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