ALPA opposes third-class medical reform
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,227
It's one thing to personally oppose the change.
It's another thing altogether to use my dues money to tell Congress that America's airline pilots are against the change.
Good luck getting general aviation's support next time we have an issue.
It's another thing altogether to use my dues money to tell Congress that America's airline pilots are against the change.
Good luck getting general aviation's support next time we have an issue.
#12
The current system isn't working - or we'd have thousands of new pilots entering General Aviation every year.
The issue is about tearing down barriers (i.e., cost, and governmental bureaucracy) to flying so that the cratering in pilot population stops.
The Pilots Bill of Rights 2, which is also being debated is about restraining FAA overreach. Ask anybody who's been jacked up by the DEA for no reason whatsoever whether we need this bill as well.
ALPA is dead wrong on this issue, shame on them.
Champ42272
The issue is about tearing down barriers (i.e., cost, and governmental bureaucracy) to flying so that the cratering in pilot population stops.
The Pilots Bill of Rights 2, which is also being debated is about restraining FAA overreach. Ask anybody who's been jacked up by the DEA for no reason whatsoever whether we need this bill as well.
ALPA is dead wrong on this issue, shame on them.
Champ42272
#14
Amen! To read that proves that I'm not one that they represent in their opinions. Wait, did they poll any of their 51,000 ALPA members to see what the pulse of the union is on PBOR2? Ummm, no.
Just a short-sighted attempt by Canoli, who probably doesn't even fly G.A..
Just a short-sighted attempt by Canoli, who probably doesn't even fly G.A..
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,109
Are you guys kidding me? So essentially you want zero checks on these guys? I'm sure there are lots of good GA pilots but ever looked at their accident rate? If they are flying in the national airspace with 121 carriers then having a medical every 5 years seems completely appropriate. Fight the battles that are worth fighting guys.
#16
Really? And what type of aircraft do you fly these days? Maybe living in Colorado and flying high on other than turbine powered propellants?
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: the right side
Posts: 1,373
The current system isn't working - or we'd have thousands of new pilots entering General Aviation every year.
The issue is about tearing down barriers (i.e., cost, and governmental bureaucracy) to flying so that the cratering in pilot population stops.
The Pilots Bill of Rights 2, which is also being debated is about restraining FAA overreach. Ask anybody who's been jacked up by the DEA for no reason whatsoever whether we need this bill as well.
ALPA is dead wrong on this issue, shame on them.
Champ42272
The issue is about tearing down barriers (i.e., cost, and governmental bureaucracy) to flying so that the cratering in pilot population stops.
The Pilots Bill of Rights 2, which is also being debated is about restraining FAA overreach. Ask anybody who's been jacked up by the DEA for no reason whatsoever whether we need this bill as well.
ALPA is dead wrong on this issue, shame on them.
Champ42272
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Position: A320 Left
Posts: 715
This. This whole thing is a special interest maneuver for wealthy, elderly GA pilots (like Senator Inhofe and probably the largest GA pilot demographic). They aren't content just flying around LSA aircraft with one passenger, now they want to fly at 250 knots with six seats and a 6,000 lb MTOW. And we are supposed to allow them to do this legally with no medical certification or screening? Take their word for it, yeah, OK.
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,227
Fight the battles that are worth fighting guys.
ALPA has no damn business weighing in on this, unless they want to support the large percentage of members who are GA pilots.
All this does is lower our support from other pilot associations, and **** off a large percentage of our members.
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Posts: 246
Do you guys really want Congress to dictate the medical standards to the FAA? What happens if we had Eurowings type accident in the United States? What do you think Congress would be doing then...
BTW, ALPA just sent this out...
BTW, ALPA just sent this out...
July 27, 2015
As you may know, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) filed a petition for exemption with the FAA that would give pilots the option of conducting certain operations without having to hold an FAA medical certificate. The FAA has not yet acted on this request.
Currently, legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress that would implement the request made by AOPA/EAA through legislative mandate. Late last week, there was an attempt to attach this legislation, referred to as the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2," to the surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Complex aviation safety issues have no place on a highway bill—period.
ALPA's sole responsibility is to advocate for its members in their capacity as professional airline pilots. ALPA's long-standing policy as adopted by its Board of Directors is to maintain the highest level of safety within the national airspace system. As such, ALPA has weighed in on the proposed amendment due to its obligation to the safety of our members in their capacity as airline pilots. The proposed amendment introduces risk that takes a step backwards from maintaining the highest levels of safety. If not for how this legislation impacts the safety of the airspace in which our members fly, ALPA would not weigh in on this matter.
On July 23, ALPA president, Capt. Tim Canoll, sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote "no" on an amendment by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to the highway bill.
In his letter, he outlined ALPA's opposition to this amendment:
This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo.
It would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an aviation medical examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft.
It may reduce some medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.
This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo.
It would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an aviation medical examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft.
It may reduce some medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.
This has been ALPA's position since 2012 when ALPA submitted comments to the FAA in opposition to the AOPA/EAA petition for exemption (Docket No. FAA-2012-0350) from the third-class medical requirement.
ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a third-class medical certificate and believes that a compromise position can be developed to ensure that added risk to the airspace we operate in is mitigated and the highest levels of safety are maintained. In fact, there are other provisions in the Pilot's Bill of Rights that ALPA supports, and we intend to continue collaboration with our Hill and aviation partners.
Again, ALPA believes that a common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace that we cannot support.
If you have any questions, please contact [email protected].
As you may know, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) filed a petition for exemption with the FAA that would give pilots the option of conducting certain operations without having to hold an FAA medical certificate. The FAA has not yet acted on this request.
Currently, legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress that would implement the request made by AOPA/EAA through legislative mandate. Late last week, there was an attempt to attach this legislation, referred to as the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2," to the surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Complex aviation safety issues have no place on a highway bill—period.
ALPA's sole responsibility is to advocate for its members in their capacity as professional airline pilots. ALPA's long-standing policy as adopted by its Board of Directors is to maintain the highest level of safety within the national airspace system. As such, ALPA has weighed in on the proposed amendment due to its obligation to the safety of our members in their capacity as airline pilots. The proposed amendment introduces risk that takes a step backwards from maintaining the highest levels of safety. If not for how this legislation impacts the safety of the airspace in which our members fly, ALPA would not weigh in on this matter.
On July 23, ALPA president, Capt. Tim Canoll, sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote "no" on an amendment by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to the highway bill.
In his letter, he outlined ALPA's opposition to this amendment:
This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo.
It would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an aviation medical examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft.
It may reduce some medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.
This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo.
It would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an aviation medical examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft.
It may reduce some medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.
This has been ALPA's position since 2012 when ALPA submitted comments to the FAA in opposition to the AOPA/EAA petition for exemption (Docket No. FAA-2012-0350) from the third-class medical requirement.
ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a third-class medical certificate and believes that a compromise position can be developed to ensure that added risk to the airspace we operate in is mitigated and the highest levels of safety are maintained. In fact, there are other provisions in the Pilot's Bill of Rights that ALPA supports, and we intend to continue collaboration with our Hill and aviation partners.
Again, ALPA believes that a common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace that we cannot support.
If you have any questions, please contact [email protected].
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post