mtv wrote: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. MTV

That is exactly what I do. My insurance pays something like $175 for an annual physical. When my medical is due I go to the local AME for my annual physical instead of my regular family doctor.

Psychiatric diagnoses are far too subjective to be a useful tool preemptively.

From the peer-reviewed Annals of Internal Medicine..."New Crisis in Confidence in Psychiatric Diagnosis."

http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2013/5/17/0000605-201308060-00655-1.pdf

EZFlap wrote: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.

That's an emotional and irrational fear and if its logic was applied, we would not have guns and concealed weapon permits in the U.S.

EZ Flap wrote: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?

Counter-question: What is being done against the group of individuals who enter trucks, SUV's or operate heavy machinery while under the influence of severely mind altering medications, illegal drugs or while suffering from a depression spout or narcissism attack that makes them want to hit the news? What about those who have been planning the next suicide attack, using explosives or illegally obtained guns? Who psychologically evaluates people who own weaponry arsenals big enough to level a town? Risk of a certificated pilot going berserk and using an aircraft as a weapon is so small, I would not want to make a guess. And I wouldn't want to discuss the topic with someone who communicates like Donald Trump, either. There is no gaping hole in the safety net and the fear-mongering rhetoric commonly used by liberals and right radicals hasn't proven itself as the be all - end all - handle on things. EASA just demonstrated how to pull a completely numb stunt and make a surrealistic factor of government and human failure into a task to be reckoned with for decades to come.

EZ Flap wrote: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.

However ineffective the system in place may be, we have DHS/TSA vetting on students and we do what we can to limit foreigners from entering the system if there is even a hunch of an expectation for that person to do wrong. You can already end up in an interrogation room with your civil rights and liberties stripped from you, for flying to close to something that is considered a matter of national security. Lets be true and honest about it. Isn't a preschool or kindergarten a matter of national security too? God knows, GA aircraft have hit more than enough buildings this year, we even managed to park a King Air right on top of its own Simulator at Flight Safety, remember? Maybe that pilot had a un-diagnosed mental issue with the term Flight Safety. Uhhhh!

EZ Flap wrote: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.

Absolutely true. Most if not all of the tragedies were not averted due to a failure of our system to use and process available information.
Terrorism isn't a predictable behavioral pattern. I am sure some psychiatrist or psychologist can argue me into the ground on this generalization - in fact they could probably hit me with science that proves that I am wrong. Yet, explain this to me: I have watched potential sales people do a battery of psych tests to determine their ability to sell cars. Based on their psychological profile some of them were high impact sales people. Some of them couldn't sell a nail to a carpenter who just ran out of nails, whereas people like me, who failed the sales aptitude exam rolled 35+ units the first month...

EZ Flap wrote: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.

Discovering mental health issues is only part of the equation. A undiscovered mental health issue is just what it is called. Not an overtly manifested pattern of behaviors that fails or passes a raster or battery of tests. One is good today and a blood-covered monster killing little kids tomorrow. Ever talked with someone who committed suicide less than an hour later? I had no clue! We didn't see it coming because nobody could have seen it coming, the snap was quick and the person was alone with the proper tools to make it happen. Unless we acknowledge that human psychology isn't a black or white matter - we will see think tanks trying to bring us salvation by trying to scientifically predict our behavior at any given time. I am sure Achmed Abdul Allah Akbar is going to sit with a shrink to get evaluated before illegally gaining access to an airplane and then illegally flying that airplane into a crowd.

EZ Flap wrote: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.

Yes Sir. That's why we have military veterans walking around being diagnosed with PTSD when they went to check on nerve pain or frequent headaches. When the vet then seeks legal representation to prevent the people of the VA hospital to put him in a stray jacket and help him, that hiring of a lawyer is suddenly an overt and predictable result of PTSD. Lets keep diagnosing the crap out of people. It helps. Better than nothing, right?

EZ Flap wrote: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).

