A Modest Proposal

[Richgj3]

I post this with only a little of my tongue in cheek, in true Johnathon Swift style.Suppose FAA rejects the EAA AOPA proposal for the driver license medical? I say we do it anyway. What does FAA have to do with it? They only catch about one percent of the pilots who lie on their Medicals or fly without one.What about insurance, you ask? AOPA has an insurance company. EAA has some relationship with an insurance company. As long as a pilot complied with the training and restrictions proposed and AOPA and EAA developed the course and kept the records, how would that be different than FAA being involved?Enforcement, you say. And you're correct. But AOPA has a legal services plan. If their Lawyers would vigorously defend the first two or three cases, that might result in a positive result.This wouldn't be any different than when EAA was essentially granted authority over certain Part 103 ultrlight operations. Having said all this, I really hope FAA sees the light and allows this plan, but I was in college in the sixties, so my radical side emerges once in a while. Rich

[Richgj3]

BTW, this is my first post on the new board, but I used to participate in the first one. Been reading this one and finally signed up.Rich Giannotti EAA 277491

[Joe Delene]

Looking back over the years there may be an item or 2 in the past where I did not dot every I or cross every T, not necessarily to do with aviation. I find it best to not discuss those on a public board.

If one is not current, or legal in some way it does give an insurance company an easy out to not cover. If one was to do that may as well not have insurance.

[steveinindy]

Looking back over the years there may be an item or 2 in the past where I did not dot every I or cross every T, not necessarily to do with aviation. I find it best to not discuss those on a public board.

If one is not current, or legal in some way it does give an insurance company an easy out to not cover. If one was to do that may as well not have insurance.

Not to mention that we really shouldn't intentionally try to bait the FAA or NTSB into further inspections, regulations or an all together shut down of general aviation.

[martymayes]

I say we do it anyway.

Rich, I'll agree there are already folks who operate without a valid medical. There are pilots who never complete a flight review, do not meet other applicable recent experience requirements and there are folks that perform maintenance (ah, lets make that "complete rebuild and overhauls") without an A&P certificate. I doubt any have an AOPA legal plan cause it isn't going to do much good in those examples. Insurance? They simply don't have any.

Would people do this on a large scale in an organized effort? Probably not. But I guess at some time, many have pondered "What would happen if?" I've known guys who say they would have no problem "going illegal" if they ever felt the regs became too onerous and I guess I'm in that category as well but it would be very low key and besides, I think my flying days will be over long before I have to resort to anything that radical.

[Richgj3]

Guys, I guess I wasn't clear...not unusual for me. I would never advocate breaking rules especially when there are good reasons for them, like safety. It was a silly "what if" that's probably better discussed in real time over coffee rather than an Internet forum.BTW, I'm using an iPad and even though I put returns in the text, they don't show up on the posting, so sorry for the long paragraphs. Rich

[Super Glide]

I hate to be snarky but.....considering the way the administration abides by the laws of the land, I agree that it should be done anyway as the OP suggested.
Certainly I would not like to raise the ire and curiosity of the regulating bodies where many decent and conscientious lovers of aviation are employed, but we have
to stand for one of the greatest freedoms known to man in a country where dreams can become reality for the "little guys" like myself and many others.

[danielfindling]

But AOPA has a legal services plan. If their Lawyers would vigorously defend the first two or three cases, that might result in a positive result.

A preliminary inquiry for most insurance companies is if there is a basis for denying the claim. Certainly, not complying with a medical requirement or flying contrary to the FAR's would be a basis for a denial under any policy. Civil disobedience is/was just under certain circumstances and has a place in American history. After all the Declaration of Independence was an act of civil disobedience, the ultimate "^%$@ &%#" to England.. The civil rights movement is another example. However, civil disobedience for a 3rd class medical? I prefer the legal route and wrote my comments in support of the waiver to the FAA. (As an aside, I also recognize that your suggestion was in jest - I am just providing my "What if" answer). My Answer: You probably won't get caught, but don't get in an accident and/or make an insurance claim.

Daniel

[kscessnadriver]

And this mentality is the entire reason I'm against having no medical for a private pilot. Simply there will be too many idiots flying in the air. More air in their head than good decision making ability. People who think they know everything and can't be told anything. People who have zero regard for the established rules, that are more often than not, written in blood.

As far as I'm concerned, the original poster should have any and all pilot certificates revoked for simply suggesting this outrageous idea.

[danielfindling]

KsCessnadriver, If you re-read Richgj3's post, he was not serious, rather satirical.

