PDA

View Full Version : Scoop on Driver's license as Medical for recreational flying up to 180HP



RBaptist
09-24-2011, 10:44 PM
I almost fell out of my chair when I read the article on the EAA main page this evening.

"EAA, AOPA Announce Plan To Expand Driver's License Medical Option"

BIG KUDOS to both organizations. I've been wondering when the next step was going to happen. This one seems to allow pilots to fly aircraft up to 180 HP using a DL as medical certifications with the limitation of 1 PAX and Day VFR.

I do wonder why we can't just do what most are already thinking and allow a DL certification for the PPL rating for non-commercial use. That way (for the typical GA pilot) the airplane becomes USEFUL again at a lower cost and worry factor. One of the problems with the Sport Pilot reg (I currently fly as a sport pilot) is that if you have a family household of more than 2, they can't fly with you together. I'd argue that the night restriction is tough too, but probably not as big of a deal as the GW/PAX restrictions.

At any rate - the Article says: "Under the proposed exemption pilots holding recreational, private, commercial or airline transport pilot certificates could opt to fly under the same driver’s license medical self-certification standards"

I assume that a Sport Pilot could opt in as well with the appropriate aircraft training, correct?

Any Scoop?
Robert

Frank Giger
09-25-2011, 11:57 PM
I assume that a Sport Pilot could opt in as well with the appropriate aircraft training, correct?

I would guess not.

The thing about this rule (which I agree with, and I'm a "pure" Sport Pilot), is that it allows a PPL to fly with restrictions without a medical.

The big "however" is that in order to become a PPL one has to do all the things that require a medical - night flying in particular. Similarly, lots of ratings open to the PPL are closed to the Sport Pilot - no matter what the gross weight or HP of an aircraft, if it has retractable gear it's off limits (amphibs excluded). Ditto stall and cruise speed limitations.

Plus the SP is limited by gross weight, while this rule is aimed at HP, like recreational pilots. Other than that, in reality there isn't anything a Sport Pilot can't do that's in the rule. Daytime VFR, one passenger. Bread and butter for a Sport Pilot.

Mostly I'm in favor of the rule because in a few years I'm going to buy a Champ to go with my single seat Nieuport, and with a lot of PPL's wanting to fly under SP rules it's going to inflate the price for them! ;)

wyoranch
09-26-2011, 11:37 AM
There will be restrictions on what you can do, I don't think anyone can predict what the FAA will allow. (I am making the assumption that this time the rule will go through). I see absolutely no reason why a SP could not upgrade their license to PPL with the appropriate training. The limit would be that the new PPL would have to hold to the rules put forth when operating without a medical. It has been a long time since I have acted as a CFI so don't yell if I am not entirely accurate. FAR 61.110 deals with night flying, it also has provisions for those pilot candidates who can not complete night flight training. (Yes I do know it "invalidates" your certificate if night training is not completed in a certain amount of time) The point is that the provision is already there to allow for exemptions, a precedent has been set. What I think will be more of an issue is "what" the FAA allows as acceptable regardng the A/C. In a perfect world this would allow PPL to operate single engine a/c with the performance and capabilities associated with a "typical" GA aircraft. What I would predict is that the SP a/c rules would be expanded (weight, speed etc...) to allow for simple (The 172's and Cherokee's of the world) type a/c. As a former commercial pilot/CFI who can now has to operate as a sport pilot, I will take whatever I can get
Fingers crossed
Rick

Joda
09-26-2011, 12:39 PM
What this would do is expand the ability to use a driver's license in lieu of an FAA medical certificate to the recreational pilot level. All the restrictions on a recreational pilot would still be there. (Check FAR Part 61 if you're not familiar with recreational pilot privileges and limitations.) This would NOT allow persons holding only a sport pilot certificate to expand to larger aircraft. It would, however, allow private pilots (and higher) to continue to fly aircraft that meet the limitations of the recreational pilot certificate using a driver's license. This would then include most of the Cherokee line, most if not all Cessna 172s, as well as the Cessna 120/140 and 150/152. It would include many of the vintage aircraft that don't quite make it as a light-sport aircraft due to gross weight or too many seats. It would include the Piper Tri-Pacer and Colt, the rest of the Ercoupe fleet, and a bunch of others.

This is a step toward (maybe) someday allowing a private pilot to fly day-VFR non-commercially on a driver's license. But it would not be prudent to try to go that far in one "giant leap". Going to the recreational pilot level first will give a good "baby step" that the FAA might consider. Let's hope they see their way clear to (finally) allow this. (The FAA has turned down similar proposals in the past. Let's hope the time has come.)

