3rd class medical - drivers license comments

[rockwoodrv9a]

I have a few comments about the 3rd class medical and changes proposed to allow additional planes to be flown with a self certify - drivers license medical.
I know there are changes proposed to allow more planes other than just the Light Sport Planes that would allow the pilot to use their drivers license to certify medical fitness. My understanding was they were going to allow more planes such as the 172 and others with less than 200hp to be flown by sport pilot licensed pilots. In my opinion, I believe all private pilot licenses should be able to self certify their medical condition to get their pilot’s license. They do anyway every time they get into the left seat.

The FAA, EAA, AOPA, all say they want to get more people into flying to help save an industry that is in danger. There are many of us that flew years ago and would love to start flying again but do not qualify for the medical because of a medication that is on the restricted list.
The changes proposed by the EAA will work this way – you will need to obtain a third class medical, let it expire, then self certify with your drivers license that you are medically fit. That will do NOTHING to help those of us who would love to get back into flying but do not want to fly a small, slow airplane. Many of us have reached the age where our financial position and responsibilities now allow us to return to flying – helping an industry that needs a boost of $ to grow.

If there are going to be changes made, either increase the speed, weight, and stall limits for the sport pilot category to C172 size planes or allow a private pilot license with a drivers license medical up to the size plane they will be allowing in the proposed regulations. Having to go through the medical first, then it being OK once it has expired is idiotic. How about using some common sense and making some good changes that will actually help. It is not enough to just have “good intentions”, changes need to actually do what they are trying to do.


I am interested in what others have to think about this issue. Thanks for letting me vent!

[Bill Greenwood]

Rock, where did you get the information that the "FAA wants more people to get into flying"? I certainly have not read that or heard any FAA official source say that.
Years back the FAA was supposed to promote aviation as well as regulate it. But that was removed from their calling ; I think it may have been under first Pres Bush, not sure.
I think the FAA moslty regulates the airlines, as they should and in that respect has done a good job as per the good airline safety record.

[Bill Greenwood]

As for as what planes a new pilot might fly, perhaps a good approach is a version of what is done in some states when a teenager first gets his drivers license. There are some restrictions like not driving alone at first, without a parent or driving at night, or how many passengers if any he can carry.
Otherewise the first year or so of drivng has a large accident rate.

Something similar could and should be done for new pilots. Perhaps limit passngers carried for the first 100 hours, and complexity of the plane, maybe under 200 hp or fixed gear or such. And limit night flying or IMC flying for a few hundred hours.
After the pilot has some experience and a safe record, then the restrictions could be relaxed.
It should not just be based on some medical, which has very little to do with what is required to fly a plane or what causes accidents.

[rockwoodrv9a]

You are correct - I should have not included the FAA as a group that wants more general avation. It may be more accurate to suggest they do about everything they can to keep general avation with as few pilots as possible. If the NTSB and FAA were as concerned with truck safety on the highways as they are with a pilot having a heart attack or taking a medication that a doctor felt was the best option to keep a person healthy, they could really save lives. The TSA are doing everything they can to keep us from flying commercial. They sort of compete with each other to see who can impose the most idiotic rules on us. And we just let them do it.

I should have been more specific in that members and suppliers for general aviation would like the number of pilots to increase to the levels of just a few years ago. I have several friends who no longer fly and still own a plane. Again, maybe I should be more accurate. They no longer have a medical and still have their planes. I wouldn't suggest that they may actually fly them without a medical or valid license, that would be against the rules. Perhaps the FAA and NTSB should join the real world with the rest of us.

As for your suggestion of an approach allowing increased responsibilities as your experience grows - great idea that Im sure everyone would agree to. I for one would not want to put myself in a position of planting myself or anyone else with me into the ground. And worse would be injuring someone on the ground. I would be all for no passengers for the first 50 or even 100 hours. My personal rules may be more than others would agree to, but they include no night flights, no bad weather flights, and don't run out of gas. If I don't buzz people, I eliminate about 75% of the chances of crashing. Taking a medication that keeps me healthy or allows me to concentrate thus being eliminated from flying only LSA airplanes makes no sense.

