not carry more than one passenger at a time, among other requirements.

This move, AOPA asserts, would allow pilots who stopped flying because of the expense, hassle, or fear associated with getting a medical, to get back in the air, fire up those underutilized aircraft, and help boost GA activity. It also could improve safety, according to the association, because pilots would be flying familiar aircraft, in some cases the type of aircraft in which they completed much of their flight training. The added educational component of the online course would delve deeper into aeromedical factors than current FAA materials, boosting pilots’ knowledge and enabling them to make more informed go/no-go decision based on fitness for flight.

“This has the potential to increase GA activity and the pilot population, as well as the GA community’s morale,” said Rob Hackman, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “Pilots are passionate about this issue, as is evidenced by the more than 14,000 who have commented already. We want everyone’s voice to be heard, and that’s why we are requesting 70 more days to comment.”

The extra days would bring the total comment period to 90 days. Pilots will have to opportunity to hear more about the proposal during seminars at EAA AirVenture; members can submit their comments at the AOPA Tent throughout the show. The exemption request is still on the Regulations.gov website, and the capability to submit comments is still active even though the deadline was July 2. As long as the online docket continues to make the comment functionality available, AOPA encourages pilots to submit their comments. Review the AOPA/EAA Guide to the Medical Petition, or consult the frequently asked questions to learn more about the exemption request. Identify Docket FAA-2012-0350 in your comments.

[Chuck Roberg]

James, thanks. I didn't renew my membership so I appreciate the updates.