Expanded Medical Exemption - Good or Bad for Soaring?

[son_of_flubber]

From AOPA:
"In December, AOPA members Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, and GA Caucus Co-Chair Sam Graves (R-Missouri) introduced the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act or (GAPPA).

Under GAPPA, pilots who make noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats would be exempt from the third-class medical certification process."

The conversation is over if you think that all government regulation of 'freedom' is bad. But otherwise, would the elimination of the medical certificate for some power pilots be good or bad for Soaring?

What is the perspective of people who moved to soaring in part because of the medical exemption?

Other perspectives?

My (rather limited) thoughts:

The medical certificate exemption for glider pilots is one reason that some power pilots take up soaring. So the change might mean fewer add-ons. Would I rather see those pilots in a power plane above cloud base, or in a glider below cloud base? Would the slackening of demand hurt the resale value of gliders?

Elimination of the medical exemption would mean that a few more pilots would delay retirement, continue to fly power, and give anemic airports (and airplane prices) a shot in the arm.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:14:53 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
> From AOPA:
>
> "In December, AOPA members Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, and GA Caucus Co-Chair Sam Graves (R-Missouri) introduced the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act or (GAPPA).
>
>
>
> Under GAPPA, pilots who make noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats would be exempt from the third-class medical certification process."
>
>
>
> The conversation is over if you think that all government regulation of 'freedom' is bad. But otherwise, would the elimination of the medical certificate for some power pilots be good or bad for Soaring?
>
>
>
> What is the perspective of people who moved to soaring in part because of the medical exemption?
>
>
>
> Other perspectives?
>
>
>
> My (rather limited) thoughts:
>
>
>
> The medical certificate exemption for glider pilots is one reason that some power pilots take up soaring. So the change might mean fewer add-ons. Would I rather see those pilots in a power plane above cloud base, or in a glider below cloud base? Would the slackening of demand hurt the resale value of gliders?
>
>
>
> Elimination of the medical exemption would mean that a few more pilots would delay retirement, continue to fly power, and give anemic airports (and airplane prices) a shot in the arm.

The impact on soaring would be mainly in keeping experienced tow pilots available for us all. I've known very few power pilots switching to gliding because of medical issues.
I'd be more concerned about insurance companies increasing the premiums because of older non-medical pilots in power planes. Wonder how they take age into account anyway.
Herb

[Soartech]

I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are
too low to make much of a difference either way.

[Greg Arnold]

On 3/12/2014 9:57 AM, Soartech wrote:
> I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are
> too low to make much of a difference either way.
>


I think those guys are flying touring motorgliders, not pure gliders or
self-launchers.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Soartech wrote:
> I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are too low to make much of a difference either way.

I completely agree.
We virtually never(can't remember the last one) get people who can't get a medical coming to fly gliders.
I suspect a few may be moving to light sport or ultralights.
UH

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Soartech wrote:
> I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are
>
> too low to make much of a difference either way.

So using the medical exemption as a point to recruit power pilots to soaring is ineffective? When I saw the point made in a presentation, I thought that it made soaring pilots look bad.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:04:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Soartech wrote: > I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are > > too low to make much of a difference either way. So using the medical exemption as a point to recruit power pilots to soaring is ineffective? When I saw the point made in a presentation, I thought that it made soaring pilots look bad.

It makes it a bit more simple, which is good. One less hassle and one less expense but not a deal maker in my view.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:07:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:04:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Soartech wrote: > I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are > > too low to make much of a difference either way. So using the medical exemption as a point to recruit power pilots to soaring is ineffective? When I saw the point made in a presentation, I thought that it made soaring pilots look bad.
>
>
>
> It makes it a bit more simple, which is good. One less hassle and one less expense but not a deal maker in my view.
>
> UH

The original proposal to do away with the III class medical prohibited towing any object, which I assume included gliders. In my club there are numerous pilots of a certain age who have let there medicals lapse, but still fly their Cubs, Champs, T-craft, etc and sailplanes. They no longer want to risk being completely grounded or seriously delayed by the medical appeal process if some minor problem should show up.

My point is that under the original plan to remove the III class medical they could fly the tow plane legally all day, but not tow a glider, thus removing them from returning to the tow pilot pool.

As to younger pilots, ask your self this question. If you can fly two and four seat singles, LSA's, and sailplanes, would you go through the expense and risk of getting a medical that was only useful to make a few club tows on the weekend?

Perhaps this is a issue that the SSA could lobby for, where a SSA club could have an exemption to that specific rule.

Just my thoughts.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > writes:

>The original proposal to do away with the III class medical prohibited towi=
>ng any object, which I assume included gliders. In my club there are numero=
>us pilots of a certain age who have let there medicals lapse, but still fly=
> their Cubs, Champs, T-craft, etc and sailplanes. They no longer want to ri=
>sk being completely grounded or seriously delayed by the medical appeal pro=
>cess if some minor problem should show up.

Presumably taking advantage of the Sport Pilot rules.


>My point is that under the original plan to remove the III class medical th=
>ey could fly the tow plane legally all day, but not tow a glider, thus remo=
>ving them from returning to the tow pilot pool.

Such are the sorts of rules that add to the complexity of the FAA regs.
The whole Sport Pilot/Recreational Pilot/Private Pilot/medical regulations
tangle is way too complex. Unfortunately, fixing it would almost certainly
increase overall requirements on us, since it would be in the interest of
"more safety".


>As to younger pilots, ask your self this question. If you can fly two and f=
>our seat singles, LSA's, and sailplanes, would you go through the expense a=
>nd risk of getting a medical that was only useful to make a few club tows o=
>n the weekend?

Especially, after reading the discussions here of tow plane upsets by gliders.


>Perhaps this is a issue that the SSA could lobby for, where a SSA club coul=
>d have an exemption to that specific rule.

No, it would just make more sense to not have that rule.


The whole discussion of eliminating medical certificates might sound good to
pilots, until they hear the voices on the evening news outraged that pilots
without medicals can fly their little airplanes and plummet into everyone's
children. Then, the reaction probably will have glider pilots having to have
medicals.

Alan

[Dan Marotta]

I recall a rule which stated something about self certification. It said
you could not self certify you knew or had reason to know of any medical
condition that would make that person unable obtain a medical certificate.

I take that to mean that, if you lose your medical certificate, you can not
self certify to fly gliders. Am I wrong or has that rule been changed?



"Alan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >
> writes:
>
>>The original proposal to do away with the III class medical prohibited
>>towi=
>>ng any object, which I assume included gliders. In my club there are
>>numero=
>>us pilots of a certain age who have let there medicals lapse, but still
>>fly=
>> their Cubs, Champs, T-craft, etc and sailplanes. They no longer want to
>> ri=
>>sk being completely grounded or seriously delayed by the medical appeal
>>pro=
>>cess if some minor problem should show up.
>
> Presumably taking advantage of the Sport Pilot rules.
>
>
>>My point is that under the original plan to remove the III class medical
>>th=
>>ey could fly the tow plane legally all day, but not tow a glider, thus
>>remo=
>>ving them from returning to the tow pilot pool.
>
> Such are the sorts of rules that add to the complexity of the FAA regs.
> The whole Sport Pilot/Recreational Pilot/Private Pilot/medical regulations
> tangle is way too complex. Unfortunately, fixing it would almost
> certainly
> increase overall requirements on us, since it would be in the interest of
> "more safety".
>
>
>>As to younger pilots, ask your self this question. If you can fly two and
>>f=
>>our seat singles, LSA's, and sailplanes, would you go through the expense
>>a=
>>nd risk of getting a medical that was only useful to make a few club tows
>>o=
>>n the weekend?
>
> Especially, after reading the discussions here of tow plane upsets by
> gliders.
>
>
>>Perhaps this is a issue that the SSA could lobby for, where a SSA club
>>coul=
>>d have an exemption to that specific rule.
>
> No, it would just make more sense to not have that rule.
>
>
> The whole discussion of eliminating medical certificates might sound good
> to
> pilots, until they hear the voices on the evening news outraged that
> pilots
> without medicals can fly their little airplanes and plummet into
> everyone's
> children. Then, the reaction probably will have glider pilots having to
> have
> medicals.
>
> Alan