End of medical.

[AdamFrisch]

I've long been a proponent for dropping the medical for PPL's. And it seems like the FAA is starting to warm to the idea as well.

Arguing For The End Of The Third Class Medical (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/third_class_medical_certification_pilots_relax_drop_accident _203880-1.html)

The medical is only there because of vested interests from the medical industry. It doesn't prevent a single accident or make the sky any safer. If you can see and hear properly, then that should be good enough. Nobody can predict a heart attack anyway.

Let the FAA class 3 medical and the EASA Class 2 slip quietly into the night and be done with it. But knowing EASA I'm sure they'll find a way of demanding a Class 1 medial for the new Euro LSA class...

[SNS3Guppy]

The FAA already allows the use of a driver's license for "sport" flyers; no medical certificate required.

Personally, I'm in favor of retaining the third class medical.

I've met quite a few individuals who couldn't pass the third class medical, but who would go on to fly if that didn't stand as an obstacle. This is to say, I've met many individuals who aren't medically qualified to fly, but who would do it anyway, given the chance.

I have never been in favor of the sport pilot certificate, or the medical requirements behind it.

Presently the FAA extends the duration of third class privileges to five years for individuals under 40 years of age, or for those of us a little more "advanced," two years duration.

Still a pretty good deal, considering my first class only lasts six months.

[AdamFrisch]

Well, that's not entirely true.

If you've been denied a medical, you can not legally fly a LSA. Which leads to the bizarre situation that you could have an obese LSA pilot with multiple heart attacks in his past flying on his driver's license, never have applied for a medical, but an ATPL with a failed Class 1 can not.

My point being, if we allow that, then that should apply across the board.

[SNS3Guppy]

It's entirely true.

Having been denied a medical does prevent one from flying (legally).

Eliminating the medical entirely means that one doesn't have the medical to stand in the way. My point was simple: I've met many who would fly given the chance, even though they're not physically fit to do so. Presently they're unable, given that the medical stands in their way.

Take away the requirement to hold a medical certificate, and many will put themselves in the air, when they should not be there.

The sport pilot certificate was a step in the wrong direction by effectively accomplishing the same thing.

Presently we have ample individuals who fly when not medically qualified; one who isn't in an airworthy condition isn't allowed to fly, even if one holds a valid medical certificate. A head cold is a good example; I've met many who are more than content to fly with a headcold and sinus troubles, even though the pain from sinus problems can be absolutely debilitating. Holding the medical certificate seems to leave some sense of entitlement among some pilots to fly, regardless of their condition...even if they're not presently medically qualified to do so.

Given that many will fly when they shouldn't, under the mere premise that they hold the certificate (even though it's not valid for flight operations if the individual isn't in good shape), how many more individuals will take flight if no barriers exist?

I've met quite a few individuals who have flown without medical certificates, who disregard the regulation. Having a medical certificate won't stop these individuals, but it may stop a great many others who presently don't fly because they can't pass the physical.

Which leads to the bizarre situation that you could have an obese LSA pilot with multiple heart attacks in his past flying on his driver's license, never have applied for a medical, but an ATPL with a failed Class 1 can not.

A person with multiple heart attacks isn't legal with the driver's license, per 14 CFR 61.23(c)(2)(iv):

(2) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must--

(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;
(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

[AdamFrisch]

Well, we need more pilots to join our ranks.

And adding hurdles, asking them to be rocket scientists and athletes before they're allowed to fly is not the way forward. The LSA was a step in that direction. I'm arguing that I think the medical, for private pilots, is an unnecessary hurdle since it can't predict any underlying faults anyway - it's basically an ear and nose exam done by a nurse. I still have to pay for the doctors signature, though.

Like I said in another thread. I got my license 20 years ago in 43 hrs. Nobody manages that today, because the practical requirements ask more today than they did back then, yet flying has become a lot easier with all the aids we have now. I was an average pilot as well, many did it in less.

There's too many hurdles and bloated requirements on a private pilot. It's a license to learn, after all. Make it easier, not harder. Eliminating the medical is a step in that direction.

[W2k]

My biggest complaint with the medical is that you're allowed to drive a car or a motorcycle without one. I believe it contributes in a very real sense to safety for private pilots (and their passengers); while probably politically impossible, I believe a similar requirement would provide a safety benefit to car and motorcycle drivers as well.

That being said I think there is room for slightly relaxed requirements for private pilots.

[Katamarino]

W2k, you can't be serious? Have a little think about the cost to society of regular medicals on ALL drivers, and then try and find statistics for how many road traffic accidents would have been prevented through enforcement of medicals.

It would be a nonsense!

