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 Reform Becomes LAW!

Brantel

Brantel

Well Known Member
 
Last edited:
Brantel said:
Remember the forum rules when replying to this thread.....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder Brian.

A huge step in the direction we need to be going, hopefully all the doomsayers predictions and hand wringing will end up being for naught.

A year to put out the new law is a major joke, IMHO---------should have been 72 hours. The FAA has had plenty of time to deal with this, and they chose not to do so. Do they really need/deserve a year???????
 
Last edited:
I am with Mike on this one. Like they really need a year to say; "follow the law".
 
Technically the Act states they have 180 days to comply.

The year comes into play if they fail to comply with the law by then.
 
Last edited:
Brian,
Do you really think they will meet the 180 day timeframe? I hope so, we will have to wait and see.
 
Skid said:
Brian,
Do you really think they will meet the 180 day timeframe? I hope so, we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Personally no....

I doubt they thought this bill had any chance of becoming law with the hammer clause attached which is one of the items I am most excited about being included in this Act.

I would assume they will drag it out but who knows.....
 
Last edited:
Yep, you'd think it would be able to become a rule in 72 hours.

However, my experience with the FAA rule making tells me that we will be lucky if the final rule is published and effective within 36 months of POTUS signature and that is if the rule is "fast tracked"! There will need to be an NPRM with comment and response period.

Remember on something that is beneficial to its "customers" the FAA works "at the speed of government" dragging its feet all the way (well maybe not really foot dragging but it sure seems that way sometimes). And don't forget the often times interminable excursion the proposed rule will take to the DOT for review and more time (not sure what happens there but it is probably the lawyers figuring out who gets hosed if something goes wrong :).

I am due a medical in 18 months and I fully expect to have to get one. I'm not giving up on the oatmeal, exercise, etc.

Hope like heck that I am wrong! There may be some magic process to really fast track this thing that I'm not familiar with...I pray so.
 
Jaws said:
Yep, you'd think it would be able to become a rule in 72 hours.

However, my experience with the FAA rule making tells me that we will be lucky if the final rule is published and effective within 36 months of POTUS signature and that is if the rule is "fast tracked"! There will need to be an NPRM with comment and response period.

Remember on something that is beneficial to its "customers" the FAA works "at the speed of government" dragging its feet all the way (well maybe not really foot dragging but it sure seems that way sometimes). And don't forget the often times interminable excursion the proposed rule will take to the DOT for review and more time (not sure what happens there but it is probably the lawyers figuring out who gets hosed if something goes wrong :).

I am due a medical in 18 months and I fully expect to have to get one. I'm not giving up on the oatmeal, exercise, etc.

Hope like heck that I am wrong! There may be some magic process to really fast track this thing that I'm not familiar with...I pray so.
Click to expand...

Since the following was included in the Act, as far as I am concerned, they can take forever to finalize their rules....

"(i) Prohibition On Enforcement Actions.—Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet, through a good faith effort, the applicable requirements under subsection (a), except paragraph (5) of that subsection, unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under that subsection."
 
It just bothers me that it takes an act of congress and a signature by the POTOUS to get an agency that "works for us" to really do something for us.

I look forward to seeing how the FAA interprets the new law and if they will include some type of user fee with it.
 
Me too Bill. I don't want to "stretch" the posting rules, but I would like to know when the FAA started working "against" GA and I would like to know why.
 
Brantel said:
Since the following was included in the Act, as far as I am concerned, they can take forever to finalize their rules....

"(i) Prohibition On Enforcement Actions.?Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator may not take an enforcement action for not holding a valid third-class medical certificate against a pilot of a covered aircraft for a flight if the pilot and the flight meet, through a good faith effort, the applicable requirements under subsection (a), except paragraph (5) of that subsection, unless the Administrator has published final regulations in the Federal Register under that subsection."
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing excerpt from Act. I have not seen the act. I should have looked it up and read it before commenting. I agree...we should be home free!
 
The Act requires that pilots using the provisions of this reform have a valid driver's license.

I've got that and currently have a valid 3rd class medical. From reading the act, I think that:

a) I have four years from the date of that medical to get a valid check-up.

b) I have until two years from today (when the act was signed, 7/15/16) to get some on-line training.

In other words, the on-line training dates aren't coupled to the check-up dates or vice-versa.

Incidentally, the Act specifies the things the check-up has to cover and that the on-line training has to cover.

Thanks Brantel, for giving us a link to the Act.

I was surprised that this section of the Act was in surprisingly readable language. It wasn't buried in legalese. Don't know how that happened but someone did something right with this, and I plan to vote for my incumbent congress-people this election.

