3rd class medical ruling

U

Unregistered

Guest
What is the consensus on the outcome of the proposed exemption and when can we expect to hear something?
 
Search past threads on this and you'll have your answer
 
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/July/17/Huerta-visit

I think the FAA Administrator wants to release the AOPA/EAA medical exemption for public comment. But haven't we already had a comment period 2 years ago when this proposal was first submitted to the FAA? Or is the comment period going to be released to the general public outside of the flying public and those involved in the aviation industry this time?
 
Mark this comment: 7/18/2004 Not gonna happen.
 
Huerta just visited AOPA headquarters the other day for the first time in years. They chatted about this.....so probably nothing.
 
Air entire could give a clue ,but I doubt it.
 
N918KT said:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/July/17/Huerta-visit

I think the FAA Administrator wants to release the AOPA/EAA medical exemption for public comment. But haven't we already had a comment period 2 years ago when this proposal was first submitted to the FAA? Or is the comment period going to be released to the general public outside of the flying public and those involved in the aviation industry this time?
Click to expand...
You are confusing the comment period on AOPA's petition with a comment period for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the changes the FAA would like to make. Odds are you'll hear some sort of official FAA announcement on this at AirVenture, which is less than two weeks away.
 
I think the FAA is going to do something to avoid having Congress make them do it.
 
I think someone, or someones should just ask the administrator why they are delaying it during his session at Oshkosh. I will be there but leaving before that day unfortunately. I don't know that anyone who isn't in either AOPA or EAA has had the chance to ask him and get a response directly? Maybe I am wrong?

Carl
 
SportPilotCO said:
I think someone, or someones should just ask the administrator why they are delaying it during his session at Oshkosh.
Click to expand...
Delaying it? They're scrambling just to make it by then. Things like this normally take several years to get to the point of an NPRM, and the FAA's doing it in like 18 months.

I will be there but leaving before that day unfortunately. I don't know that anyone who isn't in either AOPA or EAA has had the chance to ask him and get a response directly? Maybe I am wrong?
Click to expand...
There will be some question time for the FAA at AirVenture, but you have to commit the time to be there when they're available. Other than that, AOPA and EAA represent the overwhelming majority of the affected pilots, and they've been talking to not only the Administrator personally, but also all the FAA offices involved on a continuing basis. If you're an AOPA or EAA member, you've definitely been getting your money's worth of representation at the FAA on this issue.
 
Neal Howard said:
No, no no... they're getting ready to think about forming a committee to decide whether to think about thinking about it.
Click to expand...

Come on. You know nothing about 'crats. Nobody's even addressed the issue of whether they have statutory authority for this. There will be a high-level working group formed to determine if they have authority to form a committee to decide whether to think about thinking about it.
 
I know that there are a lot of people on this board that don't like to speculate, but I wonder what the FAA is going to come up with. It seems to me that rather than change the private pilot rules, it would be easier to change the sport pilot rules. If SP has been a successful program, as so many have said, wouldn't the logical next step be to expand the program to include larger aircraft and more passengers or whatever? Then, as more is learned, it can be expanded more as needed. Eventually, if the two become similar enough, one could be eliminated, or left in place as an entry level.
 
I am a huge critic of all things federal, and no fan of the FAA in many cases. In *this* case, however, what I have seen and heard on this issue makes me willing to give the FAA the benefit of the doubt. I will wait until they come out with a plan before I pass judgment.

I do reserve the right to resume my normal bitching if they start dragging and/or come out with a plan that goes full retard.
 
bullwinkle said:
I do reserve the right to resume my normal bitching if they start dragging and/or come out with a plan that goes full retard.
Click to expand...

If Congress doesn't keep the threat of a boot in their rear, you can count on the FAA dragging this out as long as humanly possible.

For an agency that is responsible for regulating the fastest means of transportation, they operate at the speed of frozen molasses.

My cert doesn't have photo on it....does yours? Do you recall how long ago that was supposed to be implemented?
 