[beany]

Adam,

I understand what you're saying wrt some standards being too high. However I think it would be incorrect to state that medicals only exist due to vested interests from the medical profession! I think in fact if you look into the history of medical regulation in aviation you'll find that's not the case.

I's also be interested to know where you found your data to support your statement that medical regulation does not prevent accidents or make the sky a safer place. Furthermore, you are correct, no one can predict when a heart attack will happen but cardiovascular risk can be calculated based on certain physiological and biochemical parameters and I would argue that this is a valuable tool in predicting the likelihood of a heart attack within a certain period of time.

I agree entirely that some medical standards are too strict. Some of the standards lag way too far behind the research and consequent advances in medical therapies and disease prevention. Unfortunately this prevents some people from flying who arguably should be allowed.

However, surely you must see that doing a complete 180 is not the way to go. Surely a pragmatic and carefully considered approach to reviewing the standards should be undertaken and this would be a responsible way to assess medical fitness for the safety of the pilot, those they may be carrying, others in the air and those on the ground.

Piloting an aircraft and driving a car is not the same thing, at all.

Just my opinion.

B

[IO540]

The bit I don't like is the double standard whereby all sorts of things are permitted on a RENEWAL medical (in Europe) with a Demonstrated Ability test, which are not permitted on an INITIAL medical.

It is a crude measure to keep people out of flying, while protecting airline pilot jobs as the subjects get older and start to suffer various things like a loss of hearing or eyesight going outside the initial uncorrected limits.

If one could allow DA on all the things on which it is possible on a renewal medical. many more people could be flying.

Many more European pilots could also do the IR.

The colour vision tests are a real joke, too.

[AdamFrisch]

Beany, according to the article only 1% of NTSB accidents are attributable to medical conditions. That's not very much. And that's in total - they could come from only Class 1 holders, for all I know.

At the moment there's heated talk within EASA and all it's sub-committees about the new European LSA standards and if it should require a medical at all. Unsurprisingly, the AME lobby and all the flight medical doctors and associations are vehemently against the fraction that want the new rating to not require a medical (FAA style). Because this is in their financial interest of course. It's not that they care if we drop out of the sky or not, in fact, I don't think they could care less about flight safety. No, they want legislative protectionism and cushy monopoly.

[The Old Fat One]

Beany, according to the article only 1% of NTSB accidents are attributable to medical conditions.


Logically, that statistic supports the case for retaining a medical.

[AdamFrisch]

With statistics you can prove anything, right? Let's look at it this way then: If those medical conditions were in fact detectable, the figure would be 0, no? They obviously failed. Since it's not 0, they're just shooting in the dark, their guess as good as mine and we might as well ask a shaman, a druid or our granny to do our medical.

[flybymike]

Piloting an aircraft and driving a car is not the same thing, at all.



Correct. There is far more likelihood of injury, death and damage to multiple third parties and property when driving a car and suffering medical incapacitation than when flying, and yet no medical is required for driving.

I see no significant statistical justification for PPL medicals, amply demonstrated by the complete absence of any medically related aviation fatalities involving NPPL holders "flying on a car licence"

The most effective medical is a perfectly natural sense of self preservation.

[patowalker]

The bit I don't like is the double standard whereby all sorts of things are permitted on a RENEWAL medical (in Europe) with a Demonstrated Ability test, which are not permitted on an INITIAL medical.

Yes, like astigmatism.

"Sorry sir, you don't meet the initial JAR vision standard, but if you come to us with a foreign ICAO compliant licence we can assess you at the renewal standard."

So I turn up some months later with an FAA PPL and problem sorted.

[MR.X99]

I would have to agree.A measure of self-regulated professional discipline could be added but generally yes.We are dealing with statistical probability.Sport flyers ????

A Medical for class 2 is just shy of $600.....to cough and read an eye chart.We have cars that travel faster than most aircraft and motorcycles. I don,t see people getting medicals to drive a 200mph BMW,perhaps they should? Or would that be unfair?

Big can of worms,but excellent thread which hopefully has constructive ends.Bureaucrats can be dangerous beasts,as some of well know.
:ok:

[IO540]

Tha medical departments in the national CAAs are the most powerful factions within these organisations.

Since I started flying in 2001 I have been watching the various (mostly totally unsuccessful) attempts to deregulate various bits of private flying, and the medical stuff has stubbornly stayed put.

Some years ago the CAA relaxed the initial audiogram limits to the then existing renewal limits, but a pilot with one perfect ear and one bad one could still never do a JAA IR. On a renewal he could keep an IR... Current EASA proposals seem to overlook this completely and keep the old JAA system.