[wyoranch]

Kscessnadriver,
What in the heck does having a medical have to do with decision making? I have flown 25 years with medically certified professional pilots (both airlines and corporate) that I would not trust to open a jar of pickles because of their "decision making". Nowhere in a 3rd class medical is there a psychological exam. A valid medical has NO bearing on whether a person has skills and the correct mindset. Kscessnadriver, you need to correlate the two, because I am just missing it. Are you against the Sport Pilot or Rec pilot? As far as punishing someone for having a free thought and attempt at humor (even if you missed the "tongue-in-cheek part) is even more sickening than the OP's post if he was COMPLETELY serious.

Now that I have that off my chest, rather than worry about the "what if's" why not focus on the what we "can do" to get this through.
Wyo

[kscessnadriver]

Kscessnadriver,
What in the heck does having a medical have to do with decision making? I have flown 25 years with medically certified professional pilots (both airlines and corporate) that I would not trust to open a jar of pickles because of their "decision making". Nowhere in a 3rd class medical is there a psychological exam. A valid medical has NO bearing on whether a person has skills and the correct mindset. Kscessnadriver, you need to correlate the two, because I am just missing it. Are you against the Sport Pilot or Rec pilot? As far as punishing someone for having a free thought and attempt at humor (even if you missed the "tongue-in-cheek part) is even more sickening than the OP's post if he was COMPLETELY serious.

Now that I have that off my chest, rather than worry about the "what if's" why not focus on the what we "can do" to get this through.
Wyo

The way I read the OP's post is he is advocating just flying without the medical regardless of what the FAA decides on. I'm absolutely against sport pilot being totally medically free. I'm for a 4th class medical in which a doctor has to at least sign something, rather than self enforcement.

[steveinindy]

What in the heck does having a medical have to do with decision making?

Judging by the number of CPs and ATPs who died in CFIT or in-flight breakups due to flying into convective weather? My money- or at least a beer at Oshkosh- is on absolutely nothing. Sometimes you just can't cure stupid not matter how much technology, training or experience you throw at it.

[steveinindy]

I'm for a 4th class medical in which a doctor has to at least sign something, rather than self enforcement

On that note, I kind of agree with you, but I think it should be left up to the patient's primary care doc and not some doc who doesn't know the patient.

[wyoranch]

Kscessnadriver,
To quote you.....
"Simply there will be too many idiots flying in the air. More air in their head than good decision making ability."
You still have not answered the question. I respect right to their opinion, but what tells you that a medical has anything to do with a pilots decision making? If you are going to make comments like the one you did, please be prepared to answer or stop, lest you be labeled a troll.

Regarding a "4th class" medical. What does getting a doc sign a pice of paper get you? For all intents and purposes that is a 3rd class medical. If you can make it into the office, have a pulse and no obvious tumors you get a signature? My friend who is 77 and still flying could throw a stroke tomorrow just as easily with his 4th class medical as the 2nd class he maintains now. At my current age I have 729 days for something serious to occur between 3rd class medicals. I could get sick whether or not I went to see the AME or not. What you suggested does not seem to hold up.

Again I am just asking for your thoughts, convince me that the proposal should be shot down.

Kscessnadriver, just to be clear you don't like the LSA or sport pilot?

[wyoranch]

Judging by the number of CPs and ATPs who died in CFIT or in-flight breakups due to flying into convective weather? My money- or at least a beer at Oshkosh- is on absolutely nothing. Sometimes you just can't cure stupid not matter how much technology, training or experience you throw at it.
You are the man!!!! So does this mean you owe me a beer at Oshkosh? :cool:

[steveinindy]

You are the man!!!! So does this mean you owe me a beer at Oshkosh?
How about we each buy the other person one Thursday night?


My friend who is 77 and still flying could throw a stroke tomorrow just as easily with his 4th class medical as the 2nd class he maintains now. At my current age I have 729 days for something serious to occur between 3rd class medicals.

I think it's funny how many folks focus on the "old guys" when it comes to this. As part of our research, we just completed an analysis of something like 530 GA fatalities (we have data for 1400 or so but were looking at something really specific and there was only sufficient information about that in 530 cases). That included all of the medically incapacitated pilot induced crashes in that series. All three of them....aged 44 (ultralight crash), 56 and 68.

[kscessnadriver]

Kscessnadriver, just to be clear you don't like the LSA or sport pilot?

No. I very much like many of the LSA planes out there and enjoy flying them. I'm not fond of having pilots that can have whatever condition they want to have and fly without having ever seen a doctor on if its safe or not to fly with said condition. I don't like the idea of having people flying around with no medical doing something incredibly stupid and getting GA shut down for all of us.

[steveinindy]

I don't like the idea of having people flying around with no medical doing something incredibly stupid and getting GA shut down for all of us.

Not to pick a fight, but can you point out any significant differences in the crash rates between sport pilots and private pilots directly attributable to the lack of medical certification? I had a lot of the same concerns when the proposal for sport pilot was put forth but those have largely never been supported by the actual events that have transpired.

