3rd Class Medical Exemption

DFH65

DFH65

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
2,630
Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
Does anyone more familiar with the FAA have any idea on when they would typically respond to a petition like this? I know with some government agencies there is a time frame once comments are closed to respond I don't believe this is the case with the FAA.

I agree with others here that this is not going to happen and had it been presented differently we may have been farther along but I am just curious if there is a typical time frame in which the FAA responds to these types of things? :dunno:
 
Eight months. It's been 1.5 years since formal submission.

Craig F did everyone a disservice. "Charge of the light brigade". sheesh.
We advised him internally- go for the aussie proposal, but that wasn't "big enough" for him....
 
The GAO report called for in the PBOR is scheduled for delivery in December. The decision (yes or no, it will be announced) in the spring I'd guess.
 
bbchien said:
We advised him internally- go for the aussie proposal, but that wasn't "big enough" for him....
Click to expand...

So, I knew nothing about the Aussie rules; I'll put them here in case others are curious and you can correct me if I'm missing something; all of this is based on a brief search.

Australia has "Recreational Pilot" which seems similar to our Sport Pilot:
- 2-place, single-engine planes, MTOW < 1,323 lb
- Presumably other restrictions on speed, etc?
- Daytime VFR
- Uncontrolled airspace
- No aerobatics
- Below 10,000 ft
- Driver's license in lieu of medical (I can't tell if the "Driver License Medical (Aviation)" -- see below -- is required or not)

Then there's Private Pilot:
- Night and IFR are separate ratings
- Aerobatics might be a separate rating
- Class 2 medical required

And then there's the special bonus Australian deal: if you have a PPL, you can get a "Driver Licence Medical (Aviation)". It still has to be renewed every 2 years, but any doc can do it, not just an AME. And the requirements are similar to "fit to drive" criteria, listed
here. If you do that, you can fly:
- Single-engine airplanes MTOW < 3,307 lbs (ie lots of "normal" light airplanes)
- With at most one passenger (unless you have a medically-qualified copilot)
- If you warn your passenger that you're operating under "an exemption"
- Day VFR
- Below 10,000 feet
- Not doing aerobatics

So, the advantage compared to our light sport provision is that you can fly somewhat more reasonable planes (but the Cirrus SR22 is too heavy). The disadvantage is that just having a driver's license and "your own recognizance" isn't enough; you have to go get a doc to sign off on you every two years, albeit it can be any doc and they can use "fit to drive" type reasoning.
 
Last edited:
From the chart:

Hypertension - the person has blood pressure consistently greater than 200 systolic or greater than 110 diastolic (treated or untreated). :hairraise::eek::yikes:
 
bbchien said:
Eight months. It's been 1.5 years since formal submission.

Craig F did everyone a disservice. "Charge of the light brigade". sheesh.
We advised him internally- go for the aussie proposal, but that wasn't "big enough" for him....
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with you doc, and I do feel bad for you. I know how it feels when those in power ignore good advice to their own peril.

That said, the advantage of a CDL versus the airman medical seem slight to my admittedly uneducated eye. It still costs money and is a pain. It's just a bit easier if they find something amiss, if I understand it correctly. I truly can't blame the organizations for going for the whole enchilada. I have to admit my own bias, though. The data is very, very clearly on their side. And I always go with the data, as you well know.
 
At this point I am working under the assumption it isn't going to happen. While I am data driven as well I can not see a compelling reason for the government to give up control of something like this.

One would think and the data supports that the financial savings of ending this program alone would be good enough reason to do it but unfortunately this has little impact on a government that just prints money.
 
DFH65 said:
At this point I am working under the assumption it isn't going to happen. While I am data driven as well I can not see a compelling reason for the government to give up control of something like this.

One would think and the data supports that the financial savings of ending this program alone would be good enough reason to do it but unfortunately this has little impact on a government that just prints money.
Click to expand...

For the FAA it really is about the money. Even if budgets hold up there are a lot of things other than SI Consultants the leadership wants to spend money on. The Medical folks have circled the wagons and want to protect their turf but the money folks see things differently. I'm in the distinct minority on this board and think it will pass and we didn't ask for enough....
 
In Illinois the State CDL even allows epilepsy if controlled, no episodes in the last year.

The political environment remains, "no additional pilots flying unless SOMEONE says, he/she can see, hear, and perhaps climb a flight of stairs.

I have been in the camp that jb's reality testing is rose tinted. Remember, FAA extorted money from Congress. How quickly we forget.
 