RBaptist
09-26-2011, 06:32 PM
WacoJoe - that is what I am wondering - the Recreational license is limited to 50nm from 'home base'.

steveinindy
09-26-2011, 06:46 PM
flying up to 180HP

Eh....that's kind of disappointing and I imagine it would be subject to similar cross-border restrictions as the SP due to the ICAO requirements


This is a step toward (maybe) someday allowing a private pilot to fly day-VFR non-commercially on a driver's license.

It is a great potential step forward for those who simply fly day-VFR. It leaves those of us who fly for more than just $100 hamburgers and fun in the same predicament as we have been. If you're going to loosen the restrictions and say that people who can drive a car can safely fly as private pilots, then either **** or get off the pot.

Honestly, what the FAA is doing is testing to see if the same rate of medical issues that crop up in study after study of car crashes (which are a lot more common than people often realize; one 1996 study in Accident Analysis and Prevention put it as high as 6% of crashes for drivers under 59 years of age and approximately 19% of cases involving drivers over that age of 60) will present themselves in the aviation community. Be safe out there guys.

wyoranch
09-26-2011, 07:03 PM
WacoJoe,
Where did you hear (or read) that it would be to recreational pilot restrictions? I wish to get as much information as possible in support of the EAA/AOPA effort.
Thanks
Rick

Bill Greenwood
09-26-2011, 07:57 PM
This is only a proposal from EAA Aopa to FAA.
I personally doubt if FAA will accept it, at least at first.
The requirements for a medical, even for the limited private pilot type of gen av pilot which has been done in the past; may not make much sense or be supported by any logic or research statistics; however that has been the mantra of the FAA for years.
Are they likely to change it without a struggle?
They have a lot of lawyers that are attached to the status quo.
Remember how hard they fought for decades against raising the airline retirement age to over 60; even long after it was obvious that pilots over 60 were flying safely for airlines in other countries.
One key element of this new proposal is that pilots receive some training in medical issues, also it is limited to one passenger; seems ok.

steveinindy
09-26-2011, 10:12 PM
The requirements for a medical, even for the limited private pilot type of gen av pilot which has been done in the past; may not make much sense or be supported by any logic or research statistics

It actually is fairly well supported when you look at how effective it has been at keeping the rate of medically related aircraft crashes far below the rate of say medically related car crashes. It may not be popular and a lot of the standards are excessively arbitrary but some of them are pretty well grounded (no pun intended) in statistical evidence.


One key element of this new proposal is that pilots receive some training in medical issues, also it is limited to one passenger; seems ok.

I see no point in the performance limitations. If a pilot is going to be incapacitated at the controls, he's going to crash just as readily in a 1000-lb bug smasher on a sunny day as he is in a Malibu on a night ILS approach to minimums.

The only reason why the passenger rule is in place so far as I can tell is to limit the body count while the FAA uses sport pilots as a study population for this. They know we do a pretty crap-tastic job of policing ourselves when it comes to questionable activities (ever looked at how many deadpilots are found to have had bypasses, be on medications that are not reported to the FAA, etc? How many of us continue to scud run and engage in other knowingly hazard activities?) so this is simply a test to see how well the idea of letting people "medically certify" themselves works out. I hope it works out for the best but at the same time, I have my doubts about how it will work out as the certification becomes more prevalent and more pilots move towards it as they age (and therefore become higher medical risks). We are either being given just enough rope to have fun with or just enough to hang ourselves with. The decision on which it is has been placed in our hands.

Fly safer everyone.

Joda
09-27-2011, 06:10 AM
WacoJoe - that is what I am wondering - the Recreational license is limited to 50nm from 'home base'.

The recreational pilot certificate normally is limited to 50 miles from "home base". However, it would be likely that this limitation would not apply to pilots holding private pilot certificates or higher, since they have already had the appropriate cross-country training. This situation is similar to the current sport pilot certificate, where pilots holding private or higher certificates are not required to get any of the airspace or aircraft endorsements due to their higher level of training.


Where did you hear (or read) that it would be to recreational pilot restrictions? I wish to get as much information as possible in support of the EAA/AOPA effort.

Rick, while it didn't say it in so many words in the news release, the following was included:

The request for exemption would allow pilots to fly airplanes of up to 180 hp during daylight VFR carrying no more than one passenger even though the airplane may have up to four seats.

