PBOR2 Changes?

bullwinkle

bullwinkle

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
1,897
Location
The South
Display Name
Display name:
Bullwinkle
A friend of mine just called Senator Inhofe's office to ask on the status of PBOR2. The office told him that they were having trouble getting support, so the language of the bill has just been changed so that a pilot must have held a third class medical in the past ten years to qualify to fly using the DL medical.

Can anyone confirm this insanity?

EDIT: Below is supposedly the new verbiage:

(2) the individual holds a medical certificate issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment
of this Act, held such a certificate at any point during the
10-year period preceding such date of enactment, or obtains
such a certificate after such date of enactment;
 
Last edited:
Same language that was in the amendment in the transportation bill. I have said all along, the PBOR2 as written has no chance. I think that is as good of a compromise as any.
 
That's what the amendment put forth says, however it does so in such a poorly stated fashion, it would be a mistake to pass.
 
Seems pretty dumb. How does having a medical in the past somehow act as a testimonial to your health once it's lapsed?
 
bullwinkle said:
Seems pretty dumb. How does having a medical in the past somehow act as a testimonial to your health once it's lapsed?
Click to expand...

The same way the current standard assumes that if you passed a medical 5 years minus a day (under 40) or for however long your medical is valid, that you're still healthy to fly unless you self-declare otherwise until the day it expires minus one day. We need to go back to the 1930's definition of "manifest natural health" for 3rd class, anything else is mission-creep.
 
bullwinkle said:
Again, how are those people less safe than those that can't get a medical now?
Click to expand...

They're not, and they still won't be allowed to fly without it. It's just an AARP version of PBOR2. If you aged out of your medical state, you can still get your plane out of the hangar and fly it. That's all this bill does.
 
Henning said:
They're not, and they still won't be allowed to fly without it. It's just an AARP version of PBOR2. If you aged out of your medical state, you can still get your plane out of the hangar and fly it. That's all this bill does.
Click to expand...

In other words, all the old Senators and Representatives get theirs, so to hell with the rest... :D

BTW, I'm pretty happy as a Sport Pilot, but this puts the screws to some people I know.
 
bullwinkle said:
In other words, all the old Senators and Representatives get theirs, so to hell with the rest... :D

BTW, I'm pretty happy as a Sport Pilot, but this puts the screws to some people I know.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, however it is worded so poorly, that as a Sport Pilot it should concern you since there can be some ugly implications for you inferred.
 
Henning said:
It's about keeping out the people who can't get a medical the first time around.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And consequently doesn't do anything to help those who because of some arbitrary FAA policy regarding their medical history fly.

I am sure there are some that will still be helped, but I'm becoming increasingly indifferent on this. If this does ever pass, I would hardly consider it 'reform'.
 
Henning said:
They're not, and they still won't be allowed to fly without it. It's just an AARP version of PBOR2. If you aged out of your medical state, you can still get your plane out of the hangar and fly it. That's all this bill does.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is, when you look at it that way, it actually makes things potentially less safe.

I'd much rather share the skies with some 20 year old who took ADHD meds as a kid than an 80 year old who hasn't seen a doctor in 10 years.

F'n stoopid.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sad thing is, when you look at it that way, it actually makes things potentially less safe.

I'd much rather share the skies with some 20 year old who took ADHD meds as a kid than an 80 year old who hasn't seen a doctor in 10 years.

F'n stoopid.
Click to expand...

Obviously. No good idea makes it through committee a good idea.
 
Wait, so doesn't that just essentially mean that a third class medical is now good for 10 years? On year 11, you'd need another medical to be good for another 10 years, right?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Exactly. And consequently doesn't do anything to help those who because of some arbitrary FAA policy regarding their medical history fly.

I am sure there are some that will still be helped, but I'm becoming increasingly indifferent on this. If this does ever pass, I would hardly consider it 'reform'.
Click to expand...

You can believe if this passes, AOPA will scream victory and claim its the biggest success they have ever had (now give us your money)...
 
mtuomi said:
You can believe if this passes, AOPA will scream victory and claim its the biggest success they have ever had (now give us your money)...
Click to expand...

If they allow this to pass, they are as useless as I suspect.
 
Henning said:
If they allow this to pass, they are as useless as I suspect.
Click to expand...
It's the new rock-paper-scissors.

Airline Management beats ALPA, ALPA beats AOPA, AOPA annoys airline management.

And the cycle continues...
 
It's doubling down on the Catch 22.

If Inhofe says it's necessary for passage It might be better than nothing, until PBOR 3.

That said, it's a bad change and I'll certainly let my representatives know I think so....
 
Fearless Tower said:
Sad thing is, when you look at it that way, it actually makes things potentially less safe.

I'd much rather share the skies with some 20 year old who took ADHD meds as a kid than an 80 year old who hasn't seen a doctor in 10 years.

F'n stoopid.
Click to expand...

The draft language would require pilots taking advantage of the exemption to certify (1) that they have had a routine physical from an ordinary doctor in the prior 5 years and (2) that they are under the care of a physician for any conditions that could affect safety. So, the "hasn't seen a doctor in 10 years" scenario would be illegal.