As for LSA getting GA shut down for all of us, if the suicidal pilot punching a hole in the IRS office didn't do that, the only thing that is going to do it is if we thumb our nose at the NTSB and FAA over the recent issues raised regarding our crash rate. You drop the body count through both prevention efforts and survivability improvements (which are most easily accomplished in the experimental category because of our leeway) and you drop back off the NTSB's scopes.

[martymayes]

Judging by the number of CPs and ATPs who died in CFIT or in-flight breakups

Judging them how? Are all CP and ATP fatalities the result of bad judgement?

[kscessnadriver]

Not to pick a fight, but can you point out any significant differences in the crash rates between sport pilots and private pilots directly attributable to the lack of medical certification? I had a lot of the same concerns when the proposal for sport pilot was put forth but those have largely never been supported by the actual events that have transpired.

I cannot. But I do know that people who are flying on a drivers license could easily have all kinds of mental conditions that might make them do things a person with a medical would not do. Because those mental conditions would never be certifiable medically. Long and short of it, I don't think that being able to fly without a medical is something that we should allow, as it doesn't comply with ICAO standards and AFAIK, there are no other countries that allow it as well.

Would I be ok with flying on no medical after someone had obtained a 3rd class medical and let it expire, perhaps. But to go up without ever having stepped in an AME office, I cannot support.

[steveinindy]

Judging them how? Are all CP and ATP fatalities the result of bad judgement?

No, not at all. It was meant to just be that certification or medical certification really isn't going to have much effect if the person in control is possessing of questionable judgment. Does that clarify where I was going with that example Marty? :cool:

[steveinindy]

But I do know that people who are flying on a drivers license could easily have all kinds of mental conditions that might make them do things a person with a medical would not do.

Assuming that:
1. the person even reports it to the AME. It's like a lot of pilots freely admit that their AME has never even done a physical exam on them. Mine's an OB/GYN. I don't think he'd pick up on subtle cardiac symptoms unless they walked up and bit him squarely on his butt.
2 That your assessment of their fitness is accurate (meaning that it's not a purposeful or unintentional confirmation bias at work). There are a lot of misplaced stigmas about mental illness that aren't grounded in fact and that's why people are allowed to drive. I will admit that a lot of folks don't deserve to be driving, but at the same time most of those have nothing to do with their medical fitness.


Because those mental conditions would never be certifiable medically.

There are a lot of mental conditions that have no appreciable effect that are grounding conditions because of archaic thought processes about them that stem from the 1940s and 1950s. Hell, there are non-sedating antihistamines which the FAA won't allow pilots to take because "of the risk of sedation and decrease in performance or judgment".




Long and short of it, I don't think that being able to fly without a medical is something that we should allow,

I agree to a certain extent with you, but I believe the current system is irreparably broken and antiquated. At most, a "Yup, you're good to go" from your primary care doc should be all that is required to achieve a comparable level of safety to what we currently have without needlessly grounding people or subjecting folks to unnecessary, expensive and sometimes potentially risky testing to get a "special issuance".


as it doesn't comply with ICAO standards and AFAIK, there are no other countries that allow it as well.

Because the ICAO standards are completely grounded in medical science and are spot on correct, right? ;)


Would I be ok with flying on no medical after someone had obtained a 3rd class medical and let it expire, perhaps. But to go up without ever having stepped in an AME office, I cannot support.

You're entitled to that opinion, but as a scientist, I tend to go with what the evidence says and I'm likewise entitled to disagree with you. Either way, no hard feelings I hope.

[Eric Page]

I do know that people who are flying on a drivers license could easily have all kinds of mental conditions that might make them do things a person with a medical would not do. Because those mental conditions would never be certifiable medically.

I've been flying for about 24 years. I've held a 1st Class medical certificate for the last nine years and I held both 2nd and 3rd Class certificates before that. In all that time I've never undergone an exam that included a mental health evaluation, and I've never had an MRI or CT of my head. What assurance do I or my passengers have that I'm not suffering from an undiagnosed psychological disorder, or a physical, electrical or chemical defect in my brain? Answer: none. Same as every other pilot with a medical or driver with a license.

Medical incapacitation is an exceedingly rare thing, even for drivers (and there are a lot more drivers than pilots). How often do you hear of someone becoming incapacitated while driving and having an accident? I'm sure I've seen a news story about it, but I can't remember the last time.

I can think of three big things that will go a long way to improving aviation safety:

1. Provide the best initial training possible for new pilots.
2. Encourage a culture of safety and regulatory compliance among existing pilots.
3. Develop inherently safe and survivable aircraft with reliable and fault-tolerant systems.

