Expanding Drivers License Medical

jsstevens

jsstevens

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,836
Display Name
Display name:
jsstevens
Just got this email from AOPA:

A paragraph:
The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots to use the driver's license medical standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats. That includes virtually all single-engine airplanes with six or fewer seats, including Beech Bonanzas, as well as many light twins like the Piper Aztec, Beech Baron 55 and 58, and Cessna 310. By way of comparison, most large SUVs on the roads today weigh more than 6,000 pounds and can carry six to seven passengers, making them larger than the aircraft that would be operated with proof of a valid driver's license under this new bill.

Full article:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...s-license-medical.aspx?WT.mc_id=131211special
 
I will be interested to see where this goes now that it is not in the regulatory limbo land, and this is a pretty short and sweet act. We shall see if anyone wants to tack anything else on to it.
 
I like it because it's a lot more generous than I was expecting. I thought they were, at one point, talking about an exemption if you were in a 172-class plane and no more than 2 folks on board (like sport pilot). This, on the other hand, covers the vast, vast majority of private, non-commercial, owner-flown GA. It's even better if they can get the legislation through without excluding night flight so color blind folks can ditch the "NOT VALID FOR NIGHT FLIGHT..." restriction.
 
I am thinking they need to remove the VFR restriction, as that will encourage even IFR rated pilots to scud run.

Would also like to see max altitude lifted to FL250. Not sure what the point of the speed restriction is either.

Not complaining though!
 
Looks like a good bill,it's about time.
 
I think it'll kill off a chunk of the light sport market. I was always hopeful that the guys who couldn't get medicals anymore but had the money would buy up new LSAs and then sell them later on the used market, making LSAs that much more attractive from a financial standpoint for flight schools to acquire, thus lowering rental rates and the cost to enter flying. If this gets passed, that won't be happening.

But other than that, excellent news. Link to the bill: http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All News/2013/December/ROKITA_024_xml.pdf
 
Anyone have a guess as to the odds of it passing?
 
They also need to clarify if that's 250kts IAS, TAS, GS, etc.
 
jpower said:
I think it'll kill off a chunk of the light sport market. I was always hopeful that the guys who couldn't get medicals anymore but had the money would buy up new LSAs and then sell them later on the used market, making LSAs that much more attractive from a financial standpoint for flight schools to acquire, thus lowering rental rates and the cost to enter flying. If this gets passed, that won't be happening.

But other than that, excellent news. Link to the bill: http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All News/2013/December/ROKITA_024_xml.pdf
Click to expand...

New LSA's aren't cheap. Look what happened to the Cessna Skycathcer. Failure.
 
JB1842 said:
I would think the odds are pretty good. There is no budgetary items in the bill for Congress to fight over.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. This is something that congresscritters can vote for and pick up a few votes without pizzing off any constituants. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there is really a lobby out there against this outside of the FAA.
 
PPC1052 said:
I tend to agree. This is something that congresscritters can vote for and pick up a few votes without pizzing off any constituants. I could be mistaken, but I don't think there is really a lobby out there against this outside of the FAA.
Click to expand...


Between this and the Part 23 rewrite mandate, it would seem congress is not a big fan of how the FAA is doing their job.
 
JB1842 said:
I would think the odds are pretty good. There is no budgetary items in the bill for Congress to fight over.
Click to expand...
As is, it probably has zero chance. If other groups think that the bill is a slam dunk, which it isn't, they will be adding items to it hoping for a free ride to passage. If it has a reasonable chance of passing there will be hopefulls attached to it. Even if it has no chance of passing, groups who want to claim the other party is stonewalling will want to attach their bill so they can show that so and so voted against it.

Still, with the FAA being called out like this by members of congress, this is a huge step forward if you're for the drivers license medical movement.
 
QuiQuog said:
As is, it probably has zero chance. If other groups think that the bill is a slam dunk, which it isn't, they will be adding items to it hoping for a free ride to passage. If it has a reasonable chance of passing there will be hopefulls attached to it. Even if it has no chance of passing, groups who want to claim the other party is stonewalling will want to attach their bill so they can show that so and so voted against it.

Still, with the FAA being called out like this by members of congress, this is a huge step forward if you're for the drivers license medical movement.
Click to expand...

So you think that just because some congress member hasn't added something special in the bill for themselves it won't pass? Congress has already passed over 50 bills this year. I don't see how this one will make big waves.

http://www.congress-summary.com/C-113th-Congress/Laws_Passed_113th_Congress_Seq.html
 
QuiQuog said:
As is, it probably has zero chance. If other groups think that the bill is a slam dunk, which it isn't, they will be adding items to it hoping for a free ride to passage. If it has a reasonable chance of passing there will be hopefulls attached to it. Even if it has no chance of passing, groups who want to claim the other party is stonewalling will want to attach their bill so they can show that so and so voted against it.

