wrote:
On Sep 1, 11:38Â*am, wrote:


IMHO for private and below I agree.

There already exists the obligation to self certify before each flight
and there is nothing that requires one to run to a doctor to get evaluated
when you get sick or injured.

Agree and this applies to sports as well to PPL.

What I would propose is that the FAA medical exam for private and below
be replaced with a requirement to get a physical from a real doctor, any
doctor, once a year, which everyone should do anyway, and based on that
you self certify your general fitness to fly.

My take has always been, the damage on the ground will most likely be
the same whether it be a 110 hp plane or a 180. So, why not convert
the medical requirement based on equipment rather then certificate
type would be my take. (I see you said this later on)

As a bonus, most insurance will pay for an ordinary physical but not a
FAA physical.

Very true, but in my case, since I never have been the doctoring type,
my medicals every two years have been "life saving" literally and
figuratively. What you suggest essentially would cost me twice as
much since I never meet my insurance deductable.

Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

That, cash basis, cost me all of $80, which is not much of an adder to the
cost of flying.

Lab work can cost a lot more, but isn't a part of the FAA physical, so
that would be at your discretion based on what your doctor says.

And, FWIW, I opted for lab work which found a couple of things the FAA
medical would never find and doesn't care about but I do.

I'm on the fence where some ratings are involved as in should the current
FAA medical requirement be kept to hold and exercise ratings such as IFR,
jets or over 12,000 pounds.

Yep, was replying as I was reading, so yes, as I said above (and you),
more logical to base the medical requirement on equipment being
operated.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.