Great that we can get away from that LSA weight restriction .180 hp is possible and good -just not enough for my 182. Cessna 175 would be ideal - I'm looking for project -good airframe old GO-300 possible ??. I fly by myself or maybe one other person 98% of the time. Medicals even 3rd class are getting harder and harder to get .

EZFlap wrote:Maybe I'm the only one who understands this is the biggest f***ing windfall of good fortune that the flying community has had in years, and the horrible nasty anti-aviation bumbling no-goodniks who "aren't happy until you're not happy" were actually the good guys in the white hats who are actually trying to save the day!

I'm with you EZ - sounds like a good step in the right direction. I have no problem w/ day vfr, 1 passenger, and 180hp. It opens up "real" planes for hi DA operations up here in CO. I would also hope it will give a little kick to the use certified low end aircraft market. I'm deathly afraid to pull the trigger on a "step" plane because I"m afraid I'll be stuck with it forever, unable to unload it.

But as far as I can see - this is pretty much extending LSA rules to include more planes with a little more gross weight and hp - which they should have done anyway. 6 or 1/2 dozen as far as I care. This will help a lot of aging pilots stay in the air - and I might never need a 3rd class medical - even though I'm relatively young.

'Greg

Can't wait to see this pass. My medicals have generally consisted of a color blind test, an occasional glaucoma test, blood pressure, vision, and urine glucose test. The first few medicals I had were from a DO who used his index finger to dip into the pee cup and taste it. No kidding. You can't make this up. I see no reason why a self-cert with positive ID (driver license) can't fill every need for the 3rd class medical. I won't be using it, but it will give a LOT of people the ability to fly.

dprathe wrote:..... If it's statistically safe for a pilot exempt from a Class III medical to fly a 180hp, fixed-gear, piston-powered, single engine airplane, then it's equally safe for that same pilot to fly the same category of airplane with 230hp and I don't think the difference in gross weight should be the dividing line for the exemption....

They should have proposed eliminating the 3rd class med for anything under 6,000# gross. Oh, that's right-- somebody did propose that already & the FAA just officially rejected that proposal Yeah the proposed limits are arbitrary, but note that they are the same arbitrary limits currently in effect for the recreational pilot license. See the trend? First no medical for sport pilot, now recreational pilot....maybe someday private pilot. It's got to be incremental, "baby steps". I'm lucky in that my airplane & my flying habits meet the proposed limitations, but then again maybe it wasn't just dumb luck since a helluva lot of other airplanes (like maybe half the active GA fleet?) & a lot of other pilots' missions meet them too.
I don't think this will have too much effect on airplane prices for the up-to-180hp fleet, except maybe due to renewed demand from a more active pilot base. I do think it will lower the artificially-raised price range for older LSA-compliant airlanes, esp Ercoupes.

I suppose that without the fixed gear limitation I could live with this - restore an old 180hp Comanche or Mooney. Then find a run out straight tail 172, put 180hp and constant speed prop on it and EZ's taildragger conversion and I'd be content. Go (sorta) fast and have a baby bush plane too. Still think they should have gone for broke with the opening salvo, there would them be negotiating room. I've read elsewhere that there are some folks taking a different tact - trying to get Congress to put the pressure on. Hard to imagine Congress is good for anything that would be beneficial to "our kind of folks" but who knows - some of 'em are old, and they fly. Who's the cat that landed on the closed runway a while back? Maybe I need to start writing letters.

Best,
O=2

Oscar,

The FAA doesn't negotiate on stuff like this. They either consider it or reject it. The beauty of this proposal is that it DOES NOT REQUIRE A RULEMAKING PROCESS. Read the AOPA or EAA announcement....that's the big deal. The FAA now has an Acting Adiminstrator. One characteristic of an Acting anything is that they are NOT going to do anything big or controversial. No rulemaking process. That means its easy for the FAA to do.

If you want to go faster than a clapped out Mooney or Comanche, get an RV. You don't have to build it...there's lots for sale. Fast, efficient, and most would meet this requirement. Get a Harmon Rocket if you REALLY want to go fast.

MTV

EZFlap wrote:
Maybe I'm the only one who understands this is the biggest f***ing windfall of good fortune that the flying community has had in years, and the horrible nasty anti-aviation bumbling no-goodniks who "aren't happy until you're not happy" were actually the good guys in the white hats who are actually trying to save the day!

Agreed.

I also think that all of a sudden all those aftermarket improvements done to 180 power plants really didn't add any hp. They only increased torque and fuel efficiency.

M6RV6 wrote:So my Glastar with the 0-360 that has the Lycon ported and polished chambers and bigger valves, auto plugs along with the electronic ignition and fuel injection for better ignition should still qualify Right? 180 hp

I think it's all about what the data plate & paperwork say. A guy I kow recently upgraded his experimental from an O-360 to a "Bart" O-375, just shortly before this proposal was first talked about. Unfortunately his data plate is stamped with more than 180hp-- can't recall how much but 205 maybe? Anyways, he's already thinking about a replacement data plate with a more conservative hp rating. There might be a market for these......

