I thought it was interesting that Sen. Crapo never said that he would support the bill only that (he)
"will continue to make decisions to reflect the interests of general aviators as well as the safety of Idahoans and the American people."

I hope he does but he left himself wide open not to support it.

Marty

That is very true, that is why I stated "I believe". He has been around a long time and always leaves room to do as he wishes in his statements. I do think he is a ga pilot, and I hope that he will support this. Time will tell.

I think we're going to be our own worst enemy in this fight. I've read other forums where pilots are against this and actually support the continuation of the 3rd class medical. For what? As if it's some sort of achievement like the pilot certificate itself?

I still fear that the news media gets a hold of this and turns it into a fear campaign ("This just in... pilots are lobbying to have a safety requirement abolished that could endanger your children..."), causing the caucus members to back down out of fear for their constituents' disapproval.

Zzz, that type of fear campaign was exactly what happened when we tried to get "recreational aviation" added to our RUS last year in TX. I certainly hope common sense prevails with this legislation. It is very disturbing that any GA pilot could be against this, but what do I know...just another redneck kid working my ass of for a living not seeking any handouts

I wrote my own to Senators Reed and Heller and a letter of thanks to Rep. Mark Amodie, our congressman here in Nevada's 2nd district. He's a co-sponsor.

I then read the EAA example letter and was surprised to see the language there about close elections and aviation people voting pro GA. I had put that in my letter using smaller numbers but saying the same thing. I think that's the way to go. I think Hell will freeze over before the Senate Majority leader lets this get to the floor but who knows? Maybe the country will have a new Majority next year. I think there is really no political downside to this for these guys. The majority of Americans really have no opinion on. Just us.

Promising reply from Oregon rep Kurt Schrader:

Mr. Zzz

Thank you for contacting me in support of HR 3708, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act.

As a pilot and member of the Congressional General Aviation Caucus, I understand the importance of the General Aviation industry in America. It is an industry that carries 166 million passengers to over 5,000 communities and exceeds 37 million flight hours each year. General Aviation generates more than $150 billion to the U.S. economy annually while employing nearly 1.3 million workers. It is also one of the few remaining industries to have a trade surplus.

Currently, this bill has been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for further consideration. I am a proud cosponsor of the bill and I look forward to an opportunity to vote in favor of this bill on the house floor. Thank you again for sharing your support for this bill and your support for general aviation.

Sincerely,
(signed) Kurt Schrader
Member of Congress

Zzz wrote:I think we're going to be our own worst enemy in this fight. I've read other forums where pilots are against this and actually support the continuation of the 3rd class medical. For what? As if it's some sort of achievement like the pilot certificate itself?

I still fear that the news media gets a hold of this and turns it into a fear campaign ("This just in... pilots are lobbying to have a safety requirement abolished that could endanger your children..."), causing the caucus members to back down out of fear for their constituents' disapproval.

I think it’s short-sighted to pretend that there are NO benefits to the Third Class medical requirement. I think the costs outweigh the benefits, but we lose credibility if we deny that there are some positive effects. For example,

- Drug testing deters some folks who probably shouldn’t be flying from applying for a medical. It also makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest unfit pilots without waiting for a report or an accident;

- Medical certification gives passengers who don’t know the pilot some assurance that the pilot has met minimum health standards;

- The requirement provides additional motivation to a group of pilots who otherwise would not be as diligent about medical checkups and addressing medical problems as they should be; (this is the paternalistic thing that really pisses everyone off, but it happens to be true for some pilots);

- The medical requirement provides an opportunity for a physician to tell a pilot who is in denial that it’s time to hang it up--somthing that his buddies may not want to do.

There are also a lot of straw man arguments being thrown around, such as there are no statistics showing the pilot impairment is a significant factor in accidents. Yet, a lot of accidents are caused by pilot error. Who can say what caused the pilot to mess up? Who can say that it wasn’t a medical factor, like drugs, hypoxia, stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, loss of vision or vertigo? Hypoxia is a great example of how impaired pilots think they’re doing great, but no one questions that it’s a killer. I don’t hear anyone arguing for reducing or eliminating the supplemental O2 requirements.

Another straw man is that impaired pilots will fly regardless of whether they have a medical, a license etc. etc, so the medical does not good. I've seen this argument made by the same guy who claimed that pilots can be counted on 100% to self-certify their own fitness. That’s true of some people, but not of all. If nothing else, it’s easier for law enforcement to deal with an unlicensed pilot when the catch up to him than it is to deal with someone who shouldn’t be flying but is otherwise legal.

Like I said at the start, there are lots of costs to the requirement, and on balance I’m in favor of the bill. I think it’s important to understand the other viewpoint, not just rail against it.

My .02.

CAVU

BTW, Senator Feinstein's reply to my letter supporting the bill was noncommittal, and showed a lack of understanding: "I understand that you support this bill because you believe it will alleviate the high cost of flying small aircraft. Please note that I made careful note of your comments, and I will be sure to keep them in mind should the Senate consider a companion [bill] in the future." Grrrrr. There's a lot more to this than "the high cost of flying small aircraft." Has she never heard of a flying club, or a Skyhawk? She probably doesn't see many of those on the Signature ramp at SFO.


CAVU

From Utah's Senator Orin Hatch:

"Bla bla bla bla bla. You may be interested to know that I support this bill and have joined Senator John Boozman as a cosponsor. Bla bla bla bla bla.

CAVU wrote:- Drug testing deters some folks who probably shouldn’t be flying from applying for a medical. It also makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest unfit pilots without waiting for a report or an accident;

I recently was surprised to learn that no drug screening is performed on urinalysis for 3rd class medicals. It's apparently analyzed for other reasons.

AOPA wrote:Does a third class medical examination include any type of drug testing?

No. Your AME will not be testing for illicit drugs during a flight physical. A routine part of the FAA medical exam is a urinalysis to check for sugar or protein, indicators of possible diabetes or kidney disease. Even as a commercial pilot participating in the DOT/FAA drug testing program, a drug test is done independent of an aviation medical examination. Your AME may also be a medical review officer for a drug testing company, but when conducting a flight physical, he/she will not test you for illicit drugs.

Zzz wrote:

CAVU wrote:- Drug testing deters some folks who probably shouldn’t be flying from applying for a medical. It also makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest unfit pilots without waiting for a report or an accident;

I recently was surprised to learn that no drug screening is performed on urinalysis for 3rd class medicals. It's apparently analyzed for other reasons.

AOPA wrote:Does a third class medical examination include any type of drug testing?

No. Your AME will not be testing for illicit drugs during a flight physical. A routine part of the FAA medical exam is a urinalysis to check for sugar or protein, indicators of possible diabetes or kidney disease. Even as a commercial pilot participating in the DOT/FAA drug testing program, a drug test is done independent of an aviation medical examination. Your AME may also be a medical review officer for a drug testing company, but when conducting a flight physical, he/she will not test you for illicit drugs.

Dang! And that was the BEST reason I could come up with for keeping the test. Thanks for correcting that.

CAVU

Furthermore. I firmly believe that the 3rd class medical doesn't contribute or encourage private pilots from addressing medical issues. To the contrary - they are far more likely to hide them from medical professionals - both their primary care physicians as well as their AME.

CAVU makes some good points. But there are fewer still benefits of the 3rd class medical than the supporters claim, in my book. So I continue to rail away with good conscience.

The "other" pilot forums contain droves of spam can drivers who think the little wheel belongs in the front and are deathly afraid of anything other than 10,000ft paved runways. Their opinion automatically means less.

soyAnarchisto wrote:Furthermore. I firmly believe that the 3rd class medical doesn't contribute or encourage private pilots from addressing medical issues. To the contrary - they are far more likely to hide them from medical professionals - both their primary care physicians as well as their AME.

No doubt that it creates a dilemma about seeking treatment and reporting. Not seeking treatment is, IMO, self-destructive. Reporting once you have sought treatment makes for an ugly choice. I agonized before reporting the sleep apnea. What pushed me over the edge was that I didn't want to fly uninsured (assuming that the insurance company would deny coverage for anything that could remotely be blamed on my mistake).

