PDA

View Full Version : Manufacturers - Third class medical bill?



qsmx440
04-23-2014, 06:25 PM
Is it time to call out the manufacturers and service agencies for a strong statement of support so we can know who to patronize in the future? On this issue you are either with us or against us. There should be no room for "no comment". Along with the AME's we need support from those we support and if they are not going to support us then that needs to be made public also. Have any come out in support of the bill?

It's time to demand a statement:
"The last ten years of LSA experience with pilots using their current drivers license as evidence of fitness to fly light aircraft has unequivocally shown that there is no statistical safety reason to continue with the third class medical requirement and we __(manufacturer or mechanic etc.) __ declare and place in public record our support for ending the third class medical as per the congressional bill."

My personal opinion about anyone who comes to the table against getting rid of the requirement, is that unless they bring something of substance statistically to the table then they are basically traitors to the constitution and the upholding of personal freedom. This one is a glaring example of those who are corrupt bringing tyranny to defend their position.

Please note that if you think my opinion is to harsh with the words I used above I am totally open to changing my mind if someone makes a real argument. In Randy's thread apparently CAMA said: "cars don't fall out of the sky". That is not an argument. I have always taken offense at laws and regulations that infringe on my rights to "the pursuit of happiness". Sometimes those laws have to exist for the real protection of other citizens. The third class medical has failed to reach that benchmark and only tyranny can keep it in place.

Tyranny: ( from Oxford dictionaries, one meaning of many): Cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control:

With no evidence to continue supporting the medical requirement, this now becomes both "unreasonable" and "arbitrary" use of power by our government if it continues.

Richgj3
04-23-2014, 07:11 PM
Not too harsh at all. It drives me crazy that some people choose to ignore facts that don't support their opinions, like the fact that sport pilots have been flying without the "benefit" of a medical since January of 2005 with no change in the accident rate due to medical issues.

I agree that our vendors should let us know where they stand on the issue.

Rich

gbflyer
04-23-2014, 09:14 PM
Add insurance companies to the list. There's a couple out there that won't talk to you about LSA without a current FAA medical.

zane
04-24-2014, 01:53 AM
This is an odd one. LSA manufacturers actually stand to lose sales if the 3rd class goes away. The market of used, inexpensive 172s or even proper Super Cubs is suddenly fair game for once potential customers of $100k new LSA aircraft.

And like gb says, actuarial data based on holding a medical certificate will have to be reevaluated by insurance companies.

As much as I want to see the 3rd class go away entirely, I'm not sure it's gonna go clean.

skywagon8a
04-24-2014, 06:19 AM
This is an odd one. LSA manufacturers actually stand to lose sales if the 3rd class goes away. The market of used, inexpensive 172s or even proper Super Cubs is suddenly fair game for once potential customers of $100k new LSA aircraft.

Another way to look at it is that, just maybe the person who is able to get back into flying is not interested, if he/she is only allowed to fly LSAs. Just maybe that person will go out and buy a brand new 182? Cessna and Piper should be loud and clear on the elimination of the third class.

Steve Pierce
04-24-2014, 07:31 AM
I asked the Darin Hart from Legend Aircraft this question. They are presently meeting ASTM standards for higher gross weights and he feels like their business will expand.

WWhunter
04-24-2014, 08:40 AM
There are very few manufacturers here in the US producing LSA and the amount of planes they sell is not great. Do these few manufacturers have that much political clout to make a difference? Granted, there are overseas manufactures that do employ people here in the US via sales and service. Does the overall benefit of these few have a larger effect on GA than the increased market that hopefully will happen if the medical requirements for 3rd class are removed?

mvivion
04-24-2014, 09:46 AM
This is an odd one. LSA manufacturers actually stand to lose sales if the 3rd class goes away. The market of used, inexpensive 172s or even proper Super Cubs is suddenly fair game for once potential customers of $100k new LSA aircraft.

And like gb says, actuarial data based on holding a medical certificate will have to be reevaluated by insurance companies.

As much as I want to see the 3rd class go away entirely, I'm not sure it's gonna go clean.

While I don't disagree that this might not pretty, I think most current SLSA manufacturers should be able to recognize the benefit of being able to design a better, more useable LSA product. Every LSA I've seen involves significant compromises that limit their usefulness.

consider the Skycatcher.....the primary aim of that airplane was to re energize primary flight training, but what the folks who bought those planes for that purpose quickly discovered was that it was impossible to offer flight training in an airplane that couldn't LEGALLY fly with two "normal" size humans. So, a pretty decent little airplane went by the wayside.....and, yes, I realize there were others issues, but....

bottom line is that most if not all the LSAs that are succeeding in this market are pretty clearly suggesting "don't worry, be happy" when it comes to legal weights. "Our product, while limited to 1320 pounds gross weight, has been thoroughly tested to 2000 pounds"

Eliminating the third class medical would allow manufacturers to build a better, more useful product, and help to ensure consumers are protected by actual testing, as opposed to sales hype.

