Why do pilots need a medical

Bob Martin wrote:

The FAA wouldn't bother with the
third-class waiver because of that.

The Faa will grant a waiver for 3rd class just as readily as for 1st. If there's
a difference, it may be that the holder of a 1st class certificate will take the
steps necessary to get the waiver more readily than the holder of a 3rd class will.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

"Andrew Sarangan"
pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
requiring a medical for pilots?

If you're talking about third class medical, it does bring up some
interesting questions. Excluding passengers, I would think your chances of
killing others while having a heart attack in your car are much higher than
in an aircraft. If I may coin a phrase, "The big ground theory" seems to
make flying the safer alternative for a cardiac patient.


Dallas

What about including passengers? Even if you are on the verge of
collapsing from some debilitating desease you could drive a minibus
loaded with passengers at 75mph.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message

What about including passengers? Even if you are on the verge of
collapsing from some debilitating desease you could drive a minibus
loaded with passengers at 75mph.

Any vehicle over 15 pax requires a CDL, and I believe there are some medical
standards attached to same, but I don't know the details.

John Gaquin wrote:

Any vehicle over 15 pax requires a CDL, and I believe there are some medical
standards attached to same, but I don't know the details.

A short search with Jeeves shows that the Feds are involved in that too. Medical
certificate requirements are listed in CFR 49.

George Patterson
If a tank is out of ammunition, what you have is a sixty ton portable
radio.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
requiring a medical for pilots?

Makes the regulators feel like they are doing something for the public.
The truth of the matter, is that it's easy to abuse the pilot community.
However you can't do anything that might separate the American voting
populace from their cars or TV without committing political suicide.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
The recent questions about medical certificate, paper trail, sport
pilot etc.. etc..got me thinking. What is the reasoning behind
requiring a medical for pilots? Why is a minor medical condition
disqualifying for flying a Cessna 172, when the same person can drive a
20,000 lb truck on public roads? Are there statistic to show that
medically unfit pilots are a greater danger to society compared to
other activities?


Well you know... There's a somewhat revealing discussion of the medical
requirement in the preamble to the Sport Pilot NPRM (it's somewhere on
faa.gov but my link to it no longer works, since it's pretty old). In
particular, among other things, it cites the safety record of sailplanes
as a justification for the so-called "drivers license medical" that was
initially put into the rule. It strongly suggests that the writers of
the rule felt that a medical requirement is a) superfluous, certainly
for flying LSA and b) in very high demand and critical for survival of
the LSA industry.

Of course, as we all know, the medical requirement was very badly
crippled in the final version of the rule, but that would appear to have
only been the result of pressure from special interests (the insurance
companies probably). What's important is, it actually succeeded in
passing without formally requiring a medical certificate - a stunning
achievement if you really think about it.

So clearly, there seems to be disagreement even within the FAA about
whether or not a medical requirement really does any good. The fact that
Sport Pilot even made it out the door in its current form strongly
indicates this.....

By the way, I think the preamble made a similar argument to yours - if a
pilot holds a valid DL and can drive a multi-ton vehicle down the road,
surely (s)he is fit enough to fly an LSA safely.....

My personal case is a good example. I can't obtain and maintain a class
III anymore and yet I'm in the best health of my entire life and more
than fit to fly an airplane. I've accumulated more then 500 hours of
flight time since my class III went away with no problems.. There're a
lot of other guys just like me out there also flying without problems....

So as they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

LS
N646F

I think the theory is that disabilities rarely occur without warning.
If you get chest pain while driving a bus, you can pull over to the
side of the road. If it happens in airplane, it may be a while before
you can find a safe place to park.

I've seen statistics on medical-related aviation accidents, and the
number of these that could have been prevented by a more rigorous
medical is close to zero. Compared to CFIT, VFR into IMC, and
stall/spin accidents, the medical requirements don't come close to
justifying their cost and inconvenience.

On 17 Nov 2005 06:28:26 -0800, "Paul kgyy"
wrote:

I think the theory is that disabilities rarely occur without warning.
If you get chest pain while driving a bus, you can pull over to the
side of the road. If it happens in airplane, it may be a while before
you can find a safe place to park.


Yes, I'm sure that this is the reasoning used by Joe Bureaucrat for
keeping the reg. Of course, that bus driver might hit about 30
pedestrians when he pulls over to the side of the road while the pilot
may take out a backyard hot tub somewhere when he goes down.

take out a backyard hot tub somewhere when he goes down.

The one incident I am aware of a pilot having a heart attack while
flying. The Pilot on a Cross country flight landed and called the FBO
to call 911 for him. He had a 2nd Class Medical.

Brian