FAA petition to eliminate Class 3 medical for Private Pilots

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

"FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
a new LSA or quit flying,"

I think that is essentially true.

Not necessarily. A pilot who has failed a medical cannot fly LSA. An older
pilot would have to anticipate failing his next medical and then let the
medical lapse rather than take it in order to use the LSA route, and even then
it would be technically illegal (you can't fly LSA if you know that you would
not be medically qualified for a PPL).

If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?

What do you think?

I think all the medical standards imposed by aviation authorities are too
stringent. Medical incapacitation is extraordinarily rare. And before you say
that this is so because the exams are strict, look at the world of
automobiles: Even though most jurisdictions only require you to be able to see
reasonably well in order to get a driver's license, medical incapacitation of
automobile drivers is still extremely rare.

Most people never become suddenly incapacitated for medical reasons. They get
gradually sick and have to get medical care, but it doesn't sneak up on them.
In cases of things like heart attack, they are statistically very unlikely to
have a heart attack during flight, simply because almost none of their time is
spent flying.

Exactly right.

There are very few things that will suddenly and without any warning cause
one to be incapacitated and even a Class 1 medical is unlikely to find them
in someone who appears healthy.

While such things might be found by full body scans and enough tests to
make Dr. House look stingy on testing, there is still no guarantee.

The bottom line in my opinion is that the medical for GA is little more
than a ritual left over from when airplanes were fabric and had two wings.


Given how dramatically other sources of accidents outnumber medical
incapacitation, the draconian standards of aviation authorities don't make
much sense. You might want to be strict for airline pilots, but that's all.
And even for airline pilots, you don't necessarily need to be any more strict
than you are for people operating other vehicles where incapacitation would be
dangerous (commuter trains, ships, trucks, etc.).

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

opined

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:22:18 +0000, Scott
wrote:


Again? This comes up every year (or even more often). I believe the
FAA basically says we already have it (Sport Pilot) and has denied it in
the past.

I have to say I don't disagree with the logic in the proposal.
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Re...=090000648099d
311&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

"FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
a new LSA or quit flying,"

I think that is essentially true.

If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?

What do you think?

It is not the cost of the aircraft that is important. Bureaucrats will only
be yelled at for saying yes.


A C172 can carry 2 more people than an LSA.
A Mooney is 100Kts faster than an LSA.
A Cherokee can fly in the clouds.
A bonanza is much heavier than an LSA.

All of which can increase the chances of a crssh, the body count of a crash.
And all the non crash flights are not seen.

So, which way is a bureaucrat going to go?


-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

On 10/31/2010 9:56 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

"FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
a new LSA or quit flying,"

I think that is essentially true.

Not necessarily. A pilot who has failed a medical cannot fly LSA. An older
pilot would have to anticipate failing his next medical and then let the
medical lapse rather than take it in order to use the LSA route, and even then
it would be technically illegal (you can't fly LSA if you know that you would
not be medically qualified for a PPL).

If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?

What do you think?

I think all the medical standards imposed by aviation authorities are too
stringent. Medical incapacitation is extraordinarily rare. And before you say
that this is so because the exams are strict, look at the world of
automobiles: Even though most jurisdictions only require you to be able to see
reasonably well in order to get a driver's license, medical incapacitation of
automobile drivers is still extremely rare.

I agree that automotive medical incapacitation leading to an accident is
rare, but the driving environment is quite a bit different than the
flying environment. Someone feeling "something wrong in the chest" can
pull over to the side of the road and call for assistance thus avoiding
an automobile accident. It may be that such medical events are
extremely common, but never get reported because no accident happens.
Or never get reported because automobile accidents are extremely common.

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

"FAA's medical exemption is currently exclusive to LSA aircraft,
artificially creating an unfair, unnecessary and exclusive market
concession for a few LSA manufacturers. FAA medical standards are
literally being exploited by industry to force thousands of older
pilots to stop using their certified aircraft; so they must either buy
a new LSA or quit flying,"

I think that is essentially true.

Not necessarily. A pilot who has failed a medical cannot fly LSA. An
older
pilot would have to anticipate failing his next medical and then let the
medical lapse rather than take it in order to use the LSA route, and even
then
it would be technically illegal (you can't fly LSA if you know that you
would
not be medically qualified for a PPL).

If it's safe enough for a pilot to fly a new $150,000 LSA with no
medical, why isn't it safe for the same pilot to fly a 25 or 30 year
old Cessna 172 or 182 or a 25 or 30 year old Piper Cherokee?

What do you think?

I think all the medical standards imposed by aviation authorities are too
stringent. Medical incapacitation is extraordinarily rare. And before you
say
that this is so because the exams are strict, look at the world of
automobiles: Even though most jurisdictions only require you to be able
to see
reasonably well in order to get a driver's license, medical
incapacitation of
automobile drivers is still extremely rare.

