Whiskey Romeo
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2013
- Messages
- 57
- Location
- Central Pennsylvania
- Display Name
Display name:
Whiskey Romeo
What's to stop them from changing the rules and requiring a 'Special Certification' for this also?
Text of the Bill being sent to the President
- Thread starter bbchien
- Start date
What's to stop them from changing the rules and requiring a 'Special Certification' for this also?
MassPilot
Cleared for Takeoff
The bill gives a list of requirements to act as Pilot in Command including getting a "comprehensive medical exam from a State-licensed physician". The way it reads to me, it doesn't seem to allow for the FAA to put additional restrictions on what physician can do the exam unless Congress and the President pass a new bill to change it.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
What planet is this? It's a huge deal. And an affirmative defense costs about $250,000....
flyingriki
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 910
- Display Name
Display name:
flyingriki
"The snag may come once the FAA comes up with the new regulations. Before they can be enacted, they must go to the Department of Transportation for review, Coon noted."
How's that for a loophole to the timing? What a joke.....
How's that for a loophole to the timing? What a joke.....
MassPilot
Cleared for Takeoff
My PCP seemed completely unconcerned, even when I showed him the statement he would sign.
Mike Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,627
- Location
- Prattville, Alabama
- Display Name
Display name:
Fresh Prince of PrattVegas
That the malpractice insurance the doc already has will pay.
ETA, so far I have seen several people post that they have asked their doc and all but one have said its not an issue.
Hank S
En-Route
That's why the 365-day loophole was added. If new rules aren't published and in effect within 365 days, we can fly as if rules matching the bill are in effect. They have thumbed their collective noses at .congress too many times to be trusted . . . Actually, the longer they dawdle, the happier many pilots will be.
MassPilot
Cleared for Takeoff
Exactly. I'm sure AOPA would come up with a checklist matching the law to have your doctor fill out and the law says you can skip the online course if they haven't enacted the rules in a year. The FAA and DOT can drag their feel as long as they want while I fly legally without a medical.
Hank S
En-Route
Don't need any of the Alphabets to make a checklist, just cut and paste from the Bill into your word processor and print it off; Doc can sign and date it at the bottom.
N3368K
Cleared for Takeoff
Given the Class III reform was included in FAA Reauth/Extension and signed into law, why does the HR1062 continue to gain co-sponsors? Apparently someone still wants this passed as a stand alone...perhaps with different language. When all this first happened, I signed up to get notifications for this House Resolution through Congress.gov. A couple of days ago and again this morning, I received notification of new cosponsors. Why?
midcap
Pattern Altitude
I am not an attorney but it looks like they want a version of PBOR without a third class medical if the FAA doesn't publish final regs. It seems like a way out for the FAA to let people fly without a initial 3rd class medical and not having a finger pointed at them if somthing were to happen.
The FAA may not take enforcement action against a pilot of a covered aircraft for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate if the pilot and the flight meet such requirements, unless the FAA has published final regulations under this Act in the Federal Register.
MikeFlies
Filing Flight Plan
Just thought of something. I wonder if the FAA will make the new "medical checklist" the same size as our current medical certificates. Many (most?) of us keep our medical certificates in a little wallet along with our pilot certificate or in our logbook case. Hopefully the FAA thinks about the dimensions and prepares the checklist accordingly such that it will fit in our existing gear.
flyingriki
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 910
- Display Name
Display name:
flyingriki
The dawdling didn't make me happy. Just had to fork out the cash and go throught the BS test again.
denverpilot
Tied Down
It only been what, thirty years or so that copy machines can resize things, and this is what you're worried about? LOL.
MikeFlies
Filing Flight Plan
Well...yeah but I figure the FAA will require us to carry the original signed checklist and not a photocopy. Admittedly I've never looked into whether I can make and carry a copy of my current medical. I always just assumed it had to be the original certificate the doc signed.It only been what, thirty years or so that copy machines can resize things, and this is what you're worried about? LOL.