That is about the shallowest explanation of psychology and mental health I have seen to date. Please put the glue bottle down and take some of the classes offered. Learning about mental health and behavior prediction isn't going to be cheap. I am 150% sure that our government will not be able to produce a somewhat logical way to deal with psychological evaluations, not even with the help of years of studies, paid for by the tax-payers.

EZ Flap wrote: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.

Ya know... Sometimes a swift kick to a computer or a mouse tossed out the window is a great way to leverage some of the frustrations that come with today's technology. Why not make the stupid de-fragmentation button easier to find? It beats slapping the wife or kicking the dog or blowing Microsoft headquarters up. Hell, 35 years ago I used to have bad nightmares which triggered my school to have me sit with a shrink. We talked about monsters and stuff and finally the shrink put a monster (drawn by me) against the door and had me throw darts at it. His secretary almost died. I am sure, today a child who does this is classified as radically violent and would land on a high risk suspect list. Last I heard, kids cannot say bless you when someone sneezes, as it may cause a social anxiety attack or get the parents into hot water for religious harassment.

delete

How about we recognize the significant effort our alphabet groups have put into this and applaud their efforts. It is definitely a step in the right direction and worth supporting. It doesn't hurt to make a donation to AOPA or EAA in support of this while we are at it and I would encourage each of us to do so. I just sent AOPA an extra $50 to back that up.

Anything that can be done to reduce the burden on us is worth the effort and a LOT has gone into this already. We should all be ardent supporters IMHO. If this doesn't measure up to your ideals at least support it so the next time around we are that much closer to making it over the next hurdle.

Blackrock

mtv wrote: ...But could someone simply tell me ONE positive change that this bill will create? MTV

If you're over 40, you'll only have to get your "medical" once every four years instead of every two.
ONE positive change, there you go.
I can think of several others but it would take quite a while to type them out, and since your mind is made up already (as is mine) what's the point?

Ability for current LSA pilots to fly a 182?
Ability to fly IFR without Class 3?
Ability to fly at night?
256 knots instead of 120?
Constant speed propeller?

Assuming that the AOPA and EAA are aware of the "still not good enough" aspects of the PBOR, what is their rationale for supporting it so strongly (if it's not that much of an improvement)?

Also, it could be step 1 in a 2 or 3 step process. Meaning that AOPA and EAA are using the PBOR to stick the camel's nose into the tent, fully expecting to expand it (reducing the original restrictions) in the future. Is that not a possible behind the scenes strategy?

EZFlap wrote:Ability for current LSA pilots to fly a 182?
Ability to fly IFR without Class 3?
Ability to fly at night?
256 knots instead of 120?
Constant speed propeller?

Assuming that the AOPA and EAA are aware of the "still not good enough" aspects of the PBOR, what is their rationale for supporting it so strongly (if it's not that much of an improvement)?

Also, it could be step 1 in a 2 or 3 step process. Meaning that AOPA and EAA are using the PBOR to stick the camel's nose into the tent, fully expecting to expand it (reducing the original restrictions) in the future. Is that not a possible behind the scenes strategy?

Yep, that could well be their strategy, or it could be that all the hype is an opportunity that they simply can't pass up to raise funds, regardless of the outcome.

READ the damn bill, fer pete's sake. The requirements to pass the new requirements are PRECISELY the same as they would be to pass a third class flight physical. The SAME, to the point that they even specifically reference the flight physical form for the questions you must answer.

Further, you are now going to be asking a family doctor to act as an "aeromedical expert" by signing a sworn statement that you have no condition which would prevent you from safely flying an aircraft.

Do you seriously think that ANY doctor's malpractice insurance is going to be happy with a doctor who doesn't follow the FAA "recommendations" on aeromedical safety PRECISELY? Really? Do you seriously think many doctors are going to be willing to put their signature to a piece of paper that YOU control which states that they have examined you and found that you are safe to fly an airplane? In my experience, doctors are generally intelligent people and are also well acquainted with liability issues.

