End of medical.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of medical.
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
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...
Arguing For The End Of The Third Class Medical
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...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
A person with multiple heart attacks isn't legal with the driver's license, per 14 CFR 61.23(c)(2)(iv):
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.
(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.
(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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That being said I think there is room for slightly relaxed requirements for private pilots.
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!
It would be a nonsense!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: With the Care Bears.......
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piloting an aircraft and driving a car is not the same thing, at all.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Plumpton Green
Age: 79
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: LONDON E.U.
Age: 56
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driving and old people
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If somebody never carried passengers, I would have no issues with no medical.
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.
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.
Last edited by SNS3Guppy; 5th Jan 2011 at 08:56.
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?
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.