This is exactly the limitations for a recreational pilot certificate, so it is clear that this is the level they are working on. It makes sense to use the "stepping stone" approach with the FAA, moving the driver's license allowance up to recreational pilot first, then later trying to move to private pilot. Much easier to do it this way rather than trying to go directly to the private pilot level.

Remember too that, as originally proposed recreational pilot certificates would not have required a medical certificate (or even a driver's license). This would finally put that certificate in the position it was originally intended for.

Let's hope the FAA finally sees their way clear to do this. It would be a HUGE move toward keeping more pilots flying and getting more pilots to join the ranks.

Mike M
09-27-2011, 08:03 AM
allow all recreational and "higher" certificate levels to exercise recreational privileges with driver's license instead of third-class medical? i agree with wacojoe, i think that's what they meant. have to admit i was too shocked to comprehend at first read, and still not sure - where is the link to the actual proposal? IF that is what is proposed, it's a logical next step to dropping 3rd class entirely.....wow.

wyoranch
09-27-2011, 08:13 AM
I do not believe that the proposal is available yet. The article stated that EAA/AOPA would submit it after the first of the year to allow time for them to develop it.
Rick

wyoranch
09-27-2011, 08:16 AM
Joe,
Thank you for the info. I would hope that it would be a little less restrictive in the distance part, but like I said before I will take what I can get.
:)
Rick

Frank Giger
09-28-2011, 02:55 AM
On cross-border, particularly to Canada, this rule also closely mirrors the Canadian Recreational License (and right now those guys can't fly to the USA for the same reasons a Sport Pilot can't fly to Canada), so harmonization and a bilateral agreement shouldn't be that hard to reach on that score.

The daytime VFR, one passenger, 180 HP limitations are a stroke of brilliance. Not only does it match the Recreational Pilot restrictions (less medical and cross country distance restrictions, which a RP can extend with an endorsement) but it also matches the kind of flying the vast majority of PPL's perform anyway.

Mike M
09-28-2011, 08:17 AM
WacoJoe - that is what I am wondering - the Recreational license is limited to 50nm from 'home base'.

cfr 14 pt61.101

A person exercising the privileges of a recreational pilot certificate may act as PIC on a flight that exceeds 50 nautical miles from departure if that person carries a logbook endorsed by an authorized instructor certifying the person has received ground and flight cross-country training and been found proficient in cross-country flying.

Bill Greenwood
09-28-2011, 04:12 PM
Steve, where are you getting your statistics for all these medically caused car crashes that you mention?
Most car crashes are speeding, running red lights, or many are driving drunk.
I don't think many are really medically related. Let's say a driver had to pass a medical test to get a drivers license. It just means he is sober at that test. Doesn't prevent him from being out at 2 am that Fri night when the strip club closes and driving drunk. That's a behavior issue , not really a medical one. It's also a cultural issue that like smoking our society has bars and stores that promote drinking when you are out socially, despite some ads to the other side. If one is going to the big game or big Nascar or something similar and drink all those Buds, how is one getting home sober?
Flying has a lot less promotion of drinking associated with it, for instance shows that don't sell beer, and very specific regs that prohibit ANY drinking within 8 hours of flying.

You say the low accident rate from medical causes shows what a great job the medical regs are doing. Balonly! Each morning I put on my left sock before my right one. I brush my teeth standing up. I enter my car from the left side. Why? Well of course to keep the pink elephants away,and it must work since there is not a single packaderm (sp) around, of any color.
If the FAA medical was all that was keeping the grim reaper away; then what about the LSA history or the last 5 years of flying without one single medical related accident or so says EAA. And how about paragliders and hang gliders, both much more demanding medically than airplanes. Do you see the sky raining down on us from them?

When you fly, do you feel a lot of stress, or do you feel happy and relaxed?
For me, 99% of the time flying is a stress reducer not an inducer?
I'd be a lot less healthy if I could not fly.

For me stress is trying to write on some computer.

RBaptist
09-28-2011, 06:28 PM
Good discussion. I guess my thought is that I hope they listen to the folks that would be interested in this sort of rating before writing the rules. The article gives HOPE, but it leaves much to the imagination.......

As a Sport Pilot, I currently hold endorsements into Class D, C and in aircraft exceeding 87kts. I have had cross country training, VOR Navigation - basically most of what a PPL would get (exception being 'official' night training) though my instructor had me perform several night landings.

The TWO things that frustrate me (and keep in mind that I LOVE flying as a Sport Pilot) are the limitations on Gross Weight and Passengers.

The first creates many hurdles to aircraft ownership. There are PLENTY of used C150/152/172 out there that would fit the bill at costs in the 30-40K range (instead of the 100-120K range of most modern LSAs). There are Piper aircraft, even some Aeroncas that are not qualified as LSAs, but would make GREAT recreational aircraft.
The Passenger restriction is obvious. I'd like to be able to use the aircraft to fly with my family. Can't currently do that. And YES, I can qualify for a medical. It is just more cost/hassle/potential problems LATER that I would rather not have to deal with for the type of flying that I like. (Simple, for fun, with the occasional cross country trip to see our great country).

Seems like the rec license would be a really good step to resolving many of the concerns if they do the following (in order of priority):
-Remove the 50nm restriction
-Remove the 1 PAX limitation (Heck - if they NEED a limitation - make it 4 PAX). That would probably cover 98% of people's wishes. Most 6 seaters out there really can only carry 4 people with enough fuel to go anywhere anyway.

I'm tellin' ya - do those two things and it would be HUGE for aviation.

But again - I'm not complaining. I love flying and feel really blessed to be able to fly at all! Just want to see aviation grow so we can all keep the privilege long into the future and more can experience the thrill, friendships, and sense of ownership and responsibility that the aviation community brings.

dvanderm
09-29-2011, 07:50 PM
This is great news. The current rule that prohibits those who have had a medical and been denied a renewal needs to be changed. It would seem that if it became a requirement that pilots participated in the Health Related Training Program, they could self-govern their ability to fly on any given day in the light of transient problems like kidney stones.

dewi8095
09-30-2011, 06:42 AM
While the restrictions in this proposal may seem like half-a-loaf, it is probably the way to go. Those interested should watch the AOPA/EAA interview on 9/28 about the proposal a few threads down from this one. Note that the proposal is not for a rule change, but a request for an exemption from the existing rule re the medical certification for recreational pilots. I think the two organizations have done their homework and may be able to pull this off, which will be good news for a lot of pilots.

Light Sport Flyer
09-30-2011, 01:58 PM
I'd like to see antiques like the PT-17 Stearman be part of the light Sport catagory. I owned a civilian Stearman for over 13 years and once i decided to go Light Sport, I could no longer legally fly Stearman. It stalls at 46, cruises at 90 give or take, so what's the big deal? Anyway, I have begun to seek out a J3 so I can still get into the air.

Frank Giger
10-01-2011, 01:07 AM
It would seem that if it became a requirement that pilots participated in the Health Related Training Program, they could self-govern their ability to fly on any given day in the light of transient problems like kidney stones.

Not to put too fine a point on things, but isn't that what we do anyway? A valid medical doesn't excuse a pilot from doing a medical self check before each flight.

I grounded myself for the last two weeks due to a really nasty Summer Cold, for example.

Naturally when I felt okay to fly we had thunderstorms....

Neil
10-01-2011, 06:48 AM
I'd like to see antiques like the PT-17 Stearman be part of the light Sport catagory. I owned a civilian Stearman for over 13 years and once i decided to go Light Sport, I could no longer legally fly Stearman. It stalls at 46, cruises at 90 give or take, so what's the big deal? Anyway, I have begun to seek out a J3 so I can still get into the air.

I have for some time voiced that the restriction be FIXED PITCH and FIXED GEAR. My reasoning was to allow for all but complex aircraft and include the many antique aircraft that would fall into this group. Using fixed pitch as the defining element would limit horsepower to a practical level. The 180hp limit will let me fly my Acro Sport II or a Pitts, Glasair II, etc. under the rule but keep me out of a Stearman or Waco. Makes no sense. The new proposal is a step in the right direction though.

dvanderm
10-01-2011, 07:07 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with your observation, Frank. My bigger point was that by being denied a medical as I have because I have a history of kidney stones, I am currently barred from acting as a sport pilot and, unless things were changed, this new ruling would not help either. I certainly know enough to ground myself when i have symptoms of kidney stone problems, but that doesn't cut it in the eyes of the FAA.

Frank Giger
10-02-2011, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry to hear that, and don't really understand the FAA reasoning for grounding based on that.

Yes, a kidney stone puts one down for the count (I had my one experience with them - terrible!), but its not like they don't telegraph themselves long before the Calling For The Lord/demanding morphine stage.

