As pilots at AirVenture 2016 and throughout the nation celebrated the July 15th signing of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 and the Third Class Medical reforms it included, the bill’s sponsor, Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahom) warned “it’s not over.”
During an interview at his North 40 camp site at Oshkosh, Inhofe expressed concern regarding the FAA’s rule making latitude going forward.
“Our job is not over yet because the FAA has up to a year from the date of signing to interpret the law and write new regulations,” he said. “The clock is ticking.”
Inhofe added that the bill’s co-sponsors and the pilot community must remain vigilant and involved to ensure that the spirit and intent of the new law is reflected in the FAA’s revised rules for private pilots.
“Letter writing campaigns by (members of) the EAA and the AOPA were very effective in getting the bill passed,” added Inhofe. “Those letters were a great source of leverage for us and we could not have done it without strong support from the pilot community.”
Inhofe said he had many one-on-one meetings with his Senate colleagues to solicit their support.
“We had more support from lawmakers on Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 than on the first bill,” he said, referring to Pilot’s Bill of Rights 1, which took two years to get passed.
Inhofe cited critical “across the aisle” support for the first bill from Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
In addition to third class medical reform, the newly-passed bill also includes a wide range of new protections for pilots, including improved due process if an FAA enforcement action is initiated.
Inhofe, 81, is an avid pilot and aircraft owner with over 12,000 hours logged. He’s been attending the Oshkosh fly-in for 36 years and has flown in and camped for 32 consecutive years. Inhofe has owned the same Grumman Tiger for 36 years and he once bought 54 brand new Tigers from the Grumman factory in Savannah when it was closing out production of that line. However, an RV-6 is his favorite airplane.
Inhofe introduced the first Pilot’s Bill of Rights Bill in July 2011 after he experienced first-hand the deficiencies of the FAA’s relationship with the general aviation community due to the treatment he received from the FAA when he was cited for landing a Cessna 340 twin on a runway in Texas that turned out to be closed, but not by an official NOTAM.
“It took me four months to get a recording of the clearance to land I received from the controller,” said Inhofe. “For those four months, I thought some unelected bureaucrat could take away my ability to fly an airplane … and it could happen to any one of you.”
On a personal note, Inhofe is looking forward to third class medical reform because he had a quadruple heart bypass three years ago and once again experienced what he describes as the overly-bureaucratic FAA processes that discourage many pilots from renewing their medical certificates.
When the new regulations kick in come July 2017, Inhofe will no longer be required to see an FAA doctor each year to maintain his third class medical. Instead, along with thousands of other private pilots across the country, he will only be required to take an online aeromedical course every two years and to see his personal doctor at least once every four years.
Will there be a Pilot’s Bill of Rights 3? Inhofe said it remains to be seen, but that he will carefully monitor the FAA’s rulemaking process over the next year, adding he is willing to introduce a third bill if needed.
I got lucky – I think I’ve dodged the bullet(s) on this one. My ten-year window runs out in February of 2018, by which time this will be done. I’m healthy (knock on pressboard) and have never had a problem with the third class medical (or much of any other medical problem).
What made me exceedingly nervous is that if I failed a medical because I “might” have a marginal, intermittent, flutteration of the lower left semi-auricle supra-frammistan, not only could I never fly again (remember I would have FAILED a medical, and I couldn’t drop back to LSA), but I’d wind up selling the house and hangar I built on an airstrip – why live at a fly-in if you can’t fly? And I’d have to get rid of my (allegedly) over-restored airplane because it isn’t worth a lot as a lawn ornament. And I hate golf.
Personally, I give thanks every day that we aren’t getting all the government we are paying for.
I do appreciate the efforts of the Sen. and others.
I think it’s a bit humorous to see senators and congress-persons (sorry) butting heads with career agents.
Bugs crawl. Birds fly. .gov agencies grow ever more powerful. I just don’t fly anymore, it is a bit sad at times, but that’s just how it is. I’ll reckon I’ll see what happens next year.
I had some hidden ” plumbing ” defects that got worse in old age and caused a backup that led to many kidney stones.
