Medical reform legislation introduced in House, Senate
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came across this news:
There is no longer the need to obtain a medical for private VFR and IFR flying.
There is no longer the need to obtain a medical for private VFR and IFR flying.
Long overdue. Medicals for private flying are overkill.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Age: 55
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree. My last class 2 medical cost £200 and was less thorough than a check up from a GP and not even close the annual check up I get from work which is not much more.
It's a joke And an over priced one at that.
It's a joke And an over priced one at that.
To fly a light sport class aircraft in the US you do not have to have a current medical just a drivers license. It appears that many older US pilots have moved down from larger certified aircraft to LSA's for that very reason. However there have been AFAIK no accidents in LSA's that are directly attributable to medical incapacitation.
Regulations are supposed to be evidence based. There is simply no evidence that not having the currently required medical for private aviation provides any appreciable increase in risk over not having one.
Regulations are supposed to be evidence based. There is simply no evidence that not having the currently required medical for private aviation provides any appreciable increase in risk over not having one.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So that means a pilot with a history of heart attacks, dizzy spells, class 1 diabetes can happily take 5 people at his mercy in a complex twin ???
Pace
Pace
No one who wants to have a decent chance of remaining alive will take undue risks, and those who want to die will not be prevented from doing so because they have a medical certificate.
So that means a pilot with a history of heart attacks, dizzy spells, class 1 diabetes can happily take 5 people at his mercy in a complex twin ???
It pretty much extends the non-medical aspects of the SP into a category of aircraft that aren't LSAs but aren't very much bigger - 172 for example.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly a twin, and certainly 5 passengers.
Restrictions are 5.7 tonnes, 6 seats, 250kt cruise, 14,000ft.
So rules out pressurised TPs and jets (for all practical purposes), but not much else.
And why not? The purpose of regulation should be the protection of innocent third parties. In commercial air transport this means primarily the passengers, there are many of them and if things go badly wrong, they all die.
In private, small aircraft flying this means poor sods on the ground who are hit by crashing aircraft, which is extremely rare, and very few passengers who are flying for leisure or personal transport with a friend or relative, who hopefully know better than to get in the aircraft with the wheezing diabetic just recovered from triple bypass surgery, even if the pilot clearly has no safe-preservation instincts at all.
Restrictions are 5.7 tonnes, 6 seats, 250kt cruise, 14,000ft.
So rules out pressurised TPs and jets (for all practical purposes), but not much else.
And why not? The purpose of regulation should be the protection of innocent third parties. In commercial air transport this means primarily the passengers, there are many of them and if things go badly wrong, they all die.
In private, small aircraft flying this means poor sods on the ground who are hit by crashing aircraft, which is extremely rare, and very few passengers who are flying for leisure or personal transport with a friend or relative, who hopefully know better than to get in the aircraft with the wheezing diabetic just recovered from triple bypass surgery, even if the pilot clearly has no safe-preservation instincts at all.
Hmmm. Could have sworn when I looked at this when it was first proposed, it excluded my plane and also IFR. Maybe they've broadened it since. Of course since it hasn't even made it as a formal proposal yet, it could turn out to be anything at all, or nothing.
Interesting that the main opposition is the medical profession, who obviously (and correctly) see it as reducing income for AMEs. Nothing like a bit of unenlightened self-interest. (For those of you who don't live in the US, the financial greed of the medical profession here is just unbelievable).
OK, just looked it all up. Indeed the original AOPA/EAA proposal was fixed gear, day VFR, single passenger in aircraft with up to four seats. Now the one coming from Washington is as stated by Cobalt, so much, much broader. Remains to be seen what will actually happen. Clearly the FAA isn't keen on it, considering that they have done nothing with the AOPA/EAA proposal. And you can be sure the medical profession will be painting pictures (already is) of Beech Twins falling from the sky onto schools due to pilot incapacitation.
Interesting that the main opposition is the medical profession, who obviously (and correctly) see it as reducing income for AMEs. Nothing like a bit of unenlightened self-interest. (For those of you who don't live in the US, the financial greed of the medical profession here is just unbelievable).
OK, just looked it all up. Indeed the original AOPA/EAA proposal was fixed gear, day VFR, single passenger in aircraft with up to four seats. Now the one coming from Washington is as stated by Cobalt, so much, much broader. Remains to be seen what will actually happen. Clearly the FAA isn't keen on it, considering that they have done nothing with the AOPA/EAA proposal. And you can be sure the medical profession will be painting pictures (already is) of Beech Twins falling from the sky onto schools due to pilot incapacitation.
This "medical reform" is just one part of legislation co-sponsored in the Senate by Sen James Inhofe (R)-Oklahoma and known as the Pilots Bill Of Rights II, an update to the first version passed into law a couple of years ago. Both the Senate bill S.571 and House bill H.R.1062 are bipartisan in their sponsorship.
Among several enforcement related issues addressed by PBOR2, the ability to fly without an FAA medical (provided you have a state issued drivers license) would (if passed by both houses and signed into law by the president) be extended to pilots of aircraft with 6 seats or less, no more than 5 pax carried and a gross weight of no more than 6,000 lbs. The maximum allowed altitude remains 14,000' and the new version as currently drafted would also remove the "VFR only" limitation.
Further information related to PBOR2 is available HERE, HERE and at numerous other websites. I'd personally like to see it passed and signed into law.
westhawk
Among several enforcement related issues addressed by PBOR2, the ability to fly without an FAA medical (provided you have a state issued drivers license) would (if passed by both houses and signed into law by the president) be extended to pilots of aircraft with 6 seats or less, no more than 5 pax carried and a gross weight of no more than 6,000 lbs. The maximum allowed altitude remains 14,000' and the new version as currently drafted would also remove the "VFR only" limitation.
Further information related to PBOR2 is available HERE, HERE and at numerous other websites. I'd personally like to see it passed and signed into law.
westhawk
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good thing they removed the VFR only limitation. Why force somebodywho is instrument rated to fly less safely then he/she could? Again this is about third party risk mitigation, if my house gets hit by a crashing aircraft the weather conditions matter little... and also, there is nothing medically more demanding about IFR flight than VFR flight (which is why they have the same medical requirements in FAA-land) so there would be no rationale to exclude it whatsoever.
Looks like I got the weight limit wrong, though, 6000lbs/2.7 tonnes rules out quite a bit more than I thought. Probably appropriate, though, so a Meridian, Baron or somesuch is fine, but a TBM700 etc is ruled out (althoug flying a meridian below 14,000 ft is a bit limiting)
Looks like I got the weight limit wrong, though, 6000lbs/2.7 tonnes rules out quite a bit more than I thought. Probably appropriate, though, so a Meridian, Baron or somesuch is fine, but a TBM700 etc is ruled out (althoug flying a meridian below 14,000 ft is a bit limiting)
