Upcoming FAA Action on DL Medical?

QuiQuog

QuiQuog

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
145
Display Name
Display name:
Hobo Djoe
So according to AOPA president talking on AOPA Live, the FAA may be taking some kind of action in the coming weeks on the DL medical front. No clues on what it may be though.

1. What do you think is the minimum the FAA would need to do to make a significant positive change?
2. What do you think they're likely to announce?
 
1. What do you think is the minimum the FAA would need to do to make a significant positive change?
Click to expand...

Hard to say. There are some big issues to get square with, such as airmen who have past DUI's, drug offenses, and neurocog issues. It's not as simple as saying "If you hold a DL, you automatically can be a part 91 pilot."

2. What do you think they're likely to announce?
Click to expand...
Hart to say when this will come out of committee to a vote on the legislative floor. Too easy for this legislation to get supplanted by other issues of perceived increased importance.
 
QuiQuog said:
1. What do you think is the minimum the FAA would need to do to make a significant positive change?
Click to expand...
Absent passage by Congress and signature by the President of the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013, currently referred to the House committee with no other Congressional action pending (not even introduced in the Senate), I think the FAA will do absolutely nothing but respond to questions from the House committee currently holding the bill.

2. What do you think they're likely to announce?
Click to expand...
I think the FAA is unlikely to announce anything in advance of the bill's passage by both houses of Congress.
 
The FAA will probably continue to sit on there hands,until told to do otherwise.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Hard to say. There are some big issues to get square with, such as airmen who have past DUI's, drug offenses, and neurocog issues. It's not as simple as saying "If you hold a DL, you automatically can be a part 91 pilot."
Click to expand...


Why not? I certainly don't care. Nobody's getting voted out of office by me if they pass a bill that requires only a DL to operate a plane. I'd much rather be 3 miles from you with the tower calling out traffic than 6" away from you on the interstate.
 
I'm not so sure it's a "run afoul of the voters" issue. Someone said on the Red Board that it might be a tricky standards issue... we allow the Legislative Critters to do their thing, even with bad items on their records, but if we have the same stuff on our records, "no piloting for you!"

Anyhow, I have no real dog in this hunt. I'm satisfied with complying with the rules as they are now. Yes, frustrated with the time it takes for OKC to do their thing (what, 12 weeks now?), but I'm not holding my breath waiting for the DL issuance to save my flying privileges.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Hard to say. There are some big issues to get square with, such as airmen who have past DUI's, drug offenses, and neurocog issues. It's not as simple as saying "If you hold a DL, you automatically can be a part 91 pilot."
Click to expand...

Those people might cause less damage and injury in the air than they currently do on the highways. OTOH, the media would have a field day denigrating those 'Piper Cubs".
 
Well I just spent a lot of money and time getting my 3rd class so it will probably go through now you all can thank me.:yes::D
 
DFH65 said:
Well I just spent a lot of money and time getting my 3rd class so it will probably go through now you all can thank me.:yes::D
Click to expand...
No. The day I finally sell my RV-7 wings, THAT is when they will take action so you can all thank me.
 
bartmc said:
Why not? I certainly don't care. Nobody's getting voted out of office by me if they pass a bill that requires only a DL to operate a plane. I'd much rather be 3 miles from you with the tower calling out traffic than 6" away from you on the interstate.
Click to expand...

Norman said:
Those people might cause less damage and injury in the air than they currently do on the highways. OTOH, the media would have a field day denigrating those 'Piper Cubs".
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Not to sound like a broken record by repeating myself, but if I can SCUBA dive, snowmobile, and operate a 2 ton boat (all of which can easily kill myself and others if done carelessly) w/o massive bureaucratic intrusion, why should acting as PIC of an aircraft lighter than my measly Honda Civic be any different.

Or should the rules change in that I ought to need a C3 do take part in those addictions??

Kidding kidding:goofy::goofy:

Looks like it picked up another co-sponsor this week, bringing the total to 52 now.
 
beestforwardspeed said:
Exactly!

Not to sound like a broken record by repeating myself, but if I can SCUBA dive, snowmobile, and operate a 2 ton boat (all of which can easily kill myself and others if done carelessly) w/o massive bureaucratic intrusion, why should acting as PIC of an aircraft lighter than my measly Honda Civic be any different.

Or should the rules change in that I ought to need a C3 do take part in those addictions??

Kidding kidding:goofy::goofy:

Looks like it picked up another co-sponsor this week, bringing the total to 52 now.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate:
  • SCUBA Dive: Only kill yourself
  • Snowmobile: Far less mass than an aircraft, lower speeds, less energy
  • 2 Ton Boat: Far lower speeds, lower energy involved

Let's look at the two ton boat vs a C-182 for example.

Thanks to Newton, we know that F=mv

A "two ton" boat, I'll give you a couple hundred extra pounds and declare that to be 2000kg, and let's say that boat travels at 30 knots (15.43 m/s). That gives that boat a momentum of 30,860 N

A C-182 at MGW (3,100 lbs) is 1,406 kg. Cruising speed is ~120 kts (61.73 m/s) gives us 86,792 N of momentum, nearly triple the amount of energy.
 
JeffDG said:
To play devil's advocate:
  • SCUBA Dive: Only kill yourself
  • Snowmobile: Far less mass than an aircraft, lower speeds, less energy
  • 2 Ton Boat: Far lower speeds, lower energy involved
Click to expand...

Most SUVs and other assorted land yachts weigh tons and and are capable of movement at aircraft speeds. Argument fails, big time.
 
steingar said:
Most SUVs and other assorted land yachts weigh tons and and are capable of movement at aircraft speeds. Argument fails, big time.
Click to expand...

I made no such argument. I simply took the argument presented and showed them to be...less than convincing.
 
After my most recent semi-annual visit to the doctor:

Me, "Doc, Do I have any medical condition that wold prevent me from driving an SUV with my grandkids at night in rush hour traffic during a rain storm." Ans: none.

To FAA: "Can I fly a plane that fully loaded weighs less than a SUV, has at most six seats, that I fly only in pleasant weather."

FAA Ans: Fill out these forms, see a specialized doctor, and wait three months. And maybe then we'll know which additional test we require.
 
Ron Levy said:
Absent passage by Congress and signature by the President of the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013, currently referred to the House committee with no other Congressional action pending (not even introduced in the Senate), I think the FAA will do absolutely nothing but respond to questions from the House committee currently holding the bill.

I think the FAA is unlikely to announce anything in advance of the bill's passage by both houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

Mark Baker seems to think something is happening. It makes sense that if the FAA feels like there is forward motion on the bill, they'll want to take the wind out of the sails before that ship even leaves port. Congressional action forcing them to abandon the 3rd class medical would take away their options. If they come up with a solution that looks like real progress the bill might look redundant and lose momentum, which would give them more time to strategize their next move. On the other hand, they may go the other way and spin some numbers to make the bill look like a really bad idea politically.

As far as the co-sponsors go, I read that statistically bills with few or no co-sponsors had a much higher chance of passage than ones with many. According to a few articles, co-sponsorship isn't really a show of support for the bill, it's just a vehicle to demonstrate alliances.
 
Ron Levy said:
Absent passage by Congress and signature by the President of the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013, currently referred to the House committee with no other Congressional action pending (not even introduced in the Senate), I think the FAA will do absolutely nothing but respond to questions from the House committee currently holding the bill.

I think the FAA is unlikely to announce anything in advance of the bill's passage by both houses of Congress.
Click to expand...

What he said. :)
 
JeffDG said:
Thanks to Newton, we know that F=mv
Click to expand...
F=ma, not mv.

