Here's the full text of the bill, including the checklist that the examining physician has to go through and sign off on: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/571/text

(I'm not a doctor, but the checklist looks like a pretty standard physical to me.)

The physician then must sign the following:

(iv) to sign the checklist, stating: “I certify that I discussed all items on this checklist with the individual during my examination, discussed any medications the individual is taking that could interfere with their ability to safely operate an aircraft or motor vehicle, and performed an examination that included all of the items on this checklist. I certify that I am not aware of any medical condition that, as presently treated, could interfere with the individual’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.”

It's a bit unclear as yet how the physician is supposed to judge whether or not any medical conditions could interfere with safely operating an aircraft.

The pilot then must attach this signed form to their logbook, and take an online medical factors course every other year.

It's a whole lot better than having an AME clip your wings in a 15 minute visit.

I think as long as the medical evaluation is kept to a standard physical and not associated with operation of an aircraft, which depending on the doctor, could span the spectrum of comprehension and bias, it should work out well.

It'll be good for the guys with special issuances to breath a little easier.

I think the point of a physician not knowing what conditions would preclude safe aircraft operations is valid.

I asked a doc to fill out a form after a self reported condition and I had to arm wrestle him pretty hard to get a letter out of him. His feeling was he was not a pilot and had expert opinion of whether my condition (recovered or original) was such that I was safe to operate an aircraft.

I think we are going to go doc shopping here if there is no liability waiver contained in the program.

Due to HIPPA the doc cannot share you medical info. I suspect that there are a lot of folks out there driving cars etc. that should not be due to the fact that the medical community is restricted from passing the information to the regulating authorities, which I don't think is a bad thing.

TD

I tried to find out what the role call vote was on the bill but no luck. Anyone know where to find out who, in the senate, voted for passage and who voted against?

Zzz wrote:I think as long as the medical evaluation is kept to a standard physical and not associated with operation of an aircraft, which depending on the doctor, could span the spectrum of comprehension and bias, it should work out well.

The bill currently requires the doctor to certify that you don't have any medical conditions that could "interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft." Some doctors are probably going to be pretty willing to sign folks off, but I can imagine a lot of doctors feeling uneasy without specific guidelines.

I was hoping they'd just require a physical as well. Still definitely a step forward though!

GroundLooper wrote:I tried to find out what the role call vote was on the bill but no luck. Anyone know where to find out who, in the senate, voted for passage and who voted against?

According to the AOPA news release it was passed with "unanimous consent"

There are some people (including some existing pilots) that should not be operating an airplane. We have to accept this because it is true. Thinking only about the preservation/growth of private aviation, the concept is that if they let everybody through, there will surely be some number of accidents with high-risk people, that anti-aviation interests will hold up as examples, and use it to justify killing some part of aviation. So it's not an acceptable risk for private aviation to "tear down the wall !" and let some chain smoking triple bacon cheeseburger addict pop a cork in his airplane and put all of us at risk of being grounded.

On the other hand, the restrictions and difficulties that the previous aeromedical system has created is definitely killing off a part of aviation, and that's not acceptable either.

So we have to make sure that by too fervently supporting one person's ability to fly, we do not inadvertently put everyone's ability to fly at risk.

"Vigilance is the price of liberty" is how Jefferson put it.

Methinks some physicians will very very quickly find ways to mitigate their liability.

Whereas the unwritten rule has been to avoid having the normally treating physician be the medical issuing AME, this proposal smells like a Trojan horse to me. It also seems to fail to address those who have knowingly avoided the medical exam (or let their medical certificate expire) to avoid denial. At this point, someone with a diagnosed disqualifying condition - who had a medical prior to developing that condition- but simply let it expire, could play a game, lie a little, change doctors and end up flying.

A whole lot of political attention has been drawn toward the sport pilot community's missing medical examination requirement. I haven't seen language that proposes scrapping the no medical rule for sport pilots, but as proposed, the issue is unbalanced and will have to be addressed at some point. I also can't imagine that ALPA executives as well as the Aero Medical Examiners groups are not already scribbling away, against PBOR2. Class I & II Medicals are bound to become more complicated in the future.

Nothing I have seen so far has addressed a major concern of psychological evaluations as a standard requirement for all airmen.

