We are closer than ever, please contact your representative

[Dav8or]

Your post assumes that elimination of medical requirements will increase the accident rate measurably. Has this even been demonstrated?

Not really, but how could it? Medicals have been required nearly since private pilots were first licensed. I don't think people are keeping stats too much on ultra lights and gliders and LSAs really aren't a very big sample.

I think it's fair to say that incapacitation due to medical issues would go up due to the 3rd Class going away. Some people just aren't very good at self assessment, but whether or not that increase would make much difference in the overall safety stats, is unknown. Also, we would have to wait a good many years before coming to a conclusion because we would have to try to account for anomalous spikes here and there.

If one is to look for proof in the stats one way or the other, I think they would come up short. This proposed ruling would have to be a leap of faith I think.

 

[N801BH]

Not really, but how could it? Medicals have been required nearly since private pilots were first licensed. I don't think people are keeping stats too much on ultra lights and gliders and LSAs really aren't a very big sample.

I think it's fair to say that incapacitation due to medical issues would go up due to the 3rd Class going away. Some people just aren't very good at self assessment, but whether or not that increase would make much difference in the overall safety stats, is unknown. Also, we would have to wait a good many years before coming to a conclusion because we would have to try to account for anomalous spikes here and there.

If one is to look for proof in the stats one way or the other, I think they would come up short. This proposed ruling would have to be a leap of faith I think.

Look at the big picture......

40,000 + U.S citizens die EVERY year in motor vehicle accidents... IIRC we loose 300 GA pilots EVERY year... That means almost more people die on the roads every day then GA kills in an entire year


Do the math...

 

[Dav8or]

But there is a secondary purpose as well, and that is to encourage pilots to maintain their health so that they can continue to fly. The influence of behavior by regulation is indeed the heart of the issue.

That may have been a great hope for those that drafted the regulation (although I doubt it myself) however, the reality in practice is it doesn't really work that way. We find more are failing the medical, or just quitting. Then there are those that are trying to duck into LSA before they fail. Bottom line, less and less pilots.

From your avatar you look to be a young guy and you may be in perfect shape, run marathons and eat granola, but there are a load of us old dudes out there to tell you, try as you might, age is going to throw some crap on you and you can't do much about it. People are now living longer lives and having a better quality of life in later years and that's great, but this is due to the modern miracle of medicine more than anything else. Many of these miracles are exactly what the FAA has issue with.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

When you go through the accident reports and investigations , study the stupid decisions GA pilots make on a continuous basis, is it any wonder there are so many regulations!? Add to this some of the questions asked on this site about ones health,.......... Ie: " I weigh 300 lbs, I'm 5'8 and 55 years old, with a history of heart problems . Should I report this?" Or, " my doctor says I'm nuts, is it ok to fly?" Ad nauseum.

 

[Dav8or]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but what I am suggesting is smarter laws, not more laws. When I say reform the regulations, that is what I mean.

You and a few others on the various forums speak of reform and that's fine, but I'm curious as to what that reform would look like and how would it help retain existing pilots and encourage new pilots? Have you thought about what this reform would be? How would it work?

I am skeptical about much of anything that has to do with government, or bureaucracy. I can't see how any "reform" would make much if any difference, but I'm willing to listen.

 

[flytime]

From your avatar you look to be a young guy and you may be in perfect shape, run marathons and eat granola, but there are a load of us old dudes out there to tell you, try as you might, age is going to throw some crap on you and you can't do much about it. People are now living longer lives and having a better quality of life in later years and that's great, but this is due to the modern miracle of medicine more than anything else. Many of these miracles are exactly what the FAA has issue with.

At 49 I suppose I am a young guy in a relative sense. And the real reason that I don't think we should scrap the 3rd class medical is because I know that pilots losing their medicals = lots of inexpensive used airplanes on the market for me to choose from ;-)

 

[Dav8or]

Look at the big picture......

40,000 + U.S citizens die EVERY year in motor vehicle accidents... IIRC we loose 300 GA pilots EVERY year... That means almost more people die on the roads every day then GA kills in an entire year


Do the math...