QuiQuog said:
I know that there are a lot of people on this board that don't like to speculate, but I wonder what the FAA is going to come up with.
Click to expand...
Be at AirVenture and in the tent when the FAA Administrator gets up to speak, and you won't have to wonder any more. Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
My cert doesn't have photo on it....does yours? Do you recall how long ago that was supposed to be implemented?
Click to expand...
Different situation. There is no FAA safety issue about the pilot certificate photos, but it will cost a lot of money to implement, and Congress didn't include funding with their mandate. Since the FAA is not allowed to spend money it hasn't been allotted, this issue is at a standstill until Congress provides the necessary funds.

OTOH, the medical issue doesn't require funding to implement, so the FAA can do it without further Congressional action.
 
So you suspect it'll be something like this ?

What limitations apply?
  • The AOPA/EAA exemption request will include the following limitations:

  • a. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may:
    1. Carry no more than one passenger; and
    2. Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.
  • b. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft—
    1. That is certificated—
      • i. For more than four occupants;
      • ii. With more than one powerplant;
      • iii. With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower, except aircraft certificated in the rotorcraft category; or
      • iv. With retractable landing gear;
    2. That is classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft;
    3. That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire;
    4. For compensation or hire;
    5. In furtherance of a business;
    6. Between sunset and sunrise;
    7. At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;
    8. When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles;
    9. Without visual reference to the surface;
    10. On a flight outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted;
    11. To demonstrate that aircraft in flight as an aircraft salesperson to a prospective buyer;
    12. That is used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable organization; and
    13. That is towing any object;
    14. Without completion of the AOPA/EAA airman self-certification medical education course within the preceding 24 months.
(That was taken from http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...on-Policy/AOPA-EAA-Medical-Exemption-FAQ.aspx)

Ron Levy said:
Be at AirVenture and in the tent when the FAA Administrator gets up to speak, and you won't have to wonder any more. Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Be at AirVenture and in the tent when the FAA Administrator gets up to speak, and you won't have to wonder any more. Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
Click to expand...

Then again, the Hurta may spend an hour talking out the side of his mouth telling you nothing.
 
noobJohn said:
So you suspect it'll be something like this ?

What limitations apply?
  • The AOPA/EAA exemption request will include the following limitations:

  • a. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may:
    1. Carry no more than one passenger; and
    2. Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.
  • b. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft—
    1. That is certificated—
      • i. For more than four occupants;
      • ii. With more than one powerplant;
      • iii. With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower, except aircraft certificated in the rotorcraft category; or
      • iv. With retractable landing gear;
    2. That is classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft;
    3. That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire;
    4. For compensation or hire;
    5. In furtherance of a business;
    6. Between sunset and sunrise;
    7. At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;
    8. When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles;
    9. Without visual reference to the surface;
    10. On a flight outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted;
    11. To demonstrate that aircraft in flight as an aircraft salesperson to a prospective buyer;
    12. That is used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable organization; and
    13. That is towing any object;
    14. Without completion of the AOPA/EAA airman self-certification medical education course within the preceding 24 months.
(That was taken from http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...on-Policy/AOPA-EAA-Medical-Exemption-FAQ.aspx)
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it will be something along those lines, although the specific details on things like aircraft specs may differ somewhat. We'll see next Thursday.
 
noobJohn said:
So you suspect it'll be something like this ?

What limitations apply?
  • The AOPA/EAA exemption request will include the following limitations:

  • a. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may:
    1. Carry no more than one passenger; and
    2. Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.
  • b. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft—
    1. That is certificated—
      • i. For more than four occupants;
      • ii. With more than one powerplant;
      • iii. With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower, except aircraft certificated in the rotorcraft category; or
      • iv. With retractable landing gear;
    2. That is classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft;
    3. That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire;
    4. For compensation or hire;
    5. In furtherance of a business;
    6. Between sunset and sunrise;
    7. At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;
    8. When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles;
    9. Without visual reference to the surface;
    10. On a flight outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted;
    11. To demonstrate that aircraft in flight as an aircraft salesperson to a prospective buyer;
    12. That is used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable organization; and
    13. That is towing any object;
    14. Without completion of the AOPA/EAA airman self-certification medical education course within the preceding 24 months.
(That was taken from http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regula...on-Policy/AOPA-EAA-Medical-Exemption-FAQ.aspx)
Click to expand...

a. says no more than one passenger, then b. says they can fly a four seater? can't be enforced, won't be implemented.
 