In other words, there is NOTHING in this bill which would permit a pilot who cannot currently pass a third class medical exam to fly all those airplane's you just listed.

READ the damn bill!

NOBODY who is not currently able to pass a third class medical is going to be able to fly under this.

And, if you currently have to complete VERY expensive tests to pass a third class medical.....guess what? You're STILL going to have to complete those same tests to fly under this bill.

In my opinion, the only folks who will (may) benefit from this bill is those operating under a Special Issuance in that this will eliminate the long wait times to get cleared by OKC. But, you're still going to have to jump through all the BS testing currently required by the FAA.

MTV

mtv wrote:Yep, that could well be their strategy, or it could be that all the hype is an opportunity that they simply can't pass up to raise funds, regardless of the outcome.

READ the damn bill, fer pete's sake. The requirements to pass the new requirements are PRECISELY the same as they would be to pass a third class flight physical. The SAME, to the point that they even specifically reference the flight physical form for the questions you must answer.

Further, you are now going to be asking a family doctor to act as an "aeromedical expert" by signing a sworn statement that you have no condition which would prevent you from safely flying an aircraft.

Do you seriously think that ANY doctor's malpractice insurance is going to be happy with a doctor who doesn't follow the FAA "recommendations" on aeromedical safety PRECISELY? Really? Do you seriously think many doctors are going to be willing to put their signature to a piece of paper that YOU control which states that they have examined you and found that you are safe to fly an airplane? In my experience, doctors are generally intelligent people and are also well acquainted with liability issues.

In other words, there is NOTHING in this bill which would permit a pilot who cannot currently pass a third class medical exam to fly all those airplane's you just listed.

READ the damn bill!

NOBODY who is not currently able to pass a third class medical is going to be able to fly under this.

And, if you currently have to complete VERY expensive tests to pass a third class medical.....guess what? You're STILL going to have to complete those same tests to fly under this bill.

In my opinion, the only folks who will (may) benefit from this bill is those operating under a Special Issuance in that this will eliminate the long wait times to get cleared by OKC. But, you're still going to have to jump through all the BS testing currently required by the FAA.

MTV

Mike, I think you're asking way too much. Read the bill? Why? We gots medical reform!!!1

Our requests were shredded down and something is better than nothing was pushed as acceptable doctrine.
We seem to like this style of work.

Main argument:
"If we don't go with the limitations and concessions, the bill will be turned down in whole."

So rather than having a long overdue argument about the senselessness of all currently administered medical examinations (all classes) half a cookie was sold at full price. Imhofe had an axe to grind and he showed the FAA what happens when you ding a politician. We met our true enemies (ALPA) and many who would regulate us square out of the sky, if given the chance. We also learned that common sense is a foreign concept.

I think in all, this bill has proven to be a good revenue generator for both AOPA and EAA, who both charged for the privilege to join the fight and likely are getting lots of donations from those who really like the term "Pilot Bill of Rights". From an enforcement standpoint, there have been positive changes. Another benefit is that people saw first hand that no amount of lobbying is enough, it still takes every single hand on deck to sail the ship and bring change. People learned a lot about writing letters and calling representatives. Most importantly people learned that taking part in something, rather than just cutting the check, does in fact accomplish something. What it accomplishes may not be what we want or need - so maybe we learned something about being careful what we ask for and how aggressively we stick to our demand for being treated fairly. General aviation is treated like an exotic pet. Some think exotic pets are dangerous and don't belong in the hands of everyone.

If we have unaffected sport pilot rules 5 years from now, I'd be surprised. Not only will the FAA fail any and all deadlines, I don't think any healthcare providers will put their signature under a piece of paper, allowing anyone who's complete medical history they may or may not know, to operate an aircraft. The docs I've talked to say it's NUTS.

