We are pilots, and unlike drivers, we fly our aircraft over homes and private property and public spaces. And therefore I have no problem being held to a higher standard than the driver of an automobile. My preference would be to reform, not eliminate.
And there is the crux of the issue. Congress folks and the FAA have to weigh the risk to the innocent folks just sitting at home, watching Wheel of Fortune when a Cherokee Six comes crashing through the roof. It does happen. Don't think so? Just Google "Airplane crashes into house" or something like that and then click on images.
On the flip side, Congress needs to think of the broader picture of America, our freedoms, an important defense industry and the economy. We have always been proud of our aviation history here and it is in trouble.
Eliminating the 3rd Class at the risk of a few ground fatalities in the future is IMO, worth it. This is the argument that needs to be made. Don't ask me how to convince a person that has no love for airplanes to give up a level of safety just so that more guys can fly around over their heads. Not my department and it'll take a hell of a salesman to do so, but I'll try.
So you don't think driving your car on the roads with thousands of others drivers puts them in danger? Flying over a house presents no greater danger to others than cars driving on the roads do. Life is not without risk. I don't need the government protecting us from ourselves.
But others do. In fact they vote that way all the time. It's just a fact, so going on about personal freedoms, libertarian ideals, or bringing up the "nanny state" in a argument is not constructive and won't work. Work on an answer as to why it is we
should allow damn near anybody to fly airplanes over our houses. Make it really persuasive and you might have something.
An airplane flying over a house is not a greater danger than driving down the road, but it is an
additional danger. The driving we have to do, but why do guys in their airplanes have to fly over the houses?
The average citizen drives a car or at least rides in a car regularly, but the average citizen doesn't go anywhere near a GA aircraft. What benefit is it to the average citizen to allow more of us to fly overhead with less regulation?
Why I need medical examination to pilot a vehicle that weighs less than a car and that flies at car speeds is not entirely apparent to me.
That's a really dumb argument. If you're flying an airplane that flies at car speeds, you
already don't need a medical. It's called Light Sport, or Ultra Light. The huge majority of us fly much, much faster then cars and for a lot of us, that's exactly why we fly. To get places faster than a car. Please don't use this argument to pursuade anybody. It won't.
Let me be clear, I am all for the elimination of the 3rd Class, (and also an experimental category for certified airplanes, but that's another thread!
) but I think we need to be smart about it and come up with better arguments. I'm playing Devil's advocate in an attempt to get people to see the other side of it and come up with more persuasive things to say than just "Because I want to and you'll hardly ever get killed by an airplane."
I think the best arguments I have heard are, preserving the aviation industry in America is very, very good for our economy and our own national defense and the check to balance the loss of the 3rd Class is the BFR.
Scrutiny of pilot performance
which includes pilot health will be put in hands of local control. This frees up the FAA to reallocate resources to other needs instead of keeping medical records, reviewing those records and arguing with pilots. This saves the FAA and by extension, the tax payers money.
As to the National Defense angle, I use a computer analogy. Everyone agrees that having cutting edge computing technology is good for national defense, right? The best way to keep that edge is to have a robust computer industry with thousands of engineers employed here.
Which employs more computer engineers, the defense department and military contractors, or personal computing? The personal computing market allows for a large pool of talent here on our shores, some of the best of which can go work on national defense projects and implement the latest ideas there.
The same works for aviation albeit on a smaller scale. By expanding GA, even in the area of us little bug smashing guys, means more gainfully employed aeronautical engineers here, in our country and a bigger pool to pull from for important projects. In addition, it's always nice to have a large pool of pilots to pull from in a true war time national emergency.