Has anyone considered that the whole approach of both the FAA and AOPA/EAA to the third-class medical conundrum is a completely bass-ackwards, Rube Goldberg approach to the problem?
The problem as I see it is that the requirements for the third-class medical are obsolete. They were based largely on standards developed for military aviators, and date back to a time when airplanes were more physically demanding to fly than they are now. In addition, the standards were developed before modern medicine rendered manageable (or in some cases, curable) many conditions that formerly would have been legitimately grounding.
The FAA's approach to this conundrum is to retain the old standards, which are unnecessarily strict in view of the changes in medicine and in aviation itself; but to also provide a "special issuance" process by which more than 90 percent of the airmen who don't meet the standards can be certified, anyway if they spend enough money and jump through enough hoops.
It's really a bit absurd because the letters that come with every SI confirm the essential disconnect between the medical standards versus what is really necessary for flight safety. The letters state that the airman to whom the certificate has been issued doesn't meet the standards for that certificate, but that his or her continuing to exercise the privileges for which he or she is not qualified will not endanger aviation safety. Doesn't that say something about the standards themselves?
The other alternative is the SP rule and the DL medical, which in most states means little more than that the holder was neither too blind nor too senile to find the DMV office when renewal time rolled around. I say "most" because I recently learned that Pennsylvania actually requires a medical examination to get a non-commercial driver's license. More about that in a moment.
Getting back to aviation, neither the SI approach nor the SP rule address the essential question of why the third-class requirements themselves aren't revisited. Considering that FAA itself approves > 90 percent of SIs after a sufficient amount of bureaucratic rigmarole and hoop-jumping, and further exempts an entire class of pilots who need only prove that they're neither too blind nor too demented to find the nearest DMV office, is it unreasonable to suggest that perhaps the third-class medical standards themselves are the problem?
I mentioned Pennsylvania earlier. They require that a candidate's health care provider sign off on his or her driver's license application. I must say, PennDOT has managed to distill driver fitness into its very essence. The medical statement is on the top of page two of
this form.
I really can't think of a good reason why something like that, based on an airman's
current medical condition, wouldn't be sufficient for domestic non-commercial flight operations, for light aircraft with six or fewer souls on board. It wouldn't cut it for international flight because of ICAO requirements; but for those who don't fly outside the United States, anyway, the entire third-class medical could be reduced to something very much like the PennDOT requirements, with no reduction in aviation safety.
In fact, it probably would improve safety by reducing the number of aviators who avoid doctors and ignore maladies for fear of losing their medicals.
-Rich
When did Republicans stand up for GA?
