On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:07:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:04:06 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:57:36 PM UTC-4, Soartech wrote: I will hazard a guess that the numbers of people in this class are too low to make much of a difference either way. So using the medical exemption as a point to recruit power pilots to soaring is ineffective? When I saw the point made in a presentation, I thought that it made soaring pilots look bad.



It makes it a bit more simple, which is good. One less hassle and one less expense but not a deal maker in my view.

UH

The original proposal to do away with the III class medical prohibited towing any object, which I assume included gliders. In my club there are numerous pilots of a certain age who have let there medicals lapse, but still fly their Cubs, Champs, T-craft, etc and sailplanes. They no longer want to risk being completely grounded or seriously delayed by the medical appeal process if some minor problem should show up.

My point is that under the original plan to remove the III class medical they could fly the tow plane legally all day, but not tow a glider, thus removing them from returning to the tow pilot pool.

As to younger pilots, ask your self this question. If you can fly two and four seat singles, LSA's, and sailplanes, would you go through the expense and risk of getting a medical that was only useful to make a few club tows on the weekend?

Perhaps this is a issue that the SSA could lobby for, where a SSA club could have an exemption to that specific rule.

Just my thoughts.