They wouldn't give you a Special for that?

The big thing about this rule (if passed) is that it will stop muddying the water between PPL and SP, and forcing one set of pilots into another's rules.

As a Sport Pilot, I have no problem with the restrictions placed on my license; I selected it because it best matched the type of flying I do and the types of aircraft I prefer.

It would really chafe me if for some odd reason they suddenly told me that I could only fly ultralights as an example. I'd be griping about the five gallon tank, and asking why it couldn't have more and still be considered one (the airplane I'm building will probably be within a few pounds of UL, but the 11 gallon tank puts it firmly into Experimental).

The Ultralight guys would probably look at me the same way I look at PPL holders that gripe about Sport Pilot rules - it is what it is.

Ylinen
10-02-2011, 01:57 PM
I think this is a great step. These two organizations should have many many proposals like this for General Aviation (non-corporate). The real proposal should be that GA (non-corporate) should be operating under the same rules as Boating. Why can a boater operate a boat under USCG rules and look at the rules the FAA makes a GA aircraft and pilot operate under. Crazy.

EZRider
10-02-2011, 04:27 PM
I just wish they would do away with the catch 22 situation moving forward. People that try to get a valid medical should not be punished for the rest of their lives, while others with the same condition do not try and continue to fly with a DL.

Frank Giger
10-03-2011, 04:53 AM
I just wish they would do away with the catch 22 situation moving forward. People that try to get a valid medical should not be punished for the rest of their lives, while others with the same condition do not try and continue to fly with a DL.

That's implying that people seek out a Sport Pilot license because they know they are medically unfit to fly - and it's not true.

I'm in hale health and could pass the medical no problem. I became a Sport Pilot because it matches my flying habits and was far less expensive than a PPL to obtain.

Why spend money on stuff like night flying when I have zero desire to fly at night (or in less than VFR conditions)?

It's also completely fair that since it's been established that self-certifying (along with a driver's license) and flying a light, simple, one passenger only aircraft under daytime VFR conditions below 10K feet altitude is a (medically) low risk activity that PPL holders with expired medicals can fly under the same rules.

Sport Pilot isn't broke. The Private Pilot rules are.

EZRider
10-04-2011, 09:51 AM
Frank, you are naive if you think that people fly light sport just because of cost. When you are on a Special Issue medical you have risk of losing it all every year when you apply. Many others have conditions that would put them at risk for losing a standard medical. I would say that the majority flying light sport are those who could not pass a third class medical. That said, it has proven that the third class is not really needed.
There are many medical issues that would prevent getting a third class, but should be recognized as not a problem for light sport and the FAA should recognize this.

Frank Giger
10-06-2011, 05:42 PM
Those aren't Sport Pilots - they're PPL's flying under Sport Pilot rules.

There is a huge difference.

JRHorahan
10-12-2011, 08:16 AM
"Why not seek to change the little-used Recreational Pilot Certificate by eliminating the Medical as herein described, as well as the 50nm flight distance limitation? The other restrictions alluded to are already in place for Recreational Pilots, thus the whole process would be less involved and more easily promulgated by the FAA. This could rejuvenate the Recreational Pilot category to the popular entry-level ticket it was meant to be." - These were my comments on the original video on e-Hotline, which would not post over there for some reason. I'm posting them here to record my support for the proposal and suggest a means by which it could be accomplished with minimal fuss. Basically reiterating what Joe is saying over here on Forums. I too feel that with the FAA, little steps are the way to go for more immediate results. Besides, why reinvent the wheel? Recreational Pilot is already on the books; drop the Medical and 50nm and you're good to go. The results will be profound, maybe even more so than Sport Pilot.

Fly safe,
John Horahan

S3flyer
10-12-2011, 12:19 PM
The video and announcement all mention that the proposal will not be for a rule change but an exemption. By going for the exemption, it stands to reason that the proposal would minimize the regulations affected otherwise it would become too broad to go this route and would be less likely to be approved. Exemptions can be granted and removed without a lot of red tape. This route would lend itself to exempting the RP from the 3rd class medical provided the appropriate training was attained. The other RP restrictions (50nm, airspace) already have methods to remove and any pilot with a PP or higher would already be exempted (if they wished to operate at the RP level). This yields what EAA/AOPA have outlined.

JimRice85
10-15-2011, 09:49 AM
I'd hate to have to give up my Swift, but if this comes to pass, I'll likely sell it and get an RV-4 or 6.