Still, I agree that making the standard one of whether you happened to have been healthy enough sometime in the past to get a medical is a little odd.
 
SkyHog said:
Wait, so doesn't that just essentially mean that a third class medical is now good for 10 years? On year 11, you'd need another medical to be good for another 10 years, right?
Click to expand...

No, you would need to have had a medical (1) within the 10 years prior to enactment or (2) any time after enactment. So, if you had a medical in 2006 (or in 2016), you are good to go forever (assuming you don't develop one of the listed psychiatric, neurological, cardiac, or substance abuse issues that would require you to do a one-time special issuance).
 
jbarrass said:
It's doubling down on the Catch 22.

If Inhofe says it's necessary for passage It might be better than nothing, until PBOR 3.

That said, it's a bad change and I'll certainly let my representatives know I think so....
Click to expand...

There is a key difference from the sport pilot Catch-22. Under this proposal, there is no cost to getting denied, as long as you've had a medical in the past and it wasn't suspended, revoked, or withdrawn. So, you don't have to worry that by trying for the medical one more time, you risk getting grounded forever.

But, this doesn't appear to help people who have never held a medical and want to keep the sport pilot option open at all. They're still stuck with the Catch-22.

Neil
 
Neil Rubin said:
There is a key difference from the sport pilot Catch-22. Under this proposal, there is no cost to getting denied, as long as you've had a medical in the past and it wasn't suspended, revoked, or withdrawn. So, you don't have to worry that by trying for the medical one more time, you risk getting grounded forever.

But, this doesn't appear to help people who have never held a medical and want to keep the sport pilot option open at all. They're still stuck with the Catch-22.

Neil
Click to expand...

I don't think this removes the language that if your last medical was denied, you can't fly.
 
bullwinkle said:
I don't think this removes the language that if your last medical was denied, you can't fly.
Click to expand...

At least as Sen. Manchin introduced the amendment last Tuesday, you are eligible if:

"(3) the most recent medical certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration to the individual--
(A) indicates whether the certificate is first, second, or third class;
(B ) includes authorization for special issuance;
(C) may be expired;
(D) cannot have been revoked or suspended; and
(E) cannot have been withdrawn;"

It doesn't say anything about the last time you applied, and it doesn't say anything about denial. The only issue is whether you've been issued a medical and the most recent medical has not been "revoked," "suspended," or "withdrawn." I believe that medicals are most often revoked or suspended in cases of repeat DUIs or drug convictions, or in cases of falsification. The "withdrawn" language is a little trickier. Authorizations for special issuance can be withdrawn if you don't provide required information or if your condition gets worse.

But, in the common scenario where you renew, you get deferred to Oklahoma City, and they ask for thousands of dollars in tests, I think you are free to say "thanks but no thanks" and simply fly under the PBOR2 exemption. At least for people trying to renew existing medicals, there is no Catch-22.

Now, someone who applies to renew their medical and gets stuck with an onerous special issuance is worse off than if they didn't renew, because they have to comply with the special issuance for the duration of the medical. I wonder if they could get out of the need to comply with the special issuance by voluntarily surrendering the medical right after it is issued, on the grounds that a voluntary surrender is not a suspension, revocation, or withdrawal?

By the way, some of the drafting of Manchin amendment version of the PBOR2 is pretty bad. Someone should encourage Inhofe, Manchin, etc. to have a knowledgeable staffer do a very careful proofread before it gets introduced again.
 
Opinion:

Since congress has recessed for the summer, there will likely be no action on any form of this until the end of the year given the large load of work they have and the low priority of this issue.

Since the airline pilots union are lobbying against the idea, the chances of much change at all are slim at best.

But if something does happen, it will no doubt be far more restricted than the PBOR2 describes. Likely the aircraft gross weight will be below 6k pounds, single engine, fixed gear, 4 seats. The ceiling around 15k feet. And 150ktas cruise. Which is not too much different than the SLSA rules now in place.
 
Neil Rubin said:
But, in the common scenario where you renew, you get deferred to Oklahoma City, and they ask for thousands of dollars in tests, I think you are free to say "thanks but no thanks" and simply fly under the PBOR2 exemption. At least for people trying to renew existing medicals, there is no Catch-22.
Click to expand...

Not true. A deferral that does not move through the system and end in an approval becomes a denial after some period of time, 90 days IIRC.
 
bullwinkle said:
Not true. A deferral that does not move through the system and end in an approval becomes a denial after some period of time, 90 days IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yes, and such a denial is not a "suspension," "revocation," or "withdrawal."

Take a look at the current 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(c)(2), which sets out the conditions for the sport pilot driver's license medical. It says that someone using a driver's license in lieu of a medical certificate must:

"(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
"(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and . . ."

Subsection (ii) is where you get grounded if you have applied for a medical and been denied. Subsection (iii) is where you get grounded if your medical was suspended, revoked, or withdrawn.