I am in two minds regarding doing away with medicals totally. Even a blind person can see we (in the West) are on the verge of an obesity epidemic, which will translate in due course to massive heart disease, diabetes, and other general health issues. I tend to concur with the view of a CAA AME I know who thinks the Class 1/2 medicals have little value in picking up medical conditions which would result in in-flight incapacitation but the mere existence of the medical causes pilots to look after themselves a little better than the average population (which is heading steadily downhill) and that is a good thing.

If somebody never carried passengers, I would have no issues with no medical.

[W2k]

W2k, you can't be serious? Have a little think about the cost to society of regular medicals on ALL drivers, and then try and find statistics for how many road traffic accidents would have been prevented through enforcement of medicals.
We pilots pay for our own medicals, right? If there was a medical for drivers, I don't see where the big cost to society would come from. Costs to individual drivers, sure. But assuming slightly more relaxed standards than, say, the class 2 I had to do for my PPL, would €50 every 2-5 years really be a significant cost to the majority of drivers?

[canonfodder]

Are the medical requirements really that stringent for a class two medical? I'm below 40 so my medical lasts 5 years. Fortunately the only issue I've faced over nearly 20 years of flying is a need to wear glasses. Of course there is a need to ensure that pilots (at any level) have some form of medical to ensure we're fit enough to control our whirling knives, after all, we can't just pull over in the event of an emergency at X,000 feet.

It would be a physical (and political) impossibility to impose medicals for driving, however for our elderly drivers in the UK, we just ask them via a letter in the post if they are fit enough to continue driving… if they tick yes, then they continue driving, regardless of whether they are physically/mentally capable. I'm not sure that system works after a certain 95 year old gentleman and his doddery old wife who crashed into my car before continuing to crash down a hill (didn't think to stop).

CF

[SNS3Guppy]

If somebody never carried passengers, I would have no issues with no medical.

The solo medically unqualified pilots who strikes an apartment complex and kills bystanders on the ground may not take anyone in the airplane with him, but it won't do those on the ground much good. It won't do the myriad of aviators in the air much good, either, for whom the medically unqualified flying hazard presents a collision potential, traffic conflict, distraction, or safety risk.

It doesn't do any of us any good when that passengerless, medically unqualified individual cracks up an airplane, skewing public perception of what we all do, and raises insurance rates.

If someone never carries passengers, it doesn't change one iota their need to meet the same medical standards and the same safety standards that apply to any of us.

A Medical for class 2 is just shy of $600.....to cough and read an eye chart.

Ridiculous. We pay sixty dollars for a class II. My first class is ninety bucks, and add the EKG, it's one fifty.

Six hundred; no wonder people want to eliminate the medical.

The problem becomes an economic one then. That is, when the chief complaint is based on the economics and not raw safety, then the complaint is grounded in the wrong soil.

Safety first.

[Katamarino]

We pilots pay for our own medicals, right? If there was a medical for drivers, I don't see where the big cost to society would come from. Costs to individual drivers, sure. But assuming slightly more relaxed standards than, say, the class 2 I had to do for my PPL, would €50 every 2-5 years really be a significant cost to the majority of drivers?

Oh come on now, you're smarter than this...

Let's assume that everyone with a job also has a drivers license (a fair assumption on a country-wide level I think). Hence, all major tax payers are drivers. If the medicals are funded centrally...then it comes from their tax, and they pay for it that way. If they each pay individually...they still pay.

Hence, the cost to society is the same whichever way it is funded. Not to mention the time taken for 50 million people to have a medical every few years - to address something that does not even seem to be a problem!

What are the statistics for car accidents caused by a medical condition that a cursory exam would actually detect? So small as to be irrelevant, I suspect.

I certainly agree with the reduction of medical requirements to be a PPL; although not complete removal, we still need to ensure that people's corrected vision is ok, etc. Basically, just a fit-for-purpose approach.

[Skylark58]

I lost my Class 2 medical 15 years ago after a heart attack. This occured 3 weeks after my CAA medical, which included a resting ECG, thus proving that the medical is a poor way to predict these events. A full stress ECG on a treadmill would have done so, yet this is not a requirement even for Class 1 for renewal. How many problems would it uncover in the professional world, if it was required at renewal?

I now fly without passengers on a car drivers licence. I have regular monitoring of my cardiac health and medication and it could be argued that I am far more of a known risk than someone on a CAA medical who has an undisclosed condition. A small minority will always fly when unfit, no matter what level of medical they have, just as some people will fly too low or in unsuitable weather, but this should not be the criterion for judging the rest of us sensible folk. I believe that there has not been anyone killed on the ground by a medically incapacitated pilot in the UK since the Second World War.

[IO540]

A full stress ECG on a treadmill would have done so, yet this is not a requirement even for Class 1 for renewal.

Could you say that you may have suspected something was not right if you vigorously exercised?

It's a genuine question.

How many problems would it uncover in the professional world, if it was required at renewal?

The airline pilots have pretty aggressive unions, whose reach goes way beyond representing pilots. They have had a big hand in sinking various efforts at a more accessible private IR, too.

[BackPacker]

we still need to ensure that people's corrected vision is ok,

When I did my car driver exam (a long time ago) the examiner stopped me on the way to the car, and asked me to read the license plate of a certain car 25 meters away. When I could read it OK, that counted as a pass as far as the medical is concerned.

Why not put a very basic see/hear test like this in the LPC/BFR and only refer people to an AME if they fail this simple test? Heck, you could even calculate somebody's BMI and refer them to an AME if it's above a certain number. (Assuming that a too-high BMI is actually indicative of a potential cardiac problem - I don't know if that's true.)

[patowalker]

A Medical for class 2 is just shy of $600

Only if you go to the wrong AME and use the wrong exchange rate.

[IO540]

A UK Class 2 renewal costs about £150, but there is a variation.

I get my CAA Class 1 and my FAA Class 1 done at the same time for about that much, by Frank Voeten (http://www.danetremedicalservices.com/FAA.htm) (I think that web page needs updating).

[SNS3Guppy]

The airline pilots have pretty aggressive unions, whose reach goes way beyond representing pilots. They have had a big hand in sinking various efforts at a more accessible private IR, too.

Really? I'm curious.

What is it, exactly, that airline pilot unions do to hold down private pilots? Do you mean "instrument rating," when you say "private IR?" If so, what is it, pray tell, that unions are doing to prevent private pilots from obtaining an instrument rating.

I don't know of anything that the union to which I belong, or it's affiliates, or any other with which I am familiar, has done to affect the private pilot. In fact, I can't imagine any component of the union being in the least bit interested in the private pilot, save for any individual members (such as myself) who take a personal interest in instructing or flying privately.

Generally the union is far more concerned with grievances regarding pay, duty hours, and scheduling. There is nothing in the construction or makeup of the union that is remotely connected to, or could possibly concern itself with the training of a private pilot.

You're making this supposition based on your experience with airline pilot unions?

I believe that there has not been anyone killed on the ground by a medically incapacitated pilot in the UK since the Second World War.

With that logic then, if I fire a rifle down main street at noon and nobody gets hurt, then it's okay? Simply because nobody has been hurt in the UK, this is empirical evidence? The nobody-got-hurt-yet argument is a poor one for lowering the bar.

[Skylark58]

With that logic then, if I fire a rifle down main street at noon and nobody gets hurt, then it's okay? Simply because nobody has been hurt in the UK, this is empirical evidence? The nobody-got-hurt-yet argument is a poor one for lowering the barIt's the CAAs logic not mine. We have had the NPPL since 2002, using medical declaration based on the requirements for a drivers licence. If you reach the standard for a truck or bus driver, you can carry passengers. If you only reach car driver standard, you can't carry passengers. There has not been an increase in incapacitiation amongst holders of the NPPL. The CAA spent a lot of time on analysis of the risks involved, before the system was introduced. Your system of " nobody got hurt for 70 years, but it must be dangerous" is hardly founded in logic.

[BabyBear]

With that logic then, if I fire a rifle down main street at noon and nobody gets hurt, then it's okay? Simply because nobody has been hurt in the UK, this is empirical evidence? The nobody-got-hurt-yet argument is a poor one for lowering the bar.

To try and prevent someone getting hurt by folks firing rifles down the main street at noon we made guns illegal in the UK. I live in hope the US will catch up one day. Not the best analogy, but an insight in to how you think never the less.

Applying your flawed logic to driving, where there is evidence of people being hurt due to health failings in drivers, we would all be having class one medicals to drive.

The class 2 for ppl use is only of use to the AME getting the fee!

[No Foehn]

Beany asked:

I's also be interested to know where you found your data to support your statement that medical regulation does not prevent accidents or make the sky a safer place.

In France, microlight pilots have never needed a medical certificate.

Other French GA pilots always have.

There is no difference in the accident rates between these two categories. Source: http://www.p-u-l-m.com/monblog/rapportsecurite.pdf

Edited to say:

Having just reread this report for the first time after a couple of years, I remember now that it covers the medical aspect only in passing, but does however make in depth the very valid point that the extremely light regulation enjoyed by microlights in France has not resulted in a degradation of the accident rate (in fact they have a more favorable outcome than the rest of GA).

