Any updates on the 3rd class medical?

[Kurt_3_0_1]

So I like many others ran across the AOPA article regarding the petition to discharge the 3rd class medical requirement up to the Recreational pilot rating.

Other than general speculation I can't really find any information on the response or ongoing discussion etc etc.

Being Ex-military there are simply things in our medical records that instill a bit of anxiety knowing that if I apply and get rejected I also will be unable to even fly LSA.

I am currently working on my sport ticket but seriously my dream in life is to simply have a 150 or 152 to take a few nice trips with my wife in once in a while.

So does anyone have anything deffinative on where this is going with the FAA? recent news releases? friends on the inside? articles even saying that the FAA is considering this in the near future etc etc?

[steveinindy]

So does anyone have anything deffinative on where this is going with the FAA?

The safe money is on 'nowhere'.

[S3flyer]

Kurt,There was a decision by AOPA/EAA to table it until a new FAA head is appointed. Also the proposal would only allow current Recreational pilots and above exercise RP privileges without a 3rd class medical.

[dewi8095]

So does anyone have anything deffinative on where this is going with the FAA? recent news releases? friends on the inside? articles even saying that the FAA is considering this in the near future etc etc?

Kurt:

Nothing definite, but the petition for an exemption to the 3rd class medical is apparently on hold. See AvWebFlash link:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/2110-full.html#206062

The above issue contains a statment by the AOPA president saying the resignation of the FAA director has put the submission of the petition on hold until a new one is appointed -- somthing that probably won't happen in an election year.

On a slightly different tack, the same issue has information about an internal FAA consideration for a weight increase for LSA.

In either case, I'm doubtful that much will happen to the exemption request this year.

Don

[EDGEFLY]

Kurt,

The same exact question that you had has been badgering me for the last couple of weeks. I guess, based on the nominal response which you have received, it doesn't look good. However, since in MHO, this change would be even more important to G/A than the Sport Pilot concept itself, the reaction of "just sleep through an election year" attitude should simply not be accepted. I feel that it is incumbent on the whole pilot community to protest the non-informative position which both the AOPA and the EAA have taken on the status of this proposal and their efforts to represent us before the FAA. There is certain to be an impact from manufacturers of 175-200k LSA's and their concern about a market demand slump if the proposal should succeed. But this is only to be expected and these people have reason not to want to see thousands of Cessna 150's and Piper Cherokees suddenly flood the market they presumed to have been awarded in a grand monoply fashion by the stewards of G/A. Most importantly, those of us who are pilots need to protest the inaction of our organizations and speak our position directly to them. I hope you and our flying comrades will join in a direct written and telephonic campaign to insure that they don't attempt to make excuses instead of taking the actions promised. My letters will go out this week. I hope many of the EAA pilots here will join in.

Note: The AOPA Pilot magazine which is in the mail last week contained a short supportive article on page 12 titled :Keep flying: Free online course, no AME". Reading it one might presume the 3rd class exemption was still on course. This ignores the earlier promises of making a formal request to the FAA in January 2012. Also, the unfortunate personal difficulties experienced by the past FAA head should in no way impede our efforts on this important legislation.


EDGEFLY

[David Dean]

I agree with EDGEFLY. A strong response from the membership of both organizations is needed. I'm very disappointed that this got slid to the back burner due to a DUI (really), and likely also the financial interest of a few. This proposal is very much needed for recreational aviation. It generated a lot of enthusiasm. At a time when we are constantly hear about reducing burdensome regulations and the cost of government, this proposal seemed to hit the mark. The LSA medical incapacitation rate of zero since its existence would serve to assure safety concerns. This one smaller issue, because of the politics, serves to identify why we have so many larger issues today in our country. Sadly, I see the chances of this happening anytime soon, if ever, about the same as me purchasing a 130,000 dollar LSA to go defy crosswinds in. Bipeflyer

[Kurt_3_0_1]

Well how about a course of action, what can we do to show support for this idea. now I know we aren't going to go all crazy with an occupy the FAA group but maybe we could start a facebook page or something for the cause and spread the word for pilots to join in and take a proactive stance. or possibly another Idea, anybody?

