Old guy

Pilot? Student pilot? Future pilot? Interested in learning to fly? If you're reading this forum, you've got flying in your blood! SportPilotTalk is a great place to ask questions about this exciting new segment of (more) affordable aviation!

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
designrs
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby designrs » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:49 pm

Warning: This is a rant.
How can the FAA justify the 3rd class medical for private pilots flying small private aircraft? It sounds like a silly question off the cuff, and it is, but really? They really care if you have slightly high blood pressure? Have had indigestion? Oral surgery? Or something up your butt? We don't see many cars pulling off the highway so the driver can be resuscitated! Or cars crashing into each other due to heart attacks! Oh no!! But in flying all we hear is "the medical, the medical, the medical"... and not just from old guys!

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5697
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Old guy

Postby drseti » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:15 pm

designrs wrote:How can the FAA justify the 3rd class medical for private pilots flying small private aircraft?


Simple, Richard. The way regulators have always justified any illogical and archaic rule: "this is the way it's always been done."
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby FlyingForFun » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:16 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
designrs
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby designrs » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:54 pm

FlyingForFun wrote:Personally, I don't have a problem with it when you can load your family and friends into a 6 place, twin engine airplane and mix it up with commercial aircraft carrying 300 passengers in IFR conditions, just as an example.


Loaded 6 place twin in IMC is a lot different from 4-place singles that mostly fly solo... and someone can load up a 8-place mini van in the snow and collide with a passenger bus... without a medical, but it doesn't happen very often.

... and I'd be willing to wager if the third-class medical was eliminated for all 1, 2 or 4-place singles... VFR or IFR, we would still be seeing far more incidents from incompetence and bad judgement than medical issues.

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby FlyingForFun » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:10 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5697
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Old guy

Postby drseti » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:36 pm

Although we all see the folly of the medical rules as they presently exist, I would suggest great caution in asking the FAA for any changes. Sometimes that backfires, and they rewrite the FARs in such a way as to eliminate privileges that we currently enjoy! :cry: Specifically, if they were to modify the 3rd class medical, they might well then impose the "new and improved" version on those of us currently operating under Sport Pilot rules with a driver's license.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

Nomore767
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby Nomore767 » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:38 pm

I think that Private and Sport could be merged into one category. If you want to get serious about more advanced flying then you go to Commercial, and have a Commercial pilot medical. The next step, ATPL with a more stricter medical and EKG.

A combined PPL/Sport could d have Basic and Advanced levels. Basically, like the endorsement for Class B, C and D airspace, have endorsements for night, retractible and variable pitch pros etc. Thus the pilot has a menu of complexity suitable to the mission he desires.
Better defining the Sport/PPL aircraft could expand on the weights, engines, gear etc and offer more to the next generation of students as well as more satisfying capability to existing pilots.

Howard.

Nomore767
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby Nomore767 » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:38 pm

drseti wrote:Although we all see the folly of the medical rules as they presently exist, I would suggest great caution in asking the FAA for any changes. Sometimes that backfires, and they rewrite the FARs in such a way as to eliminate privileges that we currently enjoy! :cry: Specifically, if they were to modify the 3rd class medical, they might well then impose the "new and improved" version on those of us currently operating under Sport Pilot rules with a driver's license.


Unfortunately....true.

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby FlyingForFun » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:11 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Torque
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Old guy

Postby Torque » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:00 am

Nomore767 wrote:I think that Private and Sport could be merged into one category. If you want to get serious about more advanced flying then you go to Commercial, and have a Commercial pilot medical. The next step, ATPL with a more stricter medical and EKG.

A combined PPL/Sport could d have Basic and Advanced levels. Basically, like the endorsement for Class B, C and D airspace, have endorsements for night, retractible and variable pitch pros etc. Thus the pilot has a menu of complexity suitable to the mission he desires.
Better defining the Sport/PPL aircraft could expand on the weights, engines, gear etc and offer more to the next generation of students as well as more satisfying capability to existing pilots.

Howard.