However, the initial point still holds - French microlight pilots don't kill themselves or others in droves just because they don't have medicals. If that weren't the case, the DGAC would have changed the rules pretty sharpish.

[Pace]

BabyBear

I cannot see a comparison between a car driver with three passengers who becomes ill while driving and a pilot with 3 passengers who becomes ill while flying?

The Driver can hit the brakes and in a matter of a few seconds be stopped on the hard shoulder.

The pilot may be at 10000 feet in IMC 100 miles from an airport. For him to be taken ill in such a situation is far far more serious than the car driver.

The 3 passengers are totally dependant on the pilot especially in IMC.

As Guppy said there are pilots who are not fit to fly who would given half the chance.

I would also be interested on how the insurance companies would take to issuing insurance with NO medicals?

Having said that there are few professions or hobbies where a medical is required.
The pilot knows that at any time he could loose that medical and hence his livelyhood or ability to follow his passion.

A medical is just a snapshot at a given point in time a month later there may be a different picture.

That brings up a negative point with medicals and that is that many pilots are scared stiff of visiting their GPs between medicals and getting prompt diagnosis and treatment for fear of it all going on their records or leading to that loss of a medical and hence a livelyhood.

No wonder pilots go down the alternative medicine route which is itself dangerous.

In EASA land it will never happen! far more likely more tests and more intervention and more costs.

Pace

[Skylark58]

To try and prevent someone getting hurt by folks firing rifles down the main street at noon we made guns illegal in the UKNo we didn't. We made them strictly controlled, which makes the ownership of them fairly difficult for law abiding responsible people, but easier than ever for criminals who don't care about the law anyway. Just as I said originally, people who disregard laws and regulations will do it anyway and the rest of us are inconvenienced. Hence the TSA et al

[SNS3Guppy]

To try and prevent someone getting hurt by folks firing rifles down the main street at noon we made guns illegal in the UK. I live in hope the US will catch up one day.

We don't fire rifles down main street. That's really the point.

Good luck trying to take my rifle away. That's why it's called a free country.

[BabyBear]

Pace, I do not intend trying to compare the consequences of it all going wrong with a driver v a pilot. My point is there is no evidence the strict medicals save lives in aircraft accidents, on the other hand it would be easy to demonstrate there should be medicals for drivers by the same measure.

If there was a real desire to save lives from in GA then there are many more measures would stand a better chance of success than insisting on medicals, none of which it would be advisable to discuss here.

Skylark, agreed technically speaking, however I am sure you understood the point I was making. That said I do not accept it is easier than ever for criminals to get a hold of guns and certainly not as easy as it would be if we had such prehistoric laws as our friends across the pond.

SNS3Guppy, keep your hair on I have no intention of trying to take your gun away (I do not have a need for a gun). Unfortunately your immediate defensive stance and your belief that having the right to own one within law is the difference between being a "free" country and not further demonstrates your flawed thinking. Can I ask if you have any knowledge/experience of the CAA medicals and what they entail?

Having had my medical the week before Xmas I am somewhat raw, however I stand by the belief a class to for GA is excessive.

[Skylark58]

agreed technically speaking, however I am sure you understood the point I was making. That said I do not accept it is easier than ever for criminals to get a hold of guns and certainly not as easy as it would be if we had such prehistoric laws as our friends across the pond.I do understand. My point is that recent legislation has made it almost impossible to legally obtain a rifle or pistol (the UK 2012 Olympic Shooting Team have to train in Switzerland), but that illegal weapons are just as easy as ever to get, if you know the right people, or go into the right pubs in our major cities and those guns are what are used in the vast majority of gun crime.

[IO540]

That's true. Also most common criminals (those that are armed) use shotguns and you can nick half a dozen of those from just about any farmhouse. There is a vast number (millions is one figure mentioned) of nicked shotguns in circulation as a result.

You can own a rifle with a firearms certificate, but the controls (even on a high power air rifle, which needs an FAC too) are very strict at each 5-yearly renewal as to the usage you have for it.

Back to medicals, any total relaxation simply isn't going to happen over here in Europe.

[AdamFrisch]

There is obviously the benefit of the cane in the form the medical for general health, as IO540 mentioned. People, including myself, try to shape up a bit and think about what we eat and exercise so we can keep flying. It does have that benefit, I suppose. But can this not be achieved any other way? If it can, then that would be a preferred route.

[ChrisVJ]

In Canada you can hold a Recreational Pilot's Permit and enjoy the privileges on a 'Declaration' medical. You take the form to a TC designated doctor and sign it in front of him. My local guy charges half a Class 3 medical fee. As I am over 60 I also have to have an ECG.

This does at least give the doctor a chance to ask about your health and have a look at you to see if you can actually stand up and walk without bumping into things.

