What GA needs

On Sep 14, 7:26 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeff Dougherty writes:


That surprises me, since a number of the disqualifying conditions are more
common than 1.5% of the population.

Well, it's what the stats say. :-) Now, the population of those
applying for an FAA medical is definitely not the same as the general
population. But I do think that those numbers support the idea that
the current medical regulations are not a serious barrier to entry
into general aviation.

And has been pointed out, if you don't think you can get one, fly as a
sport pilot. It's what I'll probably do.

Sport pilot is so restrictive that I don't think it would be worth the trouble
(at least for me).

Sure. But you're not everybody, and thus far it looks to be pretty
popular. To balance your anecdote with an anecdote, sport pilot
sounds just about perfect for yours truly.

I'm afraid that I can't really say much to these unless you're more
specific. As far as I know, once you have the PPL you can fly any
single engine landplane without retractable gear or a variable pitch
prop. There are enough gear-up landings each year that some
retractable-gear training certainly seems to be a good idea, and I
don't think anyone would argue that seaplanes and multiengine
airplanes shouldn't have their own training requirements.

There are lots of things that can make an aircraft more complex to fly, not
just retractable gear. So I'm not sure why retractable gear justifies a
separate restriction if the other stuff doesn't.
Not only that, but I like twin-engine aircraft with retractable gear and all
the other "complex" and "high-performance" stuff.

Actually, as I see it having these separate endorsements actually
makes it easier to get into aviation. Think about it. If there were
no separate categories for complex aircraft, multiengine, and so on,
then every holder of a PPL would have to be familiar with how to fly
any land plane, no matter how it was configured. That would mean that
a lot of systems that aren't currently part of the basic PPL would
have to be added to the course- managing a variable-pitch prop,
landing gear operations, how to manage a twin (which if nothing else,
certainly changes your approach to single engine out events), and so
forth. This would greatly increase the amount of time needed to earn
the PPL, and thus cost.

But with separate endorsements, that's not necessary. The basic PPL
lets you fly single engined, fixed prop and gear planes- which I would
venture to say are the majority of the GA fleet. Thus, the majority
of pilots who don't want to fly anything else aren't burdened by
training in systems that they're not going to use.

And for that matter, I think I've heard of people taking their PPL in
complex aircraft and getting the endorsement at the same time they got
their license. It's not common, but I believe it's been done.


As for "heavy regulation"...well, any amount of regulation can be
claimed to be heavy. Unless you're more specific about which regs you
consider unnecessarily burdensome, I can't really offer
counterpoints.

Compare the length of the FARs (even Part 91 alone) to a typical motor vehicle
code.

Sure. But something being long is different from it being
unnecessarily long. My college biochemistry textbook was a fairly
massive tome, but considering how much it covered it wasn't one page
longer than it needed to be. The dictionary is long. So is an
encyclopedia. Aviation is a complex subject, and just saying that the
regulations governing it are lengthy isn't the same as saying they're
unnecessarily long.

Now, I'm not defending every jot and title of the FARs. If every rule
in them is really necessary, they'll be the very first set of
government regulations in human history for which that is the case.
But length alone isn't a good criteria here.

Er. As a current applicant for medical school, I've gone through a
year of premed coursework (after finishing a bio major at a liberal
arts college), followed by a yearlong application process that
involves a lot of paperwork and some not inconsiderable fees to get me
the chance to fly at my own expense somewhere for an interview, after
which the school might or might not admit me. I've definitely spent
more than 90 hours on the application process, and my total bill
probably won't come out to be much less than a PPL once I'm done
interviewing all over creation. (With the amount of flying I need to
do soon, I'll have my multiengine pax rating in no time! ;~) ) It's
taken two years on top of the four I spent in college, a lot of money
and skull sweat...

...and that's just to get *into* medical school.

Sure, but a PPL is just to get _into_ flying. You still need other ratings
and certifications, an airplane, an airport, and so on.

When/if I start,
I'll then do four years worth of intensive coursework, followed by at
least three years of residency pulling 80-100 hour weeks. Followed by
a licensing process that will look at my health at least as closely as
an FAA medical.

You can't be a doctor if you're diabetic or an epileptic?

That's actually a good question, and I had to do some searching to get
the exact answer. (This is all based off of the Mass. Medical Board's
rules, if anyone is interested.) There don't seem to be any
conditions that are automatic DQs, but any physical or mental
condition which in the Board's opinion could interfere with the
practice of medicine is grounds for denial of a license to practice.
Short, but it potentially covers a lot of ground.

At any rate, even if we want to say that the physical itself is easier
I think the rest of my point stands.

But in consideration of
the above, I would be interested to know what part of becoming a
doctor you consider easier than becoming a private pilot.

If all you want is a PPL, it's easier than becoming a doctor. If you want
something more complex than a PPL, and if you want to actually fly on a
regular basis, the time and expense starts to increase almost exponentially.

Right. But the thread was talking about GA and people getting a PPL,
and you said upthread that you weren't talking about professional
pilots, but about the problems faced by amateurs. Which are there, no
question, but comparing the amount of time and money required to be a
pilot to the amount required to be a doctor is a little silly. With
five minutes on Google I found a flight school that would take me from
zero time to ATP for what I could end up spending on about a year and
a half worth of medical school, and probably in a lot less time as
well.