Easing regulatory burdens by reducing the need for pilots to buy expensive, and largely meaningless, 3rd Class medical certificates will help to encourage entry and participation in aviation. It won't, in my view, have any negative effect on safety.

[Dana]

I cannot. But I do know that people who are flying on a drivers license could easily have all kinds of mental conditions that might make them do things a person with a medical would not do. Because those mental conditions would never be certifiable medically. Long and short of it, I don't think that being able to fly without a medical is something that we should allow, as it doesn't comply with ICAO standards and AFAIK, there are no other countries that allow it as well.

But as somebody else pointed out, an FAA medical doesn't check for mental conditions or stupidity. The drivers license basically means you have to wear corrective lenses to fly if you have to wear them to drive, as any reasonable pilot would anyway.

I put it to you that not requiring medical exams for drivers is no more reasonable than not requiring them for pilots... when a driver becomes incapacitated it's far more likely somebody else will be hurt than if a pilot becomes incapacitated.

Unless you're flying outside the US (which probably 99% of US pilots never do), who cares if we comply with ICAO standards?

[rosiejerryrosie]

And this mentality is the entire reason I'm against having no medical for a private pilot. Simply there will be too many idiots flying in the air. More air in their head than good decision making ability. People who think they know everything and can't be told anything. People who have zero regard for the established rules, that are more often than not, written in blood.

As far as I'm concerned, the original poster should have any and all pilot certificates revoked for simply suggesting this outrageous idea.

Just interested, Cessna, How does a medical check for common sense and insure good decision making ability?

[MEdwards]

As part of our research, we just completed an analysis of something like 530 GA fatalities (we have data for 1400 or so but were looking at something really specific and there was only sufficient information about that in 530 cases). That included all of the medically incapacitated pilot induced crashes in that series. All three of them....aged 44 (ultralight crash), 56 and 68.What research are you referring to, and who is "we"? In the past, I recall that the FAA has turned down proposals to relax medical certification requirements by saying basically, "There is no evidence it won't reduce safety." I hope somebody is providing that evidence this time around, and I hope it's not just AOPA and EAA, but other independent researchers also who will have different data, or use it differently, and hammer home the point.

[Joe Delene]

Put me down for the free beer at OSH & the discussion can go forward.

[RickFE]

Found at Pharisee, short story in "A Gift of Wings" by Richard Bach.

[martymayes]

What research are you referring to, and who is "we"? In the past, I recall that the FAA has turned down proposals to relax medical certification requirements by saying basically, "There is no evidence it won't reduce safety." I hope somebody is providing that evidence this time around, and I hope it's not just AOPA and EAA, but other independent researchers also who will have different data, or use it differently, and hammer home the point.

Data, schmata. In the past when relaxing medical requirements was proposed, the federal air surgeon slammed the gavel down and said no way. Didn't matter if you had a mountain if data. If a federal air surgeon is open to change, strike while you can baby, might not get another chance for a long time.

[MEdwards]

I honestly think the same thing is going to happen this time, but if last time the guy said you didn't give me roses, this time you give him roses. I'm sure AOPA and EAA have data. I just wondered what data the poster above seemed to have.

Mike E

[Joe LaMantia]

Great Discussion! Unfortunately, I'm not going to OSH this year or I would by you all a Beer!

The comparison of the driver to the pilot is interesting and the differences are rooted in the history of the 2 vehicles. Auto's replaced the horse and buggy and in the early days farm kids could hook-up a wagon and go anywhere without a license or a medical. That carried over to early cars until Henry Ford put too many people on the road and suddenly a lot of people got hurt or killed in cars. Public outcry drives the political machine and we got the DMV in every state. We lose 50K or so every year in cars, but nobody wants to require any safety training or re-current drivers road tests. Fast forward to the early days of Aviation and you get aircraft with unreliable engines making forced landing all over the county. Lots of early aviation people getting killed in crashes and big stories in NewsPapers...followed by the CAB, then the FAA. Today's aircraft are more reliable as are auto's, in addition, we have a lot more medical tools and knowledge. I wouldn't fly if my medical condition would put me at risk, but I have a hard time believing that the current Classes of Medical Certification really accomplish much. I hope that the EAA/AOPA proposal is successful, better still maybe the FAA will take a long look at the Classes and re-think requirements for all the classes. I really don't want to ride in a airliner with a mentally unstable PIC! The biggest change for the FAA and aviation in general would be to change the focus or mission of the FAA from "Safety" and "Promoting Aviation" to one or the other but not both. I think todays airline business is big enough to promote itself, it has no real competition in long distance traveling and it's connection to the FAA can be counter to public safety. I don't expect to hear EAA and certainly not AOPA pick up on this issue, but this in another subject for another forum.

Joe
:cool: