Somewhat Pessimistic

[David Dean]

Did anyone notice recently that Jack Pelton said he was "somewhat pessimistic" about the Drivers License Medical Petition being approved. Well, I guess it was too much of a reach to expect something that made sense and was cost effective to be approved by a government now dominated by money and special interest. Why the sport pilot criteria wasn't expanded to allow some of the readily available training aircraft to qualify doesn't make sense either, unless you are a special interest group. Why did it take so long to say no when that was most likely their plan anyway.

[jam0552@msn.com]

I don't know why Mr. Pelton would have said anything like that unless he has inside information supporting that conclusion- so I am inclined to believe absent any further information from AOPA and EAA, that it is true.
-Joel Marketello

[JimRice85]

I thought he said he was pessimistic about it getting acted upon soon due to budget/sequestration. I didn't take him to think it wouldn't happen, just not anytime soon.

[David Dean]

Jim, take a look at the AvWeb articles in the last few days written by Mary Grady and her conversation with Jack Pelton. The AOPA confirms it too.

[martymayes]

The proposal was DOA but lots of folks wanted to believe.

[Floatsflyer]

Well, I guess it was too much of a reach to expect something that made sense and was cost effective to be approved by a government now dominated by money and special interest.

"Now dominated"??--Hardly! Special interest groups, i.e. lobbyists, have dominated DC for centuries. And BTW, EAA and AOPA are part of that group.

[Mike Switzer]

The proposal was DOA but lots of folks wanted to believe.

Exactly. And I believe some people were trying to use the proposal as a fundraising / membership tool.

(not EAA as much as AOPA)

[martymayes]

Did anyone notice recently that Jack Pelton said he was "somewhat pessimistic" about the Drivers License Medical Petition being approved. Well, I guess it was too much of a reach to expect something that made sense and was cost effective to be approved by a government now dominated by money and special interest. Why the sport pilot criteria wasn't expanded to allow some of the readily available training aircraft to qualify doesn't make sense either, unless you are a special interest group. Why did it take so long to say no when that was most likely their plan anyway.
David, a group of Dr.'s met on their own time and came up with a plan B proposal, physical exam for pilots = to a DOT physical for truck drivers. It had an excellent chance of success from supporters inside the beltway, as it mimics the Aussie medical. When pitched to at least one alphabet group, it was given the thumbs down. Now read what Mike S. wrote and ask yourself the question....

[scott f]

So - what would you guys have them do - not even try?

Is this a way for AOPA and EAA to attract members.. sure it is..and you know what, I will give them even more money the harder they fight for it.(and less if they stop fighting for it)

I say good for EAA and AOPA for fighting for us. Hopefully, there are more bold proposals coming!

[Joe LaMantia]

FYI, Scott,

The DOT physical amounts to a Drug Test and form and a quick, and I mean quick exam by the Doc. Having taken both the 3rd Class Medical and the DOT, I'd guess their about equal in terms of cost for any Dr. to perform. Truck drivers have to get one every year and most Trucking Companies set-up the appointment and pay the bill, all it costs the driver is his "lost" time, about an hour. The whole exercise is just another CYA for the politicians. The can say that they have insured the public from "Doped-up" drivers. Funny how they don't outlaw the sale of "uppers" like No Doze in truck stops along with caffein ridden "energy" drinks. If a driver falls asleep at the wheel it's all on him, but if he fails to make a delivery on-time he's in trouble with his employer. The whole "hours of service" thing is easily by passed by pencil whipping the log book, so we can all sleep well knowing the DOT is on the job "enforcing" and "regulating" our public roads.

Joe
:cool:

[scott f]

Thanks Joe.. totally agree with you.

[David Dean]

Scott you are absolutely right! I applaud the efforts of both the EAA and AOPA, even if success may be in doubt on this one right now, it will never get done if the effort to get it done stops also. They will always have my complete support, and membership, when they go after changes that are needed to benefit recreational aviation.

[martymayes]

So - what would you guys have them do - not even try?


Not at all. However, I'd like to see them have "alternatives available if the planned flight can not be completed" after all, isn't that what pilots do?



I say good for EAA and AOPA for fighting for us. Hopefully, there are more bold proposals coming!

Perhaps. But one has to realize the FAA has a big rubber stamp and unlimited ink: "The adminstrator rejects the proposal......"

Might want to pursue another strategy other than homerun or strikeout.

[martymayes]

The DOT physical amounts to a Drug Test and form and a quick, and I mean quick exam by the Doc.


I think what you're overlooking is the Dr. physical removes Ok City from the medical certification process for recreational airmen. Baby steps, baby steps.

[scott f]

Marty, for one thing the administrator has not yet rejected this proposal for exemption. Even if he does, that is not a loss, it it simply the end of the first inning as there is a whole host of other avenues for EAA/AOPA to proceed with this. The only way we lose at this point is to walk off the ball field and not play out the game - I believe this is exactly the FAA strategy here, stall for time, hope enthusiasm dies out, demoralize, divide up the groups. Heck, I for one think the requested exemption will not be rejected, the FAA will simply refused to act on it unless pressed.

I really do not think making the "DOT physical" compromise would have been a wise move. For one, compromising to that would figuratively reset the clock - we would not have been able to ask for any further exemptions to this rule for like a decade, else the agency would have simply some back and said "hey we just studied this granted your exemption and now you want more?" Baby steps don;t work when measured in decades with a quickly fading pilot population. Secondly, Marty my friend, this was a bad deal. For the vast majority of pilots this would not have been a change at all - you are still having to pay the doc, still have to carry the thing around, still risk being violated for perceived issues with it and biggest of all, people still do regularly fail DOT physicals. ... i.e. No Change.... and I watch enough Pawn Stars to know a bad deal!

The fact is that EAA/AOPA have done a good thing here. Hopefully now they double down on it as bad compromise or fading away on the issue will just empower the agency to push harder on other fronts.

So in in the words of Ms. Thatcher - "now is not the time to get wobbly". I applaud AOPA/EAA for standing up on this, finally we are setting the agenda instead of simply reacting and trying to fend off stupidity.

[dewi8095]

So in in the words of Ms. Thatcher - "now is not the time to get wobbly". I applaud AOPA/EAA for standing up on this, finally we are setting the agenda instead of simply reacting and trying to fend off stupidity.

Indeed, we need to stay the course. The petition is about recreational flying, not flying for a living, i.e. commercially. Flying is the only recreational activity that the government thinks health issues need following and regulating. The government does not insist drivers of private vehicles take physicals, it doesn't insist boaters take physicals, or skiers, or snow mobilers, or glider pilots, or swimmers, hikers, runners, bicyclists, or sky divers, and the list goes on. The over regulation of recreational flying is an anomaly. No one is asking the FAA to forgo medical regulation of commercial pilots.

Don

[Frank Giger]

One tact to take is to go back to the history of why there is a physical in the first place, and why that reason is no longer valid.

After WWI, the government decided that they'd never get caught with their pants down when it came to having pilots for military service. The answer was simple - have every civilian pilot take a military fitness examination, and keep records. If hostilities broke out, they could draft said pilots and have a huge jump start on training.

This actually made sense all the way through WWII; civilian aircraft were along the lines of the military trainers of the day. The jump from Cub to P-40 was more transition training than basic training (though there was a lot of radio work, Army speak, etc. to go through). Indeed, for liasion pilots the flying bit was already taken care of - they just painted Cubs green, after all.

Today it's not realistic and the whole notion is one of historical anacronysm. Safety for non-commercial civilian pilots is not a medical issue, as the statistics bear out.

[scott f]

You guys might want to check out the thread on the ICON weight increase exemption. These guys have been waiting forever, this just shows how long exemptions take even with a company pressing very hard for a answer.

I am just mentioning this to illustrate what I said above. If we want to see this medical exemption, then we as the Recreational GA community and our representatives at AOPA and EAA need to push just as hard and just as long as ICON. I can almost guarantee you someone from ICON was calling the FAA everyday and was in regular contact with their congressional representation over this because the company's future and millions of dollars is at stake. We need to be just as tenacious if we want the third class exemption.

So don't be pessimistic and remember lamenting does not help. We need to stay resolute, not fade away on this and not compromise to less than what was requested in the exemption. If the FAA is going to deny this, lets make them work for it.