What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Third Class Medical

Marvin

Active Member
Has anybody heard any news about the FAA decision to allow a persons to use their state driver license in for a third class medical. I have to renew my medical soon and was in hopes there would be some action by the FAA soon.

I know the FAA marches to their own drum beet, but we can hope.
Any thing new?

Dick Johnson
 
This thing was proposed as an exemption for AOPA and EAA members only

That is just never going to fly.

Bob Axsom
 
Bob,
May be a little confusion here. AOPA and EAA were presenting this exemption to the FAA but it was not presented to be an exemption just for members of those organizations. They were presenting the exemption to the FAA as an exemption for anyone who flew an aircraft that met the specific performance requirements they spelled out in the exemption request.
 
Things change and words are obscured ...

Bob,
May be a little confusion here. AOPA and EAA were presenting this exemption to the FAA but it was not presented to be an exemption just for members of those organizations. They were presenting the exemption to the FAA as an exemption for anyone who flew an aircraft that met the specific performance requirements they spelled out in the exemption request.

When I read the proposal and commented during the review period it was very clear to me (maybe a misinterpretation on my part for sure) that it was asking for an exemption from the 3rd class medical examination for members of those two organizations with the stated position that they (AOPA & EAA) had no opposition to expanding the exemption to the general pilot population (which they do not represent) by the FAA.

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
Bob is right...but

Bob is right that the petition the AOPA and the EAA made applied to its members. You can read the request here:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/120319aopa-eaa-petition-for-exemption.pdf

Having said that, I'm pretty sure the reason it's worded as it is in the petition is because these organizations needed legal standing to make the request. Their standing existed because of the membership they represent. I don't think there was any intention on the part of the AOPA or EAA that the FAA's rule making would be limited to those two groups (note: I don't represent either organization nor do I have inside information).

I can see where this could be really confusing.

It seems to me its time to put a coordinated grass roots effort together to write to congress to raise the importance of this issue in the eyes of the FAA. I don't think it would take a lot to make this happen, particularly in todays budget environment.
 
Medical exemption

Having said that, I'm pretty sure the reason it's worded as it is in the petition is because these organizations needed legal standing to make the request.
I agree. If they were to petition on behalf of non-members they could be considered a PAC and change their tax status. I believe they could have done this thru their PAC however there are other issues which come to play there.
 
When I read the proposal and commented during the review period it was very clear to me (maybe a misinterpretation on my part for sure) that it was asking for an exemption from the 3rd class magical examination for members of those two organizations with the stated position that they (AOPA & EAA) had no opposition to expanding the exemption to the general pilot population (which they do not represent) by the FAA.

Bob Axsom

The way it was explained by both EAA and AOPA at last years forum at OSH is that a rule exempton has to be asked for and issued to some sort of group. Typical exemption go to a given airlines that show their company process/procedures provide equal or more safety then the FAA rules so that airlines gets an exemption for them to not follow a specific FAA rule. EAA/AOPA said that the people they represent was the group they picked for the exemption submission but would work a way to include all pilots that take the online training coarse even if not a member of their organization. To fly legally with the drivers license medical Would require some sort of certificate of completion and statement of inclusion in exemption group.
 
Exemption Strategy

I attended several forums on this issue at Oshkosh and my understanding is:

This proposed change was developed as an exemption to an existing rule. The rationale was that rule changes require much more effort and time than exemptions. As an exemption, it has to fit all the constraints associated with the FAA's definition of exemption. The constraints are not necessarily logical, and the EAA/AOPA strategy was to develop a fully compliant proposal.

A significant constraint is that an exemption can apply only to a specific set of pilots and aircraft. Specifying the aircraft was easy. But how to specify a set of pilots? The FAA would not accept "all pilots." A large specific set is card-carrying EAA and AOPA members. This definition would meet the FAA constraint.

The EAA and AOPA reps at Oshkosh stressed they were not trying to establish the exemption as a privilege for its members alone. This may not be entirely true, but it seems like a logical way to cast the net as wide as possible while meeting the requirement.
 
Seems the only time the FAA does anything positive affecting us lowly lead fuel burning minority is when congress forces them to do something. I wouldn't count on this getting approved at the FAA. There is no compelling reason why they would approve it. The cost savings in OK City would be minimal and it is not visible enough to the public. As to this being for AOPA and/or EAA members, well, that is what they are there for isn't it? To work for their members? Besides, most GA pilots are a member of one of them. It does not bother me a bit that my dues are funding their advocacy on the members behalf. But I'm sure those that are not members would benefit as well as they always do so if you do not belong to either and this passes, be sure to take care of me when we meet up at the bar. It is the least you could do since my membership dues covered your bi-annual savings at the AME.
 
I hope it never does pass. Just come on down here to florida and drive for a few days and you will see why it may not be a good idea. Update the standards, yes, the rules have not kept up with medical science. There are those people that need someone to tell them its time to hang it up.

bob burns
Rv-4 N82RB
 
What a Super AME told our EAA Chapter ....

First, you may recall there are about 25 so-called Super-AMEs ... who have increased credibility/authority with the FAA. They have ability to get FAA approval on medical cases and issues that a "normal" AME cannot. In more recent years, they have worked very closely with the OKC authorities and have significant credibility thereto.

In March, one of the Super AMEs was the guest speaker at our monthly Chapter meeting, and told us that the AOPA initiative on the 3rd Class medical exemption was a huge mistake. It was undertaken largely because it would be viewed by AOPA members as the organization working for them, not because it was likely to happen or get FAA approval. IOW, it was a membership "thing", not a realistic initiative with expectations for regulation reform.

In the history of the FAA the largest single exemption to any of the three medical classes was seven ex-military pilots in a rare and one-time situation. As our speaker put it, "Why would anyone think the FAA would go from a historic seven one-time exemptions to 300,000 in one step? It made no sense." He advised the AOPA to NOT undertake the exemption process in that manner ... he advised them to work quietly with the FAA and the Super AMEs for a smaller group exemption first. Clearly, they did not listen to his advice. Based on the above, there is no realistic expectation the AOPA/EAA petition will go anywhere in the next few years. Regulatory reform for pilot medicals will come a lot slower and take years to accomplish.
 
I hope it never does pass. Just come on down here to florida and drive for a few days and you will see why it may not be a good idea. Update the standards, yes, the rules have not kept up with medical science. There are those people that need someone to tell them its time to hang it up.

bob burns
Rv-4 N82RB
I think that's true with flying and driving, and plenty of those pilots manage to get medicals. Having a medical does not mean you are fit to fly medically speaking, it only means that you met the minimum standards imposed by the FAA and that specific AME. Likewise, not having a medical doesn't mean you are unfit to fly.

The most important part is the PIC's compliance with the requirement to not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make the PIC unable to operate a the aircraft in a safe manner.

TODR
 
First, you may recall there are about 25 so-called Super-AMEs ... who have increased credibility/authority with the FAA. They have ability to get FAA approval on medical cases and issues that a "normal" AME cannot. In more recent years, they have worked very closely with the OKC authorities and have significant credibility thereto.

Is there a list of these Super-AMEs that a mere private pilot can access?
 
Not surprising to me that an AME ("Super" or not) is against the proposal. I'm sure there's absolutely no bias on their part, LOL!
 
Not surprising to me that an AME ("Super" or not) is against the proposal. I'm sure there's absolutely no bias on their part, LOL!

Exactly. Just like asking an insurance agent if they favor the state law mandating everyone show proof of insurance to get license plates renewed.

Back to RVs. I am really surprised how divided his forum seems to be on the subject. Maybe due to that not all RVs are included in the exemption proposal.
 
Back
Top