The attention MUST eventually shift towards sport pilots who fly with a drivers license as a medical. Compared to private pilots, that's out of whack and I don't think they'll leave it like it is. Contrary, I think within 2016 we will see a heavy increase in language asking for psychological evaluations for all pilots. Maybe that will be a self certification form like I posted above, maybe we'll have to see a shrink prior to every flight. The sky is the limit for crazy ideas.

Those who think this is going to be later amended or changed into something more sensible: I hope you're right.

Even if the outlines of the exam for the "new" system are similar, they are still more accessible to most.

I am still astounded that there are people who are committed to the idea that most of these things require testing and monitoring. I'll take that back and if someone can point to an NTSB report where an accident occurred because a doctor didn't adequately inspect the pilot's anus, for example (from Section C, i, IX of the bill for the curious).

jjbaker wrote:....Our requests were shredded down and something is better than nothing was pushed as acceptable doctrine. We seem to like this style of work. Main argument:
"If we don't go with the limitations and concessions, the bill will be turned down in whole."
So rather than having a long overdue argument about the senselessness of all currently administered medical examinations (all classes) half a cookie was sold at full price....

The original AOPA/EAA proposal was closer to "the full cookie", and you saw how far that went. It was NEVER gonna go anywhere, Inofre's bill at least is a start.

Is a drivers license mentioned anywhere in this proposal?
Is there still gonna be a 3rd class medical?

hotrod180 wrote:The original AOPA/EAA proposal was closer to "the full cookie", and you saw how far that went. It was NEVER gonna go anywhere, Inofre's bill at least is a start.

I fully believe that AOPA and EAA went in with the very best of intentions and so did the politician who got the show on the road. Randy Corfmann (over on Supercub.org) and also a passive member of my seaplaneforum.com just received a nice thank you note from me, wishing him a Merry Christmas and thanking him for his work and tireless effort to get people involved. Absolutely stunning and impressive performance by those who did take the effort to get involved and help. Even though I didn't stand behind what was left after the concessions, I kept sharing news about it. Refreshing to see this much action from people, even though I personally do not benefit from medical reform.

Absolutely no doubt about the positive intentions. Except, we went in demanding a cookie and then settled (we had to) for half a cookie. Anything short of duplicating the sport pilot rules for private recreational pilots (self certification + drivers-license) wasn't going to have any significant impact. Not that the sport pilot rules somehow increased our numbers or caused a spike in sales, but at least it harbors some of the guys who don't want to, or can't deal with expensive, complicated and time intense bureaucracy. We need these people flying and we need them on the airports and on our seaplane bases. We need their experiences and we should hear their stories. We also need them (even if retired from flying) to pick up the pen and paper and write.

hotrod180 wrote:Is a drivers license mentioned anywhere in this proposal? Is there still gonna be a 3rd class medical?

AFAIK there are no provisions for a DL as the basis for determining medical fitness to fly, nor do I think the Class III medical will remain. I can imagine people be given a choice to sit for the medical as we knew it, or choose to go the new way. I bet my bum, FAA isn't going to reduce the staff at its aero-medical branch. No Chrystal ball here, just a hunch that makes me expect severe headwind from the general healthcare provider front.

I went ahead and copied the medical related text into a PDF, but I cannot attach it here.

This link will open the PDF or you can source it on Google.

jjbaker wrote:.... Absolutely no doubt about the positive intentions. Except, we went in demanding a cookie and then settled (we had to) for half a cookie. Anything short of duplicating the sport pilot rules for private recreational pilots (self certification + drivers-license) wasn't going to have any significant impact.
..........I went ahead and copied the medical related text into a PDF, but I cannot attach it here.
This link will open the PDF or you can source it on Google.

I like cookies as much as anyone, preferably whole ones, but half a cookie's better than none at all in my book. The "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" phrases come to mind. And even if you think this legislation won't help you personally, a lot of other people (including me) think it will be helpful to them so please don't vote against our interests even if yours aren't served.