I don't doubt that others react differently and choose not to report. Who knows what the percentages are. If I chose not to report, the first thing I'd do would be to cancel the hull insurance and lower the liability insurance to the minimum required to satisfy the County's requirements for the hangar.

The argument that is most persuasive to me is that the G allows all kinds of incompetent bozos to drive lethal cars, SUVs, RVs and (almost forgot) minivans, and hardly even tries to make them buy insurance. Civi flying takes more skill and coordination than driving, but it's not THAT much more demanding in terms of physical and mental health than competent driving. That said, people who choose to learn to fly have self-selected themselves into a group that is way more skilled and responsible than drivers. (I have no facts to support that, other than the fact that it's my opinion. )

The Third Class medical is the product of empire-building and the public's terror of death in the air (as opposed to the mundane death on the ground). All I'm saying is that the blind squirrel does find a few nuts. Not enough to keep feeding the squirrel, IMO.

CAVU

CAVU wrote:There are also a lot of straw man arguments being thrown around, such as there are no statistics showing the pilot impairment is a significant factor in accidents. Yet, a lot of accidents are caused by pilot error. Who can say what caused the pilot to mess up? Who can say that it wasn’t a medical factor, like drugs, hypoxia, stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, loss of vision or vertigo? Hypoxia is a great example of how impaired pilots think they’re doing great, but no one questions that it’s a killer. I don’t hear anyone arguing for reducing or eliminating the supplemental O2 requirements.

None of which the third class medical exam identifies, prevents or treats. Unless if by "loss of vision" you are referring to the chronic degradation of ones vision but then again that is usually identified outside of and long before the third class medical process when ones quality of life is affected by blurry sight.

CW

CAVU wrote:

Zzz wrote:There are also a lot of straw man arguments being thrown around, such as there are no statistics showing the pilot impairment is a significant factor in accidents. Yet, a lot of accidents are caused by pilot error. Who can say what caused the pilot to mess up? Who can say that it wasn’t a medical factor, like drugs, hypoxia, stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, loss of vision or vertigo? Hypoxia is a great example of how impaired pilots think they’re doing great, but no one questions that it’s a killer. I don’t hear anyone arguing for reducing or eliminating the supplemental O2 requirements.

If we assume that 1) a significant number of accidents are happening for medical reasons among sport pilots, and 2) you can't show an increase in the overall accident rate w.r.t. pilots with medical certificates. Then you have to conclude that either either assumption 1 wasn't so significant after all, or, the geezers flying under the sport pilot rules are superior pilots that are having fewer non-medical accidents.

Eh?

From my Congressman that sits on the House aviation subcommittee:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3708, the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act of 2013.

Due in part to your important advocacy, I have cosponsored H.R. 3708, which will ease excessive rules and regulations for general aviation pilots. You should also know that I will continue to support common-sense efforts to make our federal government more efficient.

As a member of both the General Aviation Caucus and House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, and having lived in Northern Minnesota my whole life, I understand the enormous economic benefit general aviation has to the 8th District, Minnesota, and our nation as a whole. Our numerous regional airports are important economic drivers of our business and tourism industries, and critical hubs for visitors and commuters alike. It is vital we ensure their continued success as major employers in our district and across the United States.

To that end, I recently joined 29 other Members of Congress in a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) opposing their demand for additional fees for air traffic services at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh – a move seen as yet another administrative attempt to impose user fees on general aviation.

Furthermore, you may be pleased to know I was the original Democratic sponsor of H.R.1848, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act, which was signed into law by the President late last year. This measure requires the FAA to update their Aviation Rulemaking Plan and give producers of small airplanes, like Cirrus Aircraft in Duluth, their own set of regulations. Over the past two decades, the small aviation industry in America has been slowly choking due to an outdated, unnecessarily lengthy approval process that increases the price of safety and technology upgrades by up to ten times, costing us jobs and innovation. H.R.1848 will help regenerate those lost jobs, as well as spur investment and accelerate new designs and lifesaving safety features for a whole new generation of small planes being built in the United States.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your outreach and advocacy, and do not hesitate to let me know whenever I can be of assistance.

I encourage you to follow me on Facebook and Twitter and visit my website at nolan.house.gov to receive daily updates.