Yes, yes, cars, death... so on and so forth. This argument is pretty much meaningless to anybody that matters. A better strategy IMO is coming up with reasons why people should want to save GA. Why should the general public care and by extension the legislator that represents them care, whether or not you get to fly around in your little airplane, or what it might cost you?

 

[Bill]

Why people should want to save GA. Why should the general public care and by extension the legislator that represents them care, whether or not you get to fly around in your little airplane, or what it might cost you?

Truth there, to most of them we're all rich.

 

[flytime]

You and a few others on the various forums speak of reform and that's fine, but I'm curious as to what that reform would look like and how would it help retain existing pilots and encourage new pilots? Have you thought about what this reform would be? How would it work?

I am skeptical about much of anything that has to do with government, or bureaucracy. I can't see how any "reform" would make much if any difference, but I'm willing to listen.

I'm not a doctor, but I could make a few suggestions...

1) exam every 5 years for the 3rd class up to age 65, then every 2 or 3 years, unless there is a condition that needs more frequent monitoring as detected in a previous exam
2) ditch the color blindness test (most of us who are color blind can see perfectly well at night, and technology makes this less of a safety issue every year)
3) reevaluate and update blood and urine testing requirements. Make disqualifying conditions meaningful to your ability to operate a complex piece of machinery.
4) rely less on self-reporting and more on electronically shared medical history (as insurance companies now do)

 

[N801BH]

I'm not a doctor, but I could make a few suggestions...

1) exam every 5 years for the 3rd class up to age 65, then every 2 or 3 years, unless there is a condition that needs more frequent monitoring as detected in a previous exam
2) ditch the color blindness test (most of us who are color blind can see perfectly well at night, and technology makes this less of a safety issue every year)
3) reevaluate and update blood and urine testing requirements. Make disqualifying conditions meaningful to your ability to operate a complex piece of machinery.
4) rely less on self-reporting and more on electronically shared medical history (as insurance companies now do)

3-----There is NO blood tests..

4-- Electronic medical records can and do go haywire too often....One mistake by a data entry clerk can kill your chance to ever fly again...

 

[flytime]

3-----There is NO blood tests..

4-- Electronic medical records can and do go haywire too often....One mistake by a data entry clerk can kill your chance to ever fly again...

Yes, but maybe there should be blood testing. Or maybe not. I'm not really the one to say, but if we are going to have exams they may as well be meaningful.

I fully agree with you on the point about accuracy of records. There must always be a fair appeals process. But I've heard that one of the biggest flaws with the current system is that people don't report what they should. If that is a problem, then meaningful reform should address it.

 

[DFH65]

If a little testing is good a lot must be better.

The problem is all this costs money and for those of us who are barely able to afford to fly in the first place I don't want to spend flying money just to prove to the FAA I am good to go. I am pretty sure most people can predict within 99.9999% certainty they are not going to die on the next flight.

And the .0001 time is not something we are reading about in the news everyday.

 

[pilot1956]

Meanwhile, you folks who want the 3rd class medical to continue, in some form... How come you don't insist on getting medicals on your own doctors? I strongly suspect that you would let a surgeon operate on your heart without knowing if he or she has a condition that would prevent him from flying a C-150.

Why is that? Because there are ways to assess a person's ability to perform complex tasks other than asking about medical conditions and doing a physical examination. Should we stop people from flying if they have a poorly controlled seizure disorder? Sure. But, grounding pilots for all kinds of past ailments and for use of many medicines that have no demonstrable effect on safe flying? It makes no sense.

Yes, the LSA world has evidence on this very issue and it most likely has a sample of sufficient size for meaningful analysis. Given that many flying light sport may well have left the certificated world because they didn't want to flunk a 3rd class medical, if the medical did anything then you should see a high rate of medically-related crashes. Yet you don't.

This is not about the "damn government", and making it about that will fail, every time. This is about evidence. And there is none in support of the 3rd class medical.

 

[Dav8or]

I'm not a doctor, but I could make a few suggestions...

1) exam every 5 years for the 3rd class up to age 65, then every 2 or 3 years, unless there is a condition that needs more frequent monitoring as detected in a previous exam

Not sure how that helps much. I guess it saves some folks a few bucks, but disqualified is disqualified. I did think to myself that well, at least it lets you fly an additional three years until you're disqualified, but then I read you number 4 and realized that was mute.

