Here's the news:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-20_exemption.asp
Here's the news:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-20_exemption.asp
When should we submit comments supporting the exemption request? I'm eager to voice my support to the FAA on this.
-Joel Marketello
Let,s rationally support this action through our organizations and political representatives and not become lost in "greed-grabs" for more hp, passengers, configurations and passenger capacity along the way. This change may be as significant or more so than the LSA/Sport Pilot program and be a future basis for even more of the changes many of us might desire. Now is the time to get it done ! I solicit the active, positive support of EAA pilots to our mutual benefit.EDGEFLY
Thanks Hal,
I got this yesterday via AOPA's E-Brief. Now everybody just be patient this isn't going to happen overnight, but we'ret holding a strong hand!
This.....although I will say that the current proposal doesn't mean much to me in a practical sense since I do very little slow day VFR operations. However, steps in the right direction are just that....Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEFLY
I can understand the 'greed grab' comment, however, I wonder why we must submit to these tactics to get what is reasonable. In talking with 'medical brokers' I have an 85% chance of passing my 3rd class. If I fail I'm out. Not good enough, It forces me to light sport. Now comes the elimination of the 3rd class for restricted flying. None of it makes sense as my drivers license allows me to carry several passengers in a vehicle that weighs in excess of 50,000 lbs of many hundreds of horsepower in traffic situations far more dangerous than flying a light plane, on controlled federal highways at night. Where is the sense in the restrictions on flying that we must endure. The FAA is, as many government agencies are, repressive and our fighting for realistic liberties to excersize our right should be carried forward with any tools we have at our disposal, letter writing, voting, going to meetings, etc, as well as working through our organizations. This is a step in the right direction but the FAA has a long way to go in lifting past restrictions that make little sense other than controlling everything they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEFLY
Not to play devil's advocate, but take a look at the rate of motor vehicle crashes due to medical reasons and compare it to the rate for aviation. You'll notice a pretty hefty difference once you get up in to the sixth, seventh and eighth decades of life.
That said, I agree that for the most part the medical standards for pilots are excessive.
Obviously a step forward but the real problem lies with the age / frequency requirements. For a Class C medical, requirements should be every 5 years until age 60 and then every 2-3 years. To have 40 year olds get a medical every 2 years is excessive in frequency and expense. There should be more frequent requirements for certain known conditions but a healthy person with no previous known issues should be able to go 5 years between required Class C check ups if under 60.
The comparison to driving cars is a point in reasonable balance. Under the potential new rule we fly using a drivers license and medical awareness training in lieu of a medical certificate. When driving a car there is no requirement for medical awareness, but perhaps there should be after a certain age. There are no restrictions when driving a car regarding speed capability, horsepower, number of passengers, etc; why should there be with airplanes. What difference does it make if the pilot is incapacitated in a plane that flies at 100 vs 200 mph? The outcome is the same. What does horsepower or weight have to do with it? Anyone could make arguments for all kinds of restrictions on planes, cars, boats, etc, to the point that it's not worth having any of them. Restrictions on operating all modes of transportion should be uniform and reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
This rocks on so many levels!
First, it keeps PPL's - for the most part - in the aircraft they already own and are familiar with. A lot of misfortune has been dealt by guys going from larger planes to (sometimes) twitchy LSA's, which require a suprising amount of transition training.
Second, it will keep the price of LSA eligible aircraft down, at least hopefully. In a few years I'll be in the market for a Champ, and I'd like not to compete with a glut of Private Pilots looking for a light fix to their addiction.
Third, it fits with the type of flying the Average Joe out there is doing - daytime VFR either solo or with one passenger - so it's not unduly burdensome. Now they can fly to their destination and carry baggage, too!
[edit]
The FAAST team needs to get hot on the medical education seminars! It's a great way for them to put two birds in the same egg basket - encourage WINGS participation while educating more than just PPL's looking to transition to Recreational Pilot rules.
First, let me add my "atta boy" for submitting this proposal.
It's ironic that the LSA community is being used as an example of the idea working. LSA's will be the most hurt by the FAA accepting this change. I think that LSA are great planes, but much of the demand has been driven by private pilots stepping back away from their Part 23 aircraft to avoid the hassles of a physical. This will lower prices for LSA and raise sagging prices for Part 23 aircraft.
Still it's the right thing to do.
Nice discussion guys!
