Text of the Bill being sent to the President

The initial premise was simple: Sport pilots fly with nothing more than self-certification and a drivers license and that does not seem to be a problem. Let's make the same rule for private pilots. What we got was a regulation that, for those of us in good health, is something more costly and onerous than a standard 3rd class medical exam. We were sold out, folks. Sold out by the AOPA, by the politicians, and by the medical profession.
 
Old Geek said:
The initial premise was simple: Sport pilots fly with nothing more than self-certification and a drivers license and that does not seem to be a problem. Let's make the same rule for private pilots. What we got was a regulation that, for those of us in good health, is something more costly and onerous than a standard 3rd class medical exam. We were sold out, folks. Sold out by the AOPA, by the politicians, and by the medical profession.
Click to expand...


How were you sold out??

They got what they could, and, quite frankly, it is an improvement over what the current system offers.

You can't let great be the enemy of good. This is a good improvement.
 
JoseCuervo said:
How were you sold out??

They got what they could, and, quite frankly, it is an improvement over what the current system offers.

You can't let great be the enemy of good. This is a good improvement.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't get it either. This is superior to even what AOPA/EAA were asking for. More expensive and onerous? Heck my insurance will pay for a physical every four years. It just got much cheaper for me. Sure, I would have liked the DL medical, but this is a good start.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this:

"LOGBOOK.—The completed checklist shall be retained
in the individual’s logbook and made available on request."

So instead of keeping your medical in your wallet, we will be required to carry a doctor's checklist at all times? Splendid. (Maybe Sportys will invent a logbook with the checklist printed in the back.
Click to expand...

If you are not a Sport Pilot which FAR requires you to carry your logbook with you while operating an Aircraft?
 
I didn't see a requirement to carry the checklist or the logbook, only to be available on request. Your logbook not, currently, required to be carried while flying.
 
Old Geek said:
The initial premise was simple: Sport pilots fly with nothing more than self-certification and a drivers license and that does not seem to be a problem. Let's make the same rule for private pilots. What we got was a regulation that, for those of us in good health, is something more costly and onerous than a standard 3rd class medical exam. We were sold out, folks. Sold out by the AOPA, by the politicians, and by the medical profession.
Click to expand...
While I understand your concern, someday you may not be in "good health", as defined by the FAA, and may have to had to "prove yourself innocent" to them. This law makes it, except in certain cases, between you and your doctor, who probably wouldn't want you flying, driving, or from reading those cases, roller skating.
 
Old Geek said:
What we got was a regulation that, for those of us in good health, is something more costly and onerous than a standard 3rd class medical exam.
Click to expand...


So if you prefer the existing standard 3rd class exam, just do that! It didn't go away, and if you prefer things as they have been, you certainly have the option to keep doing what you've been doing.

I can't see how you've suffered any harm as a result of the change. Either you can take advantage of the new rule, or you can ignore it completely and continue as before. The change will help many people, and it doesn't make things any worse for the rest.
 
Half Fast said:
I can't see how you've suffered any harm as a result of the change. Either you can take advantage of the new rule, or you can ignore it completely and continue as before. The change will help many people, and it doesn't make things any worse for the rest.
Click to expand...
And for those who prefer to apply for a medical certificate, it should reduce the wait for the FAA to process deferrals and SI applications.
 
bluerooster said:
What I find interesting is that the new law plainly states that the FAA has 180 days to get the rules published. But
the EAA write-up mentions a full year, and gives the date of Jul 2017 as the deadline. Last time I checked 180 days
would be closer to six months.
Click to expand...

The FAA has 180 days (6 months) to issue the new regs in compliance with this new law.

If they do not have new regs issued in twice that time (360 days, call it a year), then we can fly as if regs matching the law have been issued.

Much better than when Congress told FAA to rewrite the Part 23 Certification regs in a year, and FAA told them, "sorry, we can't do that" and over three years later nothing has happened . . .
 
Question came up last night as to how many passengers can be carried. I remembered that it was stated two different ways, but not what the ways were.

You may fly an airplane with up to six seats. But you can only carry five passengers.
 
Old Geek said:
The initial premise was simple: Sport pilots fly with nothing more than self-certification and a drivers license and that does not seem to be a problem. Let's make the same rule for private pilots. What we got was a regulation that, for those of us in good health, is something more costly and onerous than a standard 3rd class medical exam. We were sold out, folks. Sold out by the AOPA, by the politicians, and by the medical profession.
Click to expand...

I agree it isn't what I had hoped for but it IS better than what we have. I would have loved a simple Drivers License Medical but we also got a few things more than expected in the privilege department that were not in the initial proposal.

I fail to see how it is more costly and onerous? I get a physical every year from my doctor anyway (if you don't you should) my insurance covers it. On top of that this is every 4 years if you choose instead of every 2 unless you are a young whipper snapper. If your doctor says you have an issue with something and it may effect flying you can work with them to resolve it not have to PROVE to the FAA it is resolved. When he/she feels it is resolved they can sign and between you and me you could always shop a doc that will sign it if yours won't. As was said you can always still get a class 3. SIs virtually go away.

The one part that kinda stinks is having to get a 3rd class the first time. That will still keep a lot of people who probably could fly out.
 
Last edited:
Jeffythequick said:
If you do, which dog doesn't get one? :eek:
Click to expand...
Wow, math really is hard.

I'm okay with the outcome. I get.a physical every year from my PCP anyway. Every 4th year I will just bring the form along. It also save me the money spent on the yearly SI reports and tests, not to mention the down time waiting for the FAA to send the OK>
 
Whiskey Romeo said:
Wow, math really is hard.

I'm okay with the outcome. I get.a physical every year from my PCP anyway. Every 4th year I will just bring the form along. It also save me the money spent on the yearly SI reports and tests, not to mention the down time waiting for the FAA to send the OK>
Click to expand...
Heck, bring the form every year. That will reset the clock every year and it will keep your doctor in practice.
 
Jeffythequick said:
42 (dogs = 7 humans, at least in years, so I figured.... 7 dog pilots plus 35 dog passengers)

Plus, more evidence that's the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
Click to expand...

What, "dogs" is the answer to life, the universe and everything? Glad to know,since I have one sleeping in my lap right now. I got life licked! Oh, excuse me, I got licked by life tonight . .
 
I know the rules have to be written but question...

If getting a 3rd class is fine for us (usually cheaper than a physical) is the renewal time (for those under 40) still 5 years?
 
As is often the case, I liked P. Bertorelli's recent synopsis best, including comments by a well respected AME. Nobody knows what the heck (ok admins?) rules will say or how long they'll drag it out. Obviously 180 days and a year are quite far apart and leaves the option of whatever ahole (sorry admins) bureaucrats held this up first at FAA then DOT plenty of time to either screw things up or litigate or file for delays or whatever other bureaucratic crap they can come up with and are SO good at. Won't be the first time.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but thinking optimistically about anyone, or anything, coming out of DC is about as stupid as trusting gas station sushi. You may have had better luck with your fantasies....?
 
Whiskey Romeo said:
Wow, math really is hard.

I'm okay with the outcome. I get.a physical every year from my PCP anyway. Every 4th year I will just bring the form along. It also save me the money spent on the yearly SI reports and tests, not to mention the down time waiting for the FAA to send the OK>
Click to expand...

You could, in theory, take the form along every year... and have a rolling 4 year period... Doesn't cost any extra..
 
flyingriki said:
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but thinking optimistically about anyone, or anything, coming out of DC is about as stupid as trusting gas station sushi. You may have had better luck with your fantasies....?
Click to expand...
I'm in wait-and-see mode.

By the way, is the Bertorelli article available on the Web?
 
Also, scan it save it, to your phone or the cloud, email it to whomever requested it...voila available upon request!

and

DON'T PANIC!
 
Last edited:
iflyatiger said:
I hate to be the one to say this and I hope that I am wrong but what non aviation doctor is going to sign this ?

"iv) to sign the checklist, stating: ‘‘I certify that I discussed all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination, discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere with their ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle, and performed an examination that included all of the items on this checklist. I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.’’; and "

How many are going to say they have no idea what it takes to safely operate an aircraft and are not going to put their livelihood on the line by signing this.. ?
Click to expand...

Mike Smith said:
There is a thread over on the red board about this. There are a couple of hand wringers that don't think any doc in their right mind would sign it. However there are maybe a dozen, I am one, who have asked their doc who has said, "sure. I'll sign it". It really isn't any more exposure than they already face and that's why they all have malpractice insurance. I'd bet money that most doc's will sign it as long as what they are signing is true.
Click to expand...

steingar said:
Docs sign things all the time, its part of the job description. I suspect this'll be a non-issue. And you can always go back to your AME and get your third class if that works for you.
Click to expand...

At our annual club hangar/airplane clean-up session this morning this subject came up a couple time. The first with a member who happens to be a senior AME and knows Bruce personally (BTW, Bruce, he says you need to wipe your mustache when eating. :) ). He is concerned about the liability issues for PCPs. He's not convinced that their insurance will cover them if someone has an accident and the lawyers decide to sue the doctor, as well. He's not worried about himself and the plaintiff would also have to go after the FAA, and we can guess how successful that would be. He feels that this was done in a vacuum and it will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

The second discussion was with another member of the board of the club. His concern is how the insurance companies will deal with this. We already have a question on the insurance renewal form each year asking that we confirm that we have a 90 day requirement for checkouts (which we do not). Our requirement for a full flight review every year seems to keep the insurance company happy. When we had the Arrow the insurance company required that we have a requirement that you had to fly it at least 3 hours in a 180 day period or get signed off by a CFI again. The wanted to make sure you remembered to lower the gear before landing. As to how they will handle this, he asked and they don't know at this point. I suspect that some actuary (or three) will be crunching the numbers based on Sport Pilot experiences to estimate the actual risk for the insurance company. What they come up with as a requirement is anybody's guess at this point.