Lubitz has just shown his ugly face again, with EASA publishing stringent new methods to avoid a repeat suicide.
Applicable to all commercial pilots. Naturally, balance and fairness will be restored by expanding the circle of targets.

EASA Director Patrick Ky wrote:"The Germanwings tragedy reminded the international aviation community that the medical and psychological conditions of flight crews, if not detected, can lead to a catastrophic outcome. This demonstrates that the regulators have the duty to quickly adapt to a variety of challenges. EASA’s mission is to make air travel ever safer for European Union citizens in Europe and worldwide. With this action plan we are fully committed to fulfil this mission."

Reference to "Action Plan": http://www.ec.europa.eu/transport/modes ... lan_en.htm

GroundLooper wrote:I tried to find out what the role call vote was on the bill but no luck. Anyone know where to find out who, in the senate, voted for passage and who voted against?

They bill was reported to have passed with a unanimous vote. That means no "nays" and no abstentions normally. But, there were 74 co-sponsors. That would be veto-proof majority so perhaps any opposition simply failed to show up

This is pure conjecture but if Harry didn't mount even token resistance to the bill it bodes well I think. And I don't mean by that that Harry was necessarily opposed to the bill, just that when one party runs the Senate the other party generally has something nasty to say about any bill that comes to the floor. This one was bi-partisan all the way and it came to the floor lightning quick after it escaped committee, compared to the most bills. The House may see that vote as being indicative of wide spread acceptance and move quickly. We'll see what Nancy and Paul do. If it gets past the House I would submit it to the President while he's out of country for 11 days. Sundays excepted.

This could be viewed by Washington's bureaucratic class as being invasive.

Zzz wrote:It's a whole lot better than having an AME clip your wings in a 15 minute visit.

I think as long as the medical evaluation is kept to a standard physical and not associated with operation of an aircraft, which depending on the doctor, could span the spectrum of comprehension and bias, it should work out well.

It'll be good for the guys with special issuances to breath a little easier.

I think the ONLY thing this bill will do is to eliminate the delays in issuing a special issuance.

Those folks will have already gone through the hoops to get certified, and no longer have a condition which would "prevent them from operating an aircraft safely". So, in that case, I'd just go back to the AME, ask them to do the PBR-2 physical, sign the statement, and I'd be good to go.

But.....if your primary doc prescribes a medicine that's on the prohibited list by the FAA, you're screwed.

Because YOU will still have to sign a form (the "checklist" referred to in the bill) which attests that you have no conditions that prohibit you from safely flying an aircraft.....and that medication is clearly prohibited. Or, if you develop a medical condition which the FAA says you're not fit to fly. You're grounded.

Yes, you can still sign the "checklist" and BS your doc into signing a form that says you're fit to fly (maybe, but if I were a GP doc, I sure as hell wouldn't sign anything that says you're fit to fly a kite....not being an aeromedical practitioner). But, that is PRECISELY the same as lying on your application for a flight physical. The same questions, the same signature required by YOU.

And, precisely the same consequences if you're caught.

So, it appears to me that the only people this will benefit is those who've already been through the special issuance routine (by shortening up the process of renewing) and those who are already willing to lie on a government form. In their cases, the only record of the lie will be in their logbook, as opposed to in Oklahoma City.

What am I missing?

MTV

mtv wrote: I think the ONLY thing this bill will do is to eliminate the delays in issuing a special issuance. Those folks will have already gone through the hoops to get certified, and no longer have a condition which would "prevent them from operating an aircraft safely". So, in that case, I'd just go back to the AME, ask them to do the PBR-2 physical, sign the statement, and I'd be good to go.
But.....if your primary doc prescribes a medicine that's on the prohibited list by the FAA, you're screwed.
....

If this reform in fact just eliminates the delays for a SI, in itself it'll be worth it. I think it'll make it easier for a lot of people to fly. BP redline for a medical is 155/95-- say your BP is 156/96, you're screwed. But if this thing passes, as long as your doc thinks it's OK (whether caused by white coat syndrome or whatever) you're good to go. if not...you can always go to another doc-- no harm, no foul. With the medical certificate process, once you start the application you're stuck.

You made a similar post on the SC site-- sounds like you are taking a non-FAA approved med? Is there no other comparable med out there that your doc could prescribe that IS approved? for example, I know there are a multitude of BP meds, no doubt some are approved and some are not.

