How does this question fit the topic of this thread? I don't see the connection. Maybe you should post an off topic question in a new thread.
Sounds to me like you spend too much time on the internet reading FAA "horror stories", but even worse is you believe them.
Wish that were the case.
A 43 yo ATP from a large airline came to my office recently.
His medical had been denied.
He's putting his daughter through college, and his status became "lineman" in 5s.
After 3 months working with FAA medical we got his ticket back.
It was all a bunch of nothing.
So there - you read it on the internet.
An ATP at a "large airline" would have sick time and disability, so I don't understand the "lineman" status.
And putting his daughter through college is the responsibility of the FAA?
Since we don't know why his medical was denied, and why it took 3 months to reinstate, I don't know if we could call it "a bunch of nothing".
Now this is funny, someone logging in "unregistered" and calling me a troll?
I entered the FAA in early 2010, and they were working on the drone issues back then. Hardly an overnight deal.
No one outside the FAA really knows what the current proposed regulation really says.
) I can fly it until I'm no longer comfortable flying it.
What's the OMB? There seems to be a slew of proposals these days, which one will they be reviewing? Can you post a link to an article?
You engineers.
So what are your thoughts, Kent? I'd hope that both complex and HP requirements are excluded, leaving it open to anything under 6,000 lbs (or more) or so. So when I get my T-34 (someday
I've been called "too analytical" before. So then, I got a job where that's what I'm supposed to do. Works great.
IMO, non-commercial operations for anything that doesn't require a type rating should be fine. That would allow things up to 12,500 pounds that aren't turbojet-powered. Come on, you can drive a 26,000 pound vehicle with an additional 10,000 pound trailer with nothing more than a driver's license!
I don't see night or IFR as valid restrictions either. Having those restrictions on otherwise properly trained and qualified people is going to be a detriment to safety.
I think cognitive issues are more likely to cause problems than heart attacks, strokes, etc - Private pilots generally fly <100 hours/year, or less than 1.2% of the time. These major medical events are point-in-time events that are just as likely to occur in the 98.8% of the time someone's not flying, whereas cognitive degeneration will affect someone 100% of the time. If you can't think ahead of the plane, you're dangerous, and you're likely to crash eventually. So, I think maybe more frequent BFRs (AFRs?) would increase safety among older pilots than any medical would.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of the things that require a second-class medical today such as local scenic flights in a 172 or the like should only require a third class medical.
This whole thing kind of reminds me of the title of one of Rick Durden's articles: "We worry about the wrong things, and it's killing us."
So we'll definitely see the proposal in January then? What is the next step after that?
Then the GOP congress critters will be sworn in.....and this should bring money back for either cuts or other stuff.
Don't hold your breath.
It's January!