I'd love to see this work. One less hassle every year (for those of us with SIs) if it works. We shall see...

FastEddieB said:
I do not read "made available on request" as meaning "must be carried at all times".
Click to expand...

I don't either. And as my logbook only makes it to the airport when I'm going to need a CFI or CFII's signature for something, I'll make it available if someone in authority needs to see it, but I sure won't carry it in my flight bag.
 
Hank S said:
The FAA has 180 days (6 months) to issue the new regs in compliance with this new law.

If they do not have new regs issued in twice that time (360 days, call it a year), then we can fly as if regs matching the law have been issued.

Much better than when Congress told FAA to rewrite the Part 23 Certification regs in a year, and FAA told them, "sorry, we can't do that" and over three years later nothing has happened . . .
Click to expand...
So what happens in the interim between the 180 day deadline, and the 360 days?
 
bluerooster said:
So what happens in the interim between the 180 day deadline, and the 360 days?
Click to expand...
If the FAA complies, then we likely have a NPRM happening. But if you are asking "if the FAA does nothing", then my opinion is we will be continuing to watch the calendar wind down, and waiting for July 2017 to happen.

But much is still a guess until it actually happens.
 
bluerooster said:
So what happens in the interim between the 180 day deadline, and the 360 days?
Click to expand...

Yep, we wait . . . Maybe they will have something ready to submit in 180 days, maybe DOT will sit on it like they have done the last couple of years. But if nothing is issued by Day #360, then we get to fly as if what is in the legislation was submitted and approved, at least until something IS issued and approved.
 
I asked the question over on the Red, but got no answer, are there any cases where an AME was sued for failing to find an issue with a pilot who became incapacitated and crashed? Does anyone know if this has ever happened? I have done a quick Google search, but didn't really find anything.
 
Mike Smith said:
I asked the question over on the Red, but got no answer, are there any cases where an AME was sued for failing to find an issue with a pilot who became incapacitated and crashed? Does anyone know if this has ever happened? I have done a quick Google search, but didn't really find anything.
Click to expand...

I've been able to find one case, from over 30 years ago: Berman v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 1486 (N.D. Ga. 1983). There, the plaintiff (apparently the wife, daughter, or mother of someone who died in a crash) got past summary judgment on their claims against the AME for alleged failure to perform an adequate EKG test on the pilot. The parties probably settled after summary judgment.

It's certainly possible to sue an AME for negligently performing a medical exam, but such suits seem to be quite rare.
 
Neil Rubin said:
I've been able to find one case, from over 30 years ago: Berman v. United States, 572 F. Supp. 1486 (N.D. Ga. 1983). There, the plaintiff (apparently the wife, daughter, or mother of someone who died in a crash) got past summary judgment on their claims against the AME for alleged failure to perform an adequate EKG test on the pilot. The parties probably settled after summary judgment.

It's certainly possible to sue an AME for negligently performing a medical exam, but such suits seem to be quite rare.
Click to expand...
I don't think the docs signing will be an issue..like others have said, they sign for other things all the time with equal liability. In the highly unlikely event they signed off on a wacko who dive bombs a church, and they get sued, that's what malpractice/liability insurance is for. A doc chose a career in medicine in a sue happy world, so they have to accept that risk in general. These docs already sign off on DOT physicals as it is for truck drivers, etc, correct? And those are commercial ops where a driver could be hauling fissile material. We are talking about people flying Cessnas.. I just don't see how your average doc in a box at patient first won't just glance over you say whatever and sign.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
libby2cm said:
I don't think the docs signing will be an issue..like others have said, they sign for other things all the time with equal liability. In the highly unlikely event they signed off on a wacko who dive bombs a church, and they get sued, that's what malpractice/liability insurance is for. A doc chose a career in medicine in a sue happy world, so they have to accept that risk in general. These docs already sign off on DOT physicals as it is for truck drivers, etc, correct? And those are commercial ops where a driver could be hauling fissile material. We are talking about people flying Cessnas.. I just don't see how your average doc in a box at patient first won't just glance over you say whatever and sign.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I just got back from my annual physical with my PCP and I brought up the new law and even showed him the text of the bill with the items on the medical exam checklist as well as the declaration he would need to sign. He looked it over and without the slightest bit of hesitation said that it would be no problem. He mentioned that it looked similar to the DOT exams he used to do for truckers until apparently they changed the rules and special certification was needed to do them.

I then brought up the fact that I have a retina disorder called Lattice Degeneration (I'm on a Special Issuance for it with a 1 year renewal hence my strong interest in this law) and would be required to disclose it to him. I told him that I could provide a note from my Ophthalmologist. He said to just have him write a note that my vision is currently normal (which it is) and he would have no problem signing the form.

He really didn't seem the least bit concerned about liability issues or anything like that.
 
Yeah, I don't understand why people think this is some sort of issue. Doc's get sued all the time for allckinds of stuff, this is no big deal to most.
 
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