ALPA opposes third-class medical reform
08-02-2015, 07:58 PM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 491
I'm not normally a one issue voter, but this is a really big deal to me. I haven't always been an airline pilot. At some point in the future I will opt not be an airline pilot. I have every intention to always be a GA pilot.
As the FAA inacts more and more rules with regard to medical certification it becomes increasingly more expensive to maintain any class of medical certificate. It's an easy decision at this time in my life to spend whatever is necessary to maintain my 6-figure income.
However... When I retire and am flying only GA, I question whether I can justify a multi-thousand dollar sleep study so that I can fly my Cherokee to breakfast twice a week. I have no intention to fly when I'm unhealthy or a hazard to others, but the expense of proving my medical status to the satisfaction of the FAA frequently exceeds the costs of the treatment/remedy itself.
Furthermore, I have a first hand account of how ineffective the 3rd class medical is in predicting the longevity of the airman. My mom's fiancé (age 67 and the picture of health) wanted to take flying lessons. I was working with him and he was making good progress towards soloing so I sent him in for a medical. He passed with flying colors. No waivers. No special issuance. He died less than a week later of a heart attack.
Anecdotal accounts are probably straying from the real topic. ALPA has no business poking its nose into this issue. Claiming a safety concern on behalf of its members is specious at best. There are FAR far greater safety threats to the ALPA membership each and every day. ALPA should address the shortcomings of Part 117, threats of exporting pilot jobs, the general failure of CBA negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, the dwindling quality of life for professional pilots and the stresses this promotes, etc.
ALPA: You've got bigger fish to fry. Keep your eye on the real target and stop inventing crisis to avoid dealing with your REAL, legitimate responsibilities.
Your impending membership drive at Frontier will suffer as a result of your adversarial stance towards general aviation.
As the FAA inacts more and more rules with regard to medical certification it becomes increasingly more expensive to maintain any class of medical certificate. It's an easy decision at this time in my life to spend whatever is necessary to maintain my 6-figure income.
However... When I retire and am flying only GA, I question whether I can justify a multi-thousand dollar sleep study so that I can fly my Cherokee to breakfast twice a week. I have no intention to fly when I'm unhealthy or a hazard to others, but the expense of proving my medical status to the satisfaction of the FAA frequently exceeds the costs of the treatment/remedy itself.
Furthermore, I have a first hand account of how ineffective the 3rd class medical is in predicting the longevity of the airman. My mom's fiancé (age 67 and the picture of health) wanted to take flying lessons. I was working with him and he was making good progress towards soloing so I sent him in for a medical. He passed with flying colors. No waivers. No special issuance. He died less than a week later of a heart attack.
Anecdotal accounts are probably straying from the real topic. ALPA has no business poking its nose into this issue. Claiming a safety concern on behalf of its members is specious at best. There are FAR far greater safety threats to the ALPA membership each and every day. ALPA should address the shortcomings of Part 117, threats of exporting pilot jobs, the general failure of CBA negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, the dwindling quality of life for professional pilots and the stresses this promotes, etc.
ALPA: You've got bigger fish to fry. Keep your eye on the real target and stop inventing crisis to avoid dealing with your REAL, legitimate responsibilities.
Your impending membership drive at Frontier will suffer as a result of your adversarial stance towards general aviation.
Last edited by OpenClimb; 08-02-2015 at 08:00 PM. Reason: Still finding typos
08-02-2015, 08:11 PM
#112
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Originally Posted by OpenClimb
I'm not normally a one issue voter, but this is a really big deal to me. I haven't always been an airline pilot. At some point in the future I will opt not be an airline pilot. I have every intention to always be a GA pilot.
As the FAA inacts more and more rules with regard to medical certification it becomes increasingly more expensive to maintain any class of medical certificate. It's an easy decision at this time in my life to spend whatever is necessary to maintain my 6-figure income.
However... When I retire and am flying only GA, I question whether I can justify a multi-thousand dollar sleep study so that I can fly my Cherokee to breakfast twice a week. I have no intention to fly when I'm unhealthy or a hazard to others, but the expense of proving my medical status to the satisfaction of the FAA frequently exceeds the costs of the treatment/remedy itself.
