|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

07-26-2015, 09:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: La Center,wa
Posts: 210
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by n82rb
... there are to many people on the roads that should not be medically driving but they are. do you thing it will do GA any good when someone with 20/400 vision crashes into a house.
bob burns
rv-4 N82RB
|
Verification of ability is accomplished through a bfr, not a medical. The medical is useless, certainly for class 3, probably for class 2 and 1 as well.
Tim
|

07-26-2015, 09:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 436
|
|
Professional airline pilot, and I disagree with Bob Burns.
Changing 3rd class medical requirements does nothing to solve NMAC's or knuckleheads flying IMC without a clearance. Those are more appropriately enforcement issues pursued through means the FAA already has at its disposal.
Remember this accident:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/?ber...-air_collision
Happened in Class A airspace, at FL360...so what should we mandate when a controller runs two aircraft together? Make RVSM go away? Mandate 50 mile in-trail spacing? The point being, risk comes from multiple sources, picking one to blame doesn't get you off the hook on the others. IMO, isolating one threat over others as ALPA has done just screams out bad (or worse, lazy) analysis.
I am caught up in the maw of the FAA's CAMI on a sleep apnea issue, and they are a bureaucracy run amok. To the point that, with my current sleep study results, the CAMI dictates I still use a CPAP machine, while were I to be on Medicare (run by the same Federal Government) I wouldn't qualify for reimbursement for one, I'm below their threshold of the definition of sleep apnea.
How out of whack is that?
Anything that will pull the teeth on an out of control, ineffective agency like the CAMI is a GOOD thing and I support any effort in that direction, 100%.
Thank God ALPA does not represent me.
Rob Schroer
__________________
Rob Schroer
RV-7/N75WV
YIO-360-M1B
New Braunfels, Texas (KBAZ)
VAF Monthly Donor
|

07-26-2015, 09:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pocahontas MS
Posts: 3,884
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by n82rb
dan you are right. but bringing the medical standards up to modern standards is what needs to be done. a lot of disqualifying conditions need to be eliminated and updated but just tossing it out is not the answer. there are to many people on the roads that should not be medically driving but they are. do you thing it will do GA any good when someone with 20/400 vision crashes into a house.
and as i stated GA is a safety threat. most RA's are from VFR GA aircraft being where they should not have been. I have had two near misses, both with GA aircraft. one while on the ILS13R at DFW a RV-6 went under me about 100 feet. yes he was in the class b without a clearance. the other was a 310 in the clouds VFR. he popped out of a clouds just as I got an RA on him.
bob burns
rv-4 N82RB
|
And both of those guys had expired/revoked 3rd class medicals, right? No? Then why bring it up when we're discussing 3rd class medicals?
A couple of decades ago, when in-cockpit traffic alerts were brand new, I attended a Rutan forum at OSH. He had an airline pilot with him who told us that the majority of their near-misses happened due to ATC directing the two a/c at each other. Was that due to the 3rd class medical issue, too?
If the ALPA (or any other alphabet soup agency) can show data that proves *medical issues* of Private Pilots are causing problems for airliners, let's see it.
|

07-26-2015, 09:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Big Sandy, WY
Posts: 2,567
|
|
Maybe Bob Burns would like to pay the two grand out of pocket, drive the 400 miles, and spend the two days it takes me to to get my medical EVERY year. Bet he'd flap a different tune. Last thing I need is more modern standards. That means more tests, time, dollars, and chances to fail.
__________________
Actual repeat offender.
|

07-26-2015, 10:11 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Kennesaw GA
Posts: 141
|
|
Cheap shot?
Sort of a cheap shot DanH.
There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. Not all ALPA pilots are anti-light airplane prima-donnas. We are confident professionals, some are jerks! But then I've put up with more than one private pilot clogging up the frequency with 'chit-chat' or screwing up the pattern costing my employer several thousand pounds of fuel going around. How about the inconsiderate aviators who blind you with their landing lights and strobes while holding short.
We do have higher standards; 1st Class physicals and flight checks every 6 months. Failing either can cost you your job. When was the last time you had an unannounced FAA check ride? We fly in ALL weather to CATIIIb mins. 99% of the time we are going, regardless. The questions are how much fuel and what is plan 'B'. . . and 'C'. You always have the option to sit it out.
Lets drop the idea that all airline pilots are jerks and only light airplane pilot are true aviators.
BTW, I have written my legislators and complained to ALPA.
__________________
Restored and Flying '58 C-180A
Retired Vietnam Marine
2017 dues paid
|

07-26-2015, 10:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Meridian ID, Aspen CO, Okemos MI
Posts: 2,645
|
|
Why do some of the airline pilots here think the airspace is any more theirs than ours? I fly in and out of BOI. I have had to do an extended downwind for an airline doing a straight in approach or wait at the threshold for them to land just as much as they do. It is MY airport just like it is theirs.
Every "incident" posted here about GA pilots making a mistake or tying up the radio has nothing to do with having a medical or not. How about the pilot with the class 1 who flew the airline into the mountain? Did it help?
If anyone has data showing having a medical keeps you from chatting on the radio or having a close call with an airliner, lets see it. If you don't have any data, then is the reason you are pushing for the medical to stay is to cut the number of GA pilots?
__________________
rockwoodrv9a
Williamston MI
O-320 D2A
Awaiting DAR Inspection
|