Over a 2 year period I received four ” MASSIVE DOSE OF FULL BODY X_RAYS” that are given the cutsie name of “CAT Scan”. Finally the problem was found and 3 operations later all problems are solved. I have been stone free for 1 1/2 years. Will the doctor say in writing that I am stone free? No! He says he can’t risk lawsuits. Ultra-sound is not good enough for the malpractice threat. He has to prove he used the best technology available , yet another ” MASSIVE DOSE OF FULL BODY X_RAYS”, to prove I am stone free. But then I will probably bedenied because it will probably pick up some hidden cancer that is now growing, caused all of the radiation I received. I am not “Dying” to fly. I will not risk another ” MASSIVE DOSE OF FULL BODY X_RAYS” just to get my ticket back. Since I was denied at my last medical when the problems were found, I now have to go through a full medical with a dangerous process to prove I have nothing. The doctors report of cause and cure is not acceptable by the FAA or even the doctors malpractice insurance . Basically another ” MASSIVE DOSE OF FULL BODY X_RAYS” or I don’t fly.
Let’s give this a chance. At worst we aren’t any worse off and at best it’s way better. As one caught up n the special issuance nightmare it could save me a bunch of money in unneeded tests to satisfy a clerk in OKC.
Everyone is making a big deal out of the “New medical reform” it’s a joke you still need a medical one way or an other. What is the difference flying a sport pilot machine with a drivers license or a 172.
I’d love to get back into the left seat after a lengthy hiatus (more than 10 years), but as I understand it, this ‘reform’ does nothing for me. Still gotta go try to get a 3rd class medical at considerable expense and expose myself to being unable to fly LSA if I fail. Having talked with EAA folks who were part of the negotiations with the Feds, I can understand the need for accommodation to get a bill passed, but I think this bill gave away the original core need, that of extending LSA medical standards to the C-172/Cherokee drivers. So we got an elaborate piece of legislation that ignored the original need, but golly gee, the EAA and AOPA folks got to grin into a lot of cameras and puff on in great self-praise.
Thank you Peter, you said it.
And add my sentiments to that. If it was not for the 10 year limit I would have a chance and I have a feeling that there are plenty of others like me out there. The LSA rules as written make some fairly extreme design decision necessary, not allowing flaps for the landing speed determination really blows the wing area beyond reason. I have a pen-pal in Australia and his government (along with many other countries) is perfectly OK with the flaps. I did some calculations for a perfectly good current EAB design to see how much wing area would have to be added to honestly meet the rules and that blew it up from 75sqft to 125 sqft and that matches most LSA designs out there. Just think how much more difficult it is to land with all that wing area out there and it will ride even worse in turbulence given the light wing loading. There were all sorts of modifications to LSA they could have pursued and slowly gotten us where we wanted to be by an evolutionary process, what we got was the revolutionary change and that is where the friction came about. How about some common sense initiatives to make LSA more practical, allow flaps for landing speed calculation and small increases to the GW to get the C-150 and similar types into compliance. Small stuff can fly under the radar, big stuff gets attention that we do not want…
The AOPA and EAA sold us a bill of goods, you still need a medical even if it’s on line and then injecting your personal doctor into the mix is not a good idea.
There are no medical, physical or mental differences from operating a C 150, 172 or a host of light GA airplanes then a LSA. Someone even said LSA’s are difficult to land well that’s what your local CFI is for.
John, I could not agree more that we were betrayed in the end by the groups that are supposed to be our advocates. While AOPA might be excused for favoring the high end aircraft that the legislation included but EAA is supposed to be advocating for the lower end of the spectrum where the majority of the EAB aircraft come in. An reasonable expansion of LSA would seem to be a no brainer, we have years of favorable statistics to back up and that is of course the simple revisions that would allow the C-150 and C-172 type aircraft to operate under those rules.