The Manchin amendment version of the PBOR2 has the language about a medical being suspended, revoked, or withdrawn (paralleling the current sport pilot subsection (iii)), but it says nothing about denial or about your most recent medical application at all (i.e., has nothing paralleling the sport pilot subsection (ii)).

I think that the decision not to mention applications or denials in the PBOR2 draft is intentional and that its effect is clear: no Catch-22 for seeking to renew a medical and getting denied.

I apologize if this sounds snide, but this is just basic reading comprehension here. The draft statute says you can't have a medical suspended, revoked, or withdrawn. It doesn't say anything about an application for a medical that got denied. So applications that get denied are simply not relevant to eligibility under the Manchin amendment version of the PBOR2.
 
This really isn't that bad for future generations depending on how you look at it and who you are.

Basically, it doesn't help the 70-80 year old guys who've been out for 20 years or people who've never been able to obtain medical at all.

But for future generations, it's pretty inclusive of anyone who will eventually lose the ability to get a medical. That will end up being the majority of people eventually.
 
Neil Rubin said:
No, you would need to have had a medical (1) within the 10 years prior to enactment or (2) any time after enactment. So, if you had a medical in 2006 (or in 2016), you are good to go forever (assuming you don't develop one of the listed psychiatric, neurological, cardiac, or substance abuse issues that would require you to do a one-time special issuance).
Click to expand...

If true, I hate to say it, but this is probably appropriate to keep the 95 year old, blind, knocking on death's door, hasn't had a medical in 40 years, pilot out of the sky...

Unintended consequences will exist, for sure, but I'll take this over nothing, as it will get me back in the air.

I don't have a copy of my medical anymore though - would I have to find it?
 
Unfortunately, I never applied for a medical so for me I would not be covered under this medical exemption.

But I still am wondering if there is no "denial language" in this exemption, if one were to apply for 3rd class and got denied, would the Sport Pilot Catch 22 still apply? It seems that person isn't better off regarding Sport Pilot Catch 22 than before this exemption would hypothetically were to pass.
 
Something needs to be done.

Considering my closest friends... all males in their early 30s out of 5 of them I think 1 might be able to get their third class without having to go dig up any special documentation or have expensive tests run... and I don't know his full medical history. These aren't particularly unhealthy people either, I wouldn't be afraid to ride in the back seat with any of them at least for any medical reason.

I know that's not a very scientific sampling but these days we do a lot more diagnosis and testing especially in the mental health area that just wasn't the case when they started having these medical certifications. It really needs to be updated for the times.... heck maybe we can make a fourth class medical where you only need to meet the standard of appearing healthy in the examination room and not knowing of anything that you currently have that might make you lose consciousness in the air.... none of this "have you ever in your life..." business
 
So if I understand this correctly then, once it passes, going forward, if you can qualify for a medical once you're good for life?

I guess _everyone_ should go ahead and get a medical when they turn 16 then, and be covered forever.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
dans2992 said:
So if I understand this correctly then, once it passes, going forward, if you can qualify for a medical once you're good for life?
Click to expand...
Not quite. If you develop a condition that falls into one of three categories (certain mental health conditions, including substance dependence within the last two years, certain neurological, and certain cardiovascular conditions), then you have to go through the special issuance process one time only. Though not stated explicitly, it seems that having gotten the one-time SI, after that you merely certify every 24 months (part of certifying you have completed the online medical education course) that you are under a doctor's care for the condition.
I guess _everyone_ should go ahead and get a medical when they turn 16 then, and be covered forever.
Click to expand...
Except that lots of 16 years olds can't qualify for a 3rd class medical because of an ADD/ADHD diagnosis or some other BS psychiatric diagnosis. So this doesn't help them at all.

There are a lot of bad things in this "reform" package, but it does loosen the strings a lot on people who are at least able to get a medical once. It seems geared mostly to help the older generation stay in the air longer. Clearly self serving on the part of certain older private pilot Senators.

That said, if this is the best we can get, I'll take it. It would definitely save me at least a couple of AMUs per year in completely unnecessary medical tests.
 
Last edited:
Can someone define "have had a medical within 10 years"? As in, "A current medical certificate in one's wallet," or as in, "A medical exam in an AME's office."

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Can someone define "have had a medical within 10 years"? As in, "A current medical certificate in one's wallet," or as in, "A medical exam in an AME's office."

dtuuri
Click to expand...

The draft says "the individual holds a medical certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration on the date of enactment of this Act, held such a certificate at any point during the 10-year period preceding such date of enactment . . ."

I would think that it would mean that you qualify if you had a medical that expired less than 10 years ago. So, as long as you had the medical exam after 2003 (if over 40 at the time) or after 2002 (if under 40), and the validity period wasn't shortened due to a special issuance, you should be good to go.
 
Neil Rubin said:
I would think that it would mean that you qualify if you had a medical that expired less than 10 years ago. So, as long as you had the medical exam after 2003 (if over 40 at the time) or after 2002 (if under 40), and the validity period wasn't shortened due to a special issuance, you should be good to go.
Click to expand...

Seems like the word(s) "valid" and/or "current", inserted in the right place(s), would clear up the intent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top