Last edited:
jbarrass said:
For the FAA it really is about the money. Even if budgets hold up there are a lot of things other than SI Consultants the leadership wants to spend money on. The Medical folks have circled the wagons and want to protect their turf but the money folks see things differently. I'm in the distinct minority on this board and think it will pass and we didn't ask for enough....
Click to expand...

I hope your right and I am wrong.:yes: Although I imagine the price of some planes will instantly increase. :(
 
Going for my medical next week,I agree about the point the FAA doesn't want to give up any control over pilots.How did the medical office survive sequestration ?
 
bbchien said:
In Illinois the State CDL even allows epilepsy if controlled, no episodes in the last year.

The political environment remains, "no additional pilots flying unless SOMEONE says, he/she can see, hear, and perhaps climb a flight of stairs.

I have been in the camp that jb's reality testing is rose tinted. Remember, FAA extorted money from Congress. How quickly we forget.
Click to expand...

CDL medical criteria are not state by state since there's an assumption that you will be driving commercially out of state. That said having to go through both procedures I desperately wish that both branches of the DOT could come up with one set of standards that wouldn't require 2 exams (or the payment for 2 exams)
 
airheadpenguin said:
CDL medical criteria are not state by state since there's an assumption that you will be driving commercially out of state. That said having to go through both procedures I desperately wish that both branches of the DOT could come up with one set of standards that wouldn't require 2 exams (or the payment for 2 exams)
Click to expand...
What? And give up the individual fiefdoms? sigh.........:eek:
 
A boy can dream :) It used to be that I could just not have a CDL medical since I'm not actively using it, now the states are involved and demanding that not only do I have one but that they have a copy of it. That alone must be paying for a few more bureaucrats
 
What about an exemption for Recreational pilots? Seems like a good middle ground between sport and private, would open up 172's Cherokees and the like.


-VanDy
 
If I'm understanding this correctly.....(r.e exemption) you didn't get the memo? That died over a year ago. We had advised Craig Fuller (2011) to go another way, but he opined, "we can't do that, it's not "proactive enough". Now, our Aussie buddies can do 3200 lbs 180 hp day VFR fixed prop, fixed gear, on a GP signoff, which they petitioned for, when Craig was busy saying, "doesn't look good enough".

Sigh.
There are only about 240 recreational pilots left. FAA is waiting for them to pass away. It was never a success.
 
bbchien said:
If I'm understanding this correctly.....(r.e exemption) you didn't get the memo? That died over a year ago. We had advised Craig Fuller (2011) to go another way, but he opined, "we can't do that, it's not "proactive enough". Now, our Aussie buddies can do 3200 lbs 180 hp day VFR fixed prop, fixed gear, on a GP signoff, which they petitioned for, when Craig was busy saying, "doesn't look good enough".

Sigh.
There are only about 240 recreational pilots left. FAA is waiting for them to pass away. It was never a success.
Click to expand...

I guess I did miss the memo, but I am 1 of the 240


-VanDy
 
Saddest part, is if I had $10 to spend on safety, and only $10, it would be on education and training. Not on medical.
 
bbchien said:
If I'm understanding this correctly.....(r.e exemption) you didn't get the memo? That died over a year ago. We had advised Craig Fuller (2011) to go another way, but he opined, "we can't do that, it's not "proactive enough". Now, our Aussie buddies can do 3200 lbs 180 hp day VFR fixed prop, fixed gear, on a GP signoff, which they petitioned for, when Craig was busy saying, "doesn't look good enough"...
Click to expand...

I hope the new guy puts in a request to do it the Aussie way. I'm hoping that the FAA would figure that they could point to the fact that they turned down the more aggressive proposal as political cover for approving the less aggressive proposal.
 
bbchien said:
If I'm understanding this correctly.....(r.e exemption) you didn't get the memo? That died over a year ago. We had advised Craig Fuller (2011) to go another way, but he opined, "we can't do that, it's not "proactive enough". Now, our Aussie buddies can do 3200 lbs 180 hp day VFR fixed prop, fixed gear, on a GP signoff, which they petitioned for, when Craig was busy saying, "doesn't look good enough".

Sigh.
There are only about 240 recreational pilots left. FAA is waiting for them to pass away. It was never a success.
Click to expand...

On come now. CF brought everyone together. The cover of the AOPA Pilot now in my trashcan said so!!! ;) ;) ;)
 
Skylane81E said:
How many are students at ECA?
Click to expand...