MTV

zane
04-24-2014, 10:26 AM
Good points. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind elimination of the 3rd class, but it's interesting to consider the financial motives, especially when one of our main arguments is revitalization of the industry, meaning $$$ infusion from the the medically sidelined pilots.

I think the price point argument for any aircraft has a much greater impact on sales than regulatory barriers. $20k C140 vs $130k Sport Cub? No 3rd class requirement makes this an easy decision for a pilot of modest means. That's just marketing though. If you have $100k+ to spend on an airplane you're probably going to.

behindpropellers
04-24-2014, 12:19 PM
Good points. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind elimination of the 3rd class, but it's interesting to consider the financial motives, especially when one of our main arguments is revitalization of the industry, meaning $$$ infusion from the the medically sidelined pilots.

I think the price point argument for any aircraft has a much greater impact on sales than regulatory barriers. $20k C140 vs $130k Sport Cub? No 3rd class requirement makes this an easy decision for a pilot of modest means. That's just marketing though. If you have $100k+ to spend on an airplane you're probably going to.

I have said this before. It is not the medical requirement that is keeping people from flying, it is plainly the cost of flying. Not many people in the 20-40 range getting their licensees these days.

8GCBC
04-24-2014, 01:00 PM
Us pilots really f ed ourself bad.

Light sport is an annoyance and a distractort to me participatating in safe AND FUN aviation. My Ford Focus weighs more than a light sport aircraft.

I can drive my F350 towing a 40' trailer, CGVW of 19,000 lbs and 59' long with just an eye test in Hawaii. But, I need a full physical to fly day VFR in a PA18 that weighs 1800 LBS. Repeat , Us pilots really f ed ourself bad.

qsmx440
04-24-2014, 06:13 PM
One of the problems this restriction is pointing out is that the government, absent any statistical safety reason to regulate, is attempting to pick winners and losers. Doctors win? Pilots lose? Maybe some industry thinks it wins something but I seriously doubt it wins anything with the boomers getting older. Industry not supporting this is shooting itself in the foot as many potential clients will leave the ranks.

This country is not about government picking winners and losers unless you throw out the constitution and then things become lawless. I know the government actually does attempt exactly what I am saying, but it shouldn't and this is a good time to call "foul". NOW the government can enhance jobs and business but usually it means it gets out of the way. This would be a great example of a time for government to step aside.

I don't want to sound like I am for zero controls on pilots fitness but as I have said before the BFR makes a lot more sense as a real control and is a lot less expensive than a bunch of liability driven useless tests. Having had two aging parents (one inlaw) continue driving past the time they should have I don't think a yearly BFR for someone past 75 is unreasonable. There are pilots who can safely fly past one hundred years old, but both my parents lost their drivers licenses after small accidents and at 85 years of age. They were both good drivers until a couple of years before that point. As someone who in ten years would have to take the yearly check ride I am not thrilled with the prospect but can see the necessity for it. A lot of time we don't realize when it's time to quit. BUT with that said I don't think failure of a BFR should preclude taking it again as much as you want until you pass or give up. That also seems fair.

hotrod180
04-25-2014, 11:34 AM
.......Light sport is an annoyance and a distractort to me participatating in safe AND FUN aviation. ............

I wonder why you say this? I am a private pilot flying with a 3rd class medical (and looking forward to the "drivers license medical"), and the whole LSA/sport pilot thing dos not effect me at all one way or the other.

8GCBC
04-25-2014, 01:08 PM
I wonder why you say this? I am a private pilot flying with a 3rd class medical (and looking forward to the "drivers license medical"), and the whole LSA/sport pilot thing dos not effect me at all one way or the other.

For me personally, the added complexity. The community continues to outsmart them selfs. I am for less rules that make sense. Rather than the trend to make more rules to "fix" an issue. My opinion is the trend has affected all of us. I am not sure what your goals are however. I too can say it does not affect me. I am lucky enough to fly with an ATP, Class II and an A&P. My aviation life is wonderful, but fellow pilots are suffering from unneeded delays in antique regs. This does indirectly affect all I believe. Who wants to see bummed out pilots?

A temporary bandaid for my issue is to up the "light sport" licensing to 2500 LBS ASAP and allow certified manufactures to join in with proven aircraft that can fly in a reasonable way. Not, just for an hour and lightly loaded.

Thank you for the question. You have a good point.

Cub junkie
04-25-2014, 02:52 PM
I guess I'm to dense to understand your idea of a revamped reg. 8GCBC. I too have a wonderful aviation but many don't and some of those that don't probably have parked airplanes. I don't see what 2500 pounds does, why not 6000? Your post almost has a "somebody pull the ladder up, I got mine" ring to it.

8GCBC
04-25-2014, 05:02 PM
I guess I'm to dense to understand your idea of a revamped reg. 8GCBC. I too have a wonderful aviation but many don't and some of those that don't probably have parked airplanes. I don't see what 2500 pounds does, why not 6000? Your post almost has a "somebody pull the ladder up, I got mine" ring to it.

