More Change at FAA medical

bbchien said:
Well, heck, Sec'y Pena's commentary was "We will tolerate no accidents".
Click to expand...
DJTorrente said:
How many airplane crashes can one agency prevent? All of them -- just make sure no one flies.

I don't have to wonder what would have happened if Henry Ford had to face the "Federal Automobile Administration" -- we have the front row seat. The Otto cycle was discovered in 1876; Ford Motor Company was able to build 14 million Model T's by 1927 -- one car (of just that one model) for every 10 US citizens, in less than 50 years.

It's been over 120 years since Kitty Hawk.
Click to expand...
 
The postponement notice cited that they hadn't effectively gotten the word out to the AMEs......
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
I’m sure they will back off, but it does nothing to fix the overall rot that is at the FAA. The more I learn the more it seems they just make it up as they go along and with zero accountability.

It’s infurating. I REALLY hope DOGE comes out swinging and get the Gov working for us again vs. us working for the Gov.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that DOGE - if it actually comes into existence- will only be an advisory board. It will only make recommendations, without the authority for compel compliance. Many government functions and departments are set by statute.
 
ateamer said:
Keep in mind that DOGE - if it actually comes into existence- will only be an advisory board. It will only make recommendations, without the authority for compel compliance. Many government functions and departments are set by statute.
Click to expand...

True.

Bear in mind, though, that the two primary advisers have tremendous resources and influence, and since they’re not USG employees and have no “official” government role, they’re not constrained by regulations that restrain government staff. If they decide some Congress critter is a problem, they can hand $50M to a primary opponent and unleash all sorts of media hell with as much freedom as any other private citizen.

It’s already started. Watch the progress or death of the present CR bill.
 
Half Fast said:
True.

Bear in mind, though, that the two primary advisers have tremendous resources and influence, and since they’re not USG employees and have no “official” government role, they’re not constrained by regulations that restrain government staff. If they decide some Congress critter is a problem, they can hand $50M to a primary opponent and unleash all sorts of media hell with as much freedom as any other private citizen.

It’s already started. Watch the progress or death of the present CR bill.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly right. You have to threaten their jobs and livelihood in order for them to respond.
 
UTLonghorn_1979 said:
How so? If they aren’t doing their jobs, you run someone against them that will. That’s what a democratic republic does.
Click to expand...

"threaten" has very different connotations

better to encourage them to do the right thing.

but we are definitely in a very adversarial world now...
 
Bob Noel said:
"threaten" has very different connotations

better to encourage them to do the right thing.

but we are definitely in a very adversarial world now...
Click to expand...
Only if easily “triggered.” Please don’t read anything “threatening” into that word either.

Threatening only has the connotation literally ascribed to it…in my use, their job as a tax payer funded employee, senator, representative, etc will be at threat/risk if they continue to defy the will of the people/keep doing a bad job. Just like we saw this past November.

If holding the elected officials accountable is adversarial, we’ll just need to disagree.
 
Jon Wilder said:
The NTSB Safety Summit suggested doing the exact opposite! This is a step in the wrong direction. I also expect LOTS of complaints on this one. It's just them exerting more authority because they can.

According to briefings provided to aviation medical examiners this week, this change is being driven by the FAA’s legal interpretation of Section 801 in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Public Law 118-63).

If we look that section up, it only has to do with amending the Pilot's Bill of Rights regarding the reexamination of airman certificates.



This deals with AIRMAN CERTIFICATES (Part 61/91)! It DOES NOT deal with MEDICAL CERTIFICATES (Part 67).

They're essentially trying to expand the scope of this section beyond what Congress will allow them to do. I suggest writing to the Congress Critters about this.
Click to expand...
Well...it appears my assessment of the FAA's interpretation of the 2024 Reauthorization Act Section 801 was spot on.

Sam Graves, House Representative of the 6th District of Missouri, is the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman. He leads the House Committee that oversees the FAA. He took issue with the FAA's interpretation—recently cited by Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Susan Northrup in a webinar for aviation medical examiners—that the policy change was enabled by the agency's 2024 reauthorization, specifically Section 801.
"Furthermore, the FAA's proposed change to medical applications has falsely been attributed to section 801 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, a provision that does nothing more than strengthen pilot rights afforded to airmen under the Pilot's Bill of Rights (P.L. 112-153)," Graves wrote. "Section 801 was not intended to affect medical certificates any differently from how they were prior to enactment when an airman is subjected to a flight re-examination. This proposed FAA policy change should not be predicated on that section."
Click to expand...

And wouldn't you know it, the FAA recanted its previous claim that the 2024 Reauthorization enabled the policy change -
The FAA recanted that justification in its December 18 online statement: "The decision to implement this change was not associated with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, but the need to provide immediate answers to airmen regarding medical certification progress."
Click to expand...

A link to the AOPA article from where these excerpts were taken can be found here.

www.aopa.org

FAA delays medical denial policy

The FAA on December 18 announced a two-month delay implementing a controversial new policy to deny rather than defer medical certificate applications deemed incomplete.
www.aopa.org

It appears Congress is on it.
 
Last edited:
Statutes authorizing authorities are different than statutes requiring specific actions. Stopping the bureaucracy from doing something required will require legislation and that will be harder to do. But in Med, very little is specifically required by statute. It is required by rules/regulations and policy which are functions of the executive branch which appears on-board with DOGE.

To change rules/regulations is not necessarily hard or easy as it requires the admin to follow the administrative procedures act. Not necessarily hard, but can be slowed down by bureaucrats. For example, there are 15 specific disqualifying conditions in the FAR. It would take time to change these (add, delete, or change). But could easily be done in 2 years.

Policy decisions are relatively easy to change. Just update the policy without violating existing statutes or regulations. Looking at the "guide to the AME", a policy that effectively adds hundreds of disqualifying conditions and getting rid of the stupid stuff could be done very quickly. I expect places like this would be where the initial focus is.
 
Back
Top