Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Major Legacy, National, and LCC
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 07-25-2015, 09:26 AM   #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,082
Default ALPA opposes third-class medical reform

I'm speechless....


Page Not Found - AOPA






June 23, 2015


Dear Senator:


On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I want to make you aware of ALPA's opposition to S.Amdt.2267, filed by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to H.R. 22. ALPA disagrees with the process and is fundamentally opposed to the dangerous policy shift proposed in the Manchin amendment. We do not believe a complex issue such as this should be attached to a surface transportation bill—especially in a year when both chambers must take up an FAA reauthorization bill that deals directly with issues such as this.


The amendment is a modified version of S. 571, the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. Specifically, ALPA has grave concerns with how this amendment addresses the 3rd class medical requirement for general aviation pilots.


This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet, which also includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo. The amendment 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 also reduces the number of 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.


ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a 3rd class medical and intends to continue collaboration to ensure aviation safety for all pilots and passengers; however, we cannot allow bad policy to be forced through on an unrelated bill. A common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace, which we cannot support.


We urge you to vote no on the Manchin amendment.


Sincerely,


Tim Canoll, President
Huck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 09:32 AM   #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: French Bus Capn'
Posts: 6,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck View Post
I'm speechless....


Page Not Found - AOPA






June 23, 2015


Dear Senator:


On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), I want to make you aware of ALPA's opposition to S.Amdt.2267, filed by Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) to H.R. 22. ALPA disagrees with the process and is fundamentally opposed to the dangerous policy shift proposed in the Manchin amendment. We do not believe a complex issue such as this should be attached to a surface transportation bill—especially in a year when both chambers must take up an FAA reauthorization bill that deals directly with issues such as this.


The amendment is a modified version of S. 571, the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. Specifically, ALPA has grave concerns with how this amendment addresses the 3rd class medical requirement for general aviation pilots.


This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet, which also includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo. The amendment 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 also reduces the number of 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.


ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a 3rd class medical and intends to continue collaboration to ensure aviation safety for all pilots and passengers; however, we cannot allow bad policy to be forced through on an unrelated bill. A common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace, which we cannot support.


We urge you to vote no on the Manchin amendment.


Sincerely,


Tim Canoll, President

Pathetic. Wait til ALPA finds out about LSA aircraft and pilots. Completely lame argument by ALPA. Hopefully the reform passes.
ShyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 09:58 AM   #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
captjns's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 4,974
Default

Perhaps ALPA should fix their own internal shortcomings rather interfere with AOPA's dedicated efforts concerning Medical reform.
captjns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:01 AM   #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 9,537
Default

If they really want to push for safety, give GA the medical reform they want but insist on improved transponder inspections and perhaps either dual transponders or radio contact with ATC for certain airspace. One xpdr that was inspected around a year ago in a plane with a guy not talking to anyone is not enough of a safety net.
gloopy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:24 AM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 3,767
Default

Quote:
radio contact with ATC for certain airspace.
Already required for Class B, C, D airspace, not much left is there?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:34 AM   #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Hacker15e's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: IPZ to Mr.
Posts: 1,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPA View Post
On behalf of the 52,000 pilots at 31 passenger and cargo airlines represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA)
Was there some kind of vote or survey in which 52,000 airline pilots voiced their opposition and authorized ALPA to make such a statement to Congress on their behalf?
Hacker15e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 10:38 AM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 9,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Already required for Class B, C, D airspace, not much left is there?

GF
There's a lot of really busy E that only relies on one old transponder checked around a year ago. And enough of the ridiculous class B shelves; if they want that the responsibility should be 100% on ATC to slow 121 traffic down, not one pilot heads down in charts plotting radials while the other, even if they can identify it, drops slats and flies 7+ degrees nose high, low energy and slow for the supposed purpose of traffic avoidance.
gloopy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 12:13 PM   #8  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: A320 F/O
Posts: 442
Default

ADS-B is going to make transponders obsolete in 5 years.
inline five is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 01:02 PM   #9  
Snake
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Posts: 243
Default

ALPA should not support lowering the standards for medical certificates. It is ridiculous that anyone would expect otherwise.
rube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2015, 01:28 PM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: French Bus Capn'
Posts: 6,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rube View Post
ALPA should not support lowering the standards for medical certificates. It is ridiculous that anyone would expect otherwise.
Oh then ALPA shouldn't support HIMS, waivers, nor SODAs. Wouldn't want to lower FAA medical standards would we?
ShyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1st Class Medical after Pacemaker marc1968 Pilot Health 11 05-10-2018 07:35 AM
Delta Pilots Association TheManager Major 9584 07-28-2015 12:15 PM
First class medical Nextlife Military 2 08-30-2014 07:29 PM
American Eagle ALPA & AA APA Strike bgmann Regional 31 11-19-2011 07:33 PM
Why ALPA is losing the Battle flyharm Mergers and Acquisitions 0 02-18-2008 06:49 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1