[S3flyer]

I happen to be in favor of both proposals: 3rd class medical exemption and LSA weight increase for safety equipment. The EAA and AOPA organizations are also in favor. Exactly what else is wanted from the membership other than speeding up the process to present it to an organization (FAA) that may no longer be receptive to the idea. There are been ~8 attempts at the medical exemption over the past 25 years and all have failed. There is now supportable evidence that could get this approved. Of course approval requires the FAA administrator's agreement and there isn't one in place.

What are the odds of an interim leader approving regulatory change? Zero. They're being paid to keep the organization running until a new leader is picked. We can argue on what should be but we have to deal with what is. Forcing this through at this point would likely doom the proposal to failure which would force us to wait many more years before a reproposal could be made.

This is a long term play that can help recreational aviation. Why do we want to add risk to sucess for the sake of a few months?

[David Dean]

I think many members of both organizations would simply like to know from both organizations why this exemption request is not proceeding as originally planned. It is not regulatory change, though it would hopefully evolve to that. It is an exemption request and can happen much more rapidly. The announcement that was planned in September of last year generated a lot of interest and enthusiasm, and if it cannot happen as originally planned, it would be good to know why. Contacting the respective organizations only reiterates how much interest members have in this happening. It also precludes individuals guessing what the real situation is, and that members are ready to assist in achieving it.

[S3flyer]

Can't argue with that. It would make sense for EAA/AOPA to put forth an update on their web sites. Forum Moderator, please?

[dewi8095]

Can't argue with that. It would make sense for EAA/AOPA to put forth an update on their web sites. Forum Moderator, please?

While Craig Fuller's comments were "public," it is a little strange that there has not been a joint statement from AOPA/EAA, especially since this is billed as a cooperative venture. There may be genuine indecision within the two groups as to what to do, submit or hold pending appointment of a new administrator, or, perhaps, there may be some disagreement between the two groups on the best course of action.

I would very much like to see the petition submitted, and approved, but doing so without a full-time administrator seems very risky. Interim leaders are almost always "caretakers" and not willing to make major changes.

Don

[rJessie]

While Craig Fuller's comments were "public," it is a little strange that there has not been a joint statement from AOPA/EAA, especially since this is billed as a cooperative venture. There may be genuine indecision within the two groups as to what to do, submit or hold pending appointment of a new administrator, or, perhaps, there may be some disagreement between the two groups on the best course of action.

I would very much like to see the petition submitted, and approved, but doing so without a full-time administrator seems very risky. Interim leaders are almost always "caretakers" and not willing to make major changes.

Don
I would also like this petition to be submitted and confirmed but lack of full-time administrating makes it rather risky.

[dewi8095]

After reading several related posts on the AOPA forums, it looks like the AOPA/EAA leadership did not have its medical support for the proposal lined up. Prognosis for a positive result sounds grim!

Don

[Kurt_3_0_1]

Would you mind posting a few of the links you are referencing from the AOPA forums

[dewi8095]

Would you mind posting a few of the links you are referencing from the AOPA forums

Here's one, see especially post #30:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=77691&highlight=exemption&page=2


Here's another, long and sometimes tedious, but informative:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=76634&highlight=exemption&page=12

And a third, see especialy post #14!

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=78124&highlight=exemption

The discussion on AOPA has more depth than here, but yields a bleaker outcome. I noticed that today's AOPA newsletter had a brief statement declaring the proposal as "on track." That maybe good or bad news, we'll just have to wait and see how it progresses.

Don

[Eric Witherspoon]

I just went back and re-read a statement of what the proposal contains. One thing that had been on my mind - 180hp, 2 souls max regardless of seats... Seems to me this would open us up to - how fast can a 2-seater go on 180hp? And/or - could I re-prop / re-rpm-limit my current LSA for more speed, given in that case, that it could no longer be PIC'd by a Sport Pilot, but could be flown by a Private Pilot w/o medical... I see some LSA designs would be well-positioned for this (higher speed / higher gross weight) market, regardless the legitimate complaint that allowing more aircraft to be eligible for "no-medical" pilots might cut into some LSA sales. One of those _extremely_ rpm limited Cub-esque types comes to mind - same engine, 500 lbs more payload anyone?

So though there may be some complaining, I think the market would quickly adapt with lightly-revised LSA-based products with a whole lot more performance, as well as perhaps increasing the value of a lot of the existing fleet, pumping up business for replacement parts, restorations, and mechanics' services...