BTW I tried the link but I "don't have permission" to open it per the seaplaneforum site.

hotrod180 wrote:I like cookies as much as anyone, preferably whole ones, but half a cookie's better than none at all in my book. The "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and "don't let perfect be the enemy of good" phrases come to mind. And even if you think this legislation won't help you personally, a lot of other people (including me) think it will be helpful to them so please don't vote against our interests even if yours aren't served.

Minor correction if you allow: I "voted" for your interests and dutifully supported PBOR2 from the start. Even contacted my political representatives, more than once. Don't judge me by the stories told about me, I still have one penpal who sends me letters to my mental clinic. The shrinks say I stand a chance to get released when I stop seeing these pink elephants. Probably hearsay.

Maybe we'll talk again after the imposed deadlines have come and gone and things actually begin to move on this bill. Not expecting much from it doesn't mean I am against it. Maybe I am disappointed by its lack of bite. Its a step and we'll see how that step will affect sport pilots down the pike. What kind of letters our friends at ALPA or other outfits are currently penning concerns me more. The only reason this legislation is not applicable to me is that I am back in EASA land now. Knowing that the FAA loves to take notes from EASA, a silly movie quote comes to mind: "We'll need a bigger boat!"

hotrod180 wrote:BTW I tried the link but I "don't have permission" to open it per the seaplaneforum site.

Whoops. My bad. Works now. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

jjbaker wrote:....I went ahead and copied the medical related text into a PDF, but I cannot attach it here.
This link will open the PDF or you can source it on Google.

Working now, thanks.

jjbaker wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:Is a drivers license mentioned anywhere in this proposal? Is there still gonna be a 3rd class medical?

AFAIK there are no provisions for a DL as the basis for determining medical fitness to fly...

Copy and paste from the beginning of S571 text:

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2.

2.Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots
(a)In general
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft if—

(1)the individual possesses a valid driver’s license issued by a State, territory, or possession of the United States and complies with all medical requirements or restrictions associated with that license;...

marcusofcotton wrote:

jjbaker wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:Is a drivers license mentioned anywhere in this proposal? Is there still gonna be a 3rd class medical?

AFAIK there are no provisions for a DL as the basis for determining medical fitness to fly...

Copy and paste from the beginning of S571 text:

1.Short title
This Act may be cited as Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2.

2.Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots
(a)In general
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise regulations to ensure that an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft if—

(1)the individual possesses a valid driver’s license issued by a State, territory, or possession of the United States and complies with all medical requirements or restrictions associated with that license;...

Marcus,

Sorry, but that's just from the summary of the bill. Read the full text, where you'll find this:

(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The checklist shall contain—

(A) a section, for the individual to complete that contains—

(i) boxes 3 through 13 and boxes 16 through 19 of the Federal Aviation Administration Form 8500–8 (3–99);

(ii) a signature line for the individual to affirm that—

(I) the answers provided by the individual on that checklist, including the individual's answers regarding medical history, are true and complete;

(II) the individual understands that he or she is prohibited under Federal Aviation Administration regulations from acting as pilot in command, or any other capacity as a required flight crew member, if he or she knows or has reason to know of any medical deficiency or medically disqualifying condition that would make the individual unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner; and

(III) the individual is aware of the regulations pertaining to the prohibition on operations during medical deficiency and has no medically disqualifying conditions in accordance with applicable law;

(B) a section with instructions for the individual to provide the completed checklist to the physician performing the comprehensive medical examination required in subsection (a)(7); and

(C) a section, for the physician to complete, that instructs the physician—

(i) to perform a clinical examination of—

(I) head, face, neck, and scalp;

(II) nose, sinuses, mouth, and throat;

(III) ears, general (internal and external canals), and eardrums (perforation);

(IV) eyes (general), ophthalmoscopic, pupils (equality and reaction), and ocular motility (associated parallel movement, nystagmus);

