Third Class Meidcal Exemption

[Kevin87]

Well I received this info from the AOPA today.

Today, I’m pleased to let you know that these bills now have a total of 113 co-sponsors in the U.S. House and Senate – with more elected officials adding their names each and every week.

Based on this momentum in Congress, FAA can see the writing on the wall. They know we mean business. And in response to this overwhelming show of support in Congress, FAA has announced that it will begin a rulemaking process to expand the Third Class Medical exemption to more pilots.

But nothing is certain right now. And in the weeks ahead, AOPA must continue to fight on both these fronts with all the strength we can muster. We need to keep these bills moving forward in Congress. And we need to increase our pressure on FAA to move forward with reforms that will expand the Third Class Medical exemption to the maximum number of pilots as quickly as possible.

We’re meeting almost every day with elected officials in the House and Senate – urging more elected officials to throw their support behind H.R. 3708 and S. 2103. Every new co-sponsor helps make it clear to FAA that, unless they take action – and do it quickly – Congress will step in and force them to act.

I’m now 100% convinced that we are finally moving decision makers in the right direction. But I need your support to keep the momentum in our favor. And I hope you’ll consider making a special contribution to AOPA today to help fund our legislative and political efforts to expand the Third Class Medical exemption to as many pilots as we can, as soon as we can.

I think this is good news. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[RJM62]

One would think the FAA would be happy to reduce the paperwork load of processing third-class SIs for low-risk pilots puttering around in 152s on the weekends, in order to free resources to deal with more important cases. But I guess one would be wrong.

I also guess that FAA will come out with an alternative proposal that raises the MTOW to approximately ~2400, max souls on board to four, day VFR only. Kind of like SP on steroids. No night, IFR, complex, or HP. They might also add some new restriction straight out of the Book of the Bizarre like maximum amount of fuel on board or something equally asinine.

The goal will be to craft a rule that contains at least one killer provision that effectively prevents anyone from ever using it.

Then again, I could be wrong. I've always had this tendency to be cynical...

-Rich

 

[poadeleted20]

Latest information I have from inside 800 Independence Ave is that the FAA may preempt Congress and make this happen in a manner similar to that bill before Congress passes it -- perhaps as soon as AirVenture this summer.

 

[Kevin87]

Latest information I have from inside 800 Independence Ave is that the FAA may preempt Congress and make this happen in a manner similar to that bill before Congress passes it -- perhaps as soon as AirVenture this summer.

Interesting. I heard there were mumblings at sun and fun about the FAA doing something first.

 

[frfly172]

The FAA will probably try to pre empt the congress. Don't want to loose control.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA will probably try to pre empt the congress. Don't want to loose control.

My information is that the FAA's motivation is otherwise, and more in line with what RJM62 theorized a couple of posts above. There is some new blood in Flight Standards with a more reasonable attitude than many of us are used to, and I think you'll see more changes like this in the future in the airman certification arena.

 

[dans2992]

Latest information I have from inside 800 Independence Ave is that the FAA may preempt Congress and make this happen in a manner similar to that bill before Congress passes it -- perhaps as soon as AirVenture this summer.

I'm thinking this would be massively positive for the industry.

They should really consider removing the IFR restriction too.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm thinking this would be massively positive for the industry.

...unless you build/sell/rent out LSA's -- to quote my source, "This will probably be the death of LSA's."

They should really consider removing the IFR restriction too.

That's going to take time -- the FAA (even under more reasonable leadership) isn't going to do that until they've had some time to evaluate the results of expanding the DL exemption to larger aircraft -- the scenario from Airport 1975 may seem unrealistic to us, but it is not impossible for some in government to imagine. What would kill the whole program would be a bunch of pilots going flying with serious medical histories that would disqualify them from medical certification, having an inflight incapacitation, and crashing (especially in a loud and public manner, like into an airliner or densely populated area). OTOH, if we can go several years of Day VFR-only DL-based operations without a significant uptick in medically-related accidents, your suggestion becomes a lot more salable.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Any opening up of common GA planes to thirdclassless pilots would be fantastic. Except, as noted by Ron, for the LSA business. Oh well I'd rather have more freedom then an aircraft class that exists only because of rules.

 

[Kevin87]

I disagree with LSA'S dying from this. LSA is a good market for affordability. The rotax engines are pretty efficient and saves quite a bit of money because of lower fuel burn.

This will totally help GA because medicals scare people away

 

[dans2992]

So, why would pilot incapacitation be any more serious IFR than VFR. In either case, the plane is likely to follow the same path to the crash site....?

Are they thinking that under VFR it would be more likely that a passenger would take over?

 

[dans2992]

LSA's are affordable to operate. Generally though they are unaffordable to acquire (compared to used certified AC like 172s, Archers, etc)

 

[Kevin87]

So, why would pilot incapacitation be any more serious IFR than VFR. In either case, the plane is likely to follow the same path to the crash site....?

Are they thinking that under VFR it would be more likely that a passenger would take over?

This is a good question. I am not sure what is so special about IFR to make it require a medical.

 

[steingar]

This is a good question. I am not sure what is so special about IFR to make it require a medical.