A "two ton" boat, I'll give you a couple hundred extra pounds and declare that to be 2000kg, and let's say that boat travels at 30 knots (15.43 m/s). That gives that boat a momentum of 30,860 N
Click to expand...
It has a momentum of 30,860 kg*m/s, or 30,860 N*s.
A C-182 at MGW (3,100 lbs) is 1,406 kg. Cruising speed is ~120 kts (61.73 m/s) gives us 86,792 N of momentum, nearly triple the amount of energy.
Click to expand...
Again, N is not a unit of momentum, and it's definitely not energy. You're confusing force, momentum, and energy, which are all different measurements. If you care to calculate the kinetic energy (.5*m*v^2) it's actually 11 times as much kinetic energy in your plane as in the boat.

Your point is absolutely valid... but I couldn't resist cleaning up the calculations to get there :)
 
dukeblue219 said:
F=ma, not mv.


It has a momentum of 30,860 kg*m/s, or 30,860 N*s.

Again, N is not a unit of momentum, and it's definitely not energy. You're confusing force, momentum, and energy, which are all different measurements. If you care to calculate the kinetic energy (.5*m*v^2) it's actually 11 times as much kinetic energy in your plane as in the boat.

Your point is absolutely valid... but I couldn't resist cleaning up the calculations to get there :)
Click to expand...

Size of lake < size of sky.:)
 
If I were in the FAA's position, and of the mindset of any bureaucracy (maintain as much control over as many people as humanly possible, by whatever means necessary), I'd want to avoid Congressional edict. I'd take some minimal, meaningless, and symbolic action to "show progress" toward the much less disruptive (to my bureaucratic world) EAA/AOPA proposal. It would be carefully designed to neutralize the threat of Congressional legislative action, while avoiding any actual change.
 
JeffDG said:
To play devil's advocate:
  • SCUBA Dive: Only kill yourself
  • Snowmobile: Far less mass than an aircraft, lower speeds, less energy
  • 2 Ton Boat: Far lower speeds, lower energy involved

Let's look at the two ton boat vs a C-182 for example.

Thanks to Newton, we know that F=mv

A "two ton" boat, I'll give you a couple hundred extra pounds and declare that to be 2000kg, and let's say that boat travels at 30 knots (15.43 m/s). That gives that boat a momentum of 30,860 N

A C-182 at MGW (3,100 lbs) is 1,406 kg. Cruising speed is ~120 kts (61.73 m/s) gives us 86,792 N of momentum, nearly triple the amount of energy.
Click to expand...
That sort of math had a lot to do with how they set the max Vh and MGW for the LSA's where no medical is required with a valid US DL. Essentially, this bill would expand the upper energy limit for flying without showing you meet FAA medical standards from the 1320 lb and 120 knots of an LSA to aircraft as big and fast as 6000 lb and 250 knots -- do the math, and you'll see that's about 20 times the kinetic energy (not to mention five times the passengers involved). Whether that "flies" or not remains to be seen.
 
DaleB said:
If I were in the FAA's position, and of the mindset of any bureaucracy (maintain as much control over as many people as humanly possible, by whatever means necessary), I'd want to avoid Congressional edict. I'd take some minimal, meaningless, and symbolic action to "show progress" toward the much less disruptive (to my bureaucratic world) EAA/AOPA proposal. It would be carefully designed to neutralize the threat of Congressional legislative action, while avoiding any actual change.
Click to expand...
That's what I would imagine as well.

Given that, I would say the minimum they would need to do to make a positive change would be to modify the sport rules.
1. Increase the gross weight to remove the stigma of the fat ultralight and include more stable and docile airframes.
2. Remove and/or change min/max speed requirements.
3. Add 2 more passengers
4. Add night VFR, even better if it requires additional training to include some instrument training.

What I think they might announce is a less restrictive medical, or less likely, accept a CDL with additional requirements.
 
dukeblue219 said:
F=ma, not mv.


It has a momentum of 30,860 kg*m/s, or 30,860 N*s.

Again, N is not a unit of momentum, and it's definitely not energy. You're confusing force, momentum, and energy, which are all different measurements. If you care to calculate the kinetic energy (.5*m*v^2) it's actually 11 times as much kinetic energy in your plane as in the boat.

Your point is absolutely valid... but I couldn't resist cleaning up the calculations to get there :)
Click to expand...