07-27-2015, 04:41 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
|
|
There is not, nor has there ever been, any shred of evidence to show that the third-class medical exam has a measurable effect on accident rates and safety in light airplanes. To the contrary, the medically-related accident rate for gliders and now LSAs shows no statistical difference to the rate for the rest of light GA. No spate of medically-caused accidents drove the adoption of the third-class medical, and no findings from those non-existent accidents drove the criteria for the exam--it was simply someone's rectally-extracted idea of what constituted "good health", imposed for no other reason than because the military and airlines had a medical exam so by God, private pilots will too.
If we really want to do something about safety, why doesn't the FAA take all the millions of dollars of taxpayer money and all the hundreds of thousands of man-hours spent on making sure light airplane pilots can turn their heads and cough, and use that instead to do something meaningful about stall/spin and other loss-of-control accidents--you know, one of the largest causes of accidents--beyond just wringing their hands and admonishing pilots to just "be better pilots"?
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
|

07-27-2015, 06:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Granbury Texas
Posts: 1,136
|
|
Fantastic discussion however I think it's time to re-focus on those that will finish the push with Congress. It alarmed me last week to learn that both EAA and AOPA were not at OSH with the largest open event talking about the third class medical. Most of us on this forum have been writing to our leaders and responding to EAA/AOPA with their requested contributions to carry on the fight. I am hearing that both were virtually quiet at the largest GA event in the world, my question is why. Time to light the fire under both organizations again. [ed. Agreed. But use THEIR discussion boards for that. www.vansairforce.net/rules.htm (#3). dr]
__________________
Built, RV 8, RV8A, RV 10, RV12, Purchased RV7A
Restored J3Cub and PA28R180
Pecan Plantation
Eagles Nest Mentor
EAA Tech Counselor
Last edited by DeltaRomeo : 07-29-2015 at 07:39 AM.
|

07-27-2015, 06:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 1,474
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt
There is not, nor has there ever been, any shred of evidence to show that the third-class medical exam has a measurable effect on accident rates and safety in light airplanes. To the contrary, the medically-related accident rate for gliders and now LSAs shows no statistical difference to the rate for the rest of light GA. No spate of medically-caused accidents drove the adoption of the third-class medical, and no findings from those non-existent accidents drove the criteria for the exam--it was simply someone's rectally-extracted idea of what constituted "good health", imposed for no other reason than because the military and airlines had a medical exam so by God, private pilots will too.
If we really want to do something about safety, why doesn't the FAA take all the millions of dollars of taxpayer money and all the hundreds of thousands of man-hours spent on making sure light airplane pilots can turn their heads and cough, and use that instead to do something meaningful about stall/spin and other loss-of-control accidents--you know, one of the largest causes of accidents--beyond just wringing their hands and admonishing pilots to just "be better pilots"?
|
Having been a USAF flight surgeon, I'm sure many of the medical requirements originated from experience in the "old days": the stresses of flight in high performance aircraft (i.e. pulling G's), high altitude without pressurization, extremes of temperature, noise, vibration etc. It made sense for military aviation (still does to a significant extent) and the early days of commercial aviation. But so much has changed in terms of both medical knowledge and the flight environment itself that the entire system (speaking mostly to commercial aviation) makes little sense. Even the more comprehensive First/Second class medicals do not capture/prevent all episodes of in-flight incapacitation (heart attack, stroke, first seizure, etc). That's why there are still two pilots up there. A substantial (majority?) portion of episodes of failed in-flight performance issues are due to factors that are not necessarily captured (unless the pilot is willing to admit the issues) during a medical evaluation - alcohol/substance abuse, depression, fatigue, etc. I wonder how many of these pilots would be better off in a less-punitive system of self-reporting, self-certification (as others have mentioned regarding usual medical issues).
Even when I was a relatively naive young USAF flight surgeon, it was frustrating to eliminate an outstanding pilot or flight school candidate due to some minor issue like slightly substandard vision (easily correctible) or some other trivial issue. (I think the military has eased off on the vision requirements) Aviators would avoid the flight surgeon with potentially significant aliments (cancer in one case I was involved in) because they saw the flight surgeon as a barrier to their career. Conversely, "conscripted" aviators who never wanted to fly in the first place would keep visiting until something was found.
I'm convinced that some standards exist as the most conservative possible option - if you're not sure, then "no fly". And once a rule/set of rules is in place it's almost impossible to change it based on actual evidence: as you point out the glider/LSA rules (mostly older pilots these days) and experience outside the US has not shown any risk attached to relaxing the third class requirements. If pilots knew their flying avocation/career would not be at risk based on self-reporting and taking care of their basic health, would we all be safer?
Last edited by mturnerb : 07-27-2015 at 06:39 AM.
|

07-27-2015, 07:10 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdearborn
Sort of a cheap shot DanH.
There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. Not all ALPA pilots are anti-light airplane prima-donnas.
|
Jim, no cheap shot intended. I remain astounded to hear GA called a safety hazard by a pilot. As for the job difficulties, nobody knows better than fellow pilots...with and without stripes.
ALPA is losing a lot of friends over this one.
Quote:
|
BTW, I have written my legislators and complained to ALPA.
|
Thank you. Hopefully the airline pilot community can get their organization under control.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:08 AM.
|