If you read the remarks I made on the characteristics of LSA aircraft you will see the grounds for comments on LSA aircraft being difficult to land. They require considerable wing area to meet the no flaps landing speed requirement which makes them somewhat unique. Just about any other aircraft type out there will be using flaps for the landing configuration, they allow for a lowered speed while adding drag that bleeds speed off in the flare. In an LSA you already have a rather low landing speed with no flaps at all and without the extra drag you can find yourself in a nice long float especially in a low wing type. And considering that most still feature flaps the landing speed will get even lower but at least you get a little drag to help out. That is where they become more challenging in the landing and maybe some time with a CFI could help but is the CFI all that experienced with the fairly unique landing characteristics of the typical LSA? Having a CFI license does not make one all knowing. This is a valid consideration when looking at revisions to LSA to make it more flexible and I do have a degree in Aeronautical Engineering so I do have a through understanding of landing phase aerodynamics.
Sarah, You’re looking at flying an LSA aircraft from an aeronautical engineering view point.. All well and good, but aeronautical engineering has nothing to do with learning to fly an airplane, flight training does. I’ve been a flight instructor for 45 years and trained hundreds of pilots and know nothing about aeronautical engineering. I’ve also been driving a car for over 60 years and know absolutely nothing about automotive engineering. If you want to learn to land a 747 or a LSA you find a qualified instructor. All the engineering theory… good to know but has nothing to do with it. Anyway what all this has to do with medical reform is beyond me….. John
My sentiments exactly – thank you. I, too, understand the need for compromise, but it just irks me that this gutting of the original intent of the initiative, as we had been sold it for years, happened without any acknowledgement by AOPA/EAA – it’s still trumpeted as a success. I’m truly happy for those who can pass an exam and won’t have to deal with it again. And I’m grateful for the LSA possibility. The irony being, of course, that most LSA’s are far trickier to fly – especially land – than a Cherokee or 172. Perhaps they got the best deal possible; but a guy can still hope.
To All,
Whether you agree with the Third Class medical Reform or not. It gives more people more options about flying. You can moan, grown and complain it didn’t do this or that. But the bottom line is this : Senator Inhofe led charge as well as many others and got something good done for the flying public and pilots.
Remember, the FAA was NOT going to do a “Damn” thing about medical reform. First, there was no incentive for them and second, Why should they. They are in control of the regulations and regulators.
Senator Inhofe and All that helped make it happen are OK in my book. And to all the Nay-Sayers out there that this legislation is bad and doesn’t go all the way. I say, Sorry, you can’t please everyone. If you want more change, then start the working on that process.
Senator Inhofe did good.
Thank you,
Jeff Aryan
You can tell a lot about a man by looking into his eyes and listening to him talk about the fire in his belly. On Saturday of Airventure, I attended Sen Inhofe’s forum and thereafter waited to speak directly to him.
I wanted to tell him about the widow of a Southwest Airlines Captain who appeared at the FAA/Huerta forum on Thursday who got up and addressed the Administrator directly. Her husband had been suffering from depression but was very, very fearful that disclosing this would kill his realized dream of flying commercially. Ultimately, he committed suicide. His widow broke down asking Huerta for “relief and understanding” on the medical process. HIS response was an expected cold pile of words with absolutely NO compassion or empathy that did little more than cause global warming. When I told Sen Inhofe the story on Saturday … he got very serious fast and asked a couple of questions about what I had seen/heard.
As pilots, we are VERY fortunate to have such a man fighting for us. As a Country, we need more like him.
Thank you for your leadership on this, Senator. Obviously not everyone was covered under the new law, but compromises always have to be made. Safe travels….
Not the time to revisit his flying past, not germane to the article.
Sarah, all due respect but maybe all you wanted was a LSA type extension for a single passenger 172, but that certainly was not what the majority of us wanted.
What we got fills the need of most small GA pilots and the type flying we do. If we go by your wants I would need to have a complete 3rd class med if I flew with two kids instead of one in my 172? That makes no sense.
If implemented correctly the new LAW can ease the burden on all of us flying recreationally. BTW I talked to my family physician and he has no problem signing off on a form every four years. His reply was he signs off on back to work and qualifying medical forms all the time. If yours won’t maybe time to get a new Dr.
Without EAA, AOPA and Congress fighting for this where would we be? This isn’t just about medicals it may help you save your ticket too.