Furthermore, I have a first hand account of how ineffective the 3rd class medical is in predicting the longevity of the airman. My mom's fiancé (age 67 and the picture of health) wanted to take flying lessons. I was working with him and he was making good progress towards soloing so I sent him in for a medical. He passed with flying colors. No waivers. No special issuance. He died less than a week later of a heart attack.
Anecdotal accounts are probably straying from the real topic. ALPA has no business poking its nose into this issue. Claiming a safety concern on behalf of its members is specious at best. There are FAR far greater safety threats to the ALPA membership each and every day. ALPA should address the shortcomings of Part 117, threats of exporting pilot jobs, the general failure of CBA negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, the dwindling quality of life for professional pilots and the stresses this promotes, etc.
ALPA: You've got bigger fish to fry. Keep your eye on the real target and stop inventing crisis to avoid dealing with your REAL, legitimate responsibilities.
Your impending membership drive at Frontier will suffer as a result of your adversarial stance towards general aviation.
As the FAA inacts more and more rules with regard to medical certification it becomes increasingly more expensive to maintain any class of medical certificate. It's an easy decision at this time in my life to spend whatever is necessary to maintain my 6-figure income.
However... When I retire and am flying only GA, I question whether I can justify a multi-thousand dollar sleep study so that I can fly my Cherokee to breakfast twice a week. I have no intention to fly when I'm unhealthy or a hazard to others, but the expense of proving my medical status to the satisfaction of the FAA frequently exceeds the costs of the treatment/remedy itself.
Furthermore, I have a first hand account of how ineffective the 3rd class medical is in predicting the longevity of the airman. My mom's fiancé (age 67 and the picture of health) wanted to take flying lessons. I was working with him and he was making good progress towards soloing so I sent him in for a medical. He passed with flying colors. No waivers. No special issuance. He died less than a week later of a heart attack.
Anecdotal accounts are probably straying from the real topic. ALPA has no business poking its nose into this issue. Claiming a safety concern on behalf of its members is specious at best. There are FAR far greater safety threats to the ALPA membership each and every day. ALPA should address the shortcomings of Part 117, threats of exporting pilot jobs, the general failure of CBA negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, the dwindling quality of life for professional pilots and the stresses this promotes, etc.
ALPA: You've got bigger fish to fry. Keep your eye on the real target and stop inventing crisis to avoid dealing with your REAL, legitimate responsibilities.
Your impending membership drive at Frontier will suffer as a result of your adversarial stance towards general aviation.
08-03-2015, 01:15 PM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Right Seat 737, Front seat T-6
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by OpenClimb
I'm not normally a one issue voter, but this is a really big deal to me. I haven't always been an airline pilot. At some point in the future I will opt not be an airline pilot. I have every intention to always be a GA pilot.
As the FAA inacts more and more rules with regard to medical certification it becomes increasingly more expensive to maintain any class of medical certificate. It's an easy decision at this time in my life to spend whatever is necessary to maintain my 6-figure income.
However... When I retire and am flying only GA, I question whether I can justify a multi-thousand dollar sleep study so that I can fly my Cherokee to breakfast twice a week. I have no intention to fly when I'm unhealthy or a hazard to others, but the expense of proving my medical status to the satisfaction of the FAA frequently exceeds the costs of the treatment/remedy itself.
Furthermore, I have a first hand account of how ineffective the 3rd class medical is in predicting the longevity of the airman. My mom's fiancé (age 67 and the picture of health) wanted to take flying lessons. I was working with him and he was making good progress towards soloing so I sent him in for a medical. He passed with flying colors. No waivers. No special issuance. He died less than a week later of a heart attack.
Anecdotal accounts are probably straying from the real topic. ALPA has no business poking its nose into this issue. Claiming a safety concern on behalf of its members is specious at best. There are FAR far greater safety threats to the ALPA membership each and every day. ALPA should address the shortcomings of Part 117, threats of exporting pilot jobs, the general failure of CBA negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, the dwindling quality of life for professional pilots and the stresses this promotes, etc.
ALPA: You've got bigger fish to fry. Keep your eye on the real target and stop inventing crisis to avoid dealing with your REAL, legitimate responsibilities.
Your impending membership drive at Frontier will suffer as a result of your adversarial stance towards general aviation.
As the FAA inacts more and more rules with regard to medical certification it becomes increasingly more expensive to maintain any class of medical certificate. It's an easy decision at this time in my life to spend whatever is necessary to maintain my 6-figure income.
However... When I retire and am flying only GA, I question whether I can justify a multi-thousand dollar sleep study so that I can fly my Cherokee to breakfast twice a week. I have no intention to fly when I'm unhealthy or a hazard to others, but the expense of proving my medical status to the satisfaction of the FAA frequently exceeds the costs of the treatment/remedy itself.
Furthermore, I have a first hand account of how ineffective the 3rd class medical is in predicting the longevity of the airman. My mom's fiancé (age 67 and the picture of health) wanted to take flying lessons. I was working with him and he was making good progress towards soloing so I sent him in for a medical. He passed with flying colors. No waivers. No special issuance. He died less than a week later of a heart attack.
Anecdotal accounts are probably straying from the real topic. ALPA has no business poking its nose into this issue. Claiming a safety concern on behalf of its members is specious at best. There are FAR far greater safety threats to the ALPA membership each and every day. ALPA should address the shortcomings of Part 117, threats of exporting pilot jobs, the general failure of CBA negotiations under the Railway Labor Act, the dwindling quality of life for professional pilots and the stresses this promotes, etc.
ALPA: You've got bigger fish to fry. Keep your eye on the real target and stop inventing crisis to avoid dealing with your REAL, legitimate responsibilities.
Your impending membership drive at Frontier will suffer as a result of your adversarial stance towards general aviation.
I would think they would make much more efficient use of time and money by pairing with all the other aviation organizations to lobby both the FAA and Congress (because the FAA is SOOOOO slow) to enact rules for drones. Seems like everyday I get another e-mail or read another article about a near mid-air with a drone and an airliner. How many stories have you read about an LSA pilot with no medical causing problems with an airliner .... exactly!
08-06-2015, 06:51 PM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 988
Nice quote from this month's FAA safety briefing below.
Honestly, I can't imagine anybody who has ever driven in Florida supporting abandonment of medicals (or even driven in my hospital parking lot!)
Ask Medical Certification
COURTNEY SCOT T, D.O.
MANAGER, AEROSPACE MEDICAL
CERTIFICATION DIVISION
Q1.
Can you please explain, in simple terms, the regulation for Light Sport Pilots? I understand that a previous certified pilot who fails an FAA Class III Medical Examination is disqualified from getting a Light Sport Pilot Certification, whereas a non-pilot who has and medically qualifies for a driving license can receive the necessary flight and knowledge instruction and ultimately receive his/her Light Sport Certification. Is this the case? I am certain that there are very many drivers who have and qualify medically for a driver’s license that would not be able to pass an FAA Class III pilot medical examination, many are likely in very poor general health so I just don’t understand this.
A1
Excellent question and excellent point. Your presumption that someone who has never applied for an FAA medical but has a valid state issued driver’s license is able to pursue Light Sport is correct. There is a self-certifying piece which, if answered honestly, would preclude a medically unsafe person from flying. However, there are many conditions and medications that could be unsafe that the airman likely would not recognize or under stand, and could be missed in self- certification. Unfortunately, the FAA currently has no way to monitor this other than through working with the National Transportation Safety Board on subsequent investigation of crashes.
Honestly, I can't imagine anybody who has ever driven in Florida supporting abandonment of medicals (or even driven in my hospital parking lot!)
Ask Medical Certification
COURTNEY SCOT T, D.O.
MANAGER, AEROSPACE MEDICAL
CERTIFICATION DIVISION
Q1.
Can you please explain, in simple terms, the regulation for Light Sport Pilots? I understand that a previous certified pilot who fails an FAA Class III Medical Examination is disqualified from getting a Light Sport Pilot Certification, whereas a non-pilot who has and medically qualifies for a driving license can receive the necessary flight and knowledge instruction and ultimately receive his/her Light Sport Certification. Is this the case? I am certain that there are very many drivers who have and qualify medically for a driver’s license that would not be able to pass an FAA Class III pilot medical examination, many are likely in very poor general health so I just don’t understand this.
A1
Excellent question and excellent point. Your presumption that someone who has never applied for an FAA medical but has a valid state issued driver’s license is able to pursue Light Sport is correct. There is a self-certifying piece which, if answered honestly, would preclude a medically unsafe person from flying. However, there are many conditions and medications that could be unsafe that the airman likely would not recognize or under stand, and could be missed in self- certification. Unfortunately, the FAA currently has no way to monitor this other than through working with the National Transportation Safety Board on subsequent investigation of crashes.
08-06-2015, 07:08 PM
#115
With the Rebel Forces.
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Observing
Posts: 289
.........
Driving in Florida can't even come close to being as bad as California. No one here speaks English, or the same foreign language. So when they're headed down the 405, trying to read the road signs--- now you got ur 40 car pileup.
08-07-2015, 04:05 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Seat: Vegan friendly faux leather
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by Nevets
LSA has been around for how long? Is there any evidence to support either position?
There are no rules for reexamination for drivers license in many states (but many do have a quick vision test at DL renewal).
Driving is NOT the same as flying, and there are some people in absolutely horrible health, vision, deaf, alzheimers, tremors, previous stroke, etc., that can drive that should never pilot an aircraft (20/100 vision is probably enough to safely drive.) I'd never want a pilot with that vision.
I'm sure in a fantasy land "self-certification" of medical fitness would be fine, but simply put I predict an increase in crashes if this rule passes. Most would be single pilot, but some would not. Many would take their families with them. I fly a lot of people and nobody has ever asked me about my health - they assume that because I have a valid certificate, that I am safe.
I can't imagine anybody supporting this unless they fall into the class that would explicitly benefit (worried about failing the medical). A much better approach would be to REASONABLY expand the special issuance criteria, and to perhaps have functional testing instead of arbitrary exclusion criteria. Although I find it odd that ALPA jumped into the fray, I fully understand their position.
08-07-2015, 05:32 AM
#119
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: 7th green
Posts: 4,378
Originally Posted by cardiomd
I think a little more than 10 years ago if I recall correctly. It is impossible to get evidence because we'd be on uncharted territory - the LSA license explicitly forbids pilots that have been declined a Class 3 medical from flying, however if Class 3 is abolished then anybody that can drive can now legally fly. LSA have a maximal stall speed of 45 kts and are generally very simple craft.
There are no rules for reexamination for drivers license in many states (but many do have a quick vision test at DL renewal).
Driving is NOT the same as flying, and there are some people in absolutely horrible health, vision, deaf, alzheimers, tremors, previous stroke, etc., that can drive that should never pilot an aircraft (20/100 vision is probably enough to safely drive.) I'd never want a pilot with that vision.
I'm sure in a fantasy land "self-certification" of medical fitness would be fine, but simply put I predict an increase in crashes if this rule passes. Most would be single pilot, but some would not. Many would take their families with them. I fly a lot of people and nobody has ever asked me about my health - they assume that because I have a valid certificate, that I am safe.
I can't imagine anybody supporting this unless they fall into the class that would explicitly benefit (worried about failing the medical). A much better approach would be to REASONABLY expand the special issuance criteria, and to perhaps have functional testing instead of arbitrary exclusion criteria. Although I find it odd that ALPA jumped into the fray, I fully understand their position.
There are no rules for reexamination for drivers license in many states (but many do have a quick vision test at DL renewal).
Driving is NOT the same as flying, and there are some people in absolutely horrible health, vision, deaf, alzheimers, tremors, previous stroke, etc., that can drive that should never pilot an aircraft (20/100 vision is probably enough to safely drive.) I'd never want a pilot with that vision.
I'm sure in a fantasy land "self-certification" of medical fitness would be fine, but simply put I predict an increase in crashes if this rule passes. Most would be single pilot, but some would not. Many would take their families with them. I fly a lot of people and nobody has ever asked me about my health - they assume that because I have a valid certificate, that I am safe.
I can't imagine anybody supporting this unless they fall into the class that would explicitly benefit (worried about failing the medical). A much better approach would be to REASONABLY expand the special issuance criteria, and to perhaps have functional testing instead of arbitrary exclusion criteria. Although I find it odd that ALPA jumped into the fray, I fully understand their position.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
