ALPA to GA: Screw you

I'm surprised the ALPA guy isn't for self certification. He can definitely do a self colonoscopy as he has his head up there already.
 
denverpilot said:
Which has more time and money spent on it by FAA: Building a better currency and flight review system for non-Commercial pilots, or the flight medical bureaucracy?
Click to expand...

Preserving the bureaucracy is one objective. :mad2:
 
chemgeek said:
Without more runways you can make all the time you want in the system but you still won't be able to get there. I'm having a hard time believing GA traffic is soaking up significant IFR bandwidth compared to commercial flights, especially from major hubs where ga doesnt fly. The major airports in upstate New York are dead--they actually welcome practice IFR traffic.
Click to expand...
Some areas may be affected more than others, but yes, it probably is a small amount overall.

I'm not saying it is right, but when the airlines started publicly speaking out in favor of user fees, that was indeed part of their reasoning. All I am saying is that ALPA trying to take this approach on medical reform would be consistent with previous positions on user fees.

As the LSA data would seem to indicate, the safety of expanding medical reform does not seem to be a genuine factor.
 
EdFred said:
How about no medical = yearly flight review?
Click to expand...

This is a ploy to line the pockets of capitalist CFIs. An idea no doubt sown by the likes of one AME soon to be out a cushy job ...
:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Id be ok with that. Much cheaper and much less hassle.

As in the example given above, a flight review would probably catch more issues than a medical would. Screen for the ability to competently operate the aircraft and safe decision making. Of course, that assumes CFIs will do their job and not rubber stamp the pilot.
Click to expand...

Make sense to me.

I've always thought the medical dog and pony show were more about appeasing the non aviation masses anyway.


paflyer said:
When you get your ATP, do you also get a complimentary admission to the Assclown Society?
Click to expand...

Sadly no, the bastards make us pay a yearly fee, but the monthly new letter is great.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IqkOi2AdjLw
 
Someone mentioned annual flight reviews as an alternative to the medical. I believe this lacks supporting data, same as ALPA's play but in the other direction.

I'm not saying that an annual review wouldn't improve safety, but it could also be said that a quarterly review would improve safety even more so.

And... It could be argued that an annual (or quarterly) drivers test would increase highway safety. But that isn't going to happen for the same reason there are no helmet laws for automobile passengers - Political suicide.

But GA, without political clout, is an easy target. When AOPA goes forward with a concept of "online course every year and one pax max", etc., or we think an offer of an annual BFR will call the dogs off, we are kowtowing and we have already lost the fight.
 
James331 said:
Make sense to me.

I've always thought the medical dog and pony show were more about appeasing the non aviation masses anyway.
Click to expand...

It's exactly what it is. What's the percentage of aviation fatalities attributed to physical incapacitation? I'm not talking CO in the cockpit, I'm talking a heart attack or other natural thing. Practically zero.

But, the general public doesn't know that, and it appeals to their senses more.

We all know more frequent flight reviews would weed out accidents waiting to happen better than an AME and an old dude sitting on his bed with a green robe on. Frankly I think a flight review is fun and very beneficial. A medical? Waste of time and money.

That said my AME is a wonderful guy who is also a pilot that owns the same airplane I do. We spend just as much time talking about flying as we do the medical half of it when I'm getting a physical. If this ever does pass I'll be sure to keep in touch with him anyways:)
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Someone mentioned annual flight reviews as an alternative to the medical. I believe this lacks supporting data, same as ALPA's play but in the other direction.

I'm not saying that an annual review wouldn't improve safety, but it could also be said that a quarterly review would improve safety even more so.

And... It could be argued that an annual (or quarterly) drivers test would increase highway safety. But that isn't going to happen for the same reason there are no helmet laws for automobile passengers - Political suicide.

But GA, without political clout, is an easy target. When AOPA goes forward with a concept of "online course every year and one pax max", etc., or we think an offer of an annual BFR will call the dogs off, we are kowtowing and we have already lost the fight.
Click to expand...

I voluntarily grab a CFI and go up a few times a year. NO harm can come from it.

I'd ***** much less about a mandatory quarterly flight review than I do a yearly medical. At least there's a benefit to the flight review.

That said, I don't think quarterly is necessary as far as frequency.
 
bartmc said:
OTOH. I ride right seat (for PIC purposes) with a guy well into his 80s who lost his medical for sleep apnea after a camping trip where someone claimed he snores. I would ride in the back seat and sleep all the way to Malaysia if he were piloting. Flight reviews are enough.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The guy MAKG1 describes could probably pass a 3rd class medical just fine. The issues he has would more likely show up on a Flight Review.
 
ARFlyer said:
Almost as bad as the WWII pilot I flew with. The dude hadn't flown since 1945. He kept trying to fly the aircraft like a Corsair off a carrier. After his first HARD landing he yelled "Did the hook grab?" :rofl:
Click to expand...

My wife had an attendant (guy who helps kids to the bathroom) in her special ed class one year. He had flown P-51's in the Korean war and had gone on to fly 707s for Philippine Air. We took him flying int he Navion, the first time he'd been in the cockpit of any plane in twenty years or so and not in a small plane in a long time before that. He took to it instantly.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
That may be so, but there are many orders of magnitude more than would love to learn to fly, but can't afford to. This entire argument of "people want to learn to fly can't because of a medical" is like jumping over a dollar to pick up a dime.
Click to expand...

No, not really. I have several health issues being treated just fine and it's quite possible I could get all the SI's but at what cost? I can afford the cost of training and plane rental but I can't afford it to be doubled to get the medical and if the FAA decides to reject me for some stupid reason or I start the process and the cost becomes too prohibitive, then I am forever locked out of even flying sport?

No thank you.

I don't know who you are, but you are obviously no friend to GA, you don't want to see any growth in GA and probably don't even want it to survive at all.
 
Last edited:
This may have been stated in the last ten (10) pages of this thread (I hope so) but I am not searching through them to find out.

What makes anyone think that getting a medical examination once every two years (3rd class) makes that particular pilot safe to fly hundreds of hours between now and the next checkup two years from now? It is time for the FAA to acknowledge that the 3rd class GA pilot is self certifying every time he takes off and it is safe doing it that way.
 
Cruiser said:
This may have been stated in the last ten (10) pages of this thread (I hope so) but I am not searching through them to find out.

What makes anyone think that getting a medical examination once every two years (3rd class) makes that particular pilot safe to fly hundreds of hours between now and the next checkup two years from now? It is time for the FAA to acknowledge that the 3rd class GA pilot is self certifying every time he takes off and it is safe doing it that way.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother. As has been stated, this issue is about power, money, and control, not flight safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top