The part of the proposed changes make absolutely no sense. they have nothing to do with competence. They will allow you to fly a few more planes - I believe up to 200hp, 4 passenger, and a few other things, IF you had a class 3 and it expired. Why is having one that expired different than not having one? I had a class 3 many years ago - would I qualify for a private license now? Why not? With the medical now lasting for 5 years, how is a medical passed now going to predict the health 5 years in the future? It is a total waste of time for the EAA and AOPA to push for these changes. It for sure will do nothing for the safety of pilots, passengers, or people on the ground. It will not keep one pilot from having a heart attack flying. Like I said earlier, lets live in the real world - not the dream world.

Thanks Bill for the comments. I am passionate about this and how the FAA picks who can fly and who can't by medications. I have pilot friends with ADD. They were on adderall and doing great before they got their medical. To pass, they had to come off for 6 months. Two of them can no longer afford to fly because their business suffered from them not being able to concentrate and keep their businesses successful. Both are back on adderall and doing great again. My son is an Army Apache helicopter pilot. On long missions, they are given "go pills". Guess what that is? When was concentrating a bad thing in aviation?

Thanks for letting me rant on. You should hear me in person! lol!

[dbcrn]

The proposal would not allow Light Sport pilots to fly planes outside the Light Sport parameters. It would allow Private pilots who've allowed their medicals to lapse to fly up to 4 seat aircraft of less than 200hp while carrying no more than 1 passenger.

Regarding limiting new pilots....why? If my flight examiner didn't think I was capable of piloting "safely", I wouldn't have received my certificate. I've been flying for over four years and have about 120 hours. Before I hit 100 hours I had flown cross country flights of 400 miles, 650 miles, 800 miles, and 1200 miles. Also several Young Eagles, three friends, and my twin sister. Why should I not have been allowed to fly with these people in the aircraft?

[rockwoodrv9a]

The proposal would not allow Light Sport pilots to fly planes outside the Light Sport parameters. It would allow Private pilots who've allowed their medicals to lapse to fly up to 4 seat aircraft of less than 200hp while carrying no more than 1 passenger.

Regarding limiting new pilots....why? If my flight examiner didn't think I was capable of piloting "safely", I wouldn't have received my certificate. I've been flying for over four years and have about 120 hours. Before I hit 100 hours I had flown cross country flights of 400 miles, 650 miles, 800 miles, and 1200 miles. Also several Young Eagles, three friends, and my twin sister. Why should I not have been allowed to fly with these people in the aircraft?

I agree with you. Once you have shown you can safely fly, having a class 3 medical or not is not what makes you a safe pilot. There is a far greater chance of injuring yourself and others driving on the roads simply because there are more cars - people around you. Of course, a plane crash makes much better news coverage, but the number of sport pilots having an accident because of a medical problem is VERY LOW. I'm sure it has happened, but I have not seen a report that confirms that as the call. If there is data showing that sport pilots have more medical problems than private pilots, I haven't seen it and maybe i would reconsider my opinion.

I have no problem with a graduated schedule of responsibility in flying. That goes for both private and sport pilots. Maybe you fly by yourself or with an instructor the first 40 hours after you get your license. Maybe longer - but limiting the chance of not being able to increase your flying choices discourages further flight education, instrument training, upgrading to a larger airplane, or even getting started flying again at all. The FAA does what they can to discourage new pilots, maybe the AOPA, EAA, and individual pilots need to start pushing harder for a better approach to what makes a pilot safe. I would bet the budget for my plane that there have been many times more crashes (not accidents) from running out of gas than a pilot having a medical incident. If safety of the pilot, passenger, and those on the ground are really the concern, then change to training to help reduce the running out of gas, buzzing, flying when the weather is crap, and doing a good pre-flight. That is how you will reduce crashes and accidents - not limiting people from flying because of a medication or medical condition that does not effect their piloting abilities.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Rockwoodrv9a - You rock!!

[Bill Greenwood]

Rockwood, I see you are at Glenwood; I am at Aspen, but used to keep my Cub there one summer when our runway was under constrction.

Do you have a plane based there, or do you rent one there?
It's great flying weather these days, sure is a little thin on snow, but I am enjoying the blue skies.

[rockwoodrv9a]

Rockwood, I see you are at Glenwood; I am at Aspen, but used to keep my Cub there one summer when our runway was under constrction.

Do you have a plane based there, or do you rent one there?
It's great flying weather these days, sure is a little thin on snow, but I am enjoying the blue skies.

Bill, no kidding, you are in Aspen? Wow, I had no idea. I would love to get together for lunch to discuss flying. I get to Aspen quite often and would make a trip up about anytime. I went over to the Glenwood Springs airport yesterday to look around and that place is in need of a serious cleanup. I hear rumors about it and how valuable the land is. I wonder if it will be there 10 years from now.

I wil send you a message with my contact info and maybe we can get together. Not much flying today - finally some snow. Talk later,
Rockwood

[at7000ft]

Interesting, I was wondering if this new EAA/AOPA 3rd class medical initiative would leave those poor slobs with failed medicals out in the cold like the Sport Pilot License. Maybe in another 10 years or so we can get to FAA to cut people some slack on that one.:mad:

[rosiejerryrosie]

Interesting, I was wondering if this new EAA/AOPA 3rd class medical initiative would leave those poor slobs with failed medicals out in the cold like the Sport Pilot License. Maybe in another 10 years or so we can get to FAA to cut people some slack on that one.:mad:

I think it's a legal issue that the lawyers would have a fit over. Just think of it as one day the FAA says "You can't fly because you have a dangerous medical condition" and then the rules change and they say, "Your condition remains the same but now you can fly because you can drive a car and we changed the rules". The lawyers would have a field day with that one....

[rockwoodrv9a]

I think it's a legal issue that the lawyers would have a fit over. Just think of it as one day the FAA says "You can't fly because you have a dangerous medical condition" and then the rules change and they say, "Your condition remains the same but now you can fly because you can drive a car and we changed the rules". The lawyers would have a field day with that one....

I believe there is a much stronger argument against requiring a class 3 medical than to change the rules or eliminate it. I have no problem with restrictions on private or sport licensed pilots. It could be argued that the current rules restricting the power, speed, etc for the LSA airplanes puts pilots, passengers, and those on the ground at risk in higher elevation areas such as where I live - Colorado.

It makes no sense - either there have been a large number of LSA sport pilots crashing their planes because they had a medical condition or there haven't been. If there have been, then why have a sport pilot license at all? If the class 3 medical is saving so many people, prove it to me. If not - get the FAA out of the way so many pilots who own planes that are not LSA or fly in areas where artificial limits placed on the airplanes they can legally fly can put them in danger. It is all political - and I am getting so tired of political crap or "good intentions" getting in the way of just about everything.

I am not a stupid person and I realize that there are some medical conditions that if I had, I would not put myself in the left seat. There also are many medical conditions and medications that automatically disqualify you that should not be a disqualifying condition. I have a friend that has ADD. He could be the poster adult. His life and finances were ok, but he did not get things done and concentrating was difficult. His doctor prescribed adderall. He had been flying for over 20 years, over 4000 hours, without problems. He has a plane(Mooney) with a partner. Now he is on adderall and that disqualifies him from a class 3 medical. His business has improved, relationships have improved, and he actually remembers to fill out his flight log and refuel the plane. Why is it less safe for him to not fly now when he is much more attentive to details and a much better pilot? Why is is ok for the military to hand out “go pills” to their pilots on a mission or long flight but not ok for my friend to take the exact same medication to help his medical condition?

It the FAA, EAA, and AOPA want to reduce risk in flying - make sure the instructors and instruction materials are better. I am getting back into flying after 30 years of raising kids and getting to the point in my life when I can afford to fly again. The ground school - pilot courses online and DVD are nothing like they should be - in my opinion. So much of it is things a person does not need to fly a plane safely. I pulled my old Piper flight school manuals out I had in the late 70's. There are changes, but much of it is the same. In the 30+ years, navigation, weather, radios, instruments, etc, have changes so much - teach how to use them.

Teach the type of panel the pilot will be flying. If the panel is upgraded – require a check ride to make sure the pilot has figured it out. Get a fuel gage attachment that slaps the pilot in the face when they get low on fuel. Requiring a medical restriction that was put in place years ago before the advances in medication and health care does nothing but makes flying more expensive for all of us and eliminates it from many that have the financial capability of giving a much need boost to general aviation.

If you want restrictions such as the sport pilot rules, LSA airplane restrictions, whatever you want – fine, do it. BUT, don’t restrict the chance of a pilot that starts in an LSA – with a sport pilot license, gets the hours and training necessary, to advance to a private pilot license. Eliminating that chance because of a dated medical requirement will do nothing to improve general aviation safety and a good argument can be made that it increases the risk for the general public and pilots.