Dave
 
Typo

I hate to be picky, but you'd think someone would have proofread it before it became law. Under the Special Issuance section the term is "Myocardial infraction" and SHOULD BE "Myocardial infarction." Oh, I know, SpellCheck didn't catch it. I would have proofed it if they'd just asked. 😳
 
rv7boy said:
I hate to be picky, but you'd think someone would have proofread it before it became law. Under the Special Issuance section the term is "Myocardial infraction" and SHOULD BE "Myocardial infarction." Oh, I know, SpellCheck didn't catch it. I would have proofed it if they'd just asked. 😳
Click to expand...

My wife and I have a standing joke - every time one of us says "You'd think that..." we stop ourselves and have a brief laugh.
 
Agree

Agree Bill. This should have been resolved without legislation. That being said, we can all learn something now about the nature of government agencies. Having worked for one many moons ago doing process improvement projects, I can assure you that some of the finest people I have ever known were govt employees so it's not a people thing. It's the process. The processes within the Hugh govt agencies and the agencies themselves are not fundamentally set up to get smaller, reduce legislation, reduce employees, reduce cost, or reduce waste.

When a budget is approved, you better spend all the money. If you don't spend it, next year you get less. Justify the hiring of more employees because we got so much to do and not enough to to do it now. Use excessive wait time as justification. Another justification is perceived hidden medical conditions of pilots. Are pilots sleeping long enough? Are they ticking time Bombs? Just think how much safer it would be if we could ground more pilots due to more medical indicators? Being safer is the goal now, right?

Honestly I was skeptical of this legislation passing. I too read in anguish as Brantel was battling the "process" trying to prove he was safe to fly. The number of posts over the past several years of people having to leave their dreams due to lost medical was heartbreaking. During a recent pre-op meeting the doctor asked my wife if I ever snored and he said that my neck diameter and weight put me at risk. She answered as she should have knowing that the sleep program would thrust us into an innocent proving process.

Now, we can forget all that and fly and attempt to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like our forefathers wanted. Thank you America for a system designed for we the

N941WR said:
It just bothers me that it takes an act of congress and a signature by the POTOUS to get an agency that "works for us" to really do something for us.

I look forward to seeing how the FAA interprets the new law and if they will include some type of user fee with it.
Click to expand...
 
Jaws said:
...you'd think it would be able to become a rule in 72 hours.
Click to expand...
Skid said:
Brian,
Do you really think they will meet the 180 day timeframe? I hope so, we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Doing this it is a lot more complicated than most people think. So, shamelessly plagiarized from another board: "By law (The Administrative Procedures Act) agencies generally can't just "issue" new rules, especially where it involves revising existing federal regulations. People following this process have just gotten a crash course in the legislative process. Now it's time for the regulatory part of the sausage making.

The simplistic overview is that it follows these general steps. Same is true for all the FARs and ADs.

1. Agency publishes a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) with the "draft" rules in the Federal Register requesting public comment.

2. The comment period is open and they receive comments from supports, opponents, and nut jobs alike. The more comments they receive the longer the rule making proccess can take.

3. They submit a draft final rule making to the DOT. They have to address the comments received to the NPRM and the draft final rule can look different than the NPRM.

4. There may be some back and forth within the DOT and there may be revisions.

5. Once DOT is happy it goes to the GAO to audit the budget impact of the new rules.

6. Final rule is published in the Federal Register with the text for whatever the revisions will be to the FARs. They state when they will become effective. It's usually 60-180 days from final publication.

Joe public sees steps 1, 2, and 6.

So the new law says the FAA has 180 days to publish an NPRM and one year to push it all through the process to finalization."

:cool:
 
Last edited:
grubbat said:
Agree Bill. This should have been resolved without legislation. That being said, we can all learn something now about the nature of government agencies. Having worked for one many moons ago doing process improvement projects, I can assure you that some of the finest people I have ever known were govt employees so it's not a people thing. It's the process. The processes within the Hugh govt agencies and the agencies themselves are not fundamentally set up to get smaller, reduce legislation, reduce employees, reduce cost, or reduce waste.

When a budget is approved, you better spend all the money. If you don't spend it, next year you get less. Justify the hiring of more employees because we got so much to do and not enough to to do it now. Use excessive wait time as justification. Another justification is perceived hidden medical conditions of pilots. Are pilots sleeping long enough? Are they ticking time Bombs? Just think how much safer it would be if we could ground more pilots due to more medical indicators? Being safer is the goal now, right?