Thank everyone who worked for this.
The only problem I have with it, is that the PROBLEM is, no doctor is going to sign off on anyone being fit to fly. No medical practice is going to allow any doctor to do that. They will be sued out of existence and they know it. Is there a provision in the bill that protects the doctors and medical practice from the greedy lawyers? That is the PROBLEM.
Have you actually asked your doctor? They are signing that there is no reason you are not medically fit as of the time of your exam, not that you are going to be medically fit for the next 4 years. They aren’t working in the blind. They will be using an FAA provided checklist where you either meet or fail to meet the criteria, and that’s what they sign. No more liability than signing your kids physical to play sports. Most pilots that have actually discussed the new law with their doctors have found their doctors are willing.
Not yet, but I will be doing that and I hope you are right. Do you know it he does not sign it, does it mean that you can no longer fly LSA?
My doctor’s letter that goes with my special issuance for diabetes clearly states
“Mr Bob La Blah (not my real name) should be able to be a licensed pilot”
If your doctor won’t say that (and no where is he asked to).
Either maybe he thinks you aren’t fit to fly.
Or you ARE and you need another doctor.
I have only one area comment and warning: don’t ever get caught up in trying to get a special issuance third class medical certificate if you have been denied after successfully completing the FAA’s requested medical tests. I appealed their decision which said I could reapply after another series of medical tests – one of which was for what they termed severe kidney disease (which a kidney specialist provided evidence to the contrary). The FAA’s medical certification center sent me a letter again denying special issuance and completely ignoring the report of the kidney specialist. In addition they asked for compete information on a very brief period of atrial fibrillation(irregular heart beat rhythm)two years ago. This was never made an issue in previous requests for special issuance.
Maybe it all has some to do with my age – 85 – they think if they delay issuance long enough I’ll be dead and that will take care of my appeals.
All we wanted was an extension of LSA to include C-172 type aircraft with one passenger and instead we got this mess filled with add on requirements and restrictions. It turns our regular physician into a reluctant AME (if we are lucky) and was expanded from the simple aircraft in the fleet for day VFR to high performance singles and twins in Night IFR conditions. No wonder the detractors got away with adding all of those restrictions. And now we have to wait for the VERY RELUCTANT FAA to change the rules to match the Congressional mandate (and maybe sneak in additional restrictions ?). By the way what ever happened to the FAA’s promise of impending reform that was being vetted in higher levels of the Executive branch ?
Thanks for NOTHING AOPA, EAA and our wonderful Congress.
Well, Sarah, you see, the House of Representatives was never gonna allow that. Period.
So the people that spent their time and political capital advocating for you got the best deal they could.
You might consider being somewhat grateful for that.
Perhaps you’d like to go back to the way things were 20 years ago?
I’d like what you wanted too, but like my daddy used to say “Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one gets full first.”
Actually he didn’t say “spit”.
I must say, I am somewhat mystified. With all due respect to the senator, and with full recognition of the positive things he’s done for GA pilots and willingness to fight the good fight with FAA, the man is not blind. Regardless of the fact that the runway was not notamed out, and regardless of the fact that the tower cleared him to land on a runway that was obviously closed (big yellow X on each end, men and equipment on the runway), he saw all these things in plenty of time to go around …. whether you are on downwind or straight in … your eyes will tell you go around. He claims that he did not see these things in time to go around safely …. Honestly …. how do you fly the last mile to the runway without noticing? None of the big names are going to ask him this in a formal interview. Every body seems willing to turn their heads because he has done so much for GA … again, I thank him, but he had passengers in that airplane. They would not have appreciated his poor judgment had they known enough about what was going on ….. And neither would any of the families of those passengers. He put them at risk.
Gary I am not sure you got the name of this article. It is called “Medical reform: ‘it’s not over’ ” At no time was it called ‘bash a senator.’ I for one would like to know your credentials for your statements. I suppose you must be a judge? I think it would be a good idea if you started getting your records together for your upcoming IRS audit.
Might it not be simpler to just take the 3rd class physical?
NO.