I'll add my 2 cents, there is a big difference between a drivers license and a PPL. The drivers license is issued at the state level by your local DMV, while not a popular place to spend a morning or afternoon they don't get the same level of press attention that the Fed gets. The only exception I can think of related to the drivers license is the Commercial license issued by the States but regulated by the Fed. The world of aviation evolved with a big spotlight that really sold a lot of newspapers back in the 20's, the Federal politicians created the regulations to take the heat off of them, there is a lot of CYA. So we are stuck with making small steps to keep them feeling comfortable. I can still remember my Dad commenting when things went wrong, "don't make Federal Case out of it'!
Joe
:cool:
Date along with your forum ID if you wish..........e.g. EDGEFLY 3/30/12 0930 EDT Positive comment
I just submitted a comment online regarding the EAA/AOPA Exemption request. You can, too. Use http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2012-0350-0001 The aviation community should inundate the FAA with positive comments. Its the best way we can let our voices be heard.
-Joel Marketello
I just went to the site in the previous post and noticed the comments totaled 856. We are going to need more comments than this if the exemption is going to pass. If you haven't yet responded with a comment, please do so. It's really very easy. And you can review your comment or any other online.
-Joel Marketello
Sorry for responding to an old comment but I somehow overlooked it.
Point taken but I will point out that many incapacitation events are not the "pilot grabs his chest and does his best Red Foxx impression" sort of instantaneous death resulting in a power dive to the ground sort of occurrence. Many of them are slight (pilot has a coronary but is still able to maintain control) or the pilot flops back in the seat and a passenger winds up at the controls. While such scenarios are rare, it would conceivably be easier for the pilot or non-pilot passenger to handle a slower and lighter aircraft. That's not a valid reason to restrict the operation though in my book.Quote:
What difference does it make if the pilot is incapacitated in a plane that flies at 100 vs 200 mph? The outcome is the same.
The reason for the restriction in my opinion (and shared by many in the aviation safety community) was that the LSA approach and this option are simply ways to test the safety and feasibility of self-certification as an alternative to the onerous medical certification process we now face while not endangering any more lives or property than absolutely necessary.
That said, I still point out that I won't see much of a point (at least from where I stand) for self-certification until it is applied to the operation of larger aircraft under something other than VFR conditions.
So, "steveinindy," are you for the exemption or against it? Reading your past post I cannot determine where you stand.
-JAM
I'm for doing away with the archaic medical certification system as it currently stands. I believe that, for the most part, we can do a decent job of regulating ourselves. The point about it not making much of a difference to me as the proposal currently stands is simply because I don't regularly fly the sorts of aircraft that this proposal would involve.
Excellent, my sentiments, exactly! Now if we can just get like-minded individuals to express their opinions to the FAA, maybe we can bring some degree of rationality to medical certification.
-JAM
In the early going on this thread, I encouraged "rational support" by the membership of the proposal and, i'll stand by that recommendation today. But, an article on the EAA home page today says there are some 856 comments on the docket filed to this date. First of all, even if these are all supportive, it doesn't seem very significant to me considering that the total membership of the two sponsoring organizations is something like 600,000 +. Next,there are some number of "anonymous" comment submissions which are likely to be thrown out. Also, there are sure to be some of the comments which are negative. Then again, these comments left are potentially traceable to the people who submitted them. At least, each submitter was supposed to respond with his or her name or title. I took a little time to sort through the identity info and surprise, surprise, none of them seem to correlate with the leaders of the sponsoring organizations, the aviation writers for either SPORT AVIATION nor AOPA PILOT nor even the moderators of this forum !!!!! Now to be sure, this is something like your right to vote in political elections. It is a RIGHT, not a personal RESPONSIBILITY. It does, however, make me wonder if the FAA won't take note of this while evaluating the quality and relevance of comments to the docket. To be sure, I didn't make an exhaustive analysis of the comments data and, if some of the "missing commenters" actually did offer some opinion, I apologize for misrepresenting their actions.Secondly, I do not claim to be polls analyst or whatever it takes to be an expert in this field but it certainly appears to me that the pilot community is missing an opportunity to support a proposal which could only benefit all of us.EDGEFLY
Can someone give me an email address in simple terms as to where comments can be sent for this proposal. I have several non-flying friends that would love to get into flying but feel hampered by the invasive medical requirements. They have expressed an interest in commenting positively for this proposal. Is there also a basic form that can be used for the format and wording that would be acceptable. Most of these friends are 'older' and not the most computer savvy so any help would be appreciated.
Here's the info on how to comment, including where to go and suggested points to make. Unfortunately, it's not "an email address in simple terms." It's a government website. But there's also a mailing address if you or your friends would rather send your comments that way.
http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-29_exemption.pdf
ME
You seem to know a bit in this area and thanks for bring this forward. My question " Is there a list of what can be expected from an AME when you walk in the door for a flight phsycal? ie what the minimum required test are?
There is a "PTS" of sorts for the AMD to use. However, it's been my experience that the doc will focus on his regular specialty. I used to go to an eye, ear, nose & throat doctor for my Class III. I never unbuttoned my shirt during the visit and he would kinda nod toward "down there" while asking if all was well. I got the wax removed from ears - no charge.
On the other hand, I once visited doctor of internal medicine - a surgeon. I felt like Mel Gibson getting eviscerated during the final scene in Braveheart. Last time around I saw a GP who was an ex-Marine. Big guy. He had me doing calesthetics in examining room. Then he grabbed my head with both hands like he was inbounding a basketball to check operation of the swivel, I guess.
LOL You should try going to an OB/GYN for your medical. It's always fun being the only guy sitting alone in there in a room full of pregnant women.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
Steve's comment is accurate. The exam often seems pretty cursory, but I suspect the examiner knows what he is looking for. I found this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bighorn
http://flightphysical.com/part67/Cla...subd_67301.htm
which is pretty detailed, and I can't even pronounce some of the subjects. But it might help. Don't let it discourage you, however. If you are basically healthy, it shouldn't be a problem.
On the other hand, if you have any doubts whatsoever, get some info before taking the exam. A "fail" will keep you from pursuing the Sport Pilot option. If you have suspicions or specific questions about conditions, a good online source is Dr. Bruce Chien on the AOPA forum. Or call EAA and ask for medical certification assistance.
I was about to suggest Bruce but couldn't remember his last name. I know him through the Pilots of America forums.Quote:
If you have suspicions or specific questions about conditions, a good online source is Dr. Bruce Chien on the AOPA forum.
That's good if Dr. Chien is on that forum too. You can get to him there without being a member of AOPA.
Here's the address and office phone number I have for him if that would be of any help as well:Quote:
Originally Posted by MEdwards
1320 Bird Boulevard
Peoria, IL 61615-0000
(309) 689-5242
His website: http://home.comcast.net/~bbchien/site/
Bruce is a good guy and probably one of the smartest aviation medical guys out there. You know you're one of the best when even the guys at CAMI talk about you like you're at the top of your game.
I know this probably early yet, but. Anyone have any updates of the progress of the EAA/AOPA 3rd class medical exemption proposal yet? I was looking at the comments a little while ago and saw that there were only about 1700 comments made. Seems like a pretty poor showing to me given how many pilots are likely to be affected by this proposal.
One of the FAA CAMI employees I know jokes that it takes longer for the FAA to review a proposal than it does to gestate a fetus. I would be shocked if we hear anything positive before the end of the year. The fact that they've let it stand for three months or so is at least a possible sign that they didn't outright reject the proposal.Quote:
Anyone have any updates of the progress of the EAA/AOPA 3rd class medical exemption proposal yet?
It's not a poll on someone's Facebook page. I honestly don't see a reason for posting a comment unless you have something practical or significant to add beyond a longer winded version of "I support this idea. Please pass it. Thank you.".Quote:
Seems like a pretty poor showing to me given how many pilots are likely to be affected by this proposal.
Last time I checked, the FAA really doesn't seem to base its regulatory practices on the opinions of the group being effected unless that group can offer scientific evidence to back up their stances. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. If it makes you feel better, go for it but if it doesn't pass this time around, I wouldn't put too much clout behind an "insufficient" number of comments being to blame for it. Getting your state's politicians (at the national level) on board to support the various actions of the EAA and AOPA (the General Aviation Caucus is the term for the political supporters of our hobby if I recall correctly) is far more likely to be a beneficial and productive way to support this.
I don't think it does reflect a poor showing. I think it reflects the low number of pilots that this would have any effect on and hopefully why the FAA shouldn't allow it to happen. As far as I'm concerned, it will do nothing, other than making the regulatory environment even more strict on what can and can't be done. Personally, I think it's fortunate that the sport pilot hasn't required some sort of medical yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmc31
The guys I know at CAMI are arguing staunchly against that. There's no justification for it on scientific grounds when you're talking a single digit percentage of crashes having any evidence of medical involvement beyond alcohol or "recreational" (prescribed or illicit) drug use.Quote:
Personally, I think it's fortunate that the sport pilot hasn't required some sort of medical yet.
I see you are against this. I hate be one that wishes that something in your life occurs that makes you end your flying life, but I will bet your mind changes when the day comes that you are sidelined due to an issue you have no control over. Funny how this happens to people..... I have seen it happen more than once, then they whine about it and think THEY are above the rules in place for everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by kscessnadriver
I totally disagree with you. It affects many more pilots than most want to admit. It is ironic how the young healthy pilot sneers at any change. As he ages, or has the slightest medical issue that may ground him, he is looking for the exemption because HE is 'special' and he should still be allowed to fly. But then in the same breath says that everyone else that has any issues needs to suck it up and move on. There a lot more pilots out there than most people know that are flying without valid medicals. These guys have been flying for decades and most of them are smart enough to know when they aren't 100%, they do not fly. This goes for any pilot though. Granted you are always going to have the one that flies no mater if he is sick or not. That is the person that always feels he is better than anyone else and the type that will break any rules that they feel doesn't apply to them. The pilots this affects will be very happy if this proposal passes. They are the typical recreational pilot already and I personally know a few that when the time came that they started having to get a special issuance they have just given up flying all together. A lot of times these issues are minor but they still require the pilot to spend massive amounts of money to get a special issuance. Is this what the older guy on a retirement income needs? No, he will just quit and we have lost another pilot in our dwindling pilot community. This is NOT what the flying community needs. We need more ambassadors out there...not less!!!
Personally I feel that some of these petty regulations are all about power and authority. Someone is always out there that has that innate desire to feel they need to be the authority and in power of what people do. I have been around the military and government work for well over 30 years and generally a lot of decisions aren't made on common sense...they are made due to how can someone control and rule over others. The one in power rarely will relinquish any of that control. They gladly will enact more rules but to amend rules in effect is a rare occasion. Some people may lose their job due to less enforcement and as in any government bureaucracy that is like opening a can of worms.
Okay, time to get off my soapbox.
Well said Keith. I'm 73 next month, I take a physical every year and have absolutely no health concerns according to my MD but I'm not going to fly if I don't feel well or have a health concern. I'm flying sport pilot right now although I wouldn't mind moving up to a 150 or 172 if the notion hit me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WWhunter
100% true, I couldn't agree more.
The medical conditions that preclude the issuance of a third class medical certificate are clearly listed on AOPA forum pages, yet in the majority of cases denials for these specific conditions may be circumvented with the help of AMEs specializing in "difficult cases." These circumventions fall under the FAA heading of Special Issuances and are, in fact, exemptions to the regulations. Some special issues such as hypertension are relatively easy to overcome, others require multitudinous tests that cost a lot of dollars. The bottom line appears to be that most pilots who don't qualify under the existing guidelines are granted an exemption by the FAA. Here is a quote from AOPA's home page about the number of denials made:Quote:
Originally Posted by WWhunter
"The FAA processes about 450,000 medical applications each year. Only about 0.7% of applicants are denied, and many of those just accept the denial and don’t continue to pursue certification. Of those who do provide additional information to the FAA, about 0.1% of them receive a final denial. So, that boils down to about 300-400 final denials each year."
One can probably get an exemption with money, persistence, and the right AME. I would like to see the FAA just grant the exemption up front for recreational flying and save a lot of pilots a lot of dollars and a lot of anxiety about being denied the medical certificate. I think the health self-certification program would be effective enough to keep most at-risk pilots on the ground. It seems like it would be worth a try. After all, could not the FAA arbitrarily revoke the exemption if the accident/fatality rate skyrocketed because of health issues?
Don
Excellent Post WWQuote:
Originally Posted by WWhunter
Lots of differing opinions on this medical exemption petition, as usual. If you favor it, you only have a week's time to register your opinion. An article today said there have been 3300 comments on the petition. The FAA says they process 600,000 medicals a year. If AOPA and EAA, with their hundreds of thousands of members, can only muster 3300 comments, then if I were the FAA I don't think I'd feel too guilty about turning it down, citing lack of interest.
To comment on the petition, go to www.regulations.gov and put Docket No. FAA-2012-0350 in the search box. It takes only a few minutes.
And if you don't like the petition, have your say, too.
I've already commented, even though I decided, years ago, to go the Sport Pilot route. Just want to help out the rest of you......