ECA? Not sure what that is, but I'm at ASI through Sinclair, I'm only there in the evenings and see about 5-6 rotating through. They just lost 2 instructors. So it seems busier than it really is


-VanDy
 
bbchien said:
If I'm understanding this correctly.....(r.e exemption) you didn't get the memo? That died over a year ago. We had advised Craig Fuller (2011) to go another way, but he opined, "we can't do that, it's not "proactive enough". Now, our Aussie buddies can do 3200 lbs 180 hp day VFR fixed prop, fixed gear, on a GP signoff, which they petitioned for, when Craig was busy saying, "doesn't look good enough".

Sigh.
There are only about 240 recreational pilots left. FAA is waiting for them to pass away. It was never a success.
Click to expand...

But the list of medical requisites for the Australian looks very close to current Medical Class 3. Granted, a GP can sign you off instead of an AME, but wouldn't it be almost the same if the guidelines for every condition are the same?
Maybe a little less, but what do you get in return?, only bigger planes (not THAT bigger). And you still can carry only one passenger, so there's not that much of an advantage of a bigger plane.

I mean, I see the benefit, you are giving up a little (from no medical required to a medical signed off by a general physician), to get a little (bigger planes). I'm just not sure it's worth it, specially since the FAA can always make the GPs be almost as strict as an AME, right?
And if they keep the rule that "once denied you can't fall back to LSP", then I wouldn't risk it if I was borderline.
 
Johann said:
I mean, I see the benefit, you are giving up a little (from no medical required to a medical signed off by a general physician), to get a little (bigger planes). I'm just not sure it's worth it, specially since the FAA can always make the GPs be almost as strict as an AME, right?
And if they keep the rule that "once denied you can't fall back to LSP", then I wouldn't risk it if I was borderline.
Click to expand...

Maybe part of what makes this work in Australia is that out there, you need a "Driver's License Medical" (by a GP) to keep driving after you turn 75, and the "Driver's License Medical (Aviation)" is just that plus a few other points (vertigo, etc.) So the rationale there might be, if I can hang onto my Class 2 until I turn 75, then I can just go to Day VFR, one passenger, for the same trouble as it takes to drive anyway.
 
VanDy said:
ECA? Not sure what that is, but I'm at ASI through Sinclair, I'm only there in the evenings and see about 5-6 rotating through. They just lost 2 instructors. So it seems busier than it really is


-VanDy
Click to expand...

More a jab at ECA and their 141 program taking you through rec to get a private
 
I think a big win would be to kill the PP / SP catch-22, letting PPs continue to fly SP when a medical is denied. No chance of course due to liability and CYA.
 
bullwinkle said:
I think a big win would be to kill the PP / SP catch-22, letting PPs continue to fly SP when a medical is denied. No chance of course due to liability and CYA.
Click to expand...
Never gonna happen. Leaves the DOT as the deep pocket in the lawsuit that follows the crash.
 
bbchien said:
We proposed this to Craig but he said, "no, that's not pro-active enough". Whadda maroon.
Click to expand...

I kinda' wonder if this wasn't a factor in his departure. Getting out the door before the FAA shoots down his crowning achievement....
 
Wine Club
Fees for everything that was formerly part of membership...
$30 hot dog suppers at summit. YGBFSM.
Turning down best internal advice (the Board of Aviation Medical Advisors resigned outright).

What really appalled me is that we asked the Deputy Admin. for Safety what the max # of airmen was who were ever exempted from anything. It was ONE digit, e.g, <10. Demanding 35,000?

"Bye Craig, you As_hole...."
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
Wine Club
Fees for everything that was formerly part of membership...
$30 hot dog suppers at summit. YGBFSM.
Turning down best internal advice (the Board of Aviation Medical Advisors resigned outright).

What really appalled me is that we asked the Deputy Admin. for Safety what the max # of airmen was who were ever exempted from anything. It was ONE digit, e.g, <10. Demanding 35,000?

"Bye Craig, you As_hole...."
Click to expand...

Doc stop beating around the bush tell us how you really feel. :rofl:
 
bbchien said:
We proposed this to Craig but he said, "no, that's not pro-active enough". Whadda maroon.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not pro active enough,he would have to get on board with those eaa people.Craig represents big aviation not the little guy.its all about the money.
 
bullwinkle said:
Tell us how you really feel, Doc... ;)
Click to expand...
Actually I was being nice. What I really want to say starts with an f, has four letters and preceeds the word "head".

I met yet another senior airman who is waiting his last flying days away hoping for Godot to come. "How come they never talk about it anymore?" says he.

"Because they're too embarrassed about it".

WHAT a waste.
 
If the exemption is a lost cause, why doesn't the FAA just respond with a "we disagree with the proposal, exemption request denied!" Why wait over a year to reply?
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top