Most people never become suddenly incapacitated for medical reasons. They
get
gradually sick and have to get medical care, but it doesn't sneak up on
them.
In cases of things like heart attack, they are statistically very
unlikely to
have a heart attack during flight, simply because almost none of their
time is
spent flying.

Exactly right.

There are very few things that will suddenly and without any warning cause
one to be incapacitated and even a Class 1 medical is unlikely to find
them
in someone who appears healthy.

While such things might be found by full body scans and enough tests to
make Dr. House look stingy on testing, there is still no guarantee.

The bottom line in my opinion is that the medical for GA is little more
than a ritual left over from when airplanes were fabric and had two wings.


Given how dramatically other sources of accidents outnumber medical
incapacitation, the draconian standards of aviation authorities don't
make
much sense. You might want to be strict for airline pilots, but that's
all.
And even for airline pilots, you don't necessarily need to be any more
strict
than you are for people operating other vehicles where incapacitation
would be
dangerous (commuter trains, ships, trucks, etc.).

--
Jim Pennino

If it were eliminated then there would be literally thousands of planes out
there available that would be in my budget and I could fly again.
Sam

"Jim" wrote in message
...
I agree that automotive medical incapacitation leading to an accident is rare,
but the driving environment is quite a bit different than the flying
environment.

OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
can't qualify for a third class medical..

Vaughn

On 10/31/2010 5:45 PM, vaughn wrote:
wrote in message
...
I agree that automotive medical incapacitation leading to an accident is rare,
but the driving environment is quite a bit different than the flying
environment.

OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
can't qualify for a third class medical..

Vaughn

Oh, I agree completely, and it's a great observation that those who
might otherwise be denied medicals will be attracted to LSAs. It all
may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot. Glider / balloon / LSA, not so much. General
Aviation aircraft, somewhat more. Large commercial aircraft, quite a
bit more. And so more medical supervision is needed. Great in theory,
but I am unconvinced that a third-class medical exam every three (or
two) years makes everyone safer. Second- and first-class medicals? Maybe.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do. The AARP lobby, no
doubt.

On 10/31/2010 5:45 PM, vaughn wrote:
wrote in message
...
I agree that automotive medical incapacitation leading to an accident is rare,
but the driving environment is quite a bit different than the flying
environment.

OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
can't qualify for a third class medical..

Vaughn

Oh, I agree completely, and it's a great observation that those who
might otherwise be denied medicals will be attracted to LSAs. It all
may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot. Glider / balloon / LSA, not so much. General
Aviation aircraft, somewhat more. Large commercial aircraft, quite a
bit more. And so more medical supervision is needed. Great in theory,
but I am unconvinced that a third-class medical exam every three (or
two) years makes everyone safer. Second- and first-class medicals? Maybe.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do. The AARP lobby, no
doubt.

On 10/31/2010 5:45 PM, vaughn wrote:
wrote in message
...
I agree that automotive medical incapacitation leading to an accident is rare,
but the driving environment is quite a bit different than the flying
environment.

OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
can't qualify for a third class medical..

Vaughn

Oh, I agree completely, and it's a great observation that those who
might otherwise be denied medicals will be attracted to LSAs. It all
may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot. Glider / balloon / LSA, not so much. General
Aviation aircraft, somewhat more. Large commercial aircraft, quite a
bit more. And so more medical supervision is needed. Great in theory,
but I am unconvinced that a third-class medical exam every three (or
two) years makes everyone safer. Second- and first-class medicals? Maybe.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do. The AARP lobby, no
doubt.

vaughn writes:

OK, then look at the medical incapacitation of glider pilots, which is no worse
than that of the general population of GA pilots, even though they can fly
without a medical certificate.. In just a few years, I predict that there will
be enough data for us to know that LSA pilots also have similar results, even
though some of them may have been attracted to LSA's precisely because they
can't qualify for a third class medical..

It's going to be a long, hard fight to get rid of third-class medicals. For
some reason, the FAA likes to imagine that pilots need to be in the same
condition as Apollo astronauts. And NASA was even exaggerating for the
astronauts, as John Glenn proved at the age of 77.

Jim writes:

It all may be related to relative damage done by an aircraft with an
unconscious pilot.

A Hummer weighs more than a Cessna and can veer off the road at any time, even
in highly congested urban areas. And yet this doesn't happen, even though
Hummer drivers don't need a third-class medical.

Along the same lines, I don't know why motor homes do not require any
special training while scooters and motorcycles do.

As I recall, no training was required for motorcycles where I lived, but the
road test was non-trivial.