Hank S
En-Route
My understanding is that the Letter will be kept with our logbook and not carried around like our Medical Cert must be. Then, like our logbooks, it can be produced on demand.
bflynn
Final Approach
I see nothing in the law that requires you to carry your doctor's signoff with you. I have always thought carrying your papers around is silly, as if not having it in your immediate possession means it doesn't exist. In fact, I would rather have it safe at home than risk being damaged.
However, we will see how the FAA implements this when they release the rules. Until then, it is all speculation
However, we will see how the FAA implements this when they release the rules. Until then, it is all speculation
Jeffythequick
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2015
- Messages
- 356
- Location
- Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Jeffythequick
I had a similar discussion with a person at a place where I needed to show ID:
"May I see your driver's license?"
"Yes, here it is..."
"Oh boy, this expires in 4 days. You need to get that renewed."
"I know. The renewal is on its way. What would happen if I didn't get it in time?"
"We can't issue you the library card."
"That's a non-sequitur. You need my ID to know that I am indeed, me. That won't change in 5 days, will it? That just says that my right to drive here in an automobile expires in 4 days, but I'm still me, right, or do I have to renew that too?"
The light of understanding flickered in her eyes, then died.
"Nevertheless, if your license is expired, I can't use it. Here's your library card."
"When does that expire?"
"It doesn't."
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I think the one who objected is probably the smartest of the bunch. Either that or he/she has already been burned by a frivolous malpractice suit. Or both. I also think that the willingness of most doctors to sign these certifications will be very short-lived. The first time a non-AME PCP is successfully sued for certifying to a pilot's fitness, doctors in general will become decidedly more reluctant to do so -- especially once malpractice insurers catch up to the law and start considering signing off on pilots' fitness to be a high-risk medical practice that warrants higher premiums.
AMEs are protected from liability in several ways, one of which is that they don't actually certify that an airman is fit to fly. They just certify that an airman has "met the medical standards prescribed in Part 67" of the FARs for the particular class of medical. It's all very objective; and unless the AME knowingly signs off on someone who doesn't meet some specific standard or another, he or she is pretty well-insulated.
The PBOR requirements, on the other hand, require a physician (who does not need to be an AME, and in most cases presumably will not be) to certify that he or she is "not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft." That's a subjective judgment that creates a much bigger liability risk than the objective certification required of AMEs that the airman meets a set of clearly-defined standards.
This is why from day one, I favored a requirement that pilots (including SPs) who use the DL to satisfy the medical requirements be required to undergo a non-reportable annual physical examination, and nothing more. The receipt for the examination would be the medical.
Alternatively, the FAA could print cards to be signed by physicians which would state only that the physician had performed a physical examination on the airman and discussed the results with him or her. Period. The actual results would be none of anyone's business, neither would the physician have to certify to the pilot's fitness. The only thing that would matter would be that the airman had undergone the examination and discussed the results with the doctor.
Another option would have been to require that the airman obtain the examiner's signature on a form stating that he or she is medically qualified to possess a state driver's license, subject to the usual restrictions (corrective lenses, etc.). Doctors sign those forms all the time, so they're more familiar with the requirements; and if the DL is the standard that FAA is using for low-risk flight operations, then it makes perfect sense that that's all doctors should be required to certify to.
Rich
azure
Final Approach
I certainly can't disagree with you as to the chilling effect such a successful lawsuit would have, but I'm not sure why you would expect that to happen anytime soon. It's not as if medical incapacitation is a common cause of GA accidents to begin with. Or do you expect it to become more common without the "protection" of the 3rd class medical process?
The one recent development that makes me uneasy about all this is the one or two recent NTSB findings of a medical cause where the only evidence was of the existence of a potentially incapacitating condition, and not that it had any bearing on the accident. If this proves to be a new trend then I could see where it could make it far more likely that a doctor would be sued, successfully, for signing off a pilot under the new rules. But I think it's too early to call it a trend.