[S3flyer]

Eric,I believe you are correct that several current S-LSAs could fly faster than the current 120KTAS limit and/or safely operate above the current 1320 lbs MTOW. But the only way to do so with the current regs is to go through the Part 23 (or the EU equivalent) certification process. As a PP today, I cannot repitch my LSA to exceed 120kts or load it beyond 1320 lbs and be legal. The pilot rating has no bearing on the certification of the plane. There is talk of increasing the MTOW for LSAs to accommodate safety equipment but it's not as far along as the RP exemption and I doubt that it will propose more than 50lbs additional. Given the size of most LSA manufacturers, I also doubt too many could afford the certification process.

[Frank Giger]

IIRC, the FlightDesign CTLS was propped to meet LSA requirements for the USA. They could re-prop with variable pitch, rename, and sell them. I suspect the gross weight is artificial as well, as it is a perfect 1320.

[David Dean]

THis proposal is much needed by General Aviation, and deserves more effort and focus from the leadership of both organization, or at least some communication why not!

[dewi8095]

Another "proposal going forward soon" piece in the AOPA weekly e-newletter -- see link:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120223pilot-run-airport-backs-medical-petition.html?WT.mc_id=120224epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

The arguments in this announcement seem weak and unconvincing to me. I hope the proposal leadership has something stronger to offer than this. I haven't seen a word from EAA about the proposal's progress. Is EAA still a supportive player?

Don

[EDGEFLY]

It seems to have been missed by this thread but, the aopa reported this week that the joint aopa/eaa proposal forPrivate pilot medical self-cert will be presented to the FAA March. EDGEFLY

[Ylinen]

Another "proposal going forward soon" piece in the AOPA weekly e-newletter -- see link:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2012/120223pilot-run-airport-backs-medical-petition.html?WT.mc_id=120224epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts

The arguments in this announcement seem weak and unconvincing to me. I hope the proposal leadership has something stronger to offer than this. I haven't seen a word from EAA about the proposal's progress. Is EAA still a supportive player?

Don

Since the FAA recently denied a similar proposal and said that there needs to be more evidence; I hope EAA/AOPA took a very close look at the FAA replay and is building a strong case: safety, economic, American freedom, regulation, oversight, etc to clearly show that the FAA should change their position.

In the end; I don't think trying to get an agencies to change its way works well. I think they need to submit their proposal to the Congress and have them pass a law to force it to happen. That is how we are getting Pictures on licenses, changes to the hours for ATP, etc.

Here is the FAA response: http://www.avweb.com/pdf/3rd_class_denied.pdf

[Wilfred]

Ylinen, I don't recall the exact specifics, but as I recall, in general, the EAA/AOPA request while for the same ultimate end, was proposing a different bureaucratic process that would make it far simpler for the Agency to process and approve it. I think that a previous post by AOPA spelled out the mechanical details. I don't think that the denial issued to this individual is going to sink the EAA/AOPA proposal simply because it seems to be a different 'animal' even though the end request would be the same...that is, driver's license in lieu of a 3rd class medical.
Don't give up yet!

[dawsonmi@windstream.net]

I have not seen anything on the status for months. Is this still in works? Seems to have just disappeared.

[steveinindy]

I have not seen anything on the status for months. Is this still in works? Seems to have just disappeared.

Yes so far as I am aware but welcome to dealing with a bureaucracy. Not hearing anything for months at a time is completely normal. For example, applying for a research grant from the FAA can lead to hearing nothing for nearly a year unless they need something more from you. Calling them and pestering them seems to just slow it down even more as a couple of researchers I know from out in California learned the hard way (theirs was the very last program funded for the year and the money wasn't disbursed until two months after everyone else's because of some "clerical mishaps"). Acting like a spoiled, impatient child in a professional setting seldom gets the response you want.

People need to remember the nature of process like this before jumping to conclusions about things being abandoned etc. It might sound more interesting to put forth grandiose ideas of something being "too important to wait" but it doesn't normally work quite like that. Personally, I hope the exemption gets passed because the medical certification process is a joke that does effectively nothing to advance safety....and that is coming from someone who works as an aviation safety researcher.

[Hal Bryan]

I have not seen anything on the status for months. Is this still in works? Seems to have just disappeared.

Here's an update you may have missed from a month ago - there's very little to report while we wait for a response from the FAA:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-01-10_FAA-still-reviewing-medical-certification-exemption-request.asp (http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-01-10_FAA-still-reviewing-medical-certification-exemption-request.asp)