In my case, my favorite sim aircraft is a Beechcraft Baron 58. But becoming a
pilot of my own Baron in real life would be hideously time-consuming,
difficult, and expensive. I suppose if I just wanted to fly a Piper Cub,
things might be different, but I don't want to fly a piece of junk, and I'd
want to be instrument rated.

Piper Cub a piece of junk?

Man, where's your sense of beauty? :-)

Seriously, to each his own. But if anyone offered me a chance to get
in an honest-to-Yeager Piper Cub and buzz around, I'd be out the door
so fast you'd never see me going.

"Jeff Dougherty" wrote ...

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and
in some respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

Er. As a current applicant for medical school,...

Jeff, welcome to the head banging portion of the Mxsmanic Experience. Every
regular on this group has gone through this "reasoned discussion phase",
gotton dizzy, and fallen down. There's lots of us here to help you up. Nuff
said.

Keep focused on the med school road, but spend a bit of free time (yeah
right,...ha,ha) searching out a flying club in the area around the school.
Go to meetings and announce that you would like share some time and
expenses. You are bound to get some takers and you'll undoubtedly find
yourself on the controls (most PPLs are eager teachers). Good luck.

On Sep 15, 12:45 am, "Mike Isaksen" wrote:
"Jeff Dougherty" wrote ...



On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and
in some respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

Er. As a current applicant for medical school,...
Keep focused on the med school road, but spend a bit of free time (yeah
right,...ha,ha) searching out a flying club in the area around the school.
Go to meetings and announce that you would like share some time and
expenses. You are bound to get some takers and you'll undoubtedly find
yourself on the controls (most PPLs are eager teachers). Good luck.

We'll see. I don't know if "free time" and "medical school" belong in
the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence...but there's endless
room in this world to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Thanks for the
good wishes.

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jeff Dougherty writes:
Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
check in my hand.

Getting in is just the beginning.

The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are generally
harmless while accepting others that can often be dangerous. They are also
unnecessarily repetitive.

Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special procedures just
for having retractable gear, excessive currency requirements, heavy
regulation, and so on.

It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
slowly changing. Also, based on accident records, having a special
rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
retract. No, it is not easier to become a physician or a lawyer.
Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

Andrew Sarangan writes:

I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
slowly changing.

VERY slowly changing.

I figure that a private pilot is far less likely to take anyone with him if he
kills himself in an accident than is an automobile driver, so why the
restrictive medical requirements? A pilot's only victims are likely to be his
passengers, if any, but someone crashing on the highway can cause many
injuries and deaths.

A good first step would be to dramatically reduce the requirements for
piloting alone, while (perhaps) maintaining somewhat more stringent
requirements for pilots who want to take passengers with them. However, I'm
not convinced that the chances of sudden incapacitation are really high enough
to worry about in any case.

Also, based on accident records, having a special
rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
retract.

I don't think insurance should be mandatory for pilots, either.

Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

Yeah, I saw an ad for $42K. But I'm sure there are a great many prerequisites
for admission to the school.

Jeff Dougherty wrote
... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

"Jon Woellhaf" writes:

Jeff Dougherty wrote
... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

Indeed. In the Canadian regulations someplace, they describe the
intent of the medical exams as to reduce the probability of an
in-flight incapacitation to something like 1%. For the higher levels
of certificates, this is assumed to be under conditions of higher
stress/intensity/endurance - considering commercial pilots as flying
harder (physiologically speaking) than private pilots.


- FChE

On Sep 12, 1:37 pm, "Jon Woellhaf" wrote:
Jeff Dougherty wrote

... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

Someone posted their story here a while ago about having to get a
special psychiatric evaluation just because he happened to mention to
the FAA that he had a psychological evaluation when he was an 5-year
old (or something close to that age). There is no doubt that the FAA
medical process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and has grounded too
many perfectly fine pilots. A fairer system would be to do away with
medicals except for those who fly for a living. Just like we do for
driving. To my knowledge, it has never been proven that medical
incapacitation is a leading cause of aviation accidents.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

To my knowledge, it has never been proven that medical
incapacitation is a leading cause of aviation accidents.

Well, that could also be interpreted as supporting the medicals: After all,
medical incapacitation isn't a leading cause of aviation accidents, so the
medicals must be doing a good job of preventing
medical-incapacitation-caused accidents.

We need data on the frequency of medical incapacitation accidents in the
absence of medicals in order to really be able to make a point either way.

Ad.

--
The mail address works, but please notify me via usenet of any mail you send
to it, as it has a retention period of just a few hours.

Adhominem writes:

Well, that could also be interpreted as supporting the medicals: After all,
medical incapacitation isn't a leading cause of aviation accidents, so the
medicals must be doing a good job of preventing
medical-incapacitation-caused accidents.

We need data on the frequency of medical incapacitation accidents in the
absence of medicals in order to really be able to make a point either way.

We can get those numbers from automobile accidents. How many accidents are
caused by sudden incapacitation of automobile drivers? How many are caused by
drivers having a sudden heart attack or seizure?