And the exact wording of the statement the doctor will need to sign is yet to be determined, and a lot will ride on exactly what form that wording takes in the end. Personally I think it's just too early to say either way how this is likely to go.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
No, I don't think it will make any practical difference at all. But the way the system is set up now pretty well insulates AMEs from lawsuits. The lack of that built-in protection of PCPs, along with and the more subjective statement that it appears they will be expected to sign, will make them more attractive targets for litigation. In other words, I don't think the number of incidents will increase, but I believe that the number of lawsuits against doctors will.
Also, the lawsuits wouldn't have to be successful to be chilling.
True enough. Still, if the driver's license is going to be the standard for low-risk flying, then why should the doctor have to certify to anything at all? At most, they should only have to certify that the individual is fit to hold a state driver's license. Asking non-AME doctors to certify to someone's aeromedical fitness puts them in a very difficult and vulnerable position. If they refuse, then they risk losing the patient. But if they agree to do it, they're certifying to something about which they have little or no knowledge or expertise.
Either a non-reportable annual physical requirement, or a requirement that the doctor certify only to the airman's fitness to hold a driver's license, would eliminate that dilemma quite nicely.
Rich
MadseasoN
Line Up and Wait
I had a similar discussion with a person at a place where I needed to show ID:
"May I see your driver's license?"
"Yes, here it is..."
"Oh boy, this expires in 4 days. You need to get that renewed."
"I know. The renewal is on its way. What would happen if I didn't get it in time?"
"We can't issue you the library card."
"That's a non-sequitur. You need my ID to know that I am indeed, me. That won't change in 5 days, will it? That just says that my right to drive here in an automobile expires in 4 days, but I'm still me, right, or do I have to renew that too?"
The light of understanding flickered in her eyes, then died.
"Nevertheless, if your license is expired, I can't use it. Here's your library card."
"When does that expire?"
"It doesn't."
They should be using it to verify your address too. Although I don't think she knew that.
Doctors are already successfully sued as a result of practicing medicine. Considering the reasoning above, why are patients still able to find doctors to treat them?
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
That gets down to simple risk management. Risks that are inherent to an activity and therefore impossible to avoid are accepted and budgeted for. But risks whose potential for liability exceeds their benefits are avoided.
Rich
denverpilot
Tied Down
What's to stop an enterprising attorney from writing up a liability waiver to make pilots sign before the doc signs the FAA paper?
FAA can't directly transfer liability under the law. No reason to allow them to, either.
Surgeons get sued all the time, but patients are forced to sign various stuff saying they'll go to arbitration and/or the dollar amount will be limited, or the surgeon won't do the work.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Some doctors might choose that route. But again, let's remember that surgeons must do surgery in order to be surgeons. The risk is unavoidable. Family doctors don't need to do pilot medicals in order to be family doctors. They can simply refuse and avoid the risk altogether.
Due to a number of lawsuits against doctors doing DOT medical exams for truck drivers over the past 30 or so years, the number of internists and family doctors who were willing to do those examinations had already started to dwindle long before 2014, when DOT fully implemented an FAA-like system that requires medical examiners to be specially trained, tested, and certified before they can issue medical cards.
The last time my DOT medical expired was in 2010. My own internist, who had been issuing my medical cards for years, very apologetically told me that that was no longer doing DOT physicals because of the liability. He told me to go to a doctor in Flushing who specialized in "occupational medicine." That doctor did very little other than DOT and NYC TLC medicals, so for him, the risk was unavoidable. I think he charged $200.00 for them. (The first one I'd ever had done, in the early 1980s, had been $25.00.)
I ultimately wound up downgrading my CDL because I was no longer using it and probably never would again; and three trips to DMV, having to take the written test yet again, and having to cough up the ~$180.00 for the CDL renewal, the $200.00 for the medical, and the $190.00 for the fingerprinting (as if my fingerprints had changed since the last time they took them), were just too much of a bother and expense for a license I would never need again. But my point is that even by 2010, PCPs had soured on doing DOT medicals. I have no reason to think they'd be any more enthusiastic about FAA ones, where the perceived risk is even greater.
