EAA AOPA medical proposal

[dstclair]

There has been some questions as to whether the proposal would just be for current RP and above pilots (who at one time had a medical) or would allow the RP to be earned without a 3rd class medical. The following is a clarification from EAA on the actual proposal:

The proposal EAA and AOPA intend to submit would not allow a path to initially obtain a recreational or private pilot certificate. To obtain either of these certificate would require a 3rd class medical. However, once the recreational or private certificate was obtained the pilot could then take advantage of the exemption and choose to not renew the 3rd class medical and under the exemption use a drivers license thereafter.

The proposal was carefully drafted to maximize its acceptability to the FAA and create progress where there has been none previously. Each additional expansion beyond the limits that are being proposed reduces the likelihood of success. If we are successful and the exemption is issued, it is possible that in future years the exemption could be modified in a way that might allow a path from sport pilot to recreational or private pilot without needing a 3rd class medical.

Additional information about the proposal including a series of FAQs, can be viewed by clicking these links:
http://eaa.org/news/2011/2011-09-24_medical-mm.asp
http://eaa.org/news/2011/2011-10-06_exemption.asp
http://eaa.org/news/2011/2011-11-14_faq.asp

Click here to sign up for e-mail alerts on the progress of EAA and AOPA’s petition to exempt pilots flying recreationally from the third class medical certificate requirement.

Thank you for your support of this initiative.

[Jack Tyler]

Dave, thanks for posting that. It's an important distinction in multiple ways. It certainly makes clear that, assuming FAA acceptance of the proposal, the (at least initial) intent is to 'save' the pilot population in place and reduce the attrition rate of active pilots - and presumably, mostly older pilots. This isn't about growing a new population of student pilots - those who would pursue a RP/PP license if only they could avoid the Class III medical requirement. And given that, another point it makes is how limited this proposal's impact should be on those doing SP training and/or selling LSA a/c.

Overall, this is probably a low-risk (from a safety standpoint) option that will have a relatively low impact on the trends associated with the GA pilot population and a low impact on the health of the immature SP/LSA industry. But that doesn't impeach it as a worthy proposal.

[fredg]

Agreed, very low risk. But also of declining value over time. Pilots ineligible for PPL training due to class 3 medical issues get no benefit from it. We can only hope that, once in place, it opens the door to elimination of the class 3 medical requirement for training for recreational type flying with PPL.

[theskunk]

Admittedly, I was a bit dissapointed by this clarification, however I do completely understand why they are taking this approach, and its a fantastic first step.

I've been able to continue taking instructions in full size GA aircraft which would be applicable to the RP rule, and even had a mock-checkride and mock-solo, basically at this point I've got the instructor there to keep me legal and i'm doing all the flying. Downside is that due to scheduling and availability, i've yet to have a good track on my sport pilot training. I'm looking forward to see if and when this passes, and how this will affect getting new pilots started.

[dstclair]

Depending on which sources you research, this is the 7th failure at blanket removal of the 3rd class medical: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/3r ... 224-1.html

The reason for failure cited lack of data to support the petition. This gives credence to the EAA/AOPA approach of using the LSA data, limiting the aircraft to something similar (in practice or in use) to the collected data, provide a process to ensure safety equivalence, and base it on existing FARs (recreational pilot). If the exemption is successful, then a beach head can be established to expand the exemption if the data supports it. This also gives the FAA an out since they could easily revoke the exemption if the data doesn't support it.

[Jack Tyler]

"The reason for failure cited lack of data to support the petition. This gives credence to the EAA/AOPA approach of using the LSA data, limiting the aircraft to something similar (in practice or in use) to the collected data, provide a process to ensure safety equivalence, and base it on existing FARs (recreational pilot). If the exemption is successful, then a beach head can be established to expand the exemption if the data supports it. This also gives the FAA an out since they could easily revoke the exemption if the data doesn't support it."

Extremely well stated. This appears to be, by far, the best 'tactical' approach so far. Just the partnering of these two - for the vast majority of the GA population, the "only two" - membership organizations portends a more likely positive outcome. It's also fair to say, I think, that both these organizations have more politically astute and effective senior leadership than has been true in the past, which is another new(ish) wrinkle.

To me there's an excellent, recent regulatory case study that bears on this: the FCC's liberalizing of qualifications for amateur radio privileges. The FAA and FCC cultures strike me as quite similar:
-- hidebound, rules-oriented, 'the past is prologue' mindsets that could be maintained so long as external forces (technology, demographics and mostly healthy economic growth) were fairly stable
-- more recently both became threatened by these same influences and both were/are seeing a significant drop in one portion of the public for which their existence is justified

The FAA folks are not dumb and you can already see examples of their rigidity to change softening. TraCon Centers now have Customer Service programs, reducing the difficulty and expense of a/c and equipment certification is now on the table, and the demographics & operations numbers must look, to FAA employees and managers, like worrisome revenue decreases would to the business owner and his/her employees. The timing of this proposal might be just right...

[dstclair]

EAA/AOPA have submitted the petition: http://eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-20_exemption.asp

I encourage those with an opinion to comment on the FAA site on the petition.

Let the waiting game begin

[drseti]

Moving this thread to the new "Medical Issues" forum.

[designrs]

Any updates on the Medical Exemption proposal?
Predictions as to if and when it might happen?

More recent articles:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-07-03 ... mption.asp

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013 ... 76db-17962

[Jack Tyler]

No, there is no new news. Isn't the FAA's current strategy WRT this proposal pretty transparent? According to AOPA, the FAA received more public comment on this proposal than on any previous one, so at the time of the public comment period, it generated a lot of awareness among the GA pilot population. OTOH both the EAA President and AOPA President stated not long ago, after meeting with the Administrator and some of his staff, that the FAA was very reluctant to approve it. So how does a savvy bureaucrat and staff deal with a popular initiative that they will refuse to approve? They put it in the dead letter file, let it whither on the vine for many months, while making no public statements nor inviting any additional input on it. Those of us who support the initiative see this happening, grow pessimistic about its prospects...and then at a much later date the FAA announces that it is not approved. By that point, the public posture is 'Yeah, I could see that wasn't going to happen...' rather than what would have been the general GA public reaction a year earlier: 'You decided WHAT?!'

[David Pavlich]

What I've gleaned from this last page ensures that when the time comes, it'll be a Sport certificate. I'm too old to be messing with a medical and my hopes of getting to at least a Recreational without the medical is no longer an option. From an older prospective student, that is a bummer.

David

[MrMorden]

What I've gleaned from this last page ensures that when the time comes, it'll be a Sport certificate. I'm too old to be messing with a medical and my hopes of getting to at least a Recreational without the medical is no longer an option. From an older prospective student, that is a bummer.

David

Don't let it get you down, LSA flying is quite fun and useful with the right airplane!

[CTLSi]

......

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[drseti]

The ability to fly 400 miles at 120kts burning less than 10 gallons of auto gas at around $35 cost and getting there in less than 2.5 hrs can only be achieved in a CTLS or an LSA like it.

I am a bigtime proponent of LSAs, and although I agree with your advice and conclusions, your numbers just don't add up. Please check your math.

To achieve 120 knots true, you're going to be flying at WOT. At that power setting, even the 912iS can't achieve the better than 40 MPG your fuel burn figures suggest. 400 statute miles is 348 nm; to do that in 2.5 hours would require you to be averaging 139 knots, not 120. And regular (87 Octane) auto gas costs me $3.69 a gallon these days; premium is well over $4 a gallon, so your $35 fuel cost estimate is rather low.

We can make a good case for LSA without inflating the numbers, so why exaggerate? It only weakens our case by diminishing our credibility.