2) ditch the color blindness test (most of us who are color blind can see perfectly well at night, and technology makes this less of a safety issue every year)

Agreed. When it comes to flying, color blindness isn't a huge deal. However, it also does very little stop the decline in the pilot population. I also believe that this is not a tough item to get the OK from the FAA for if IIRC.

3) reevaluate and update blood and urine testing requirements. Make disqualifying conditions meaningful to your ability to operate a complex piece of machinery.

Isn't this what the whole medical is about? Your ability to operate complex machinery? I guess you're thinking of diabetes, but a diabetic can pass out under the right circumstances just like a guy having a heart attack can. Sure if the watch their diet and take their insulin they're OK... just like the guy who watches his diet and statins. You see how it ultimately comes down to the PIC to do the right thing and self certify. As it is. Right now.

4) rely less on self-reporting and more on electronically shared medical history (as insurance companies now do)

Yeah this is a time and money saver. You don't have to wait until your next medical five years on, you'll just get a cease and desist order in the mail when you have that little pimple looked at. Talk about people purposely avoiding the doctor!! This would promote that for sure.

I have a hard time seeing how reform is going to really help change the direction we're headed. It would be just a weak band aid on the hemorrhage we have going on.

I'm not sure how things are at your airport, but at mine many hangars are empty, wait lists are gone, hangars for sale and the tie downs have mostly abandoned wrecks on them. I have to assume this is going on all around the country. To me it's a bad sign of our countries future.

 

[flytime]

I'm not sure how things are at your airport, but at mine many hangars are empty, wait lists are gone, hangars for sale and the tie downs have mostly abandoned wrecks on them. I have to assume this is going on all around the country. To me it's a bad sign of our countries future.

The health of general aviation follows the health of the economy. At my airport near Seattle, where the economy is strong, there is at least a two-year wait for hangars. Even tie-down spaces are becoming scarce because Boeing keeps taking up more space on the tarmac. And the flight school can barely keep up with demand.

Of all the arguments for doing away with the 3rd class medical, the one that resonates the least with me is that it is somehow hurting general aviation. No one likes the cost, but really it's about the same as 30 gallons of fuel. Not a big deal to most of us. If the problem is that too many older pilots are losing their medicals, then removing the medical requirement allows everyone to fly for another 5 years. That is not exactly addressing the real problem. We need to do more to get young people flying, and keep the older ones flying by keeping them healthy...not by just giving them a pass.

 

[fiveoboy01]

It's a little bigger deal when you're on special issuance. For me it's once a year, visiting the AME AND my personal doctor so in the neighborhood of double.

Yes, proverbially a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of flying, but it's also a huge pain in the ass.

 

[denverpilot]

Laugh all you want, but what you are really saying is that we need fewer laws and more civil suits. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but what I am suggesting is smarter laws, not more laws. When I say reform the regulations, that is what I mean.





Sorry, but I cannot quote you the specific studies or analysis that was relied upon to formulate the regulations that currently exist. And I have no friends at the FAA that could help me with that either. But it does not take a genius to figure out that these regulations were intended to increase the safety of general aviation. You can mock the FAA and all the bureaucracy that it entails all you like, but their core mission is to promote aviation safety, plain and simple.



The intent of the regulations and the effect of the regulations are of course two different things. I was referring to the intent, and that is without question to increase safety. Are they effective at doing so? I would argue yes, but not perfectly, and probably less so when measured by cost vs. benefit. I believe the system could be improved and simplified, and made more cost effective to both government and individual, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. General aviation has become safer over the past few decades for a variety of reasons, and I am willing to give the FAA at least some credit for that.



The problem is that we won't really know how effective the 3rd class medical has been at making aviation safer until it is gone and we have a few years of accident statistics to evaluate. Meanwhile, every time there is an accident related to a medical issue (and there are already plenty), the press will do what it does and sensationalize the issue to the point where there is legislative backlash. Pushing for outright elimination could turn into the classic example of being careful what you wish for.

Ahh yes. Regulation reform. Been hearing that since I was a kid.

Old enough to know better than to believe that's anyone's goal except yours. Certainly not the goal of anyone who'll actually be writing any rules.

When you get done believing that fairy tale, and want to attempt to find something that objectively shows the regulations have actually saved a significant number of lives at the 3rd Class level, and operate in reality and hard numbers, holler.

The rest is just conjecture. In other words, make believe.

You've convinced yourself that existing laws against actual damages would be a made-up-in-your-head problem, but can't put a single hard number on how many cases would be brought. From there on down is just a nice fictional story without a basis.

 

[Nsconductor]

A pilot should be good to go on the day of the exam. On the next day, maybe, maybe not.

 

[ggroves]

The health of general aviation follows the health of the economy. At my airport near Seattle, where the economy is strong, there is at least a two-year wait for hangars. Even tie-down spaces are becoming scarce because Boeing keeps taking up more space on the tarmac. And the flight school can barely keep up with demand.

Of all the arguments for doing away with the 3rd class medical, the one that resonates the least with me is that it is somehow hurting general aviation. No one likes the cost, but really it's about the same as 30 gallons of fuel. Not a big deal to most of us. If the problem is that too many older pilots are losing their medicals, then removing the medical requirement allows everyone to fly for another 5 years. That is not exactly addressing the real problem. We need to do more to get young people flying, and keep the older ones flying by keeping them healthy...not by just giving them a pass.

Wow..I don't even know where to start with your sanctimonious, self-righteous post. Congratulations on being young, perfectly healthy, and living in an general aviation economic microcosm. Sadly, you just don't get it. Keep believing in the antiquated medical/SI process that hasn't kept up with advances in medication, and medical procedures. It's far more complex than "giving them a pass".

 

[Bob Noel]

Did I miss it? Did anyone show why the 3rd class medical has value?

 

[Bonchie]

Did I miss it? Did anyone show why the 3rd class medical has value?

No. Because it has none and LSA stats pretty much prove that.

I say that as a 29 year old who has no real horse in the race at this point, but that's what I see.

Let's face it. Incapacitation is pretty much a nearly irrelevant fraction of GA accidents, almost all of them happen to guys who HAVE a 3rd class medical anyway, and in 99% of cases it couldn't of been predicted regardless, even by a more advanced physical.

 

[Bonchie]

I think the biggest problem with the 3rd class isn't that it exists but how stupidly archaic it is.

People would have a lot less problems with it if the regulations didn't have pilots scared ****less knowing that any tiny, irrelevant thing could have them grounded for life. Even things that modern science and medicine prove can be safely cured or regulated.

If a situation existed where pilots could openly see a doctor about anything, knowing that they'd only be grounded for an actual, provable disorder for which no safe treatment can be given and still fly, you'd see a ton less grounded pilots and a lot more pilots willing to get issues looked at.

 

[acrophile]

40,000[]+ U.S citizens die EVERY year in motor vehicle accidents[.] IIRC we l[o]se 300 GA pilots EVERY year[.] That means almost more people die on the roads every day then GA kills in an entire year[.]

Do the math[.]

Uh, good idea. 40000 / 365 is about 110. So you're saying 110 is "almost more" than 300.

Also, you do not recall correctly. Annual GA fatalities have ranged from 387 to 706 over the past decade.

More importantly, though, there are more than 300 times as many drivers as pilots, but far fewer than 300 times as many driving fatalities as flying fatalities.

 

[N801BH]

The health of general aviation follows the health of the economy. .......

My I ask what you do for a living sir?

 

[azure]

Yes, yes, cars, death... so on and so forth. This argument is pretty much meaningless to anybody that matters. A better strategy IMO is coming up with reasons why people should want to save GA. Why should the general public care and by extension the legislator that represents them care, whether or not you get to fly around in your little airplane, or what it might cost you?

Bingo! Good to see at least one person on the forum is at least thinking about this the right way... (meaning, in a way that could lead to real progress)

 

[DFH65]

Yes, yes, cars, death... so on and so forth. This argument is pretty much meaningless to anybody that matters. A better strategy IMO is coming up with reasons why people should want to save GA. Why should the general public care and by extension the legislator that represents them care, whether or not you get to fly around in your little airplane, or what it might cost you?