Rich
JoseCuervo
En-Route
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,868
- Display Name
Display name:
JoseCuervo
Have you talked to a Dr? Or just making up stuff on their behalf?
I have talked with 2 who said they would gladly sign them off. And one was quite aware of the topic, as her husband is a pilot and we were flying when we had the conversation.
I will be having dinner tonight with a Radiologist, I will ask them. My guess is all the other risks and liabilities she faces in her work, this one won't register as anything that would cause her or her malpractice insurance carrier a reason to pause.
Go takl to a Dr, or two, don't just spread fear and doubt.
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
My doctor shoulder shrugs and signs anything I ask her to. She knows my health and if she did t think I could do it would not sign it. She is familiar with the well documented qualifications and I meet those so it's a no brainer for her. No different then a dot letter they sign all of the time.
azure
Final Approach
In fairness to Rich, I believe his position is that most doctors who currently express willingness to sign pilots off under the new regs will start to think twice about it once the first lawsuits start grinding through the courts. My point is that if that happened, it would be Chicken Little thinking unless the incidence of medical incapacitation in the cockpit rises dramatically once pilots start flying under PBOR2, or appears to as a result of politically driven NTSB findings that would previously not have attributed a particular accident to medical causes. Medical incapacitation is rare enough today that I would not expect even additional premiums to protect yourself (as a physician) against liability for doing this to be terribly expensive. And it's not altogether clear yet whether the statement they'll have to sign will be worded exactly as in the bill. For all we know, it might shake out as something a little closer to what Rich would like to see, though I doubt the criterion will ever be as easy to meet as "fitness to hold a driver's license", as that proposal was apparently DOA with Congress, DOT, the AMA and who knows what other alphabet soup agencies before the real haggling even started.
He's clearly not making up his own experience in trying to renew his DOT medical, and that does seem at least potentially relevant.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I don't think you can lump all doctors together, just as you can't lump all pilots together. Everyone has their own level of risk they are willing to accept. Just because one doctor voices an opinion does not mean that he or she speaks for others.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Talk to them about what? The final language hasn't even been determined yet. Until that happens, all of this is speculative.
Rich
denverpilot
Tied Down
I think the DOT thing may be relevant for some Docs, Rich @RJM62, but we do exactly that biz (software platform for DOT drug screening) and there's all sorts of Docs who don't mind at all. Some even operate out of vans at truck stops. Ha.
I've been voicing that opinion since Doc B voiced his concern about the liability.
There's always going to be a Doc so broke they need the money. Third divorce, had to give up the county club membership, $1.2M still on the mortgage...
LOL. Sad I know, but there's always someone with the piece of paper to do the "Doc" job who isn't necessarily a good Doc, but who needs the cash. The pool of possible options for people who can sign the paper goes from vetted Docs the FAA approves of, to nearly every Doc in the US.
Just by the numbers and the odds, it's not going to be hard to find a signature.
After that, it becomes an insurance numbers game. Is aviation big enough and are aviation lawsuits large enough after that to make it an uninsurable thing? And how long will it take the lawyers to do that? Most cases take years, so it'll be a while before actuaries have hard numbers.
And never rule out the stranglehold insurance biz has on politicians. If it gets too expensive and Docs want to do it, liability doesn't stand in their way very long at all. Medical insurance companies have nearly as much power in DC as the American Bar Assn. They literally buy politicians to gain immunity from many things.
I think it'll take a long time to hash out. Pricing will probably go up, though.
A more direct example: The Docs signing "medical" marijuana cards all over the country, don't pay for the car wrecks of their "patients". Granted they aren't signing papers that say someone is medically fit to drive, but all the Docs have to do is say they're limited to what they can do, or run a bunch of profitable but unnecessary tests to document their opinion, and the paper will get signed. $1000/medical. Here's the liability waiver and head on across the street for an MRI and a CT. We got a good deal on parking the mobile testing truck in the parking lot...