From those students I have spoken with about Sport Pilot Program and the Private Pilot Program. Those students I have spoke with want these two to be farther apart then what they are.
The biggest complaint I get from those training for the Sport Pilot Certificate is that CFI's want to train not at the PTS standards for Sport Pilot but more to PP standards.
The ones I have spoke with would be thrilled to get a bare bones Sport Pilot Certificate and then work towards further indorsements just as its written in the PTS.

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5697
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Old guy

Postby drseti » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:41 am

I agree that we CFIs should teach to the PTS. That said, there's already a "Sport Pilot Lite." It's called Part 103. :wink: Unfortunately, that doesn't allow two-seat aircraft, or dual flight instruction. :(
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
fly@AvSport.org
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US

Merlinspop
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm
Location: WV Eastern Panhandle

Re: Old guy

Postby Merlinspop » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:42 am

drseti wrote:
designrs wrote:How can the FAA justify the 3rd class medical for private pilots flying small private aircraft?


Simple, Richard. The way regulators have always justified any illogical and archaic rule: "this is the way it's always been done."


"For the SAFETY of the flying and non-flying public!!" The only thing that trumps the "safety" card and the "National Security" card, hence the DC SFRA, of which there are many arguments that it creates unsafe conditions.
- Bruce

Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: Old guy

Postby Jack Tyler » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:48 am

To back up a step...

"How can the FAA justify the 3rd class medical for private pilots flying small private aircraft?"

That's not the question. The FAA doesn't have to justify what's in the FARs, as those rules were each established using whatever review/public comment period existed at the times. They simply ARE.

The question is this: How can we - the flying public, our representative clubs and organizations, GA generally - justify to the FAA that a rule is NOT justified. That's a far tougher question to answer and for a number of reasons. Yes, bureaucracies do not embrace change. And no doubt there is some institutional loyalty to the rules as they currently exist. But beyond that, there is some amount of true risk involved - to be assumed by the agency and by its decision makers - if the medical requirements are somewhat relaxed.

Let's assume there is sound reasoning behind the EAA/AOPA petition...but let's also be honest: That's a 'trust me' message offered by two organizations responsible to their members and not as much to the safety of the greater public. And that message is based on a pretty limited baseline of data. Assume the FAA grants the petition, a few years go by, and it's discovered that there is an increase in medical-related incidents. There will be inevitable sniping and finger pointing from the NTSB, the aviation orgs will be unable to rescue the FAA from the inevitable 'pilots have the agency in their back pockets' allegations, Congress will have another reason to hate the FAA, and relaxing the medical requirements will be viewed as a stupid (at best) or even influenced decision.

So what IS the chance that granting the EAA/AOPA petition will result in an increase in medically-related incidents? No one knows. It may be small, it may be very small...but IMO it's not a null set because I can see some of that risk just among the aviation groups I interact with and the folks I meet at the airports. Especially among we older pilots, there is a cadre of pilots who have held onto their planes, have a long-expired medical, may sneak in a flight now and then, but are reluctant to leave aviation and also reluctant to re-certify medically. With the petition granted, some of those folks are going to hop aboard more regularly, many of those are going to be less than current to begin with, and some of them are avoiding a medical because they know they can't pass. A good friend of mine is in his mid-80's, has hidden multiple medical problems (some life threatening) from his AME, and has managed to hang onto his medical...but there are others like him who haven't bothered or who suffer from greater problems.

As much as I'd welcome the FAA granting the EAA/AOPA petition - I would be a welcome benefactor - it's ostrich-like behavior to ignore that some amount of risk is associated with its acceptance, and that there needs to be compelling evidence to overcome the risk the FAA folks might believe exists. The compelling evidence may be accumulating...but I haven't seen it in bountiful amounts yet and apparently the FAA hasn't, either.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org

User avatar
designrs
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby designrs » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:57 am

New training motto FARs, they just ARE! LOL

Seriously, thanks all for the thoughtful replies.

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Old guy

Postby FlyingForFun » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:31 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Introduce Yourself!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest