Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For Some

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

Nomore767
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For Some

Postby Nomore767 » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:08 pm

Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For Some

Just saw this today. Does this apply to current light sports pilots? It mentions 'private pilots who want to fly light aircraft'. It doesnt say 'light aircraft AND light sport aircraft'. Is this just about the proposed change for pilots who currently need a 3rd class medical as a minimum to fly GA airplanes above 1320lbs? To me this seems to apply to pilots wanting to fly airplanes up to 6000lbs but above 1320lbs which isn't light sport. In other words whatever your license level (SP, PPL, CPL, ATP) if you're flying light sport with no medical or a lapsed medical you can fly on a DL. If you desire to fly airplanes heavier than 1320lbs up to 6000lbs (and other requirements like14000' , IFR,feet etc ) then to qualify you need to comply with this medical proposal as outlined below, correct? So, if I currently fly an LSA on a DL and I desire to sell it and buy a Cessna 172 then I would then have to comply with the new medical rules? If I stick with light sport then no changes?
Also, it doesn't make mention of flying on a DL (unlike sport flying) only that these rules must be complied with.
What is your take, anyone?

By Elaine Kauh | September 25, 2015 AVWEB

Legislation designed to waive the third-class medical for private pilots flying light aircraft has turned into a plan to require one-time medicals for new pilots or those who haven't had one for more than 10 years, according to remarks made Thursday on the Senate floor by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe, who introduced the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 earlier this year in efforts to push the FAA for the medical exemption, said the bill as it stands now would require pilots to do three things: Take an online aeromedical course every two years, make logbook entries certifying they’ve seen their personal doctors at least once every four years (and received any needed treatment for medical conditions), and what Inhofe described as “a comprehensive medical review by the FAA” for new pilots. Pilots without medicals for more than 10 years also would need the one-time certification. Pilots with current medicals or those lapsed within 10 years would be exempt.

The proposal also would provide relief for pilots who have special-issuance medicals, as repeated visits to an aviation medical examiner would no longer be required, Inhofe said. “This bill as modified gives pilots a break from the bureaucracy,” he said. Inhofe’s original Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 had included exemptions for private pilots from the third-class medical for VFR and IFR flights under 14,000 feet, provided their aircraft carried a maximum of five passengers and weighed under 6,000 pounds. AOPA, EAA and other GA groups rallied behind that proposal. "The legislation still allows tens of thousands of pilots to fly without having to go through the medical process ever again. Or in some cases, go through the medical process only one time," AOPA spokeswoman Katie Pribyl told AVweb. "We don’t believe this version invalidates our efforts."

AOPA said as of Thursday, 67 senators and 140 representatives from both parties had signed on to cosponsor the legislation. “We’ll keep working to build momentum for PBR2 and we’ll continue to look for opportunities to have medical reform language included in other types of legislation that are moving through Congress,” AOPA said. The bill “gives the FAA the authority to look one time at an airman to establish their baseline eligibility to fly, then places the ongoing care and monitoring of a pilot’s health in the hands of the pilot and their personal physician, which is where EAA believes it should rightfully be,” EAA said in a statement Friday.

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby SportPilot » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:41 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby SportPilot » Fri Sep 25, 2015 7:52 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby MrMorden » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:45 pm

It doesn't say if a "comprehensive medical review" is going to be the same as a third class medical, or something else.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby SportPilot » Fri Sep 25, 2015 8:51 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nomore767
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby Nomore767 » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:51 pm

The comprehensive review would be for a new pilot or one who hasn't had a medical, or ket it lapse more than 10 years ago. This would be used as the baseline to permit no future medicals and continuing on being fit as determined by the pilot's doctor.
Less than 10 years and you can go right into the new rules, at least that's how I see it.

In other words, they don't repeal and the 3rd class medical and allow say a DL as a substitute. Which is the way I would have approached it if I was the FAA, and what I kind of anticipated. It basically says to proponents of change 'you can drop the requirement for 'expensive' annual medicals but there's no free lunch, we get to fully evaluate you beforehand in order to do that.

For me it's currently moot as I don't have any flying' mission' which would get me in a bigger plane or doing IFR, or above 14k. Sport flying is okay for me at the present time.

N918KT
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:49 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby N918KT » Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:12 pm

Would the modified Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 in any way change the 3rd class medical standards or special issuance process for the better? For serious conditions requiring a special issuance, do you need to have a history of that condition or just need to be CURRENTLY diagnosed with that condition to require a special issuance? In other words, if a person has a serious special issuance condition that has been resolved and they no longer have it, would they still need to go through the special issuance process because they still have a history of that condition or can they just get a regular 3rd class medical?

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby SportPilot » Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:14 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby SportPilot » Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:16 pm

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Mar 20, 2016 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby designrs » Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:53 am

... As per paragraph two in the first post, it appears that a special issuance would be easier to maintain with more self-monitoring of the condition.

3Dreaming
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby 3Dreaming » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:20 am

“a comprehensive medical review by the FAA”
It could be this is wording to protect the guys like Sportpilot. If it is truly a review and not an application for a medical then you could still use a DL to fly under sport pilot privileges, and not have any fear of trying. At least that is the way I see it with how the regulations are written now.

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

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby Jack Tyler » Sat Sep 26, 2015 9:37 am

None of us are reacting to the actual change in the bill's language - just to Imhofe's floor remarks - so our speculation is in IMC at the moment. AOPA's headline article right now (http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... ?CMP=ADV:1) also lacks full clarity, which may be because they are themselves trying to sort out the changes. It may also be that AOPA was caught a bit flatfooted since they have all hands on deck down in Colorado Springs as of Friday for their regional event.

My interpretation of the article posted and AOPA's coverage is that Imhofe's remarks about the changes (and PBOR2) are made solely within the context of those pilots who are now required to maintain a current medical certificate. IOW the bill's language changes won't effect those pilots who currently are not required to hold a medical certificate (glider pilots, SPL pilots), any more than the original PBOR2 did. It would be helpful for orgs like the EAA and AOPA to quickly obtain and relay clarity on that point.

Still, the question SportPilot posted is a good one. Many of the 'early adopters' of SPL privileges were pilots who no longer held a current medical. In fact, the safety record of this segment of the SPL pilot community could actually be part of the basis for loosening the medical requirements. Based on what has been written, it would appear (my interpretation, mind you...) that any 'upward migration' by pilots who want to move back into Part 23 or 1320#+ aircraft won't be possible without a new 'base line' medical exam. Is that what the rest of you are concluding?
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org

Nomore767
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby Nomore767 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:27 am

Jack,

I think you're right. I believe the FAA, and those feeling dubious about a medical change, will at least require a baseline medical in order to allow the pilot to move forward. If the pilot does well with a comprehensive medical then removing the expensive repetitive annual medicals (requiring the supporting documentation to prove you have no medical conditions) meets what AOPA/EAA are asking for. It doesn't provide the 'pass' to allow PPL and above pilots to simply go on to fly without a medical with no scrutiny.
It also doesn't mean flying on DLs for PPL and above.

As you say the articles only briefly mention what was said in Congress, and doesn't say that Class 3 medicals are eliminated although you would think they are now if everyone has to go onto the new program. In lieu of a Class 3 you get the baseline and then report your condition and work with your own physician.

I wonder how this would affect those sport pilots who have been hoping to move to bigger airplanes and higher, faster, IFR flying and may now feel it's still a risk. If you fail to pass the comprehensive medical does that in turn deny access to sport flying as it does now with the 3rd class (and other levels of medical)?

Many of these questions need to be explained,as you said.

User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby MrMorden » Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:32 am

Jack, that *seems* to be correct.

The only big question is: what does a "comprehensive review" look like? Is it going to be just like a third class medical? Or something more informal with just a sheet of paper for your personal doc to sign a that lists what issues you have, along with a signature saying something to the effect of "I don't see anything that would prevent this patient from safely piloting an airplane"?

I'd guess it will essentially be a third class medical, but time will tell.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA

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

Re: Pilot's Bill Of Rights Changes; Medicals Required For So

Postby designrs » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:26 am

"Comprehensive Review" must to be an FAA reported 3rd class medical or very similar. The FAA is not just going to walk away from this without requirements and reporting.

(Sigh) On one hand, every ten years is progress. It will relieve many from the burdens of the current medical review timeline, especially those with special issuance.

Still, I'd like to see a "driver's license medical" implemented just as we have for Sport Pilots. Wishful thinking I suppose. The fact still stands... Sport Pilots have proven that planes don't fall out of the sky because the pilot doesn't have a medical!

Where did the original requirement of a medical for non-commercial private pilots come from anyway??
When did that start?


Return to “Light Sport Aircraft”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests