3rd class medical legislation/ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unregistered
  • Start date Start date
Someone is tracking the progress over on the red board. "Earliest now achievable" date for publication is 03/05/15, originally scheduled was 11/10/14. But I wouldn't expect to see anything by March given the rate at which it is moving now...
 
My advice, seek alternative means of aviating. Your gov't doesn't care about your petty problems. However there are many paths through the sky not requiring a gov't permission slip.
 
http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings Click on the link to the November report.

[FONT=Times, serif]Abstract:[/FONT][FONT=Times, serif] This rulemaking would consider allowing certain operations to be conducted by individuals exercising private-pilot privileges without holding a current FAA airman medical certificate. The intended effect of this action is to provide relief from having to obtain a medical certificate for pilots engaged in low-risk flying, such as private pilots operating a small, general aviation aircraft. [/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I dont know.. when I talked to Dr. Bruce about it - he started chuckling. Told me regardless of what you read or hear, don't hold your breath. I hope he's wrong though
 
The projected dates never seem to materialize. Go light sport while your waiting.
 
You don't understand government, do you? Unless there's serious $$$$ or guranteed voting block, no one in DC cares. And GA is not a voting block.
 
murphey said:
You don't understand government, do you? Unless there's serious $$$$ or guranteed voting block, no one in DC cares. And GA is not a voting block.
Click to expand...

You can take all of aviation (general and otherwise) and it's not a "voting" block.

What GA also doesn't have is sufficient MONEY to make a difference.
 
Hmmm.. I think we need some pilot senator or representative to develop health issues that threaten their ability to retain a medical. Suddenly, "Something needs to be done about this!" Isn't that how the PBOR got passed?
 
F01LA said:
Hmmm.. I think we need some pilot senator or representative to develop health issues that threaten their ability to retain a medical. Suddenly, "Something needs to be done about this!" Isn't that how the PBOR got passed?
Click to expand...
Yeah. Won't work as those types will just get a pencil whipped medical.
 
EminiTrader said:
I dont know.. when I talked to Dr. Bruce about it - he started chuckling. Told me regardless of what you read or hear, don't hold your breath. I hope he's wrong though
Click to expand...


I know another doc who just came back from Oklahoma City, and it sounded like some head honcho said basically "not on my watch" and said if the AOPA and EAA want their members to have the equivalent of light sport medicals, then they should just fly light sport.

Depressing.
 
FAA now down to one employee per 50 pilots and dropping. When do the start having congress ask about cutting their staff? What can we do to increase the number of pilots. I know, we'll call RC models aircraft. We'll make a ton more regs and tell congress its not the number of pilots but the workload of all these drones and RC.
 
Unregistered said:
Hey guys, and idea when we will hear something?
Click to expand...

Right after Congress forces the FAA to tell us something - And it's not likely to be something we want to hear.

PPC1052 said:
Wait a second. He's (Doc. Bruce) on the internet. Doesn't that make him an "internet expert?"
Click to expand...

Real Expert + Internet User ≠ "Internet Expert." The "Internet expert" is *only* an expert when hiding behind the Internet.
 
PPC1052 said:
Wait a second. He's (Doc. Bruce) on the internet. Doesn't that make him an "internet expert?"
Click to expand...

He has real credentials, and I've never heard him refer to himself as a "maven". :rolleyes:

Of course you could always just refer to the ultimate "FAA Insider" and ask him since he's always hanging out at FAA HQ and is privy to high level decisions and meetings. :rolleyes2:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Right after Congress forces the FAA to tell us something - And it's not likely to be something we want to hear.
.
Click to expand...

Are you afraid the FAA will state "Sure, we can get to work on this as soon as Congress appropriates the funding for us to do so." So I don't think Congress really wants to "force" the FAA to talk just right now.
 
tinerj said:
FAA now down to one employee per 50 pilots and dropping. When do the start having congress ask about cutting their staff?
Click to expand...

OK, back to this inane argument again. :rolleyes2:

All of those FAA employees are not Inspectors. Flight Standards has about 5000 employees or so. The rest of those employees are secretaries, HR, ATC, NavAid service, Airports, Airways support, etc.

ATC is a huge component to the FAA. Should we start cutting back controllers and cutting ATC services as well?
 
Time to move on medically challenged folks. Sport pilot, ultralights, gliders, balloons if you must. You ain't getting less laws at the end of an empire, not the way the cookie crumbles.
 
Personally, my crystal ball has been on the fritz lately. In fact, I'm not sure it ever did work worth a darn!
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, my crystal ball has been on the fritz lately. In fact, I'm not sure it ever did work worth a darn!
Click to expand...
Mine is perfect of course, but even if was on the fritz I would suggest people move on and around the rules rather then wait for relief from the gov. Might as well fly what you can, clock is ticking, the reaper will be at the door before we know it.:lol:
 
RotorAndWing said:
OK, back to this inane argument again. :rolleyes2:

All of those FAA employees are not Inspectors. Flight Standards has about 5000 employees or so. The rest of those employees are secretaries, HR, ATC, NavAid service, Airports, Airways support, etc.

ATC is a huge component to the FAA. Should we start cutting back controllers and cutting ATC services as well?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were all inspectors. That one FAA employee for every 50 pilots includes everyone, including essential personal such as the secretaries.

But that wasn't the point-- the point is that they will create extra regs to keep themselves all busy should the current workload drop.
 
tinerj said:
I didn't say they were all inspectors. That one FAA employee for every 50 pilots includes everyone, including essential personal such as the secretaries.

But that wasn't the point-- the point is that they will create extra regs to keep themselves all busy should the current workload drop.
Click to expand...

cat-saturday-201_zps20d0fd42.jpg
 
What about facts makes you cry like a kitten?

Seriously, do you think bureaucracies ever willingly downsize?
 
tinerj said:
What about facts makes you cry like a kitten?
Click to expand...

What "facts"? :rolleyes2: So you are willing to cut back staff at the FAA to what level? Should they forbid any SE and small GA ME aircraft from using ATC so they can downsize the controllers? Should they cut staffing from the guys that maintain the Nav aids and just notam out each VOR/ADF/DME/ILS/LOC/GS/SDF that goes out of service? Should they close airport runways instead of rehabing them? Should any new aircraft certification or component certification be cut so they can reduce staff there?

Or maybe you are for "privatizing" all of these services to cut FAA staff? Are you willing to pay for ATC services? How about paying for license issuance? How about starting or increasing user fees at airports so they can cut out FAA staff?

Got news for you, you can't have it both ways. You enjoy your tax payer benefits that the FAA brings you, yet you want to do away with them. Think private industry will do this for free?

Go take a look over in Europe and get back to us how wonderful it would be to privatize.



tinerj said:
Seriously, do you think bureaucracies ever willingly downsize?
Click to expand...

Although you refuse to believe it, the FAA is understaffed in many areas due to budgeting. Some areas of the FAA has already had cut backs and downsizing through attrition.

This is for you:

tinfoilhatarea.jpg
 
RotorAndWing said:
What "facts"? :rolleyes2: So you are willing to cut back staff at the FAA to what level? Should they forbid any SE and small GA ME aircraft from using ATC so they can downsize the controllers? Should they cut staffing from the guys that maintain the Nav aids and just notam out each VOR/ADF/DME/ILS/LOC/GS/SDF that goes out of service? Should they close airport runways instead of rehabing them? Should any new aircraft certification or component certification be cut so they can reduce staff there?

I agree completely with you here. I suggested no cuts in any area.

Or maybe you are for "privatizing" all of these services to cut FAA staff? Are you willing to pay for ATC services? How about paying for license issuance? How about starting or increasing user fees at airports so they can cut out FAA staff?

Again I agree completely with you here. Privatizing is a way that bureaucrats can hide the true size of their organization. It ranges from non-essential activities such as building maintenance to essential services such as weather briefings.

Got news for you, you can't have it both ways. You enjoy your tax payer benefits that the FAA brings you, yet you want to do away with them. Think private industry will do this for free?

Go take a look over in Europe and get back to us how wonderful it would be to privatize.

Never suggested that we privatize, and think it is a terrible way to go -- makes finger-pointing so much easier.

Facts as reported by the FAA
Number of pilots = 587,000
Number of FAA employees = 47,031
Outlays of the FAA = $16,000,000,000

Although you refuse to believe it, the FAA is understaffed in many areas due to budgeting. Some areas of the FAA has already had cut backs and downsizing through attrition.

And here you seem to agree with me. My point throughout is that the FAA needs to have more pilots on the books to continue to be well funded. One way to do that is to move forward with the no medical required under certain criteria.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Time to move on medically challenged folks. Sport pilot, ultralights, gliders, balloons if you must. You ain't getting less laws at the end of an empire, not the way the cookie crumbles.
Click to expand...

Or, if your medical condition can be improved through positive changes in diet, exercise and lifestyle, do that. The effect beyond just the ability to obtain/retain a 3rd class medical will be extremely beneficial.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Or, if your medical condition can be improved through positive changes in diet, exercise and lifestyle, do that. The effect beyond just the ability to obtain/retain a 3rd class medical will be extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

And sometimes you can do most everything right and still come up snake eyes.

Though trying to stay healthy is probably best long term.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Or, if your medical condition can be improved through positive changes in diet, exercise and lifestyle, do that. The effect beyond just the ability to obtain/retain a 3rd class medical will be extremely beneficial.
Click to expand...

Definitely that first.
 
Its the cost and time delays of special medical tests for a condition that surfaced and treated. But once it is identified a pilot has to prove, sometimes on a yearly basis, it no longer is a factor, and your doctors word is not accepted.
 
Comparing the size of the FAA staff to the number of pilots is inane. There are around 2 million airline passengers per day in the US.
 
Not entirely inane. The FFA has little cost associated with passengers. The number of flights, but not the number of passengers.
 
tinerj said:
Not entirely inane. The FFA has little cost associated with passengers. The number of flights, but not the number of passengers.
Click to expand...

The point was, looking at the FAA's responsibility as just related to the pilots is extremely narrow minded. All of those passengers are "customers" of the FAA as well. As are the airlines and various manufacturers.
 
Fascinating that the FAA requires years to revise the third class medical (something we need). But pushing out new legislation addressing a brand new aviation industry (drones) takes just a few months and can be completed during "the holidays". http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/24/faa-drone-rules-would-require-license/

How long are we going to stand for this ?

Is Jonathan Gruber correct ? Are (we) Americans really stupid ?

And BTW - Happy Holidays.
 
It is what it is, a big ball of B'cratism. Go on vote for the change you want. Or stop waiting and go fly some of the really cool stuff that doesn't require a medical. Or buy outright and fly your own plane medical and insurance free.
 
Aldeskeukin said:
Fascinating that the FAA requires years to revise the third class medical (something we need). But pushing out new legislation addressing a brand new aviation industry (drones) takes just a few months and can be completed during "the holidays". http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/24/faa-drone-rules-would-require-license/

How long are we going to stand for this ?

Is Jonathan Gruber correct ? Are (we) Americans really stupid ?

And BTW - Happy Holidays.
Click to expand...

I entered the FAA in early 2010, and they were working on the drone issues back then. Hardly an overnight deal. :rolleyes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
I entered the FAA in early 2010, and they were working on the drone issues back then. Hardly an overnight deal. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Even if they did work it overnight, it makes sense from a prioritization standpoint. They needed to address the drone/UAV issue much sooner than something that could be left status quo like medicals.
 
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