Honestly I was skeptical of this legislation passing. I too read in anguish as Brantel was battling the "process" trying to prove he was safe to fly. The number of posts over the past several years of people having to leave their dreams due to lost medical was heartbreaking. During a recent pre-op meeting the doctor asked my wife if I ever snored and he said that my neck diameter and weight put me at risk. She answered as she should have knowing that the sleep program would thrust us into an innocent proving process.

Now, we can forget all that and fly and attempt to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like our forefathers wanted. Thank you America for a system designed for we the
Click to expand...

. . . PEOPLE.

Yes, Indeed.
 
Brian...

Brantel said:
Personally no....

I doubt they thought this bill had any chance of becoming law with the hammer clause attached which is one of the items I am most excited about being included in this Act.

I would assume they will drag it out but who knows.....
Click to expand...

please see me when you arrive as I have some questions on the new rules
Thanks
Jerry
 
GalinHdz said:
Doing this it is a lot more complicated than most people think. ------By law (The Administrative Procedures Act) agencies generally can't just "issue" new rules
Click to expand...


Just a simple question for the lawyers out there.

We have a new LAW--------when push comes to shove, dont laws win over rules?

What purpose does the FAA making rules have in the face of a federal law???
 
Examiner vs own doctor

Interesting. When I saw this post's title I thought we would be discussing the pros and cons of doing a physical with your own personal doctor versus a FAA examiner.

Seems like there is a motivation to keep an examiner at arms length and only address the letter of the law or exam and not volunteer anything. If this mindset transfers to how you treat your personal doctor, ailments may get missed.

There is still an option in the law to continue to use an examiner. I think that may be the popular option. And keep your personal doctor private.

Thoughts?
 
rv7boy said:
I hate to be picky, but you'd think someone would have proofread it before it became law. Under the Special Issuance section the term is "Myocardial infraction" and SHOULD BE "Myocardial infarction." Oh, I know, SpellCheck didn't catch it. I would have proofed it if they'd just asked. 😳
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for catching that! I'm in the clear. I have checked on my ticker and it's never had an infraction. I am, after all, a big believer in following the letter of the law. Even when those letters are in questionable order.
 
Steve Lynn raises some good points:

Being a lawyer married to a physician, I see the benefit of having AME's conducting flight physicals. Most primary care physicians aren't pilots, don't fly in private planes, and are not likely aware of critical factors that make for a safe pilot. Many of them have difficulty deciding if a patient is safe to drive a car.
Overworked primary care physicians with no background in flying will now be required to become "experts" in flight surgery. While I'm sure many will take the trouble to become acquainted with the relevant medical factors, there are quite a few who will just 'punt.'

Over time, I predict there will emerge two types of doctors:

1) Those for whom flying seems an inherently dangerous activity, who will refuse to sign-off on all but the most healthy pilots in order to avoid the liability should a health-related crash eventually occur. (Many of these are the doctors who believe that merely having a firearm in one's home is a 'health-related issue.')
2) Then there will be those who will 'sign-off' on anyone: these will become known for being 'easy' and will be sought out by marginal pilots. (Think about the California Doctors who are being paid '$250 a pop' to write recommendations for their patients to possess up to TEN-POUNDS of 'medical marijuana.' Yes, I have seen 10-Pound recommendations by licensed physicians.)

None of this helps the cause of general aviation.

It makes more sense to have a true expert in aviation medicine making these critical calls.

I think most pilots who really think about the issue would rather that there were a middle ground: one that didn't immediately ground otherwise healthy pilots on mere technicalities on the FAA's 'say-so'; but also didn't allow under-educated (or personally-involved) doctors to 'look the other way' in allowing an at-risk pilot to continue flying without some sort of intervention.

Also, extending Steve's argument regarding privacy; this could simply cause many pilots, who were previously withholding information from the AME to begin withholding information from their personal physician as well.

None of this helps the cause of primary medicine.

I don't know what the solution is, but this law may replace one set of problems with another; just something to think about.
 
sglynn said:
There is still an option in the law to continue to use an examiner. I think that may be the popular option. And keep your personal doctor private.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Those who are borderline will avoid AMEs so they don't fail. The overwhelming majority, who are in good health, will avoid AMEs due to the cost. (Please, AMEs, don't start crying that you really loose money. If so, why do I get postcards every year, saying 'Come see me!'.)

"A camel is a horse that was designed by a committee", and that's what we have here. Given the lack of problems with glider pilots and sport pilots, it's pretty clear that medicals are largely superfluous. But I guess it will be another decade before medicals are totally eliminated.
 
Pool Shark said:
Steve Lynn raises some good points:

Being a lawyer married to a physician, I see the benefit of having AME's conducting flight physicals. Most primary care physicians aren't pilots, don't fly in private planes, and are not likely aware of critical factors that make for a safe pilot. Many of them have difficulty deciding if a patient is safe to drive a car.
Overworked primary care physicians with no background in flying will now be required to become "experts" in flight surgery. While I'm sure many will take the trouble to become acquainted with the relevant medical factors, there are quite a few who will just 'punt.'

Over time, I predict there will emerge two types of doctors:

1) Those for whom flying seems an inherently dangerous activity, who will refuse to sign-off on all but the most healthy pilots in order to avoid the liability should a health-related crash eventually occur. (Many of these are the doctors who believe that merely having a firearm in one's home is a 'health-related issue.')
2) Then there will be those who will 'sign-off' on anyone: these will become known for being 'easy' and will be sought out by marginal pilots. (Think about the California Doctors who are being paid '$250 a pop' to write recommendations for their patients to possess up to TEN-POUNDS of 'medical marijuana.' Yes, I have seen 10-Pound recommendations by licensed physicians.)

None of this helps the cause of general aviation.

It makes more sense to have a true expert in aviation medicine making these critical calls.

I think most pilots who really think about the issue would rather that there were a middle ground: one that didn't immediately ground otherwise healthy pilots on mere technicalities on the FAA's 'say-so'; but also didn't allow under-educated (or personally-involved) doctors to 'look the other way' in allowing an at-risk pilot to continue flying without some sort of intervention.

Also, extending Steve's argument regarding privacy; this could simply cause many pilots, who were previously withholding information from the AME to begin withholding information from their personal physician as well.

None of this helps the cause of primary medicine.

I don't know what the solution is, but this law may replace one set of problems with another; just something to think about.
Click to expand...

After reading the "law" as passed, I agree with Chris. I'm thinking GPs aren't going to be eager to step off into the unknown of aviation. I see my PCM balking on signing the checklist...fear of liability. Even though, if I read it correctly, all it says is that he checked all the items and not the parameters noted. Guess I may continue to see my AME every two years. Will have to see how it shakes out. Currently, I get three physicals every two years, two within weeks of each other. Two from PCM and one from AME. Probably not going to change unless I can convince my PCM to complete the checklist.
 
Can't Resist

G'day gents, first poster here as I can't hold back my story. This bill becoming law excited me so much that now I am ready to take to the air again (once legal) after the jumping up and down subsides. Let's not forget that there are thousands of pilots and previous flyers that have medical conditions that have been FIXED (a word that the FAA has no clue the meaning of) but stopped flying because of all the medical testing they require (I being one). This bill gets me and many others back in the air and now I am about to pull the trigger on a RV-7A Emp. Thanks for listening.
 
Welcome to VAF!

Jeremy, welcome aboard the good ship VAF.:D

Your story is great, thanks for sharing it.

Good luck with the 7
 
I've long held that the flight physical system was killing pilots, because as a group we tended to avoid visiting a physician when we felt bad, or even for routine checkups.

If we can all go see a primary care physician or specialist without worrying about how it might look on a future Class 3, I'll call it a success.
 
Pool Shark said:
Steve Lynn raises some good points:

Being a lawyer married to a physician, I see the benefit of having AME's conducting flight physicals. Most primary care physicians aren't pilots, don't fly in private planes, and are not likely aware of critical factors that make for a safe pilot. Many of them have difficulty deciding if a patient is safe to drive a car.
Overworked primary care physicians with no background in flying will now be required to become "experts" in flight surgery. While I'm sure many will take the trouble to become acquainted with the relevant medical factors, there are quite a few who will just 'punt.'

Over time, I predict there will emerge two types of doctors:

1) Those for whom flying seems an inherently dangerous activity, who will refuse to sign-off on all but the most healthy pilots in order to avoid the liability should a health-related crash eventually occur. (Many of these are the doctors who believe that merely having a firearm in one's home is a 'health-related issue.')
2) Then there will be those who will 'sign-off' on anyone: these will become known for being 'easy' and will be sought out by marginal pilots. (Think about the California Doctors who are being paid '$250 a pop' to write recommendations for their patients to possess up to TEN-POUNDS of 'medical marijuana.' Yes, I have seen 10-Pound recommendations by licensed physicians.)

None of this helps the cause of general aviation.

It makes more sense to have a true expert in aviation medicine making these critical calls.

I think most pilots who really think about the issue would rather that there were a middle ground: one that didn't immediately ground otherwise healthy pilots on mere technicalities on the FAA's 'say-so'; but also didn't allow under-educated (or personally-involved) doctors to 'look the other way' in allowing an at-risk pilot to continue flying without some sort of intervention.

Also, extending Steve's argument regarding privacy; this could simply cause many pilots, who were previously withholding information from the AME to begin withholding information from their personal physician as well.

None of this helps the cause of primary medicine.

I don't know what the solution is, but this law may replace one set of problems with another; just something to think about.
Click to expand...

I've done a bit of doctoring (30 years +) and married to retired family doc. I'm just not as pessimistic here. I think there will be plenty of current AME's as well as family physicians/general internists who will be happy to do these exams and will do so responsibly, not just to make a buck. Pilots will need to participate in the process and do some education (primarily around what the word "certify" means and that the certification relates to the time of the exam and foreseeable future. Pilots know - or should know - and can educate their physicians about their responsibility to self-ground if condition changes). I'm predicting AOPA, EAA etc will help to develop some educational materials.

Physicians sign off every day on similar paperwork like DOT physicals, employment physicals, athletic physicals etc. It is an assessment of a person's condition at the time of the exam and cannot reasonably be expected to be predictive of future changes. Part of the problem of course with the current Class III (and I/II for that matter) is that predicting future incapacitation events is extremely difficult and you have to eliminate an unreasonable number of candidates to have a chance of reducing incapacitation events. The FAA knows this and that's the reason pilots are required to self-ground when things change. Moreover, experience with sport pilots have shown no significant increase in pilot incapacitation and this evidence can readily be made available to physicians.

And FYI - I spent much of my career immersed in the legal-medical world doing risk management and related consulting. I don't see much in the way of liability here. A plaintiff in a medical malpractice case has to prove four elements: duty, breach of duty (negligence), damages (injury/harm), and causation (you must causally link the breach to the harm/injury). The process is long, expensive and - believe it or not - tends to favor the defense. And state laws have been making it harder to bring frivolous cases - evidenced by generally decreasing malpractice insurance rates over the past 20 years or so.

If a physician simply says that a person's condition is "x" at the time of an exam, and there is support for that statement in the medical record, it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove that this was done negligently along with the other required elements. Physicians worry about missing diagnoses or making the wrong therapeutic decisions - because this is where the vast majority of lawsuits come from. They don't worry so much about signing a form related to a patient's condition, especially when there is objective data to support their position.
 
Success

DanH said:
I've long held that the flight physical system was killing pilots, because as a group we tended to avoid visiting a physician when we felt bad, or even for routine checkups.

If we can all go see a primary care physician or specialist without worrying about how it might look on a future Class 3, I'll call it a success.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan. I agree.
I think it's a good thing too.
 
Are we missing an option here?

Can we visit an AME but have him sign us off acting as a regular physician?

Same effect, discussion on our minor (or major) ailments, but no paperwork sent in to the FAA.
 
Immediate question ....

Setting aside for a second the discussion of government, rules, and laws; I have a more immediate question. My biannual AME exam comes up this September. Do I have to schedule with an AME per usual because the rules have not been written to implement the law Obama just signed? Or can I ignore it in keeping with the new law, since I have passed AME exams every two years since 2005?
(Can't wait to hear the varying opinions. 😊)
 
Rupester said:
Setting aside for a second the discussion of government, rules, and laws; I have a more immediate question. My biannual AME exam comes up this September. Do I have to schedule with an AME per usual because the rules have not been written to implement the law Obama just signed? Or can I ignore it in keeping with the new law, since I have passed AME exams every two years since 2005?
(Can't wait to hear the varying opinions. 😊)
Click to expand...

I'm in the same plane (boat). My 3rd class is due at the end of this month.
 
Rupester said:
Setting aside for a second the discussion of government, rules, and laws; I have a more immediate question. My biannual AME exam comes up this September. Do I have to schedule with an AME per usual because the rules have not been written to implement the law Obama just signed? Or can I ignore it in keeping with the new law, since I have passed AME exams every two years since 2005?
(Can't wait to hear the varying opinions. ��)
Click to expand...

My understanding is the current rules remain in effect until the FAA publishes the new regs or the 1-year rulemaking time limit has passed. So that means to stay "legal" you either have to bite the bullet and go see your AME and get one last FAA Physical or ground yourself or fly Sport Pilot until the regs are published.

FWIW I'm in the same boat and just scheduled my hopefully last 3rd Class physical next month.
 
az_gila said:
Are we missing an option here?

Can we visit an AME but have him sign us off acting as a regular physician?

Same effect, discussion on our minor (or major) ailments, but no paperwork sent in to the FAA.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, yes. Unless your AME declines for some reason
 
Rupester said:
Setting aside for a second the discussion of government, rules, and laws; I have a more immediate question. My biannual AME exam comes up this September. Do I have to schedule with an AME per usual because the rules have not been written to implement the law Obama just signed? Or can I ignore it in keeping with the new law, since I have passed AME exams every two years since 2005?
(Can't wait to hear the varying opinions. 😊)
Click to expand...

The rules have not changed (and will take a while) so you must comply with the existing rule which is, have a Class III Medical in order to exercise Private Pilot privileges. By law, this is what needs to happen for the rules to change:

1. Agency publishes a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) with the "draft" rules in the Federal Register requesting public comment.

2. The comment period is open and they receive comments from supports, opponents, and nut jobs alike. The more comments they receive the longer the rule making process can take.

3. They submit a draft final rule making to the DOT. They have to address the comments received to the NPRM and the draft final rule can look different than the NPRM.

4. There may be some back and forth within the DOT and there may be revisions.

5. Once DOT is happy it goes to the GAO to audit the budget impact of the new rules.

6. Final rule is published in the Federal Register with the text for whatever the revisions will be to the FARs. They state when they will become effective. It's usually 60-180 days from final publication.

The new law says the FAA has 180 days to publish the rules (the NPRM) and one year to push it all through the process to finalization. So you have to maintain a Class III medical in order to exercise Private Pilot privileges until the new rules come into effect OR July 16, 2017 whichever happens first.

:cool:
 
GalinHdz said:
The rules have not changed (and will take a while) so you must comply with the existing rule which is, have a Class III Medical in order to exercise Private Pilot privileges. By law, this is what needs to happen for the rules to change:

1. Agency publishes a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) with the "draft" rules in the Federal Register requesting public comment.

2. The comment period is open and they receive comments from supports, opponents, and nut jobs alike. The more comments they receive the longer the rule making process can take.

3. They submit a draft final rule making to the DOT. They have to address the comments received to the NPRM and the draft final rule can look different than the NPRM.

4. There may be some back and forth within the DOT and there may be revisions.

5. Once DOT is happy it goes to the GAO to audit the budget impact of the new rules.

6. Final rule is published in the Federal Register with the text for whatever the revisions will be to the FARs. They state when they will become effective. It's usually 60-180 days from final publication.

The new law says the FAA has 180 days to publish the rules (the NPRM) and one year to push it all through the process to finalization. So you have to maintain a Class III medical in order to exercise Private Pilot privileges until the new rules come into effect OR July 16, 2017 whichever happens first.

:cool:
Click to expand...

I would add that there is a provision in the law that protects pilots from action by the FAA if they adhere to the rules established by the law, and the FAA has failed to complete the rulemaking process. So if your medical expires next July 17th, and the FAA has not implemented the rules, you can follow the guidance of the legislation and be "legal". This is my understanding anyway...
 
mturnerb said:
I would add that there is a provision in the law that protects pilots from action by the FAA if they adhere to the rules established by the law, and the FAA has failed to complete the rulemaking process. So if your medical expires next July 17th, and the FAA has not implemented the rules, you can follow the guidance of the legislation and be "legal". This is my understanding anyway...
Click to expand...

Yes but as you noted, that only applies AFTER July 16, 2017 and ONLY if the FAA hasn't come up with new rules by then. Nothing has changed yet. So the current Class III Medical rules are still in effect and you must comply with them. I guarantee the FAA can and will enforce the old rules until then.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
mturnerb said:
If a physician simply says that a person's condition is "x" at the time of an exam, and there is support for that statement in the medical record, it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove that this was done negligently along with the other required elements. Physicians worry about missing diagnoses or making the wrong therapeutic decisions - because this is where the vast majority of lawsuits come from. They don't worry so much about signing a form related to a patient's condition, especially when there is objective data to support their position.
Click to expand...

I agree with you here, but most primary care physicians aren't directly clearing patients for activities that run a high risk of death or great bodily injury to third persons. In California, it is the DMV which makes the ultimate decision on whether to allow someone to drive. While a physician may recommend the revocation of the driving privilege for health reasons, the physician does not usually directly 'clear' someone to drive.

However, an AME IS directly clearing someone to fly. This decision has direct liability attached to it (classic tort law). Here is a recent FAA quote on the subject:

"AMEs are not considered agents or employees of the Federal Government and are not entitled to Federal legal representation or compensation should they be sued by a disgruntled applicant or by the survivors of an applicant who is killed or injured in an aircraft accident. For these reasons, AMEs are cautioned to take great care in the conduct of examinations and the application of the medical standards."

We all know that when a plane goes down, EVERYONE gets sued: pilot, manufacturer, mechanic, and anyone associated with it. As I'm sure you are aware it is legal malpractice to fail to name a defendant in a case; it is far safer for an attorney to simply "sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out."