When we emigrated we had to have a medical. The doctor who did it was so decrepit we actually had to help him stand up and find the baby in wife's arms. Seemed rather deaf as well so using the stethescope was probably a bit pointless. We chose him because we didn't have to wait for the appointment!

[IO540]

But can this not be achieved any other way?

If you can find a way to stop people getting fat, smoking and generally driving themselves into an early grave (or living their last couple of decades in a miserable state) you will be the richest person on earth :)

[flybymike]

The nobody-got-hurt-yet argument is a poor one for lowering the bar.

On the contrary, it is an excellent argument for removal of unnecessary over regulation.

Pace incidentally makes an excellent point about pilots who are afraid to visit their GP in case it adversely affects their medical status. These days virtually any prescription at all results in a temporary medical suspension until side effects have been evaluated and monitored and found acceptable. In my own case I was grounded for several weeks for taking a simple indigestion remedy and I certainly do think twice before visiting a doctor. This is not good for anyone.

[patowalker]

The UK is the only place I have lived where medical records are held centrally. In the other places I could visit any number of GPs or specialists of my choice and one would never know what the other had found or prescribed, unless I specifically asked for the information to be disclosed.

[flybymike]

I did not know that medical records were held centrally?
I was grounded because I declared the prescription to the CAA medical division.

[SNS3Guppy]

Can I ask if you have any knowledge/experience of the CAA medicals and what they entail?

Yes, you may!

I have never held a CAA medical, and at six hundred dollars a pop for a Class III, you can safely bet that I never shall.

Does that answer your question?

[WestWind1950]

I have never paid more then €150 for a Class 1 medical renewal in Germany!

I knew a guy who had a valid medical certificate, had a bi-pass heart operation and thought he could still fly since his medical was still "valid"! :ugh: Another pilot I knew, back when we had 3 medical types and microlights needed none, lost his class 3 but continued flying microlights. Another had a restricted medical (after a stroke), meaning no passengers.... one day I saw him loading passengers on board for a flight anyway. :uhoh:

Flying-crazy people will continue flying no matter how unhealthy they feel, medical or not, and, as has been said before, a medical does help to block some. Plus, I know that men are less likely to visit a doc routinely and, as a flying doc once said, he's glad when he sees some guys at least once every few years for a regular check-up... he can catch some things in advance that way. And that fact doesn't have to pertain to just flying.

[IO540]

I am sure it is possible to get medical tests etc done at one of the private clinics around the place - the sort of places where high power execs get sent for a "lifestyle" checkup.

But certainly having spoken to various doctors about this it is obvious that pilots are very very reluctant to see a doctor. The NHS is computerised nowadays and almost anywhere you go for any medical procedure asks the name and address of your doctor.

The CAA also gets you to sign a consent form to get your medical records, and they do get them (on the Class 1 anyway). This used to be the major way to dodge the system; your AME was never in contact with your GP.

[BabyBear]

Does that answer your question?

It does answer the question, thanks.

Two points:

We are not comparing apples with apples comparing a CAA class 2 and FAA class 3. From my experience the FAA class 3 is passable by demonstrating you are breathing.

I think the quoted $600 is being used to suit your cause, it's nonsense.

My class 2 with an ECG in Dec. cost me £180 and I felt that was expensive.

[IO540]

From my experience the FAA class 3 is passable by demonstrating you are breathing.That's far from actually true, but a lot of people do believe it.

I was at one FAA aviation lawyer's presentation and a member of the audience (a "security orificer" at some UK airport) stood up and had a good old rant that they have a UK licensed pilot there who got a heart attack but continued to fly on an FAA license.

Anybody who knows the detail knows this is disingenuous nonsense. The FAA will ground you just the same, and both will let you fly, noncommercially, after various requirements are met, which takes about 6 months. And on renewal medicals it is equally possible to conceal stuff from an FAA or a CAA AME. If somebody has the balls to conceal a heart attack from his AMEs and his GP (which is possible) then all bets are off.

But encouraging the widespread belief that FAA medicals are easy doesn't do anybody any favours. It creates a lot of anti-US sentiment inside the usual places, who are all rubbing their hands at the moment anyway.

FAA medicals are just a lot cheaper...

[S-Works]

i pay £120 for combined FAA and JAA Class 1 medicals in the UK. Does not seem that bad to me. It's a requirement for the job and is no more than my mate pays for his HGV medical.

[BabyBear]

IO540, I simply speak from my experience. I have no intention of encouraging any widespread belief, or anti-US sentiment. Why do you accuse me of such?

[IO540]

Because I speak from experience too. I've had FAA medicals for 6 years (and UK ones for 11).

