Medical Exemption Survey

[Jonathan Harger]

The FAA is interested in collecting more data to aid in its evaluation of the EAA/AOPA petition for the recreational pilot medical exemption, which would allow private pilots to fly non-complex, four seat, 180 h.p. maximum, day-VFR aircraft with a self-certification standard and a driver's license.
We ask all pilots who are currently flying under sport pilot rules to visit this link (http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-07-03_EAA-AOPA-urge-survey-participation-for-medical-exemption.asp)and complete our survey, which is completely confidential and will help us and the FAA get a clear idea of the number of hours being flown per year by sport pilots without 3rd class medicals.
Strong participation in the survey will help us prove the point we have made all along: that preflight self-certification is the most important medical certification, and that day-VFR pilots can fly a Cessna 152 with a self-certification and driver's license medical as safely as they can currently fly a Piper Cub under existing sport pilot rules.
Thank you for your participation, and if you know anyone flying sport pilot, please pass on the news that we all need their input!

[JHD]

I would oppose this change. The EAA fought for years to get LSA established. Now if this is implemented it will devastate an industry. My friends in the LSA business have told me the interest level began to dry up at the first time this was announced. I think EAA has abandoned the very people who supported the LSA initiative. Just my two cents.

[cub builder]

LSA was a first step towards convincing the FAA to dump this stupid third class medical. Ok, so we have a segment of high priced planes that can be flown without a medical. But there is a glut of safer planes like the Cessna 152, Piper Tomahawk, Grumman Yankee, etc that are now dirt cheap. It's silly to restrict perfectly safe pilots from flying them thanks to arcane regulation that is used to needlessly disqualify otherwise perfectly safe pilots.

-CubBuilder

[David Pavlich]

LSA was a first step towards convincing the FAA to dump this stupid third class medical. Ok, so we have a segment of high priced planes that can be flown without a medical. But there is a glut of safer planes like the Cessna 152, Piper Tomahawk, Grumman Yankee, etc that are now dirt cheap. It's silly to restrict perfectly safe pilots from flying them thanks to arcane regulation that is used to needlessly disqualify otherwise perfectly safe pilots.

-CubBuilder

Hear, hear! I find it strange that the FAA hasn't eeked out every last bit of data when it comes to LSA accidents with direct links to medical issues. I would have thought that would be in the very first paragraph of their analysis for the restricted Private certificate. But hey, what do I know. :confused:

David

[Frank Giger]

I would oppose this change. The EAA fought for years to get LSA established. Now if this is implemented it will devastate an industry. My friends in the LSA business have told me the interest level began to dry up at the first time this was announced. I think EAA has abandoned the very people who supported the LSA initiative. Just my two cents.

I disagree that expanding aircraft PPL's can fly without a current medical will devastate the LSA market on a few counts:

1) In order to use the rule, a PPL will have to have had a valid class III medical first, and then let it expire. Folks who want to fly non-LSA planes will have to get the PPL with the longer training requirements. Letting them continue to fly a plane they have purchased as a PPL with a lapsed medical is not a loss for the LSA market.

2) Folks buying new LSA's aren't doing so because of a lapsed medical. They are driving up the cost of Champs and Cubs, though. 100+K for an airplane is being spent by newer Sport Pilots.

3) The intent of the Sport Pilot program was to get more people into aviation, not to give a loop hole for Private Pilots to continue to fly. That PPL's use the SP rules to continue to fly is neither here nor there; it's not adding to aviation in the least bit (other than to allow some pilots to continue to be active).

4) Forcing PPL's into SP restrictions serves nobody. If an LSA is what serves the pilot, he'll buy it regardless of his medical status or pilot license type. Lots of medically current PPL's fly Cubs and Champs because that's what fits their aviation needs. Similarly, I know a PPL holder that owns a CTLS for the same reason - he just doesn't need a four seater, the performance is well within his needs, and the maintenance is inexpensive.

If the LSA market has been relying on the castoffs of the Private Pilot world they were doomed to begin with.

[Joe LaMantia]

Well said Frank!,

If the goal is to expand aviation, then allowing a group of pilots to continue to fly a certain class of aircraft under the proposal will reduce the rate of loss in the current pilot population. That in itself doesn't "grow aviation" but it would help keep the aging pilots flying longer. The LSA market is a small attempt to expand aviation by keeping costs down for those who are training and those who fly for fun, it's a small market but it's only been around a few years. We have a huge inventory of single engine aircraft that don't comply with the LSA rules and are mostly sitting in hangers collecting dust. Prices on many of these aircraft are "flat" which means too few buyers and too many up for sale. I for one don't think the rule change would have a big impact on this situation, but it would be helpful to create a practical "stepping stone" for new pilots to move from LSA to a more capable aircraft with an expanded "mission" at a lower cost. The key is the lower cost part, lots of inventory for sale between $25K and $100K. The current situation of a declining GA is being driven by economics and anything we can do to reduce costs is helpful, it's driving AOPA into promoting clubs.

Joe
:cool:

[malexander]

Frank & Cub builder are 100% correct.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that a Cub, T-craft, Champ, or any other tail dragger is safer to fly than a 150.

[David Pavlich]

I was thinking along this line of logic: Here's me on the cusp of taking lessons in the Light Sport category. A new S-LSA with a nice avionics package is going to be near $150K. Along comes the restricted Private certificate and suddenly, this Archer becomes a viable option:

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=147099&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&pagingNo=1&searchId=5863369&dealerid=

For me, there would be no choice (as long as the bank account ok's it :-) and the restricted certificate is a reality). The Archer is the more capable aircraft. And this one in particular is fairly well decked out. Or am I missing something?

I hope you guys don't mind me picking your brains like this. I don't have anyone to bounce this stuff off of, so you've become the "victims". :)

David

[Frank Giger]

Frank & Cub builder are 100% correct.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that a Cub, T-craft, Champ, or any other tail dragger is safer to fly than a 150.

I think they're all equally safe if the pilot is trained and experienced in type.

All trikes are "safer" than tailwheels in that ground looping a trike is much, much harder - but few people die from a ground loop.

Most fatal incidents are sadly the same stupid causes for all GA aircraft, regardless of type. Unless you have some data that says a Champ is more likely to spin on base turn to final, a C150 pilot is less likely to fly VFR into IMC or run out of gas, etc. than if he were flying an LSA.

Granted, I'm a Sport Pilot and would love to see the price of Champs go down!

The C150 isn't an LSA because it weighs too much. The line on where the weight restriction should be had to be somewhere, and it is less than the 150. If they moved the weight up include it, then somebody would say that it's unfair that plane X was excluded.

See the overly long thread on the ICON; and wait until the exemption for PPL's is accepted by the FAA and folks will begin to scream that the horsepower limitation is keeping them from flying "safer" aircraft and is a purposeful slight against whatever their non-compliant favorite plane is.

[Mike Berg]

Part of the problem is that the 1320# limit is arbitrary. Take Champs for example: Many of them have a GW of 1220#, some at 1300# and a few at 1330# and 1350#. However they are basically the same aircraft, still two place front to back and they all fly the same....just will haul a little more weight. Most of the new LS aircraft are priced out of the range of the average potential owner. $100,000 is a pretty expensive toy with not a lot of utility. Even the 'new Champ' is in the $90,000 range and it doesn't have any more utility than a 1946 model...just newer.

[malexander]

I think they're all equally safe if the pilot is trained and experienced in type.

All trikes are "safer" than tailwheels in that ground looping a trike is much, much harder - but few people die from a ground loop.

Most fatal incidents are sadly the same stupid causes for all GA aircraft, regardless of type. Unless you have some data that says a Champ is more likely to spin on base turn to final, a C150 pilot is less likely to fly VFR into IMC or run out of gas, etc. than if he were flying an LSA.

Granted, I'm a Sport Pilot and would love to see the price of Champs go down!

The C150 isn't an LSA because it weighs too much. The line on where the weight restriction should be had to be somewhere, and it is less than the 150. If they moved the weight up include it, then somebody would say that it's unfair that plane X was excluded.

See the overly long thread on the ICON; and wait until the exemption for PPL's is accepted by the FAA and folks will begin to scream that the horsepower limitation is keeping them from flying "safer" aircraft and is a purposeful slight against whatever their non-compliant favorite plane is.


I agree.

[Joe LaMantia]

David,

If your going to start with the Sport Pilot License, then you have to answer the following economic questions:

Can you rent and fly a LSA aircraft locally and at what cost?

If you can't rent one then you need to consider moving up to the Private License which would allow you to rent or buy a whole lot of aircraft. This is a cost comparison problem equal to a "mission" question.
If I correctly read the proposal that opens this thread, then you need a Private License in order to qualify for the proposed waiver. That being the case, the next question is are you going for the Sport ticket to save $ and get started or do you need the medical exemption in order to fly anything?

I think from a pure cost standpoint the Sport License is the cheapest way to start flying and if you can get that license in an old tail dragger you will learn basic airmanship better than in a trike trainer. Even if you plan on flying a trike LSA in the future I would recommend you start in a tail wheel aircraft. This advice is given by a guy who trained in a C-150 a long time ago (1992). The cost to upgrade from Sport Pilot to Private is roughly the same as the cost to obtain the Sport Pilot ticket, you need a total of 40 hours and you'll have about half of that when you get the Sport ticket. If your doing the Sport pilot training at a towered airport then you will have a "leg-up" since you'll get the basic radio training you'll need for the Private. At this point in time the PPL 3rd class medical waiver is only a proposal and it's been kicked around aviation blogs for the past year, so don't count on anything coming out of the FAA real soon.

Good Luck and have fun with the Sport Pilot training!,

Joe
:cool:

[malexander]

1992 wasn't a long time ago............1977 was though.:P

[David Pavlich]

David,

If your going to start with the Sport Pilot License, then you have to answer the following economic questions:

Can you rent and fly a LSA aircraft locally and at what cost?

If you can't rent one then you need to consider moving up to the Private License which would allow you to rent or buy a whole lot of aircraft. This is a cost comparison problem equal to a "mission" question.
If I correctly read the proposal that opens this thread, then you need a Private License in order to qualify for the proposed waiver. That being the case, the next question is are you going for the Sport ticket to save $ and get started or do you need the medical exemption in order to fly anything?

I think from a pure cost standpoint the Sport License is the cheapest way to start flying and if you can get that license in an old tail dragger you will learn basic airmanship better than in a trike trainer. Even if you plan on flying a trike LSA in the future I would recommend you start in a tail wheel aircraft. This advice is given by a guy who trained in a C-150 a long time ago (1992). The cost to upgrade from Sport Pilot to Private is roughly the same as the cost to obtain the Sport Pilot ticket, you need a total of 40 hours and you'll have about half of that when you get the Sport ticket. If your doing the Sport pilot training at a towered airport then you will have a "leg-up" since you'll get the basic radio training you'll need for the Private. At this point in time the PPL 3rd class medical waiver is only a proposal and it's been kicked around aviation blogs for the past year, so don't count on anything coming out of the FAA real soon.

Good Luck and have fun with the Sport Pilot training!,

Joe
:cool:

PM sent.

David

[Ylinen]

Johnathan,
what is the genesis of this survey. Has the FAA had some communication to EAA? The last reported was the FAA was still reviewing the 6000 plus comments.

[Jonathan Harger]

The survey is an effort by EAA and AOPA to stay in front of the FAA regarding our medical petition, and to provide them with supplemental data in case decision makers were on the fence.
As you may know, FAA officials are prohibited from commenting on pending rule making decisions; that type of commentary falls under the umbrella of "ex-parte communications (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/263.9)." Accordingly, the FAA did not communicate with EAA.
Also, there were more than 16,000 comments submitted by the public, which is a record number of comments for the FAA.

[jbarrass]

Good idea. I wonder why AOPA doesn't join in and do a similar survey....

[KeithEYoung]

If your going to start with the Sport Pilot License, then you have to answer the following economic questions:

Can you rent and fly a LSA aircraft locally and at what cost?

If you can't rent one then you need to consider moving up to the Private License which would allow you to rent or buy a whole lot of aircraft. This is a cost comparison problem equal to a "mission" question.
If I correctly read the proposal that opens this thread, then you need a Private License in order to qualify for the proposed waiver. That being the case, the next question is are you going for the Sport ticket to save $ and get started or do you need the medical exemption in order to fly anything?

I think from a pure cost standpoint the Sport License is the cheapest way to start flying and if you can get that license in an old tail dragger you will learn basic airmanship better than in a trike trainer. Even if you plan on flying a trike LSA in the future I would recommend you start in a tail wheel aircraft. This advice is given by a guy who trained in a C-150 a long time ago (1992). The cost to upgrade from Sport Pilot to Private is roughly the same as the cost to obtain the Sport Pilot ticket, you need a total of 40 hours and you'll have about half of that when you get the Sport ticket. If your doing the Sport pilot training at a towered airport then you will have a "leg-up" since you'll get the basic radio training you'll need for the Private. At this point in time the PPL 3rd class medical waiver is only a proposal and it's been kicked around aviation blogs for the past year, so don't count on anything coming out of the FAA real soon.