I've had my medical pulled for 3 months because the AME transcribed the wrong date on the application, and because he accidentally checked "1st class" instead of 3rd. It was a perfect example of the kinds of procedural inefficiencies that will go away because of this bill. Or how about the 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back during an interrogation on why I checked "yes" to hay fever when I was 16 (more decades ago than seem possible now)?

I don't think the 3rd class medical, as it is now, does much to identify individuals that are genuine flight ops risks. There certainly is no real data to show that it does despite plenty of inconclusive attempts at studies in the US and beyond. It is hard to find a bull in a sheep herd, and it is hard to find relevant statistics when you are measuring something that is unrelated to what you are worried about.

I believe that if the FAA made a 3rd class certificate twice as hard to pass, getting rid of flying privileges of twice as many pilots, aviation safety risks with respect to pilot fitness would remain pegged right where it is- in the weeds. On the other hand, if the FAA is forced to accept the proposed changes, I think aviation safety risks with respect to pilot fitness would remain pegged right where it is- in the weeds. The repeated phrase is intentional.

The 3rd class system in its present form has little to zero bearing on flight safety. In my world, when something so potentially complicating and expensive has little to zero impact on the ends it is intended for, it goes for the wastebasket and a better solution is developed. This is a step in the right direction until planes start falling from the sky because an AME didn't stop someone from flying because of periodic sniffles.

As you all know, I am an AME. I do this only as a service to our pilot community and I have served our community in this capacity for about 13 years now.

I lose money on every pilot exam I do because if I was seeing usual patients the reimbursement is much higher for regular exams. I do this because I appreciate the company of pilots.

I do not think the Third Class medical has value and want to see it go as much as everyone else. Bear in mind I am just as vunerble to losing a medical as everyone else here.

I have NEVER denied a medical, but have deferred many (about 10%, which is average) over the years.

Only ONCE did I catch something that would have maybe killed someone. I actually was suspicious of and correctly identified a TERRORIST during his student pilot exam. I reported my suspicions to the FBI and I was correct and he was arrested. But that's another story I can share another time if you all are interested.

Whereas there may be a few rare AME's who do this for a living and/or the money, I have never met one.

As of two hours ago, it passed the Senate on its way to the House

Mountain Doctor wrote: I actually was suspicious of and correctly identified a TERRORIST during his student pilot exam. I reported my suspicions to the FBI and I was correct and he was arrested. But that's another story I can share another time if you all are interested.

Thank you! You may well have saved all of us from losing our ability to fly a GA airplane.

My day job is writing grant proposals for a large post-graduate university for psychology. As a side project I'm trying to facilitate a partnership or joint venture of some sort with the FAA aeromedical people, where a psychological component is added to the medical exam requirements (whatever they may be).

In this day and age, I'm sorry to say that weeding out or identifying the people who are a public safety risk due to mental health is more important and addresses a bigger problem than weeding out the people who represent an aviation risk because of blood pressure or blood sugar or snoring.

And by "mental health" I'm painting religious fanaticism, radicalized terrorists, and paranoid schizhophrenics with the same brush.

[quote="hotrod180.

You made a similar post on the SC site-- sounds like you are taking a non-FAA approved med? Is there no other comparable med out there that your doc could prescribe that IS approved? for example, I know there are a multitude of BP meds, no doubt some are approved and some are not.[/quote]

No, the only meds I take are in fact approved by the FAA and the FAA knows about them. My last medical was a second class. I have no physical issues which would prevent me from passing a medical......except money. My last medical cost a LOT of money for tests the FAA required (and would require annually for five years at least). Rather than spend literally thousands each year for un-necessary tests, I opted to go LS.

I was using the medicine point a a simple example of what this bill will do, most likely.....not much.

Look, the FAA is THE source for information and opinion as to whether you are fit to fly......right? So, you're going to go to your family doctor and tell him or her to ignore the guidance the FAA provides in their guidance to AMEs, and "Oh, by the way, would you mind just signing this form right here, stating that you disagree with the reigning experts on aeromedical issues?"

I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV, but there's no way I'd sign such a document if you had ANY kind of health issue. Doctors have learned all about the greed and ethics of us Americans and the plaintiffs lawyers. If I were a doctor and was approached with one of these requests, I'd suggest you go find an AME.

Look, read the bill. It's really quite clear......to make this work, you have to answer EXACTLY the same questions you do for a third class medical, and your doc has to do the same as for a third class. And if you couldn't pass a third class, you're not going to pass this either. It's that simple. Really.

Finally, as mountain doc said, my last regular checkup cost way more than the flight physicals I've taken. So going this route will likely increase the cost as well, though I suppose you could claim it as an annual physical....and insurance might cover it.

But could someone simply tell me ONE positive change that this bill will create?

MTV

EZFlap wrote:As a side project I'm trying to facilitate a partnership or joint venture of some sort with the FAA aeromedical people, where a psychological component is added to the medical exam requirements (whatever they may be).

Please tell me you're not trying to make money with releasing yet another government funded scientific think tank upon an agency that has lost all common sense about a decade ago. We can shorten the process significantly by the use of a simple, three question questionnaire. One yes = your medical is toast. Sorry, but thanks for understanding and cooperating.

[ ] I have felt sad at least once in my lifetime.

[ ] I wish I didn't have to pay taxes.

[ ] My wife/ girlfriend/ boyfriend or dog pissed me off once during the last year.

That's it. Technically you are now a suicide risk and should be prevented from operating airplanes.

That's about the possible true scope of psychological evaluations. If the shrink likes you, you fly, if not, you walk.

jjbaker wrote:One yes = your medical is toast. Sorry, but thanks for understanding and cooperating.

[ ] I have felt sad at least once in my lifetime.

[ ] I wish I didn't have to pay taxes.

[ ] My wife/ girlfriend/ boyfriend or dog pissed me off once during the last year.

That's it. Technically you are now a suicide risk and should be prevented from operating airplanes.

That's about the possible true scope of psychological evaluations. If the shrink likes you, you fly, if not, you walk.

That sums up the "science" of psychology. Psych tests for employment can't reliably help reject poor employee prospects without rejecting high performance employee prospects at the same time. They also cannot identify deceptive mental health risks. They can barely manage to identify individuals who largely self-identify as psych risks. Behavioral psychology is dubious science at best.

If all we have in the ways of tools to determine mental readiness to fly is a fantamagical psych test, then we have no tools at all.

We live in an environment today where the next time someone goes berserk and uses an airplane to do harm to innocent people will possibly be the last time any of us can fly a little airplane. I wonder if everyone gets that.

As it stands now there is no specific psychological evaluation that is any part of getting a pilot's license. So a healthy, fit, strapping young terrorist, or crazy person, or (real) suicide risk person, or radicalized anarchist can go through the process without any qualified person ever having the opportunity to stop a tragedy. What the f**k would you do about this gaping hole in the safety net to protect our ability to fly, not even mentioning the chance at preventing such a tragedy?

To get a pilot's license now you merely have to demonstrate to a CFI and/or examiner that you have the ability to fly the airplane safely, and pass the written test. So our strapping young terrorist learns to manipulate the controls, and talk to ATC, and use his King school test prep to pass, and he's good to go.

EVERY major tragedy in recent history has ALWAYS had at least one aspect or component that woulda - coulda - shoulda been discovered and the tragedy averted.

So first, please tell me what your plan would be to take this weak link (un-discovered mental health issues) out of the equation and eliminate one of the weak links.

On another note, the field of psychology is far more complex and valid and relevant than you're giving it credit for. What most people never stop to consider is the EQUAL status and relationship between mental health, physical health, and whether people live happy lives. I just finished editing a draft report that explains all about this in clear simple terms. Mental health is 500X more than whether someone is crazy or screwed up in the head. Mental health controls how we process information, how we manage "normal" everyday events.

In the simplest terms, mental health is the "ones and zeros" that control our beliefs and personalities (Operating System), our behavior (Word, Firefox, Excel), and how we deal with everything outside ourselves (iPhone, GoPro, Internet, TV).

There are a lot of people who keep rebooting Windows and throwing their mouse across the room when their hard drive needs to be defragmented. But when you mention cleaning out the cobwebs and they get all pissed off and tell you that defragmenting is BS fru-fru junk science being promoted by new age idiots.

This seems to me a lot like Minority Report "Pre-Crime". You're saying that you want to prevent folks from flying that may have no history of being a problem based on what they might do!?

This also seems like a solution in search of a problem. There is not a problem of folks with malicious intent learning to fly and carrying out their malicious intent.