My wife has been very fortunate in her 25-year career; while she has been tangentially named in a few suits, she has always been eventually dropped from the case. But, don't think this has no affect on her practice of medicine. One of the recent suits involved a former patient who got loaded on alcohol and pain killers (not prescribed by my wife) and ran someone over with a forklift. Once something like this happens, doctors can start thinking like 'mandated reporters' and start reporting minor things because they just 'might' result in injury to a third person. she, like many of her colleagues are often forced to practice 'defensive medicine.' If it came down to a choice between her medical license and reporting a 'borderline' pilot to the FAA, I know which option she'd choose.

As you are no doubt aware, the DEA has recently been coming down hard on doctors due to the over-prescription of narcotic pain killers. My wife's HMO (a national one) is establishing strict new guidelines with regard to any prescription involving these medications. This also tends to promote 'defensive' medicine.

Don't get me wrong, I think the new reforms are a positive step. I only raise the concern that one of the unintended consequences could be the alteration of the current doctor-patient relationship between pilots and their primary care physician. Depending on how pilots and doctors adjust to the changes, there is the risk that the reforms merely shift the 'line of defense' from AME's to primary care doctors.
 
Chris, glad you are taking part in this discussion. A couple pages back I asked a question specifically directed at someone in the legal profession, and it has yet to be answered-------so will ask again.

The FAA makes rules.

Congress makes laws.

In this case, the law is specific in a number of areas that would normally be just guidelines-------here we have a law stating this applies to aircraft under 6000 lbs, where often the statement would be "light aircraft" or some such. Ditto for other provisions of the new law.

In this case there is no need for the FAA to "define" a light aircraft, the definition is set in stone.

What purpose does it serve for the FAA to create rules or interpretations when the law is specific.

Doesnt a law overpower a rule??? I know there is a previous law stating that agencies need to craft rules, but as I understand things, the standard convention is that a new law overrules an older law where there is a conflict.
 
Last edited:
Pool Shark said:
I agree with you here, but most primary care physicians aren't directly clearing patients for activities that run a high risk of death or great bodily injury to third persons. In California, it is the DMV which makes the ultimate decision on whether to allow someone to drive. While a physician may recommend the revocation of the driving privilege for health reasons, the physician does not usually directly 'clear' someone to drive.

However, an AME IS directly clearing someone to fly. This decision has direct liability attached to it (classic tort law). Here is a recent FAA quote on the subject:

"AMEs are not considered agents or employees of the Federal Government and are not entitled to Federal legal representation or compensation should they be sued by a disgruntled applicant or by the survivors of an applicant who is killed or injured in an aircraft accident. For these reasons, AMEs are cautioned to take great care in the conduct of examinations and the application of the medical standards."

We all know that when a plane goes down, EVERYONE gets sued: pilot, manufacturer, mechanic, and anyone associated with it. As I'm sure you are aware it is legal malpractice to fail to name a defendant in a case; it is far safer for an attorney to simply "sue 'em all and let the judge sort it out."

My wife has been very fortunate in her 25-year career; while she has been tangentially named in a few suits, she has always been eventually dropped from the case. But, don't think this has no affect on her practice of medicine. One of the recent suits involved a former patient who got loaded on alcohol and pain killers (not prescribed by my wife) and ran someone over with a forklift. Once something like this happens, doctors can start thinking like 'mandated reporters' and start reporting minor things because they just 'might' result in injury to a third person. she, like many of her colleagues are often forced to practice 'defensive medicine.' If it came down to a choice between her medical license and reporting a 'borderline' pilot to the FAA, I know which option she'd choose.

I would also disagree that the physician is "clearing a pilot to fly". What the physician is doing is making a statement that applies at the time of the evaluation certifying no known condition that would affect a pilot's ability to fly. The pilot is still responsible under FAR's for self-certification. How many cases have you seen where an AME has been sued for signing off on a physical where the pilot subsequently died or became incapacitated in flight? If this was an issue, it would seem likely to me that the herd of AME's would be substantially thinned AND their malpractice rates would skyrocket. I just don't have any evidence that this has occurred, nor do I see any real difference between that signature on my medical and the one I'll have in my logbook in the future...

As you are no doubt aware, the DEA has recently been coming down hard on doctors due to the over-prescription of narcotic pain killers. My wife's HMO (a national one) is establishing strict new guidelines with regard to any prescription involving these medications. This also tends to promote 'defensive' medicine.

Don't get me wrong, I think the new reforms are a positive step. I only raise the concern that one of the unintended consequences could be the alteration of the current doctor-patient relationship between pilots and their primary care physician. Depending on how pilots and doctors adjust to the changes, there is the risk that the reforms merely shift the 'line of defense' from AME's to primary care doctors.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a great topic for debate but I would respectfully disagree that signing off on employment/DOT/return to work forms - in terms of risk to third parties - is substantively different from the new FAA forms. Yet physicians sign these forms every day. The FAA's liability blurb is simply some lawyer's (no offense intended) way of protecting the government's interest. What I have not seen is any significant number or even a single lawsuit where a physician was successfully sued for documenting history and physical findings and making an assessment based on those PLUS history from a patient and other care providers - unless that physician negligently missed significant findings like a mass, heart murmur, etc - and even in those cases the findings almost always related to a presenting complaint, not a routine exam.

Nor do I see how the new method is substantively different from the current AME process - especially since the FAA has transferred the liability as you have documented. As with the current process, Congress has established the areas of the exam and conditions that will require an SI, so there's even less difference than you might imagine. Yet I'm not aware of a plague of lawsuits against AME's when pilots with traditional medicals have died or become incapacitated in flight.

Prescribing narcotics without (I'm guessing) notifying the patient in writing not to operate motor vehicles / machinery or perhaps recommending a work absence while taking the medication is very different from documenting history and physical findings and current capacity, in terms of how it relates to proving an act of negligence and related harm, etc. I'm not sure I see the relationship to doing physicals for pilots.
 
Last edited:
Bugsy said:
I wonder how this might effect flights to carribean and Canada
Click to expand...

Will likely depend on whether the country in question accepts a pilot license without an accompanying specific medical certificate. Currently I believe that Canada does not allow US sport pilots to fly in their airspace. Whether this is based on lack of a medical certificate or perceived lack of capability I don't know. I suspect that this will be clarified fairly soon after the new law/rules take effect in the US.

Greg
 
Mike S said:
In this case there is no need for the FAA to "define" a light aircraft, the definition is set in stone.

What purpose does it serve for the FAA to create rules or interpretations when the law is specific.

Doesnt a law overpower a rule??? I know there is a previous law stating that agencies need to craft rules, but as I understand things, the standard convention is that a new law overrules an older law where there is a conflict.
Click to expand...

Mike,

Yes, any regulations promulgated would have to be consistent with the new law itself; no regulation could directly contravene the black letter law. Any existing regulation which contravenes the new law will have to be amended/repealed.
While there are some things about the new law that will be open to interpretation, I don't see how the FAA could re-define "Light Aircraft" given that the law is clear on the 6000 pound - 250 knot definition.

However, the FAA will have to establish regulations regarding how the biannual "training" course will be administered and what it will cover; how the physician checklist will be disseminated and what its contents will be; how communications between primary care physicians and the FAA will be handled (when needed) and what the forms will look like, etc...

Frankly, from what I've seen of AOPA's writings on this law (though I haven't read the text itself) it looks like there isn't a whole lot of 'wiggle' room for the FAA to change the basics:

1) Have a valid Class 3 certificate before July 15, 2017
2) Fill-out a checklist and get a 'checkup' with your primary care doctor every 4 years.
3) Complete an online training course every two years
4) Go fly. (Any aircraft under 6000#, 5 passengers, 250 knots & not for hire.)

As I've mentioned in prior posts, the only item which is likely to raise issues in the future is #2
 
Last edited:
Greg Arehart said:
Will likely depend on whether the country in question accepts a pilot license without an accompanying specific medical certificate. Currently I believe that Canada does not allow US sport pilots to fly in their airspace. Whether this is based on lack of a medical certificate or perceived lack of capability I don't know. I suspect that this will be clarified fairly soon after the new law/rules take effect in the US.

Greg
Click to expand...

Interesting, the sport pilot (and glider pilot) has no actual certificate, but a private pilot under the new rules will have a log book entry (and checklist?) in his logbook.

Perhaps that will count for the countries that want to see an actual document?
 
Pool Shark said:
Mike,

Yes, any regulations promulgated would have to be consistent with the new law itself; no regulation could directly contravene the black letter law. Any existing regulation which contravenes the new law will have to be amended/repealed.
Click to expand...

Chris, thanks for confirming what I was attempting to convey. The specifics listed in the new law are fixed, and the FAA cant mess with them.

What I cant get my head around, is why not immediate implementation of the items that are cast in stone----i. e. specifically called out in the law, and all the rest be covered in the 180--360 day time frame, as that is the only items that they can address anyway.

Or, does doing it that way just make too much sense???

By the way, my use of defining "light aircraft" was only an example of how the wording of the bill actually prevented the FAA from changing things.

Appreciate your input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top