Sorry for the long winded post. I have never been accused of not having an opinion! I am passionate about this because it is restricting me from building the plane I want and that I feel is the safest for where I live and the type of flying I plan to do. In the end, if the rules don’t change how I believe they should, I can stop taking a medication, get my medical, let it expire, and be fine. I am not sure how that increases the safety for me or anyone else and I hate jumping through hoops that have no real point.

Have a great flight!
rockwood

[rosiejerryrosie]

Yo - Rockwood. Not that I agree with it but one reason that some folks are restricted when they are prescribed medication is not, necessarly, that the medication, itself, is a danger. The thought probably goes along the lines of, "Well, he's on medication, that probably means that he has been diagnosed with a condition that requires the medication. Gee, we didn't know about that before, but now we do. We better withould his medical because now we know he has a dangereous condition. True, the medication controls it, but what happens if he stops taking the medication? We better err on the safe side." Again, I don't particularly agree with the thought process, just trying to understand what it might be. Not sure if it's the Docs or the Lawyers, but.......

[rockwoodrv9a]

Yo - Rockwood. Not that I agree with it but one reason that some folks are restricted when they are prescribed medication is not, necessary, that the medication, itself, is a danger. The thought probably goes along the lines of, "Well, he's on medication, that probably means that he has been diagnosed with a condition that requires the medication. Gee, we didn't know about that before, but now we do. We better withould his medical because now we know he has a dangerous condition. True, the medication controls it, but what happens if he stops taking the medication? We better err on the safe side." Again, I don't particularly agree with the thought process, just trying to understand what it might be. Not sure if it's the Docs or the Lawyers, but.......

Thanks for the response. In the instance I was talking about, you make my point. If my friend stops taking the adderall, he is much more likely to have troubles flying than if he continues to take it. The problem is to pass the medical, the FAA requires him to stop taking adderall. How does that make the sky safer? I guess my rant or strong opinion on this is mostly about this particular medication because that is the only one I know about that has caused an otherwise good, responsible, pilot to be forced out of the left seat. I have type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure - along with millions of others. Medications for those health issues I take are ok by the FAA. In my opinion, I have a much greater chance of having a health issue that could cause me difficulties by not taking my medication than he has by not taking his. The funny thing is he has to make a point of remembering to take it!

I don't want to hijack this thread limiting it to the 3rd class medical issues. I think this is the right place to discuss it, but there is so much to talk about for those learning to fly and help improve our safety record. I really appreciate your comments and take on the issue. I sometimes have tunnel vision on issues and discussing an issue helps me understand that their may actually be other opinions than mine! My problem with the FAA is that they have no common sense. With the swipe of a pen, they can change a persons life. Have a great day and thanks again for the discussion.

[johnnytoofat]

...the number of sport pilots having an accident because of a medical problem is VERY LOW. I'm sure it has happened, but I have not seen a report that confirms that as the call.

As of quite recently, the actual number of such accidents is zero. (AOPA president states this at 6:25 in this video (http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=dxdzd1MjoTWumIDxjAbyznrvI1_j30EO).)

I sure would like to fly at a higher gross and over 120 knots...

JTF

[rockwoodrv9a]

As of quite recently, the actual number of such accidents is zero. (AOPA president states this at 6:25 in this video (http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=dxdzd1MjoTWumIDxjAbyznrvI1_j30EO).)

I sure would like to fly at a higher gross and over 120 knots...

JTF

JTF - I did see that today. How many accidents have happened because the pilot ran out of fuel? How about buzzing a friend or flying when the weather is crappy? It is obvious that the FAA is using the medical as a way to limit general aviation. There is no way they can justify keeping the 3rd class medical. As i have said - I do not have a problem if they want to have stepping stones to higher performance airplanes - and when I say higher performance, Im talking about a C 150!!!! Is there anything more unbelievable than referring to a 150 as higher performance!

The answer is to give a pilot incentives to improve their skills. Without that chance, unless a prospective pilot is satisfied with the LSA planes and rules, there is no reason to start flying. Just don't stop those who are in good health - good enough to drive a bus, truck, car, scuba dive, etc., from flying. People are not stupid - especially those who fly.

Maybe now that the EAA is hardly Experimental anymore and changed to be mostly General aviation, they will realize that there are not that many affordable general aviation airplanes and that the industry will die without new pilots. Experimental is the hope and getting rid of the medical is the only way for general aviation to survive. Even though the new "fee for service" per flight planned by the administration does not include piston aircraft, how long do you think that exemption will last? If we do not get more pilots and a bigger voting and activist voice, we are doomed.