* Any increase in gross should help many people who can not fly right now? Anything is better. If "we" can push to 6000 gross that would be heaven for some. I would buy an Aztec for retirement! Love that bird.

* To many regs for "some" people. I can handle it, but some are having trouble who I beleive can fly safely.

* A Cessna 172 day VFR would be as safe as a "light sport" but, insurance companies will make the final call with what premium I pay. My small mind equates safety directly to how much I pay for liability. There are larger "certified" aircraft that are statically safe for a self certified medical ( also known as "no medical" in the media). My agent said they would have no problem insuring me with no medical if that law does come about in my Scout. So I feel good about that, but that could change too.

* Making flying more simple is something I believe for most finacially. It will make it safer too (opinion). I live on an isolated archipelago with very little need to get politically involved, so my opinion may seem terse and simplistic. That seems to irritate those who spend a majority of their time "fixing the the regs for me."

* All we had to do is delete/add a few items and change a couple of numbers. Instead it turned in WAR and PEACE.

hotrod180
04-26-2014, 11:56 AM
We're dealing with the FAA and you expect it to be easy or simple? Dream on! ;-)

8GCBC
04-26-2014, 12:19 PM
We're dealing with the FAA and you expect it to be easy or simple? Dream on! ;-)

As mentioned everything in the FARS work fine for me (today). But, few agree, the same, for them.

The self proclaimed GA world ie. EAA, AOPA etc. are harder for me to understand. Their "daily" motive is inbread and convoluted more so than the FAA. The FAA was never the issue to me. I am fine with the FAA. The minority.

qsmx440
04-26-2014, 12:41 PM
As mentioned everything in the FARS work fine for me (today). But, few agree, the same, for them.

The self proclaimed GA world ie. EAA, AOPA etc. are harder for me to understand. Their "daily" motive is inbread and convoluted more so than the FAA. The FAA was never the issue to me. I am fine with the FAA. The minority.

8 I don't think ALL of us are against the FAA at all and your posts taken carefully don't seem that you disagree at least with my positions. The FAA, police, rules and regulations are very much needed. Anarchy is never an answer any more than a far overreaching government. The problem is that in a free society the rules, permits, regulations, and so on should meet standards that are based on facts. In the beginning when a program is brand new and no facts existed perhaps it made sense to have a medical requirement and that a pilot should "take a punch in the face" to prove he wasn't prone to passing out (I would not have become a pilot at that time). It may still make sense for medium and high altitude because of hypoxia, but these rules should always be tailored to meet the tests of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not "cars don't fall out of the sky on people". We regulate to preserve life and liberty in that order, but when a regulation no longer is needed to preserve those two then the last one "pursuit of happiness" should prevail and flying for the private pilot is for that purpose. It appears from the facts that all the third class medical is preserving is a few FAA and doctor examiner jobs while denying pilots, manufacturers and services their jobs and happiness, and all for no reason.

I was a police officer for many years and we did a lot of good like the EAA, FAA, Aopa but there are always parts of any organization that carry waste and they never solve it from within it seems.

skywagon8a
04-26-2014, 12:48 PM
When one earns ones living in the aviation industry constantly under the auspices of the FAA, always having to make sure that they haven't broken some obscure rule, new rules and procedures being changed constantly, being tested on a regular basis, having a medical exam every six months in order to get a piece of paper to carry in their pocket, one welcomes a small bit of relief when one retires. There are Waaaay Toooo many of these FARS. When one retires to recreational flying, even with just those particular applicable FARS, there is a tremendous sense of lower stress which one doesn't realize that they had before retiring. Every time one more rule is removed, there is additional relief. There are still plenty of rules to employ the FAA personnel. They do not need to ride herd on the third class medical.

We can not all go hide out on some South Pacific Atoll and pretend that the FAA is not "from the government and is here to help".

8GCBC
04-26-2014, 01:04 PM
My fascination is why we are always moving backwards in GA. And everybody blames the FAA, the Police, and the TSA or whoever. Nobody says maybe the industry and it's "leaders" may of screwed it?

That is why I choose to spend time learning about issues on SuperCub.org rather than the "mainstream". The mainstream was misguided in my limited view. Hence the development of this thread.

skywagon8a
04-26-2014, 02:51 PM
Bureaucracies tend to feed on themselves and procreate themselves. After a while they become too big for their britches. That is what has happened to the FAA. Elimination of the third class is just "one small step for mankind".

8GCBC
04-26-2014, 04:10 PM
There are excellent people involved in GA too, I forgot to say. But, they are not in the spotlight generally. I apologize for being previously misinterpreted, in this thread, (but will take the risk again) by mentioning the people, organizations and companies I choose to support made my involvement in aviation a dream come true. And others who said they would guide me were passed up because the rhetoric got boring . Very stoked with what I am flying, my medical situation, and my licenses. Being the minority is nothing new to me.

But, I would like to see guys, that fly safe, that are having issues get them resolved and get them flying for a reasonable cost. One day that person could be me hoping for some help too. What goes around comes around, I know from "experience" (also know as mistakes).

My opinion; if somebody can fly safe let them fly. Whoa!