In answer to EZFlap's question about psychological or other problems, I offer an Army solution : "Continue to march."

Driving or flying isn't supposed to be as chaotic as combat, where we expect the enemy to try to kill us, but we need to plan on dealing with whatever comes our way.

Denali wrote:Here is a really good summary of PBR2 with bullet FAQS that EAA just put up on their website dated July 15, 2016

It is one of the most helpful overviews I have seen. Not too wordy, just the straight info using concise FAQs.

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/12-09-2015-pbor-faq?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWW1SaU5ETm1OV1F3TkRCbCIsInQiOiJNUlpcL21HNWUyWWFybjRiQUlSTno2ZlVONjNKRWNpVmtIMG1wR28xNjRWUEVWOXhaVGNcL09WZjJUTkdWamtnU0JHV0VXVE15OTduRHVQQndiXC9BTzNHdVFxY2dLZ21raVdPM3VKMjBnZGhMbz0ifQ%3D%3D

Straight info???

EAA:
I understand I will need to get a one-time special issuance medical if I have certain medical conditions. What are those conditions?

Those conditions are described in the federal aviation regulations and are limited to an established medical history of the following:

Cardiovascular: myocardial infarction (heart attack); coronary heart disease that has been treated by open heart surgery or cardiac valve replacement; and heart replacement.

That is a big difference than the bill:
(ii)Coronary heart disease that has required treatment....

Treatment could include just being put on statins, or perhaps angioplasty/stent. Hopefully EAA has insider info here, but I doubt their interpretation on this point will agree with the final rules.

GumpAir wrote:Well. In the 40+ years I've been flying between AK and the lower 48 not once has anyone asked for my medical. (Kinda like my restricted radiotelegraph operator's license)

Just a couple weeks ago I flew from Atlin to Juneau and CBP officer there wanted to see my medical along with pilot's license. That's not going into Canada, but....

Greg

US customs... Whole different attitude. But, the new medical rules won't be an issue on the US side.

Canadian customs has never asked for anything other than my pilot's certificate. Guess it remains to be seen what their official policy is after everything is finalized.

Gump


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't want to set off a riff here, but CBP really has no right to see your medical other than they are part of the Homeland Security monster G.W. Bush and his team gave us. "We are Homeland Security we don't care, we don't have to." (Apologies to Lilly Tomlin)

Homeland can do what the f%$k they want because they are the biggest baddest SOB in the USA and there is pretty much nothing a citizen can do about it.

Now if you were a CEO of Chevron or GE then you get waved on through, because you own most of the Congress.

Ok, know this is going straight to Hot Air but had to get it out.

I'm betting you're preaching to the choir Tom!!!!! [emoji41]

Gump


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I thought you had to present your creds (pilot license & medical) to both FAA or law enforcement personnel when requested. Like it or not CBP is law enforcement.

It's a benefit for GA and for guys like us with 3rd class medicals.

It's a better deal than I would have anticipated.

We will have to see what the FAA does with this and when...

I also wonder what Canada will accept.

The people who lose will be the non-AME MD's who will be put in an unfair position to make decisions without specialized training.

I win twice:

I no longer need to see my AME for my own medicals and...

I lose $ on each medical I perform. I only do them as a service to the community. I'll still do 2nd class and ATC for a while I think.

I just read this on Avweb. If I understand this correctly, it's a bust

'Exceptions include those who develop new medical conditions requiring a special issuance, for which a one-time medical would be required'

If this is the case, net gain for pilots and the GA industry is minimal.

Mtn. Doc;

If you were not an AME but just one of the usual internal medicine or family practice docs out there, would you feel comfortable making a statement that a person was medically OK to fly an airplane? I would think there is going to be some discomfort in the MD's out there. Especially those that practice in large systems...Providence, Univ. Washington, Kaiser, etc.... may be restricted by policies that are in place to insulate the system from lawsuits.

That's what I'm thinking, Tom.

If I was not an AME but a regular internist I would not want to touch the form with a 10 foot pole.

It's not fair to expect a doctor with no special knowledge about flight to certify medical safety.

Mountain Doctor wrote:
It's not fair to expect a doctor with no special knowledge about flight to certify medical safety.

From a liability standpoint I agree. But from a common sense standpoint I don't, at least in regards to the third-class medical.