You wrote

FAA class 3 is passable by demonstrating you are breathing.

Are you willing to stand by that statement?

If it is a joke, fair enough.

[BabyBear]

It is a tongue in cheek comment, I didn't expect to be taken literally. That said my experience is that it is not very thorough.

[BackPacker]

That said my experience is that it is not very thorough.

It may be related to the amount of money I paid (well over 200 euros vs. less than 100 US dollars) but my initial JAA Class 2 indeed felt far more thorough than my initial FAA Class 3. Took a hell of a lot longer too - half a day vs. less than one hour.

Does that lead to a better prediction about my medical condition in the future? I honestly don't know.

[IO540]

I don't think either one is better than the other when it comes to seeing if the pilot is OK to fly. They test slightly different things.

There is a bigger cost difference on the Class 1. The world is full of commercial pilots flying on FAA Class 1 medicals, whose initial medical costs a fraction of the JAA one, yet there is no statistical evidence on the pilot incapacitation front on the FAA scene.

[patowalker]

The FAA has filed the following differences with ICAO medical requirements:


CHAPTER 1
1.2.5.2 The interval between two medical fitness reports is up to 37 months less one day for the private pilot licence.

Medical certificates expire at the end of the last day of the month. As a result, medical certificatesissued by the FAA can be valid up to an additional month less one day than the ICAO Standards of Annex 1, 1.2.5.2.

1.2.5.2.2* Annex 1, 1.2.5.2.2, is not implemented in the FARs.

1.2.6 This Standard applies only to licences that require medical certification and, as a consequence, does not apply to the aircraft maintenance engineer and flight dispatcher licence.

*Recommended Practice

http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Annex%201%20-%20Personnel%20Licensing/an01_sup162.pdf

[IO540]

It's fun to read which countries have filed which differences :)

[SNS3Guppy]

I knew a guy who had a valid medical certificate, had a bi-pass heart operation and thought he could still fly since his medical was still "valid"!

The medical certificate ceases to be valid at any time one does not meet the medical certification standards, without regard to the expiration date on the certificate. This is no different than an airworthiness certificate, which ceases to be valid at any point when the airplane is not airworthy (meaning it's in a safe condition for flight, and meets it's type certification criteria, as amended).

Following heart surgery, the FAA requires a long litany of test results be furnished, and reduces the interval of the medical certificate, as well as applies conditions and a waiver. Same for having had a heart attack. Stress tests on treadmills with EKG, physicians statements, and other data are required, and issuance of the medical is very conditional. I've worked with a number of pilots who have histories of high blood pressure, heart disease, heart surgery, etc, who have had such restrictions placed upon them.

A number of factors can affect one's medical, from driving infractions involving intoxication or incapacitation, to kidney conditions, asthma, prescription medications, mental issues (including depression), any use of psychotropic or mood altering drugs, and so forth. Any time a flag comes up, it can cause all kinds of headaches down the line, and can become very expensive, depending on what is wrong, perceived to be wrong, or even misunderstood to be wrong. With the medicals on computer now, checking the wrong box can cause all kinds of headaches, because the computer will note the change and throw up a flag.

I was at one FAA aviation lawyer's presentation and a member of the audience (a "security orificer" at some UK airport) stood up and had a good old rant that they have a UK licensed pilot there who got a heart attack but continued to fly on an FAA license.

Anybody who knows the detail knows this is disingenuous nonsense. The FAA will ground you just the same, and both will let you fly, noncommercially, after various requirements are met, which takes about 6 months. And on renewal medicals it is equally possible to conceal stuff from an FAA or a CAA AME. If somebody has the balls to conceal a heart attack from his AMEs and his GP (which is possible) then all bets are off.

The medical ceases to be valid in this case, even though the medical certificate hasn't changed. The pilot isn't required to notify the FAA about his heart attack, but if the pilot flies an aircraft on the strength of that certificate, he or she is in violation of having flown without a valid certificate and subject to enforcement action.

When the Aviation Medical Examiner performs the exam, he or she must determine that not only does the applicant meet the medical standards at the time of the exam, but can reasonably be expected to do so for the duration of the medical certificate. If the AME has reason to expect that the applicant will not be able to sustain the same level of health during the duration of the certificate, the AME may not issue or approve the medical certificate. For example, if an applicant is healthy and within criteria on the day of examination, but clearly is circling the drain and not likely to remain airworthy for the next X number of months, then the AME will need to defer to higher authority, and cannot issue the certificate.

A change in condition from the health of the applicant on the day he or she applied also means that the applicant may no longer be in conformity with medical standards. If this is the case, the applicant is no longer medically qualified, and the medical certificate is no longer valid.

It's not uncommon for eyesight to deteriorate, particularly with age. An applicant may find a need to wear glasses that arises between visits to the AME. Even though the pilot may have a medical certificate that doesn't have a limitation or waiver for eyesight, the pilot still must wear his glasses in order to meet the medical standards, and therefore have a valid medical.

i pay £120 for combined FAA and JAA Class 1 medicals in the UK. Does not seem that bad to me.

That sounds a lot more reasonable. Do you require the EKG, as well? If so, then it's a very good deal.

From my experience the FAA class 3 is passable by demonstrating you are breathing.


What one can expect from an AME really varies from medical examiner to medical examiner. I know a lot of professional pilots who seek out the "easiest" exam they can, because one bad mark can ruin a career.

I don't hold any waivers or limitations on my medical, but I use an AME who does nothing but aviation medicals, and who specializes in helping people obtain medicals. He does a lot of work helping people obtain waivers, get special issuance, and work around issues that are giving them difficulty in obtaining a medical certificate. He charges a little more, and he does a reasonably thorough medical.

My first medical was a third class, and the AME was an eye, ear, nose, and throat specialist. I ended up with a three hour exam, including a glaucoma test, and in the end the AME took my money, and denied the medical. I had asthma, and I had a real problem letting him get near my eyes for the glaucoma test. He's the only AME I've ever been to who did that test, and my vision was perfect. There was no need. After some exchanging of letters with the FAA in Oklahoma City, I was finally awarded a medical with no limitations. The examiner told me that he didn't think I should have a medical, because I had such a hard time letting objects near my eye (I still do; no way I could ever wear contacts), and because my asthma would be a real problem with altitude.

Fortunately the FAA saw it differently. Now, I get first class medicals everytime, time, and I simply check boxes, and write in the remarks "Previously Reported, No Change."

I never went back to that AME again. I have had a couple other AME's over the years that were a little too thorough, and I never returned to them. Personally, for a flight physical, I want the least intrusive exam I can get. If I want a detailed exam, I'll go to a private physician. Many AME's understand this. While the AME is only required to verify that the applicant can hear a whisper, I've had some AME's give me full-blown hearing tests on multiple frequencies. I've had detailed eye exams and color exams.

By comparison, my military physical was less detailed and shorter in length than some visits I've had to the AME, except that the military required a chest x-ray.

One AME I used for several years was also my personal physician. He was the same one that I worked with for a year while recovering from a parachuting injury. He had full knowledge of the extent of my injuries, and wasn't about to grant a medical superfluously.

Conversely, I've had some exams that were little more than a conversation. I know some examiners who have a big following with pilots because that's what they do; they offer quick, easy, very hard to fail exams. They often charge for it, too, and it's all they do. For some physicians, it's a racket. it's unethical, but it happens. Not so for others. The field varies widely, unfortunately.

Back to my original statement, however: there are many individuals out there who don't fly because they can't pass a third class medical. Take away the requirement for the medical certificate, and I know many of these folks would certainly go fly.

I know retired individuals who don't hold a medical. They haven't been denied, but their medicals are expired. If they applied, they probably couldn't get one again. Never the less, under the new Sport Pilot rules, they only need a driver's license (which in most cases in the USA, doesn't require any kind of medical certification--commercial driving is different, and does). Some of these individuals will jump at the chance to go fly. Personally, I'm in favor of requiring a medical certificate, with or without passengers.

In the US, one doesn't need a medical certificate to fly gliders or pilot a hot air balloon. Why not having an engine means one doesn't need to be physically fit and airworthy is something I've never been quite able to grasp, but that's the way it is.

I think the quoted $600 is being used to suit your cause, it's nonsense.

I can't say. It's not my quote; I can only go off what other posters have stated.

[WestWind1950]

Quote:
I knew a guy who had a valid medical certificate, had a bi-pass heart operation and thought he could still fly since his medical was still "valid"!

The medical certificate ceases to be valid at any time one does not meet the medical certification standards, without regard to the expiration date on the certificate. This is no different than an airworthiness certificate, which ceases to be valid at any point when the airplane is not airworthy (meaning it's in a safe condition for flight, and meets it's type certification criteria, as amended).

SNS3Guppy, that's why I put valid in ""... he thought that, just because the expiration date was still valid, his medical was valid. Too many pilots I know still believe that. :rolleyes:

[BabyBear]

IMHO the case against the stringent medical for GA is being demonstrated quite nicely on this thread. Given the lack of incidents to date together with the examples of what pilots do and believe to get round the intent of the medical/certificate it is becoming harder to put a case for them.

PS
IO540, don't be taking my comments literally!