FAA petition to eliminate Class 3 medical for Private Pilots

[Bug Dout]

A petition to the FAA to eliminate the 3rd Class medical for GA flying.

http://www.potomac-airfield.com/dot_petition.htm

--
If you look at anything long enough, say just that wall in front of
you -- it will come out of that wall.
- Anton Chekhov

[Scott[_7_]]

On 10-29-2010 22:23, Bug Dout wrote:
>
> A petition to the FAA to eliminate the 3rd Class medical for GA flying.
>
> http://www.potomac-airfield.com/dot_petition.htm
>

Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
the past.

[Jim Logajan]

Scott > wrote:
> On 10-29-2010 22:23, Bug Dout wrote:
>>
>> A petition to the FAA to eliminate the 3rd Class medical for GA flying.
>>
>> http://www.potomac-airfield.com/dot_petition.htm
>>
>
> Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
> FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
> the past.

Does this really come up every year?

[Scott[_7_]]

On 10-29-2010 23:59, Jim Logajan wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On 10-29-2010 22:23, Bug Dout wrote:
>>>
>>> A petition to the FAA to eliminate the 3rd Class medical for GA flying.
>>>
>>> http://www.potomac-airfield.com/dot_petition.htm
>>>
>>
>> Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
>> FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
>> the past.
>
> Does this really come up every year?

On various aviation groups or aviaiton websites, etc., yes. Not
necessarily just this one.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:22:18 +0000, Scott >
wrote:

>
>Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
>FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
>the past.

I have to say I don't disagree with the logic in the proposal.
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648099d311&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

"FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
a new LSA or quit flying,"

I think that is essentially true.

If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?

What do you think?

[Peter Dohm]

" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:22:18 +0000, Scott >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
>>FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
>>the past.
>
> I have to say I don't disagree with the logic in the proposal.
> http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648099d311&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf
>
> "FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
> artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
> concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
> literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
> pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
> a new LSA or quit flying,"
>
> I think that is essentially true.
>
> If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
> medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
> old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?
>
> What do you think?
>
I think that you have it exactly right.

Further, I remain displeased that they (FAA) adopted a rule which clearly
favored foreign manufacturers.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> "FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
> artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
> concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
> literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
> pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
> a new LSA or quit flying,"
>
> I think that is essentially true.

Not necessarily. A pilot who has failed a medical cannot fly LSA. An older
pilot would have to anticipate failing his next medical and then let the
medical lapse rather than take it in order to use the LSA route, and even then
it would be technically illegal (you can't fly LSA if you know that you would
not be medically qualified for a PPL).

> If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
> medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
> old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?
>
> What do you think?

I think all the medical standards imposed by aviation authorities are too
stringent. Medical incapacitation is extraordinarily rare. And before you say
that this is so because the exams are strict, look at the world of
automobiles: Even though most jurisdictions only require you to be able to see
reasonably well in order to get a driver's license, medical incapacitation of
automobile drivers is still extremely rare.

Most people never become suddenly incapacitated for medical reasons. They get
gradually sick and have to get medical care, but it doesn't sneak up on them.
In cases of things like heart attack, they are statistically very unlikely to
have a heart attack during flight, simply because almost none of their time is
spent flying.

Given how dramatically other sources of accidents outnumber medical
incapacitation, the draconian standards of aviation authorities don't make
much sense. You might want to be strict for airline pilots, but that's all.
And even for airline pilots, you don't necessarily need to be any more strict
than you are for people operating other vehicles where incapacitation would be
dangerous (commuter trains, ships, trucks, etc.).

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> "FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
>> artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
>> concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
>> literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
>> pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
>> a new LSA or quit flying,"
>>
>> I think that is essentially true.
>
> Not necessarily. A pilot who has failed a medical cannot fly LSA. An older
> pilot would have to anticipate failing his next medical and then let the
> medical lapse rather than take it in order to use the LSA route, and even then
> it would be technically illegal (you can't fly LSA if you know that you would
> not be medically qualified for a PPL).
>
>> If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
>> medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
>> old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think all the medical standards imposed by aviation authorities are too
> stringent. Medical incapacitation is extraordinarily rare. And before you say
> that this is so because the exams are strict, look at the world of
> automobiles: Even though most jurisdictions only require you to be able to see
> reasonably well in order to get a driver's license, medical incapacitation of
> automobile drivers is still extremely rare.
>
> Most people never become suddenly incapacitated for medical reasons. They get
> gradually sick and have to get medical care, but it doesn't sneak up on them.
> In cases of things like heart attack, they are statistically very unlikely to
> have a heart attack during flight, simply because almost none of their time is
> spent flying.

Exactly right.

There are very few things that will suddenly and without any warning cause
one to be incapacitated and even a Class 1 medical is unlikely to find them
in someone who appears healthy.

While such things might be found by full body scans and enough tests to
make Dr. House look stingy on testing, there is still no guarantee.

The bottom line in my opinion is that the medical for GA is little more
than a ritual left over from when airplanes were fabric and had two wings.


> Given how dramatically other sources of accidents outnumber medical
> incapacitation, the draconian standards of aviation authorities don't make
> much sense. You might want to be strict for airline pilots, but that's all.
> And even for airline pilots, you don't necessarily need to be any more strict
> than you are for people operating other vehicles where incapacitation would be
> dangerous (commuter trains, ships, trucks, etc.).

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ash Wyllie]

opined

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:22:18 +0000, Scott >
>wrote:

>>
>>Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
>>FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
>>the past.

>I have to say I don't disagree with the logic in the proposal.
>http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648099d
>311&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

>"FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
>artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
>concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
>literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
>pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
>a new LSA or quit flying,"

>I think that is essentially true.

>If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
>medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
>old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?

>What do you think?

It is not the cost of the aircraft that is important. Bureaucrats will only
be yelled at for saying yes.


A C172 can carry 2 more people than an LSA.
A Mooney is 100Kts faster than an LSA.
A Cherokee can fly in the clouds.
A bonanza is much heavier than an LSA.

All of which can increase the chances of a crssh, the body count of a crash.
And all the non crash flights are not seen.

So, which way is a bureaucrat going to go?


-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

[Jim[_26_]]

On 10/31/2010 9:56 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> "FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
>> artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
>> concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
>> literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
>> pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
>> a new LSA or quit flying,"
>>
>> I think that is essentially true.
>
> Not necessarily. A pilot who has failed a medical cannot fly LSA. An older
> pilot would have to anticipate failing his next medical and then let the
> medical lapse rather than take it in order to use the LSA route, and even then
> it would be technically illegal (you can't fly LSA if you know that you would
> not be medically qualified for a PPL).
>
>> If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
>> medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
>> old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think all the medical standards imposed by aviation authorities are too
> stringent. Medical incapacitation is extraordinarily rare. And before you say
> that this is so because the exams are strict, look at the world of
> automobiles: Even though most jurisdictions only require you to be able to see
> reasonably well in order to get a driver's license, medical incapacitation of
> automobile drivers is still extremely rare.

I agree that automotive medical incapacitation leading to an accident is
rare, but the driving environment is quite a bit different than the
flying environment. Someone feeling "something wrong in the chest" can
pull over to the side of the road and call for assistance thus avoiding
an automobile accident. It may be that such medical events are
extremely common, but never get reported because no accident happens.
Or never get reported because automobile accidents are extremely common.

[Volitan]

Wasn't the LSA category created specifically for this reason?