Driver's License Medical

[rwtucker]

. I'm OK with IFR but, personally, I think 6000/6 is a tad high; 3000/4 would pretty much cover the majority of the aging GA population and might do something to slow the serious decline in our ranks. HS would like to see non-commercial GA go away. If we don't create more pilots, I think it will.

3000/4 won't work for those of us with DA42's. My simple to fly and safe DA42 would be eliminated by 3000 since that is close to the BEW before fuel and passengers, unless you think that the rule should only apply to very light single engine planes. For what it's worth, I feel a lot safer and comfortable flying my DA42 than I did flying my SR22.

Maybe 4,000/4. I agree on stability Carey. I have flown the SR22 and the DA42 with one engine feathered for 30 minutes and landed (a greaser even). In my book, you can't beat the stability of the '42. Ultra slow flight in the '22 always left me a little nervous. I guess the other side of the coin is that the '40 might be too forgiving. It has quietly accepted some of my sloppy behavior. My bad, I know . . . but still.

[Don]

As I am getting older now, I would not mind it. Most of the pilots I know who quit flying was because they lost their medical. Now that the sport pilot certificate has ten years of NTSB record keeping under its belt, I would be curious to know how many accidents were due to a pilot medical problem in flight. The answer might be in there somewhere.

[greg]

Just be glad you're living in the USA. Australia's new Drivers licence medical allows only the pilot plus one passenger, and MTOW of 1500kg (3300lb). Like yours, it's also VFR only.

[rwtucker]

Just be glad you're living in the USA. Australia's new Drivers license medical allows only the pilot plus one passenger, and MTOW of 1500kg (3300lb). Like yours, it's also VFR only.

Not so fast Greg. You have 3,300 now. The US FAA just announced that they will come up with a plan in late 2015 (right now, they are planning to plan to develop a plan; AKA, stalling). For the present in the US, the only driver's license medical (Light Sport) gets you one passenger, VFR, 10K MSL, 1,320 lbs. MTOW, 120 kts., fixed prop & LG. If you were going to fail your medical and didn't take it, you're good to go with Light Sport. If you failed a medical (even if for trivial reasons), you are not eligible to drop down to Light Sport. Essentially, dropping down to Light Sport if you have a medical condition involves being clever and having good timing more than it involves being fit in terms of certification. Of course, we all self-certify and that works well for the self-aware . . . another topic.

I don't know what your take is with respect to the Australian government but there are sectors of our government that view the non-commercial portion of GA as a security threat that we would be better off without. Unless we find a way to make GA more accessible (especially affordable) the sector is at long term risk. The majority of our GA pilots are, as we say, "getting up there."

[Tim M]

The VFR restriction makes no sense. Flying IFR is safer, so if a pilot is instrument rated, why prevent them from flying in the system? I rarely fly VFR, filing IFR even in CAVU. Under IFR I am more organized, better planned and generally more "tuned up" from out to in. VFR flight following is not always available and no separation services are provided. VFR into IMC is statistically just as dangerous for instrument rated pilots as non-instrument rated. IFR into IMC is almost always a non-event.

[hoyaj]

A D/L for IFR is unlikely in the extreme. It's a liability issue, not a safety issue (for the FAA). Safety is delegated immediately in 14 CFR 91.3, every rule in the book after that is a function of liability.

That said, and with no malice intended, there's a a large generation of soon-to-be-retiring age pilots that want to fly. That's what the LSA initiative (again, IFR N/A) and this one is meant to address. The consensus, see also the C162, is that the former has not been as successful as hoped.

[rwtucker]

A D/L for IFR is unlikely in the extreme. It's a liability issue, not a safety issue (for the FAA).

It seems to me that there are different levels of analysis at play here. Bob may have provided the bureaucratic analysis but at least some of the argument goes to predictive validity, the empirical questions being: (a) what is the distinctive contribution of the Class III Medical to the prediction of health-caused non-commercial GA accidents, (b) how does 'a' compare to the proposed alternative (i.e., DL, self-certification, and required recurrent training), and (c) does the margin between 'a' and 'b' (should it turn out to be positive, which is far from certain), justify the aggregate cost of maintaining the Class III system.

This said, will we move toward a rational resolution or will the legacy bureaucracy prevail? I don't know the answer. I suspect, however, that the only hope of developing a more empirically grounded policy will come from continued political work on the part of AOPA, EAA, and pilots like ourselves.

Separately, the Light Sport solution is a perfect example of FAA irrationality. The 1930s design tail-draggers that the aging pilots are forced to downsize to (many cannot afford or justify the expense of buying a new design LS) are much less safe than the DA40 of C172 or C182 or Cherokee that they were forced to sell. These are not small numbers. At my small airport, I know at least dozen pilots who have downsized in exactly this way. Most are now flying rebuilt Chiefs, Champs and similar.

[Colin]

A friend is probably close to losing his medical, I think because he's getting his knees replaced or something. He's worried about it. He dumped his Bonanza and ordered an LSA.

The LSA has a touchscreen glass panel (Dynon) and autopilot. Very slick two seater. I said it was too bad he wouldn't be allowed to fly IFR down through the marine layer. He laughed and said, "Seen a lot of enforcement on that, have you?"

I don't think he'll be flying enough for it to matter, but I saw his point. I've never heard of someone on a tower frequency asking for the pilot's certificate number or whether a particular craft was IFR certified. (I have been asked on a center frequency if I was "IFR equipped and rated," but I might have sounded a *little* green at the time.)

I am reading about flying a taildragger and plan to get my endorsement in the coming months. I totally see Robert's point about these pilots being in less safe airplanes now.

[rwtucker]

I just finished reading a blog on this topic by physician pilots, some of whom are AMEs. It was encouraging to see that most physician pilots (other than AMEs) appear to support this change.

http://macsblog.com/2014/04/flying-phys ... al-reform/

[carym]

I am also a physcian pilot, and I too support this change. However, I would suggest that one class 3 physcial be performed, perhaps for a student pilot. I am basing this on my time spent in the military. You wouldn't believe what the recruiters were able to get into the military. I had one patient sent to me because of bruising. It turns out he was on coumadin (a blood thinner) because of his replaced artificial valve. He, of course, had a huge scar down the middle of his chest from the surgery. He was on active duty as an infantryman because he had "no medical issues". One single class 3 physcial should be able to screen out those who really shouldn't be flying at all.