May I advocate for the devil? Just a few thoughts on the issue, not really trying to defend or oppose anything...

It seems to me that every thread I have ever read on medical certification for Private pilots has mostly been a chorus of opposition to the entire concept. The fact that hairs are being split to define limits and thresholds of qualification indicates that, in the perception of the private pilot, any medical certification requirement for Part 91 is too much regulation, and any limits that are applied will always be too restricting. If the HP limit had been set at 235, and the max gross weight at 2800, then the guys who want to fly 300hp 185's would be unhappy. An inch is a mile. And rightly so, because:

The most difficult thing we do as pilots is to self-assess, whether it's personal limits of experience and ability, or our medical fitness to command a 1 ton fuel-filled 120mph missile possibly loaded with non-pilot passengers. Medical self-certification is a concept that I equate to simply writing off the whole concept of medical evaluation. Pilots across the globe seem incapable of evaluating atmospheric conditions every day, and tragically pay the price. Who among you would think twice about flying after having some undiagnosed kidney pain or angina? The pull of the sky is too strong, and there are pilots out there flying heavier aircraft without medicals everyday, willing to pay the piper if they're caught. Frankly, medical examinations are unlikely to catch the real issues that will strike you dead anyway.

There was a well known Rogue valley pilot named Bill Warren who recently headed west. He had just spent a great day flying, and passed away from heart failure on his deck that evening. He apparently maintained a medical right to the very end, teaching people to fly, even after having had previous issues with his heart. What if he'd passed earlier in the day while giving a ride to your grandson? Food for thought.

I wonder how many accidents have actually been avoided by the boy scout pilot exercising good judgement regarding his/her physical condition, or by playing by the rules and hanging it up when their medical was denied? It's a figure we can't know because you can't quantify a negative occurrence. How many accidents have been attributed to health/physical issues? I dunno. I seem to remember some pilot-passenger landing a lightweight King Air recently after the pilot croaked.

I'm not sure I could remain objective if I had to self-certify my medical condition and make the go/no-go decision. I fear that many pilots who've embraced LSA rules are probably the same and have done so mainly because they're dodging a certificate denial due to a known medical condition. My mom stopped flying with my dad because she feared what would happen if he had a heart attack in the air.

I'm just curious how many of you of a certain age (55+?) consciously consider these things when taking passengers or flying over populated areas.

I can't quote ya any numbers because I can't remember last stats I read, but as I recall, the number of inflight emergencies caused by medical problems is infinitesimally small. Maybe a couple incidents a year out of all hours flown.

The vast majority of pilots are smart enough, and self-aware enough to know if they're fit to fly. And, for all practical purposes, we self-certify each and every time we fly. That AME isn't sitting righ seat on each flight asking how we feel.

Look at automobile drivers, and the huge numbers of drivers every day compared to pilots flying. How many drivers crash each year due to sudden medical issues. Certainly more than pilots, and some are able to safely pull over, but still, non-medical certified drivers aren't dying in medically induced crashes by the thousands each year.

Gump

Valid points, Zane. I see some parallels with commercial driver's licensing. To operate a class A or B commercial vehicle, you must have the appropriate license endorsement, along with a current DOT physical. The docs I get mine from tell me that it is actually more stringent than a class III airmen's medical. If you think about the driver of a school bus, or hazmat, or anyone steering 80,000 lbs down the interstate at 70 mph, that sort of makes sense. BUT, the recreational vehicle (RV) industry has managed to exempt motorhomes from both CDL and DOT Physical requirements. There are sure a lot of land yachts out there that exceed regulated buses and straight trucks in both GVWR and carnage capacity. They usually have worse mirrors and visibility too. I guess I'm saying that many, many more recreational RV drivers get a pass on commercial operating requirements, (and with FAR less training than GA pilots). Why not recreational (i.e. part 91) pilots? Sucks to think that it's all about lobby size. I'd be interested to hear '58 Skylane's thoughts on this.

-DP

So am I hearing a call here for more stringent medical standards for pilots?

All afternoon commute reports on the radio include the phrase; "Jack knifed big rig". Can we infer then that the DOT requirements for commercial drivers licenses have been an unqualified success?

Emory Bored wrote:So am I hearing a call here for more stringent medical standards for pilots?

No.

I avoid the automobile/truck driver vs pilot comparison because I don't think they're comparable scenarios. Sure, plenty of trucks and cars have crashed because of medical incapacitation, but if the operator has any remaining consciousness, they can pull over, or stop at the very least. Or the passenger can assist this. Landing an aircraft isn't intuitive and takes quite a bit more time to execute, with a much broader host of things to go wrong (weather, navigation, systems, etc.) Also, pilots tend to be of a more... ahem.. exceptional breed than your average automobile operator. Comparing our accident rate to commercial trucking is not a very useful one.