Good Luck and have fun with the Sport Pilot training!,

Joe
:cool:

I am currently working on my Sport Pilot License instead of my PPL. The reasons are pretty much what was stated here but the primary reason for selecting Sport over Private was a medical one. I am a transplant recipient and wasn't sure I would qualify, because of my medications, for the PPL. The cost is much reduced. I rent a CTLS but there are very few places where one can rent an LSA class plane. (7B3 has two cubs and the CTLS in the LSA class.) The cost is a real factor but I expect to be able to be able to fly before the other students in the ground school who went for their PPL because of the reduced time. I do hope to go for my PPL but primarily because of the cost of LSA planes - 100K is WAY out of my price range. If the FAA were to reduce the restriction for the medical, so that a pilot (even a sport pilot) could fly a heavier plane such as a Cessna 172, I would then be able to rent almost anywhere. For now I'm happy where I am at but the airport is an hour away - past two other airports w/o LSA class planes. My vote would be to see the restriction modified to allow more people with an interest to fly.

[Joe LaMantia]

Keith,

You are a good example of who and why the Sport Pilot classification has been established. You are already making good decisions regarding your training and once you get that Sport Pilot ticket you can spend the money saved on flight instruction and apply it to building time and experience in light aircraft. One old saying in aviation is that your license is really just a "license to learn". Start out slowly by expanding the distance from your home base airport. Visit all the airports within 50 miles, then add another 25 and so on. Master the aircraft type your renting, then add a different make and model. You can keep your head in aviation via books, magazines, and videos. Spend at least one good session with your flight instructor each year and get to know as many pilots in your area as you can. Having some flying buddies gets you exposure to additional experience and chances to fly along and observe other pilots techniques. If you decide to pursue the PPL, find a local AME and have him review your "meds" before you apply for the 3rd Class, you may be able to get some good information from EAA's Medical staff regarding your situation. Aviation is a heck of a lot of fun, and offers all kinds of opportunities to learn and increase your self confidence!

Good Luck and have fun!,

Joe
:cool:

[Bill Greenwood]

A problem with the FAA medical system and requirements is the premise, which is dubious, that one needs some type of super health just to fly an airplane. It doesn't make sense or fit the facts. First, real, pure, and sudden medical incapacitation is very rare. FAA has even said that all medical accidents are less than 1% of fatals, AND MOST OF THOSE ARE ALCOHOL AND DRUG RELATED. So if you take out the willful and really foolish flying while under the influence, what is left is about 2/10 of 1% of fatal accidents that are really from a medical cause that sneaks up on a pilot.

The FAA medical really has very little to do with flying anyway. Maybe they ought to test a pilot's blood pressure and patience level and judgement after sitting in line waiting for an hour and a half after the airshow ends at EAA in order to take off.

One if the tests they hang their hat on is a treadmill jogging test. I don't have too much flight time in a C-5A or something like that. but I have never seen a plane big enough to jog in, nor one with a running track inside it. All the ones that I have ever flown or seen fly were done by being seated behind the controls.

When I was a lot younger, I could and did jog 8 miles at 8000 feet elevation. But I didn't know as much about flying or have the experience as I do now. My Son David can and does climb and ski down 14,000 foot mountains which I can't do as well, but he is not a pilot and only knows 5% of what I do about flying. I have run (using "run" in the broadest sense) 4 10K races, one when I was younger and 3 in the last 6 years, and none of it had anything to do with being a safe pilot. Is Lance Armstrong a better pilot than Bob Hoover? He could sure out jog Bob.

Think about it, if you are like me, flying is relaxing, not stressing. Stress comes from worry over taxes or a mortgage or driving on the freeway, not relaxing and enjoying a flight. That assumes you are not dodging rockets in combat, or doing 6gs.
Incapactitation of a driver in a car is rare, might make the news once a year, but in my lifetime of driving I have never even seen one incident like that. About anyone can and does drive a car, whether you are an olympic athlete or not. Skill, and judgement are what is required.
There is one medical type tests that would be directly related to flying a plane, but the FAA doesn't even use it or require it.

I think the FAA doctors, of course, know this. But change comes very slowly to a beauracracy, and they have little motive to do something just because it is the fair and right thing.
Look how long it took the FAA to finally come up to the airline standards of flying after age 60 that was already the rule and working elsewhere.

[Bill Greenwood]

I fly with a medical, but for many others there may be a need for a non medical sport type flying. But for me, that has a lot less appeal since I live at 8000 feet and if the plane has only 180 hp and fixed gear and prop it is a lot less useful and a lot less safe also'

I can and have flown my 90 hp J3 over mountain passes of 13,000 but it is a lot easier and safer and more usefull when I did it in my Mooney 201 or turbo Bonnanza.

I see no validity that one needs should be handicapped by a plane that will not climb well just because they are flying as a sport pilot and my Mooney was certainly just as easy to fly as the LSA Gobosh that I flew.

For many pilots starting out, the sport pilot--LSA route may be good, and I expect the FAA will finally take that step.