The point is neither should care they should mind their own business and stay out of mine. Why do I need their permission? They certainly don't ask mine when they do the things they want.

 

[azure]

Of all the arguments for doing away with the 3rd class medical, the one that resonates the least with me is that it is somehow hurting general aviation. No one likes the cost, but really it's about the same as 30 gallons of fuel. Not a big deal to most of us. If the problem is that too many older pilots are losing their medicals, then removing the medical requirement allows everyone to fly for another 5 years. That is not exactly addressing the real problem. We need to do more to get young people flying, and keep the older ones flying by keeping them healthy...not by just giving them a pass.

The cost, as in the cost of the AME exam? I agree that would be the weakest argument for eliminating the 3rd class, but it's a strawman. The real cost (to pilots, anyway) is the cost of medically unnecessary tests, ordered by the FAA, in order to prove your "fitness to fly". Many pilots flying on SIs need to undergo multiple tests totaling several AMUs on an annual basis. Medically unnecessary usually means insurance won't pay for them, so the burden falls on the airman. Any wonder that a lot of pilots give up on their SIs and go light sport?

The argument could be made that if you want to grow GA you need to attract younger pilots, and younger pilots by and large don't need SIs, so this line of argument is moot. But culling the upper end of the pilot population eliminates lots of role models and possible teachers as well. I don't have data on this, but I can't imagine that it doesn't have an effect.

More to the point, I think, is the cost to the public of the resources consumed by the FAA in maintaining this level of oversight over the health of non-commercial pilots. I'd like to see hard figures on how much of CAMI's budget goes toward maintaining 3rd class standards, evaluating cases that go to them on deferral, pursuing administrative action against private pilots caught lying on their medicals, emergency revocations, etc. I have a feeling that sort of data would go a long way toward getting the PBOR2 or one of its variants attached to the FAA re-appropriations bill.

 

[tmyers]

We old farts will get smarter as the young ones get older. That being said, we don't have time for that to happen. How in the hell will we ever get some of these restrictions lifted if we can't even agree in a forum like this. I thought we were all pilots or wanna be pilots and as such should be pulling in the same general direction.

Guess not.

For those younger and less wise, I am sure some, not all, think the world will be better off if those of us with 5's, 6's, and 7's at the beginning of our age hung up our flight bags because we are too old to be flying. Guess what we are the ones with the income and resources to own the majority of the privately owned aircraft in the GA fleet.

We are also the ones that own the FBO's, and Mx shops. You need to be listening to the those that are more wise than you and learning.

We have some shining examples of a younger generation that has figured it out. Thinking of David White and Jesse to just name a couple. There are many that get it, but vastly more that need to get their heads out of there asses and start learning from those that have already navigated this stuff.

I could but won't share my experiences in navigating the SI minefield last year. It was very expensive and took for ever. My Dr's were very perplexed at the process and all felt it was major overkill in the FAA's part.

And thats all I have to say about that.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The argument could be made that if you want to grow GA you need to attract younger pilots, and younger pilots by and large don't need SIs, so this line of argument is moot.

A lot of younger pilots will have had a diagnosis of some horrible, catastrophic (at least in the FAA's mind), diagnosis because of a willingness to seek help for mental health issues that was not prevalent back in the horse and buggy days when many of us geezers were growing up.

Now some will argue that these people are mentally ill and shouldn't be allowed to fly, but the fact is that the number of people in the older generations that have the same issue is about the same but they would have no problem getting a medical because denial is not an officially recognized treatment.

More to the point, I think, is the cost to the public of the resources consumed by the FAA in maintaining this level of oversight over the health of non-commercial pilots. I'd like to see hard figures on how much of CAMI's budget goes toward maintaining 3rd class standards, evaluating cases that go to them on deferral, pursuing administrative action against private pilots caught lying on their medicals, emergency revocations, etc. I have a feeling that sort of data would go a long way toward getting the PBOR2 or one of its variants attached to the FAA re-appropriations bill.

Indeed.

 

[N801BH]

A lot of younger pilots will have had a diagnosis of some horrible, catastrophic (at least in the FAA's mind), diagnosis because of a willingness to seek help for mental health issues that was not prevalent back in the horse and buggy days when many of us geezers were growing up.