Fair 'nuff...I got incredibly sloppy with terms.

I keep forgetting the -2 in the s exponent in Newtons too.
 
JeffDG said:
To play devil's advocate:
  • SCUBA Dive: Only kill yourself
  • Snowmobile: Far less mass than an aircraft, lower speeds, less energy
  • 2 Ton Boat: Far lower speeds, lower energy involved
Click to expand...

I take you have never been with a DM who THINKS they know what they are doing........you know.....one of those "trust me" dives!!:yikes:

As for snowmobiling......sure, there is less mass and speed involved than in even the smallest GA aircraft, but that is more than offset by the exponentially higher risk of killing another rider by failing to keep right around a blind corner, among other scenarios too numerous to list.

On the other hand, how many people are killed on the ground in GA accidents?

On average of TWO per year in the entire nation. I think its safe to say that far more non-occupants of boats and sleds are killed than this

JustinWalton said:
This just came in my email....

Senate legislation would expand medical exemption



http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...al-bill.aspx?WT.mc_id=&wtmcid;&WT.mc_sect=tts

Looks like some more pressure...
Click to expand...

NICE!!!!

The joke is on those posters who thought this was going to be a bad news:nono:
 
Last edited:
anybody have any ideas how this would affect instructors who are current but don't have a medical?
 
Instructing is generally a commercial op, so I would think changes are unlikely.
 
cfiiguy said:
anybody have any ideas how this would affect instructors who are current but don't have a medical?
Click to expand...
No idea whatsoever because the bill does not address instructors. How the FAA will deal with that in the regulations remains to be seen depending on the final language and the FAA's interpretation of Congressional intent.
 
dans2992 said:
Instructing is generally a commercial op, so I would think changes are unlikely.
Click to expand...
Instructing is rarely a commercial operation, and under the current rules, outside of flight training under Part 135/121 or the like (where you're a paid pilot as well as an instructor), never requires a Second Class medical in any situation with which I'm familiar. Personally, I can see arguments both ways on whether the bill as worded requires the FAA to allow CFI's to instruct in the covered operations with only a DL in cases where you currently require a Third Class.
 
Do the sport pilot instructors (those who only train sport pilots) and only fly in planes that meet the sport plane criteria need a medical?
 
Ron Levy said:
Instructing is rarely a commercial operation, and under the current rules, outside of flight training under Part 135/121 or the like (where you're a paid pilot as well as an instructor), never requires a Second Class medical in any situation with which I'm familiar. Personally, I can see arguments both ways on whether the bill as worded requires the FAA to allow CFI's to instruct in the covered operations with only a DL in cases where you currently require a Third Class.
Click to expand...


Ok, I just assumed it was a "commercial operation" because a commercial/ATP is required and money is changing hands.
 
DaleB said:
If I were in the FAA's position, and of the mindset of any bureaucracy (maintain as much control over as many people as humanly possible, by whatever means necessary), I'd want to avoid Congressional edict. I'd take some minimal, meaningless, and symbolic action to "show progress" toward the much less disruptive (to my bureaucratic world) EAA/AOPA proposal. It would be carefully designed to neutralize the threat of Congressional legislative action, while avoiding any actual change.
Click to expand...

You think the FAA wants to have a third class medical? I don't, everything they have done in the over 20 years I have been flying was loosen the reigns on GA. They don't need this resource drain, their budget is small enough and they have quite a bit on their manpower plate dealing with the commercial sector. SP/LSA has been a bit of a proving ground of relinquishing policing of standards to industry and the insurance companies. If they can get recreational GA out of their sphere of responsibility that would open up some budget hours for the commercial stuff.
 
DFH65 said:
Well I just spent a lot of money and time getting my 3rd class so it will probably go through now you all can thank me.:yes::D
Click to expand...
Totally agree. This is why it rained after i washed the car. 45 years after my last medical, and just before i return to flight, i took my medical yesterday.

BTW, 3rd class medical is a total waste of time and money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top