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?

[vaughn[_3_]]

" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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?

That's not the greatest argument. I think that there is a pretty big difference
between an LSA and a 172/182. There is much less difference between a 150/152
and an LSA.

That said, there is really no convincing evidence that a doctor can predict your
health over the next two years based on a written form and a quick external
physical exam. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In short,
the 3rd class medical certificate has no provable safety value and is simply an
expensive "gift" to the medical profession at the expense of the aviation
community.

Vaughn

>
>
>

[Scott[_7_]]

On 10-31-2010 12:19, vaughn wrote:

>
> That said, there is really no convincing evidence that a doctor can predict your
> health over the next two years based on a written form and a quick external
> physical exam. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In short,
> the 3rd class medical certificate has no provable safety value and is simply an
> expensive "gift" to the medical profession at the expense of the aviation
> community.
>
> Vaughn

However, a medical exam may catch a problem that may potentially become
"life threatening" or incapacitating that is unknown to the examinee.
That is exactly what happens when someone loses their medical...they go
in, unknowing that there is any problem and come out with a denied
medical. I do agree that there is no guarantee that one will remain
healthy in the time between exams. Like I was always told, "You're just
one medical away from an ultralight." ;)

[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.).

[Mxsmanic]

Scott writes:

> However, a medical exam may catch a problem that may potentially become
> "life threatening" or incapacitating that is unknown to the examinee.

Yes, but it will miss such problems as often as it catches them.

For example, many people who suffer from sudden cardiovascular accidents have
no prior history of cardiovascular trouble that would have shown up on an
aviation medical exam. Indeed, some pilots who have had heart attacks showed
nothing wrong on their exams. Finding people who are truly prone to CVAs
requires expensive, time-consuming, highly invasive, unpleasant tests, and
even then it's not 100% reliable. Some people can live to 100 with clogged
arteries, others succumb abruptly to a thrombus with arteries that are
relatively clean.

A person who had a couple of seizures in childhood may be disqualified from
flying, but in fact there's a very good chance that he'll never have them
again if that was the last time they occurred. Here again, there's no way to
know.

> That is exactly what happens when someone loses their medical...they go
> in, unknowing that there is any problem and come out with a denied
> medical. I do agree that there is no guarantee that one will remain
> healthy in the time between exams. Like I was always told, "You're just
> one medical away from an ultralight."

You can also pass a medical with flying colors and die of cardiac arrest on
your next flight. It has certainly happened, although medical incapacitation
in general is extremely rare.

[[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.

[sambodidley]

> wrote in message
...
> 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

If it were eliminated then there would be literally thousands of planes out
there available that would be in my budget and I could fly again.
Sam

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
can't qualify for a third class medical..

Vaughn

[Jim[_26_]]

On 10/31/2010 5:45 PM, vaughn wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
> than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
> without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
> be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
> though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
> can't qualify for a third class medical..
>
> Vaughn
>
Oh, I agree completely, and it's a great observation that those who
might otherwise be denied medicals will be attracted to LSAs. It all
may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot. Glider / balloon / LSA, not so much. General
Aviation aircraft, somewhat more. Large commercial aircraft, quite a
bit more. And so more medical supervision is needed. Great in theory,
but I am unconvinced that a third-class medical exam every three (or
two) years makes everyone safer. Second- and first-class medicals? Maybe.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do. The AARP lobby, no
doubt.

[Jim[_26_]]

On 10/31/2010 5:45 PM, vaughn wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
> than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
> without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
> be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
> though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
> can't qualify for a third class medical..
>
> Vaughn
>
Oh, I agree completely, and it's a great observation that those who
might otherwise be denied medicals will be attracted to LSAs. It all
may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot. Glider / balloon / LSA, not so much. General
Aviation aircraft, somewhat more. Large commercial aircraft, quite a
bit more. And so more medical supervision is needed. Great in theory,
but I am unconvinced that a third-class medical exam every three (or
two) years makes everyone safer. Second- and first-class medicals? Maybe.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do. The AARP lobby, no
doubt.

[Jim[_26_]]

On 10/31/2010 5:45 PM, vaughn wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>
> OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
> than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
> without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
> be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
> though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
> can't qualify for a third class medical..
>
> Vaughn
>
Oh, I agree completely, and it's a great observation that those who
might otherwise be denied medicals will be attracted to LSAs. It all
may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot. Glider / balloon / LSA, not so much. General
Aviation aircraft, somewhat more. Large commercial aircraft, quite a
bit more. And so more medical supervision is needed. Great in theory,
but I am unconvinced that a third-class medical exam every three (or
two) years makes everyone safer. Second- and first-class medicals? Maybe.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do. The AARP lobby, no
doubt.

[Mxsmanic]

vaughn writes:

> OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
> than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
> without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
> be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
> though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
> can't qualify for a third class medical..

It's going to be a long, hard fight to get rid of third-class medicals. For
some reason, the FAA likes to imagine that pilots need to be in the same
condition as Apollo astronauts. And NASA was even exaggerating for the
astronauts, as John Glenn proved at the age of 77.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim writes:

> It all may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
> unconscious pilot.

A Hummer weighs more than a Cessna and can veer off the road at any time, even
in highly congested urban areas. And yet this doesn't happen, even though
Hummer drivers don't need a third-class medical.

> Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
> special training while scooters and motorcycles do.

As I recall, no training was required for motorcycles where I lived, but the
road test was non-trivial.