I kinda wish Congress would just do it. Take it out of the hands of the FAA.
 
Very cool that we'll finally have an answer. Or not? :yikes: :rofl:

Seriously though, I like that something is scheduled to happen after all the bruhaha you see online about what could/should happen.

Ron Levy said:
Yes, I think it will be something along those lines, although the specific details on things like aircraft specs may differ somewhat. We'll see next Thursday.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't see how enforcing that would be difficult. :dunno:

I've yet to experience a license check in a plane but I'm sure whoever is conducting it could count the number of passengers getting out of the plan and look at your current medical, or lack thereof.

CTLSi said:
a. says no more than one passenger, then b. says they can fly a four seater? can't be enforced, won't be implemented.
Click to expand...
 
noobJohn said:
I don't see how enforcing that would be difficult. :dunno:

I've yet to experience a license check in a plane but I'm sure whoever is conducting it could count the number of passengers getting out of the plan and look at your current medical, or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Not a ramp check risk, an accident risk. All the rules are about the accident. The NTSB and the FAA will take your stuff if you survive it and were breaking the rules.
 
CTLSi said:
Not a ramp check risk, an accident risk. All the rules are about the accident. The NTSB and the FAA will take your stuff if you survive it and were breaking the rules.
Click to expand...

Only if by "stuff" you mean "pilot certificate".

The lawsuits from your passengers or their heirs will take all your other stuff.
 
CTLSi said:
a. says no more than one passenger, then b. says they can fly a four seater? can't be enforced, won't be implemented.
Click to expand...
It certainly can be enforced, and it's been part of the Recreational Pilot limitations for a couple of decades, so I don't see any barriers to implementation. Whether it actually will be part of the FAA's proposed rules for PP/DL medical is another question entirely, and I have no answer to that question.
 
CTLSi said:
Not a ramp check risk, an accident risk. All the rules are about the accident. The NTSB and the FAA will take your stuff if you survive it and were breaking the rules.
Click to expand...
This is totally bogus. While most regulations are about accident prevention, enforcement actions do not result only from accidents, and many (most?) accidents do not result in enforcement actions.
 
Since the Executive Branch already has Congressional authorization to do this, and the FAA Administrator has the President's delegated authority to make regulations accordingly, I don't see why the President needs to get involved. If the President really feels strongly about it, he doesn't need to make an Executive Order -- all he need do is pick up the phone and say, "Mr. Huerta, this is the President -- do this or I'll replace you with someone who will."

Well, really, the President would more likely follow chain of command and make that call to SecTrans, who would then relay the message to the FAA Administrator, but I think you get my point. In any event, if y'all can keep your pants on until next Thursday, you should hear an FAA position on the issue. Until then, there's not much point yammering about it here.
 
Ron Levy said:
Be at AirVenture and in the tent when the FAA Administrator gets up to speak, and you won't have to wonder any more. Other than that, my information from inside the Beltway suggests the FAA's proposal will look a lot like the AOPA/EAA proposal.
Click to expand...


What a waste of a lovely day. It'll either be in the newspaper the next morning or it won't.

If you're going to waste time listening to politicians, at least ask questions like, "What is your plan to cut your budget in half this year?"

Sit through bureaucratic blather while there are airplanes to look at? YGFBKM.
 
Ron Levy said:
In any event, if y'all can keep your pants on until next Thursday, you should hear an FAA position on the issue. Until then, there's not much point yammering about it here.
Click to expand...
Way to kill the conversation.
 
JeffDG said:
Exactly the same rules as Recreational Pilot.
Click to expand...

You insist on missing the point. Rec pilots need a 3rd class med or better. The proposed ruling is about letting DL guys fly four seaters. You know guys that can't pass their 3rd class med or think they can't so don't submit to one. So they are limited to experimental two-seaters and SLSAs. And can't fly above 10k feet or fly at night. They are not rec pilots, they are sport pilots.
 
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