Flight medicals make a lot of sense for military pilots, pilots flying aerobatic routines, and pilots hauling a few hundred passengers behind them for pay. But a pilot flying a non-aerobatic airplane below 12,000 feet like 99% of us do simply does not need to be in any better health than someone driving their AMC Gremlin to church on Sunday morning.

Frankly I think the medical examination for a drivers license should be several hundred times stricter that it is, and if you can't pass that then you should have to hitch a ride to the airport to go flying. If someone's going to have a heart attack I'd much rather they did it in an airplane than in a car.

I agree with you on all counts.

Doctors often think in terms of liability. We need to.

When the regular family doctor sends you out of the office with a clean bill of health, so you can go drive your Gremlin to church... aren't they already taking basically the same amount of liability risk, because they are more or less stating that you are not at high risk of passing out and driving the Gremlin through the front door and taking out 20 of the people in the church ?

If grandpa passes out and swerves the Gremlin into a schoolyard or whatever, and lives are lost, the liability lawyers are going to go after grandpa's doctor to more or less the same degree as if he signed off on grandpa's FAA form to go fly the Champ. I would suspect that liability (for grandpa, the doctor, the mechanic) is all based on the number of injuries or deaths, not whether the projectile was rolling of flying. Can any of the lawyers here confirm or refute this concept?

I'm not seeing the difference between the actual liability risk that the family doctor is actually taking with the car, the tractor or the boat versus the airplane. If the physical requirements to fly were much greater than the physical requirements to drive, then it would be different.

But this entire discussion came about because there is now reasonable data telling us that there is little or no difference between being fit to drive a car and fit to drive an airplane.

When the regular family doctor sends you out of the office with a clean bill of health, so you can go drive your Gremlin to church... aren't they already taking basically the same amount of liability risk, because they are more or less stating that you are not at high risk of passing out and driving the Gremlin through the front door and taking out 20 of the people in the church ?

Well.... No.

Your family physician isn't filling out a state DMV form every couple of years stating you're healthy enough to drive. The new FAA medical will have some form of medical documentation, which even though not reported directly to the Feds, would be discoverable by a personal injury attorney after an incident.

Doc's name on a form equals doc's name on a subpoena.

Gump

Doc's name on a form equals doc's name on a subpoena

Precisely.

Also your non pilot non AME FP does not understand the aeromedical implications of flight. That's not part of his/her training. To be honest with you a wise one would refuse to sign the form.

A person feeling ill in a car can pull over...

GumpAir wrote: Your family physician isn't filling out a state DMV form every couple of years stating you're healthy enough to drive. The new FAA medical will have some form of medical documentation, which even though not reported directly to the Feds, would be discoverable by a personal injury attorney after an incident. Doc's name on a form equals doc's name on a subpoena.

I agree. Although I wish it was otherwise, why would a family doctor stick his neck out to do something like this? I will probably just make an apt with the same doc who does my medicals now, to do this new thing.
So kinda like the old procedure, just every 4 years instead of every 2-- plus no automatic red flag to the FAA if I develop a condition, just no signoff until it's addressed or corrected.

Todays GA News e-newsletter has yet another article about the medical reform legislation, with yet another recap. This one's a little different though.

http://generalaviationnews.com/2016/07/ ... b6b6-17986

From that linked article: "After meeting the initial requirements to fly under the reforms, pilots will need to visit a state-licensed physician — not an Aviation Medical Examiner — at least once every four years and provide an FAA-developed checklist of issues to be discussed during the visit. Both you and your physician will need to sign the checklist saying that you discussed the items on it. You will then need to make a note of the visit and include the checklist in your logbook."

This looks to me like the original "discuss your issues" procedure is part of the legislation, NOT the "have your doctor certify you as fit to fly" that a lot of us figure the average doc might balk at. Much better IMHO.

I just got a response from AOPA and no one seems to know many (if any) of the answers proposed in this thread.

I think those of us who plan to fly into Canada and Mexico should plan on continuing to get a Class three medical from an approved examiner since the medical reform is only for the USA and there is no guarantees other countries will accept it.

TD

Agreed.

I ran these questions past a Fed in Renton and the FAA was not helpful in answering the questions and did not seem pleased to have the conversation...

Personally I'll just keep up my Third Class as long as I'm 100% sure I'm in the clear.

I don't know who I'll see though. I just heard that the only other AME in my area was recently terminated by the FAA. Not sure what that was all about, but I have ideas.