Higher work load, and a great deal more cognitive function to put it on the ground safely.

I fear the FAA will screw the pooch. They're going to spend all their time drafting the rule that does the least without ticking off the Congresscritters.

 

[DFH65]

I wonder what this will do to airplane prices?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Higher work load, and a great deal more cognitive function to put it on the ground safely.

I fear the FAA will screw the pooch. They're going to spend all their time drafting the rule that does the least without ticking off the Congresscritters.

IMC is higher work load, IFR is not. Scud running in MVFR is stressful.

IFR in the LA Basin is less stressful than VFR.

 

[steingar]

IMC is higher work load, IFR is not. Scud running in MVFR is stressful.

IFR in the LA Basin is less stressful than VFR.

But requires greater cognitive ability and training, as in you need a boatload of training to fly IFR.

 

[Neil Rubin]

Latest information I have from inside 800 Independence Ave is that the FAA may preempt Congress and make this happen in a manner similar to that bill before Congress passes it -- perhaps as soon as AirVenture this summer.

Wow, that's huge.

When you say "similar to that bill before Congress," is it sounding like they would allow night VFR, six-seater twins, turboprops, helicopters, etc.--i.e., just about any flying someone without an instrument rating is ever likely to do and more--or that they would allow something much more limited, like what the AOPA/EAA exemption petition proposes?

 

[Jeff Oslick]

But requires greater cognitive ability and training, as in you need a boatload of training to fly IFR.

Yes, but that is all dual time. If you have cognition problems, they'll be revealed in the training and practical test.

 

[dans2992]

Cognitive abilities are not evaluated on a 3rd (or any?) class medical though.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Cognitive abilities are not evaluated on a 3rd (or any?) class medical though.

I believe AME are directed to note cognitive ability without directly testing it. Not sure how one fails a subjective non test but they are supposed to be paying attention.

 

[steingar]

Look, if flying IFR were so gosh darn easy you wouldn't need an extra 40 hours of training and another check ride just to do it. Things that are harder to do require more of your attention, which can be distracted by little things like unbearable pain or catastrophic illness. Figuring out where you are with instruments takes more attention than just looking out the bloody window.

 

[nddons]

Latest information I have from inside 800 Independence Ave is that the FAA may preempt Congress and make this happen in a manner similar to that bill before Congress passes it -- perhaps as soon as AirVenture this summer.

To soften the blow for $400k of ATC services?

 

[Ghery]

Look, if flying IFR were so gosh darn easy you wouldn't need an extra 40 hours of training and another check ride just to do it. Things that are harder to do require more of your attention, which can be distracted by little things like unbearable pain or catastrophic illness. Figuring out where you are with instruments takes more attention than just looking out the bloody window.

No argument from me. I passed my PP checkride on the first time. Took a re-test to get my IR. And I had been flying for 10 years when I had that ride.

 

[dmspilot]

So, why would pilot incapacitation be any more serious IFR than VFR. In either case, the plane is likely to follow the same path to the crash site....?

Are they thinking that under VFR it would be more likely that a passenger would take over?

They are probably thinking that there is more to whether one's health is conducive to safe flying than the probability of total incapacitation.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Look, if flying IFR were so gosh darn easy you wouldn't need an extra 40 hours of training and another check ride just to do it. Things that are harder to do require more of your attention, which can be distracted by little things like unbearable pain or catastrophic illness. Figuring out where you are with instruments takes more attention than just looking out the bloody window.

Except this ignores the bodies inherent responses to suppress pain during times of "fight or flight" - i.e., the adrenaline rush.

I'm not claiming it is a zero-added-risk proposition for DL medicals for IFR flying, but there is real risk in restricting pilots to VFR when conditions are marginal VMC.

 

[dans2992]

Also, it would encourage IFR rated pilots without a medical to NOT remain IFR current because their IFR skills couldn't legally be used.

 

[nddons]

Except this ignores the bodies inherent responses to suppress pain during times of "fight or flight" - i.e., the adrenaline rush.



I'm not claiming it is a zero-added-risk proposition for DL medicals for IFR flying, but there is real risk in restricting pilots to VFR when conditions are marginal VMC.

That's a good point. I suspect that risk is orders of magnitude greater than incapacitation or illness while in IMC.

Look at that idiot Cirrus pilot flying to The Chicago area a few years ago in MVFR. He was taking his daughter and her friend to college if I recall. Killed them all.

 

[bullwinkle]

Any opening up of common GA planes to thirdclassless pilots would be fantastic. Except, as noted by Ron, for the LSA business. Oh well I'd rather have more freedom then an aircraft class that exists only because of rules.

I own an LSA...I'd rather have relaxed standards for medicals and get more pilots flying than to maintain the full current value of my airplane.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I own an LSA...I'd rather have relaxed standards for medicals and get more pilots flying than to maintain the full current value of my airplane.

That is noble. Owners will survive, LSA based businesses, which there probably aren't many, might not. I would guess the weight shift and powered parachute LSA situation will stay the same.

 

[Neil Rubin]

That is noble. Owners will survive, LSA based businesses, which there probably aren't many, might not. I would guess the weight shift and powered parachute LSA situation will stay the same.