Sincerely,

Richard M. Nolan
Member of Congress


My reply:
Congressman Nolan,
Thank you so much for your support of general aviation and especially this bill which will result in pilots more freely pursuing preventive healthcare.

Please encourage Senators Franken and Klobuchar to cosponsor the companion Senate bill S.2103.

Again, many thanks sir!
Mark J

Nice job Mark, thanks.

Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

CAVU wrote:

Zzz wrote:There are also a lot of straw man arguments being thrown around, such as there are no statistics showing the pilot impairment is a significant factor in accidents. Yet, a lot of accidents are caused by pilot error. Who can say what caused the pilot to mess up? Who can say that it wasn’t a medical factor, like drugs, hypoxia, stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, loss of vision or vertigo? Hypoxia is a great example of how impaired pilots think they’re doing great, but no one questions that it’s a killer. I don’t hear anyone arguing for reducing or eliminating the supplemental O2 requirements.

If we assume that 1) a significant number of accidents are happening for medical reasons among sport pilots, and 2) you can't show an increase in the overall accident rate w.r.t. pilots with medical certificates. Then you have to conclude that either either assumption 1 wasn't so significant after all, or, the geezers flying under the sport pilot rules are superior pilots that are having fewer non-medical accidents.

Eh?

Indeed! It seems that some of us might not have taken a shot at the logic behind the pro and con arguments. "Who can say that it wasn’t a medical factor, like drugs, hypoxia, stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, loss of vision or vertigo?" Maybe somebody can explain how the 3rd class physical addresses each of these "causes"? They may ALL be factors in EVERY aircraft accident for all I know, but a pilot's diligent self assessment is the ONLY way to address them.

CAVU wrote:

Zzz wrote:

CAVU wrote:- Drug testing deters some folks who probably shouldn’t be flying from applying for a medical. It also makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest unfit pilots without waiting for a report or an accident;

I recently was surprised to learn that no drug screening is performed on urinalysis for 3rd class medicals. It's apparently analyzed for other reasons.

AOPA wrote:Does a third class medical examination include any type of drug testing?

No. Your AME will not be testing for illicit drugs during a flight physical. A routine part of the FAA medical exam is a urinalysis to check for sugar or protein, indicators of possible diabetes or kidney disease. Even as a commercial pilot participating in the DOT/FAA drug testing program, a drug test is done independent of an aviation medical examination. Your AME may also be a medical review officer for a drug testing company, but when conducting a flight physical, he/she will not test you for illicit drugs.

Dang! And that was the BEST reason I could come up with for keeping the test. Thanks for correcting that.
CAVU

And then there's always that pesky "Doctor / Patient confidentiality" thing that keeps the Law Enforcement officials at bay. You might get denied for a renewal but it couldn't be reported to the state or local police without a HIPPA violation. Unless it's in response to an accident investigation.
Not for routine physicals.
The possession of a valid medical does not guarantee that a pilot won't have a catastrophic medical event 5 minutes after they walk out of the office. So any assurances it may afford passengers is purely psychological.
If a 3rd class medical truly was a valid way of preventing potential fatal events in flight, there would be a gradual annual increase in accidents in light sport aircraft that corresponded roughly to the number of self reporting older pilots. A quick review of the sats will show that it is the low hour pilots that account for the bulk of "pilot error" accidents.As general rule,they tend to be younger and, theoretically, healthier. As hours increase, the accident rate declines. Obviously that means an increase in age as well. There's an age where we all should hang it up. But that varies with the individual and it is more related to mental acuity than physical limitations.

Latest blurb I have!!

April 2– The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is beginning a rulemaking project that will consider whether to allow private pilots, in certain instances, to substitute a driver’s license in lieu of a FAA medical certificate. Information about the “Private Pilot Privileges without a Medical Certificate” project will be posted soon in the April report on DOT’s Significant Rulemakings site.
The FAA is still considering a March 20, 2012 petition from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), for an exemption from FAA rules to allow AOPA/EAA members flying recreationally (and according to certain operational limitations and restrictions) to conduct certain operations without having an FAA medical certificate. The FAA is considering whether it can provide any relief to the medical requirement, while maintaining safety, prior to completion of the rule.