I'd like to see the 3rd class medical lifted altogether for Part 91 ops, and see if the accident rate shows any change at all. That's never going to happen though. An effective broadening of the LSA self-cert type exemption is the best we can hope for.

Emory Bored wrote:So am I hearing a call here for more stringent medical standards for pilots?

Not sure where you're hearing that. I appreciate Zane's distinction between trucking and flying, but my point is it seems that the recreational vehicle industry has enough clout to get their segment of drivers exempted from CDL rules, whereas part 91 pilots occupying an analogous segment of the flying population don't seem to enjoy the same clout or representation.

It goes back to Gump's point, and my point and countless other pilot's point. No amount of administrative law will suffice to keep an idiot out of the cockpit. I've known half a dozen or so guys who were days or weeks away from a major cardiac event. Not one of them did not know. Well, one of them died and I never got a chance to ask him, but the others that I questioned had been worried for years about the condition of their hearts. They were not in a condition that I would consider airworthy if it were me. Pale, short of breath, tire easily, pain in the extremities, insomnia. It's not rocket science. If a guy can't pay attention to that then no rule of law will help.

We are a breed apart. I went to an AOPA Air Safety Foundation exercise in futility one time and heard the grisly statistics that we all know and love. If you remove those accidents that occur due to a pilot continuing on into meteorological conditions beyond the capability of either the pilot, the aircraft or both, and take out buzz jobs and operations contrary to the FARs you eliminate over 90% of the fatals.

Both of those factors involve something called judgement. So what are other measures of judgement? More than five marriages/cohabs ending in divorce? (never mind, forget that one) Buying an ocean going Yacht? (uh oh) Investing with somebody named Madoff? Hell, I don't know, but I do know that I personally have shown a high degree of reliability in my life around NOT climbing into the cockpit of an airplane or behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired. I just don't do it. But the medical questionnaire doesn't ask about those judgement things. It tries to determine my capacity to make good judgements based on if I've taken a benadryl in the last 36 months. It tries to affect GA's grisly statistics based on inferences drawn from factors that contribute something less than one tenth of one percent of GA fatals. In short, it does what all administrative law does, it builds a fortress, and then protects and grows that fortress to it's dying day. I think Reagan said it best; "The closest thing to eternal life we have in this world is a government program."

EB

If those big rigs requiring CDL's (Commercial Driver's License) were flying instead of driving they would not be part 91 because of the commercial part. Rules need to be more stringent for them than privately operated rigs such as RV's because of the push on drivers by the owners of the rig to get miles behind them in order to be profitable.
Six Days on the Road... the log books way behind... Dodgin' every scale in sight.... There is a push to stay on the road that doesn't exist with the private RV driver and big brother has been charged with looking over their shoulder because of it.

I operate my own big rigs for the farm at 80,000 lbs gross and one at 92,000 lbs with pusher axle and can pull a pup also here in SD, as big as anything on the road. They are not commercial but privately operated and running farm plates on both with the required tonnage stickers. I am not required to have a CDL and I am able to trade work for trucking with a neighbor even though I cannot charge him money for my haul.

CDL is commercial operation and cannot be compared with the third class medical. Now a privately operated RV would be a better comparison to the PPL holders. That compares closer to the drivers license medical issue.

dirtstrip wrote:CDL is commercial operation and cannot be compared with the third class medical. Now a privately operated RV would be a better comparison to the PPL holders. That compares closer to the drivers license medical issue.

My point exactly. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Actually the comparison to deadly truck accidents is valid. Most fatal heart attacks are sudden and incapacitating. A driver barreling down the highway at 75-80 would be hard pressed to safely pull over. If he had a stroke he might be physically unable to.
Look at the shear numbers of drivers out there driving trucks, RV's , travel trailers, school busses. How many medically related fatal accidents are there annually. If the same ratio was applied to licensed pilots, the number would be extremely small. For whatever reason, the public is terrified about a small plane falling out of the sky far more than they worry about the 80 year old with COPD and glaucoma driving a massive 5th wheel passing them head-on a couple of feet away.
And let's not forget the fact that anyone can buy a 150mph boat and cruise up and down the waterways without ANY license. Tons of fatal boat accidents every year and still no license requirement.

Here's another wrinkle just came through on the wire:

http://macsblog.com/2012/03/third-class ... -faa-elos/

We wonder why an ELOS would require a comment period.

All you young guys (do we have any gals around here any more??) might want to go knock out a class III right before your 40th birthday, whether you're due for one or not:

A third-class medical certificate is valid for the remainder of the month of issue; plus

24 calendar months for operations requiring a third class medical certificate, if the airman is age 40 or over on or before the date of the examination, or
60 calendar months for operations requiring a third class medical certificate if the airman has not reached age 40 on or before the date of examination. *