Now some will argue that these people are mentally ill and shouldn't be allowed to fly, but the fact is that the number of people in the older generations that have the same issue is about the same but they would have no problem getting a medical because denial is not an officially recognized treatment.


Indeed.

Very true....

ALOT of younger kids were diagnosed with ADD /ADHD and various other cooked up disorders since that is the fad nowadays....

Just wait till they fill out the FAA medical form, disclose that.... and find out they are siht out of luck....

 

[azure]

A lot of younger pilots will have had a diagnosis of some horrible, catastrophic (at least in the FAA's mind), diagnosis because of a willingness to seek help for mental health issues that was not prevalent back in the horse and buggy days when many of us geezers were growing up.

Good point. And it doesn't have to be mental health either -- could be some weird physical symptom that ends up being misdiagnosed. I carried a false diagnosis for many years that would have been either totally dq'ing or would have triggered a very expensive annual SI process with no chance of getting a letter of eligibility. That would have been from when I was 23 until nearly 40.

 

[Everskyward]

The argument could be made that if you want to grow GA you need to attract younger pilots, and younger pilots by and large don't need SIs, so this line of argument is moot. But culling the upper end of the pilot population eliminates lots of role models and possible teachers as well. I don't have data on this, but I can't imagine that it doesn't have an effect.

I would say that the general public doesn't care whether GA grows of shrinks. I'm betting that they don't think about GA at all until some accident makes the news, then they forget about it pretty quickly.

More to the point, I think, is the cost to the public of the resources consumed by the FAA in maintaining this level of oversight over the health of non-commercial pilots. I'd like to see hard figures on how much of CAMI's budget goes toward maintaining 3rd class standards, evaluating cases that go to them on deferral, pursuing administrative action against private pilots caught lying on their medicals, emergency revocations, etc. I have a feeling that sort of data would go a long way toward getting the PBOR2 or one of its variants attached to the FAA re-appropriations bill.

I agree with this. The medical is not such a great screening tool since most disqualifying conditions need to be self-reported. The exceptions would be eyesight, BP and the urine test for sugar and protein. But even with BP and the urine test, you could be on some drug and not tell the AME. So, given these limitations of the current screening, trusting people to self-ground when necessary won't make much difference.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Your post assumes that elimination of medical requirements will increase the accident rate measurably. Has this even been demonstrated?

No, there is no data that demonstrates this.

There is data that shows that LSA sized airplanes have a higher accident rate than larger GA aircraft (particularly landing accidents), but there is no data that points to medical issues as being the cause. There is data that suggests inadequate transition training is a factor.

There is data that shows the number of accidents per year for pre-existing LSAs (Cubs, Champs, Tcraft, etc.) did not change when the requirement for a medical changed.

There is no data on accident rates per hour / mile / whatever for people flying under sport pilot rules because the FAA does not have any source of information about how many pilots are flying under those rules much less how many hours.

There is data that shows that pilots flying under sport pilot rules due to medical issues are more likely to show evidence of medical issues when an autopsy is performed as compared to those flying with medicals. (Duh...) However, AFIK, the accidents that left them in a position to have the visit with the medical examiner were not attributed to the known medical condition.

 

[flytime]

My I ask what you do for a living sir?

I'm a CPA. My observations are my own, and I don't have data or studies to back it up. I see general aviation languishing in parts of the country where the economy is doing the same, but around here it is doing just fine. Is the 3rd class medical hurting it now any more than it was 30 or 40 years ago? I kind of doubt it. (I actually have no idea how long the current rules have been in place). The bigger problem is that the pilot boom of the 60's and 70's is aging out, and younger people simply cannot afford it unless they are making it a career.

And for the record, even though I have reservations about dumping it altogether, I would be happy to see the 3rd class medical gone.

 

[N801BH]

I'm a CPA. My observations are my own, and I don't have data or studies to back it up. I see general aviation languishing in parts of the country where the economy is doing the same, but around here it is doing just fine. Is the 3rd class medical hurting it now any more than it was 30 or 40 years ago? I kind of doubt it. (I actually have no idea how long the current rules have been in place). The bigger problem is that the pilot boom of the 60's and 70's is aging out, and younger people simply cannot afford it unless they are making it a career.

And for the record, even though I have reservations about dumping it altogether, I would be happy to see the 3rd class medical gone.

Now you are making some sense...

 

[mtuomi]

Nothing wrong with the concept of needing a medical, but since the DL requirements vary by state, I don't see that being the criteria. But the current 3rd class is simply ridiculous with some absolutely insane "have you ever in your life"-disqualifiers.

I don't think it will go away anytime soon, but I hope some sense will be applied to it.
Stuff like, if you were "diagnosed" by a school "doctor" with ADHD 30 years ago, I don't think you need to go through the SI hoops.
Or if you were caught with DUI 10 years ago, I can't see you being an alcoholic requiring intense testing to "prove" you are fine now.

I do think that if you are diabetic, special caution needs to apply, or if you have had an epileptic seizure in the past 3 years, same thing. DL wouldn't address these efficiently, nationwide.

Also there is the fact that FAA PP-cert is also an ICAO PPL. This sets some guidelines to it as well.

 

[1RTK1]

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.

.

What would be interesting is to compare the percentage of 40,000+ (none driver occupants) killed by motorists on the highways vs the number of people on the ground that are killed by the crash of a GA airplanes. We might need to tighten up on driver licenses. LOL

 

[tquigs]

What would be interesting is to compare the percentage of 40,000+ (none driver occupants) killed by motorists on the highways vs the number of people on the ground that are killed by the crash of a GA airplanes. We might need to tighten up on driver licenses. LOL

To the extent medicals are for the benefit of the public interest, then this is the statistic that should drive decision making. To go a step further...how many of the GA non-pilot deaths (and injuries too I suppose) are medical related vs. how many of the non-driver deaths (and injuries) are medical related? I suspect the GA numbers if non-pilot deaths due to medical issues would be in the single digits in any year.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I have rarely been so depressed by a thread.

Pilots, who imagine that the 3rd class medical has enhanced flight safety? Legislators, who see the FAA as a force for good in aviation? Aviators, arguing in favor of more restrictions on our freedoms?

The WWII guys I used to hang with at the airport must be spinning in their graves to know what kind of pansies have picked up their mantle.

 

[Dav8or]

The health of general aviation follows the health of the economy.

This kind of true. Truth is, the true economy, the real economy, the whole economy is doing poorly and has been for decades. There are bubbles of prosperity around the country and in those bubbles people are flush with cash and with it comes all the inflation that goes with that. People in those bubbles are usually pretty ignorant of what goes on outside that bubble because after all, ignorance is bliss. Most understandably spend their time skipping from bubble to bubble and everything else is "fly over".

Look up the stats for active pilots. Look up aircraft registration. In the last decade there has been a serious decline and while it somewhat follows the boom and bust cycle, it has over all been a steady decline. Look back to 20 and 30 years back and well, it sucks. The demise of the middle class and particularly the upper middle class is the demise of GA.

It's great that the folks in the bubbles have found their way to aviation. We really, really need them and welcome them. The truth is though, GA as we know it is supported almost entirely by guys in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s. This is what the new upper middle looks like. Cut these guys out due to medicals and GA in America looks like GA in Europe.

Many living in the bubbles admire all things European and see no problem with this. I personally and many others I meet in GA though, are not in this group. We yearn to hold onto what we once had and what America once had. It may be idealistic and sentimental... so be it.

My suggestion to you is, get out and fly. Actually land, stop and get out at some of the most pointless and out of the way airports. It's good practice, keeps your aviation chops up and fun to do. While you're there, make a point of talking to the locals on the field for a bit. Listen to what they say and don't just discount it as being Fox News inspired, redneck rhetoric.

It's real and justified frustration. Bottom line is, your airport is doing well and so are many near me in the Bay Area. Those Bubble bux are nice to have and I say more power to them. However, all the airports those .com, mobile ap, IT, gaming guys, or whatever they do in those cubicles... go to practice their touch and goes and crosswind landings and their non towered ops... those airports are hurting. Big time. Get out and talk, listen and think.