(V) lungs and chest (not including breast examination);

(VI) heart (precordial activity, rhythm, sounds, and murmurs);

(VII) vascular system (pulse, amplitude, and character, and arms, legs, and others);

(VIII) abdomen and viscera (including hernia);

(IX) anus (not including digital examination);

(X) skin;

(XI) G–U system (not including pelvic examination);

(XII) upper and lower extremities (strength and range of motion);

(XIII) spine and other musculoskeletal;

(XIV) identifying body marks, scars, and tattoos (size and location);

(XV) lymphatics;

(XVI) neurologic (tendon reflexes, equilibrium, senses, cranial nerves, and coordination, etc.);

(XVII) psychiatric (appearance, behavior, mood, communication, and memory);

(XVIII) general systemic;

(XIX) hearing;

(XX) vision (distant, near, and intermediate vision, field of vision, color vision, and ocular alignment);

(XXI) blood pressure and pulse; and

(XXII) anything else the physician, in his or her medical judgment, considers necessary;

(ii) to exercise medical discretion to address, as medically appropriate, any medical conditions identified, and to exercise medical discretion in determining whether any medical tests are warranted as part of the comprehensive medical examination;

(iii) to discuss all drugs the individual reports taking (prescription and nonprescription) and their potential to interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft or motor vehicle;

(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.”; and

(v) to provide the date the comprehensive medical examination was completed, and the physician’s full name, address, telephone number, and State medical license number.

In other words, you'll still have to fill all the squares from a flight physical. The only difference is who signs the form and where that for lives after its signed.

I can't imagine most doctors' malpractice insurance will be happy with their insured signing a form that says one is safe to fly. At least a an AME has training in aerospace medicine and they've got the FAA behind them. Your family doc going to know enough to be comfortable signing you off to fly?

I think one advantage under this bill is that a pilot COULD go to their AME for the exam but NOT ask for a third class medical, just the signature. At least the AME will understand this. And he'll probably charge more.......

But, if you can't pass a flight physical now, you won't legally be able to fly under this bill either.....except LS, of course.

MTV

MTV:
You never could fly LSA if you KNEW that you had a disqualifying medical condition. You never could fly LSA if you were taking a prohibited medication whether you knew it was prohibited or not.

The strong point of this new process is that you don't have to give a medical history all the way back to circumcision and the form never reaches FAA. The exam is about the here and now. I imagine that there will be resistance from GPs about signing the form. We'll see how things progress once we've seen what the House does to it and if the President signs it. I'm not stressing yet. My last medical was in 1999. I'm OK with that I think. The underlying issues have been taken care of and though I'll need a special issuance that will be the last of my reporting to OK city. Or so they say. We're a long way from the end zone here.

In the mean time remember Forde's Law: "No matter which way you spit, it's up wind." And having worked in the Arctic even more than I have I think you know that that goes for just about everything.

I just went back and looked at my Third class medical. The AME used to sign to this:

This certifies that pilot has met the medical standards prescribed in part 67, Federal Aviation Regulations, for this class medical certificate.

Pretty straightforward for the doctor. Very specific requirements, etc.

With this new bill, the doctor has to sign their name to this:

“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.”

This is shifting the entire burden onto the doctor. None of the physicians I know would feel comfortable deciding what makes a person able to "safely operate an aircraft."

Oregon180 wrote:I just went back and looked at my Third class medical. The AME used to sign to this:

This certifies that pilot has met the medical standards prescribed in part 67, Federal Aviation Regulations, for this class medical certificate.

Pretty straightforward for the doctor. Very specific requirements, etc.

With this new bill, the doctor has to sign their name to this:

“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.”

This is shifting the entire burden onto the doctor. None of the physicians I know would feel comfortable deciding what makes a person able to "safely operate an aircraft."

Exactly, hence my suggestion that one go to an AME. At least an AME should already be familiar with the regs.

Time will tell, I reckon.

MTV