Still, with the FAA being called out like this by members of congress, this is a huge step forward if you're for the drivers license medical movement.
Click to expand...
And there's an insufficient amount of legalese. Restrictions and permissions will need to be refined in such a way that the FAA will have some outs to interpret the bill to fit their desires.
 
Odds are fairly long for a few reasons:
Sponsor (Rep. Rokita, R-IN4) is not what you would call a "heavy hitter" He doesn't serve on any of the committees with jurisdiction over the FAA (like Transportation or Appropriations). The co-sponsor (Graves, R-MO6) serves on Transportation, but seems far more focused on road/rail than air for his priorities.

The fact that both sponsors are Republicans is another strike against it. Having bipartisan sponsorship is a big plus.
 
I would judge the likely outcome in this congress based on what happened with the small plane revitalization act. Maybe not a good predictor, and I certainly don't have my ear to the ground such that I have any insight as to the leanings of actual congressmen. But my uneducated guess is that it is as good of a guage of which way the winds blow in congress as any.

My guess is that the same forces that were pushing that bill will want to push this one.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
The fact that both sponsors are Republicans is another strike against it. Having bipartisan sponsorship is a big plus.
Click to expand...

There is a democrat co-sponser. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
 
It would seem that this would save a few bucks by eliminating the need for the FAA to process medicals for this group of pilots.

With their huge backlog of medicals to process I have to think that the FAA and GAO bean counters would like to see this backlog reduced. And this law would reduce that backlog significantly.
 
PPC1052 said:
There is a democrat co-sponsor. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)
Click to expand...

....who flies a Bonanza and is of rather mature age :wink2: .

Nice guy, not many like him left in that party.
 
Oh no! Old, sick farts will be falling out of the sky on top of school buses and day care centers. Oh the humanity....

Stand by, a few will be along shortly to tell us why this is a terrible idea for the interests of general aviation safety and the greater good of the public.

This has been needed for a very, very long time. There is a LOT of money that sits on the sidelines (mine included) in situations where getting a medical is difficult and simply not worth the hassle, expense, or time.
 
I hold a student pilot certificate. Am I counted under the new proposed drivers license medical bill?
 
It will develop into the usual lengthy taffy pull, lots of hot gas and hand wringing. Do not hold breath.
 
I'd like to thank the congressmen who brought up this bill as this is the kind of legislating that we all should support! Sound bill that fixes a major flaw in a system!

I sure do hope this bill passes. It makes a ton of sense to pass it because te FAA is a great place to cut some from the budget. No reason I should have to go through a relatively extensive medical process to fly a small single engine plane with most likely just myself on board or maybe one or two other at most. Talk about over regulating! Without the many 3rd class Medicals to process the FAA could cut that department a little bit I'd imagine.

Are there more third class Medicals than any other category? If so, no brainer to pass this..... Which means it won't pass with this group around!
 
Perhaps the bill does not NEED to pass.

Maybe it only needs to goad the FAA into action. And maybe the FAA would prefer to allow the lower AOPA/EAA criteria rather than the rather expanded criteria put forth in the bill.:yesnod:
 
Isn't it congress who holds hearings and demands that "This must never happen again!" Will they now let this through which may allow a pilot with major medical issues to knock out and crash his plane into Johnny's playground?

What will happen when the first medical incapacitation crash causes deaths? (I know, this can still occur under the current system)
 
JB1842 said:
Congress has already passed over 50 bills this year. I don't see how this one will make big waves.
Click to expand...

56 bills passed so far this year. It's sad. 10 years ago, 506 bills were passed, 20 years ago, 677 bills were passed. :mad2:

Since this isn't the right forum, I won't go down what I think of congress passing only 56 bills...but it's killing America. :nono:

Reference: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
 
TazzyTazzy said:
56 bills passed so far this year. It's sad. 10 years ago, 506 bills were passed, 20 years ago, 677 bills were passed. :mad2:

Since this isn't the right forum, I won't go down what I think of congress passing only 56 bills...but it's killing America. :nono:

Reference: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
Click to expand...

Exactly. There a bunch of important bills not getting passed. There is a bunch of important business this government needs to be getting on with that isn't.

It may make for a good bumper sticker to say that not passing bills is a good thing, but it doesn't take much real world experience to see things being bottled up because of this do nothing congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top