I've been voicing that opinion since Doc B voiced his concern about the liability.
There's always going to be a Doc so broke they need the money. Third divorce, had to give up the county club membership, $1.2M still on the mortgage...
LOL. Sad I know, but there's always someone with the piece of paper to do the "Doc" job who isn't necessarily a good Doc, but who needs the cash. The pool of possible options for people who can sign the paper goes from vetted Docs the FAA approves of, to nearly every Doc in the US.
Just by the numbers and the odds, it's not going to be hard to find a signature.
After that, it becomes an insurance numbers game. Is aviation big enough and are aviation lawsuits large enough after that to make it an uninsurable thing? And how long will it take the lawyers to do that? Most cases take years, so it'll be a while before actuaries have hard numbers.
And never rule out the stranglehold insurance biz has on politicians. If it gets too expensive and Docs want to do it, liability doesn't stand in their way very long at all. Medical insurance companies have nearly as much power in DC as the American Bar Assn. They literally buy politicians to gain immunity from many things.
I think it'll take a long time to hash out. Pricing will probably go up, though.
A more direct example: The Docs signing "medical" marijuana cards all over the country, don't pay for the car wrecks of their "patients". Granted they aren't signing papers that say someone is medically fit to drive, but all the Docs have to do is say they're limited to what they can do, or run a bunch of profitable but unnecessary tests to document their opinion, and the paper will get signed. $1000/medical. Here's the liability waiver and head on across the street for an MRI and a CT. We got a good deal on parking the mobile testing truck in the parking lot...
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
For those who haven't heard it, our own Doctor Bruce was on SimpleFlight Radio in August talking about this topic. You can listen to his conversation here: http://www.simpleflight.net/podcast/all-star-ame-august-21st-2016
That is a GREAT interview!
hockeyrcks9901
Pre-takeoff checklist
In most states, a person cannot waive liability for negligence or malpractice only for inherit risks in an event. Basically if I go sky diving and the re-packer of the chute negligently repacked and I get hurt; then I can sue regardless of any waiver I signed. However, if I twist my ankle upon landing I can't because it wasn't the fault of the sky diving operation or instructor.
denverpilot
Tied Down
They're still going to have the paperwork signed though, so they can introduce in court that you were fully advised of the limitations and risks if it ever makes it to a jury, which 80%+ of cases do not.
Insurance is going to be a big deal ,real big. i was in insurance for 35 years. ANYTIME a underwriter or a actuary hears the word airplane they usually say NO because of the news that they watch/read, that portrays aircraft as evil machines.insurance rules a large portion of everyone's life now. were is your house located? do you have a dog,a pool ,diving board,any young drivers?your credit score? do you smoke, drink, scuba ,fly,is your alarm central station? how many hp is your boat? on and on .most underwriters are low IQ buffoons afraid to loose there **** jobs and always say no to things they know nothing about.not to mention med malpractice is very specialized and unique and already on the balls of its ass. also there are no cowboys working for the few company's that write that coverage. why would they say yes ,
they might get fired when the first claim comes in the door. and i dont mean PAID claim just defense. And
also most "liability" policies written NOW have exclusions for claims arising or having anything to do with watercraft,aircraft,auto,employee injury. how many doctors read there insurance policies?
they might get fired when the first claim comes in the door. and i dont mean PAID claim just defense. And
also most "liability" policies written NOW have exclusions for claims arising or having anything to do with watercraft,aircraft,auto,employee injury. how many doctors read there insurance policies?
palmpilot thanks for the link i just spent 50 minutes that was very worthwhile i said to myself most people who read my above post will think i listened before i posted . Dr Chien is a great speaker and everyone who posted on this thread should listen to his podcast and forget my post .he is the real deal. everyone's lsa aircraft just doubled in price