It looks like the some of the more successful LSA manufacturers, like Flight Design and Pipistrel, are already planning to use the expertise they developed making S-LSAs to build higher-performance 4-seaters, likely under the rewritten Part 23 rules which will be more like the current S-LSA certification rules. (I would expect to see Van's join them at some point.) Even if LSA sales fall as a result of medical reform, I'd expect to see these companies do okay.

Existing LSA resale values will likely suffer, though you could imagine things like STCs that would bump the max gross up above 1320 lbs, if the airframes are strong enough to handle it and they comply with the forthcoming Part 23 standards. (Who knows if the FAA would actually allow such a thing or if anyone will have sufficient economic incentive to push the necessary paperwork, but it is at least conceivable, as the line between under 1320 lbs and above 1320 lbs blurs from both the aircraft certification and the airman certification standpoints.)

 

[poadeleted20]

I disagree with LSA'S dying from this. LSA is a good market for affordability. The rotax engines are pretty efficient and saves quite a bit of money because of lower fuel burn.

Looking purely at fuel cost, perhaps, but when you compare the initial cost, durability, and performance of a 1980 Cessna 152 with a 2012 Cessna 162, nobody's going to buy a Skycatcher.

 

[poadeleted20]

Higher work load, and a great deal more cognitive function to put it on the ground safely.

I think that's an accurate assessment.

I fear the FAA will screw the pooch. They're going to spend all their time drafting the rule that does the least without ticking off the Congresscritters.

You can believe that if you wish, but my information suggests the FAA plan will allow pretty much the same as what the proposed bill would allow.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wow, that's huge.

When you say "similar to that bill before Congress," is it sounding like they would allow night VFR, six-seater twins, turboprops, helicopters, etc.--i.e., just about any flying someone without an instrument rating is ever likely to do and more--or that they would allow something much more limited, like what the AOPA/EAA exemption petition proposes?

I think it would be more like the AOPA/EAA proposal, at least for the first few years, but it's very hard to predict what will come out of the sausage factory. But even if it's just simple singles under 6000 MGW, that would be a huge deal for the pilot population. I suspect that the percentage of people flying turboprops, helos, twins, etc, in operations currently requiring only a Third Class is quite a small fraction of the total pilot population currently requiring only a Third Class.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, but that is all dual time. If you have cognition problems, they'll be revealed in the training and practical test.

That's fine, but what if you took that training and practical test 30 years ago? Are your cognitive skills still as good at age 65 as they were at age 35? And that's the big issue, since I'm pretty sure the vast majority of pilots who would gain significantly from this change are older folks who've been flying a long time.

 

[jbarrass]

I think that's an accurate assessment.

You can believe that if you wish, but my information suggests the FAA plan will allow pretty much the same as what the proposed bill would allow.

Glad your sources don't consider it DOA anymore..... They've had a real change of heart.

 

[azure]

That's fine, but what if you took that training and practical test 30 years ago? Are your cognitive skills still as good at age 65 as they were at age 35? And that's the big issue, since I'm pretty sure the vast majority of pilots who would gain significantly from this change are older folks who've been flying a long time.

Theoretically, cognitive impairment could be detected during a flight review. It might require further training of CFIs to detect subtle problems in airmen they've never met before, though.

I'd worry that the FAA might start requiring cognitive screening for all airmen over 65 or some such age.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe AME are directed to note cognitive ability without directly testing it.

Greg is correct.

Not sure how one fails a subjective non test but they are supposed to be paying attention.

Bruce Chien has discussed the procedures and methods several times both on the forums and on some podcasts. Note from 14 CFR 67.397:

(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds—
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.

This is the section the FAA used to pull Bob Hoover's medical, and the case file on that discusses the various tools available to evaluate an airman whose cognitive skills are considered suspect by either an AME or an Operations Inspector.

 

[SportPilotCO]

LSA's are affordable to operate. Generally though they are unaffordable to acquire (compared to used certified AC like 172s, Archers, etc)

I disagree with this assertion. For a new LSA versus a new certified plane the LSA is cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly and cheaper to maintain. If you compare against used certified planes and new LSA's the used certified planes will cost less, but still may be more expensive to maintain and operate, depending on engine choices, etc. I own a S-LSA and have a medical. For me the main advantages are that the plane is only 5 years old, has new a new glass panel, including an in panel 796, burns 5-5.5 max per hour on cross countries, and is cheap to maintain. If I want to upgrade the radio or glass panel it is less than it would cost for new parts for a certified plane and all I need is a LOA from the factory. I did this when I panel mounted and integrated the Garmin 796. So I get that a lot of people are upset that the new LSA missed the mark of the $50K plane but I think for slightly more money it is a lot better plane.

Carl

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not claiming it is a zero-added-risk proposition for DL medicals for IFR flying, but there is real risk in restricting pilots to VFR when conditions are marginal VMC.

Only if those pilots' cognitive skills have deteriorated to the point they cannot make competent go/no-go decisions, but instead feel compelled to launch regardless of the unsuitability of the weather.