Now that the elation of finally getting third class medical reform approved has abated a bit, new concerns have been raised by pilots who worry their doctors won’t sign off on an FAA form that says they are fit to fly.
“Most doctors won’t want the liability,” more than one person has commented at GeneralAviationNews.com.
It’s also something that GA advocates are hearing, according to Jack Pelton, chairman and CEO of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).
“That is the number one issue that I’m getting feedback on,” he said during a recent interview. “I was in South Carolina at the Triple Tree Fly-In and then I was in Knoxville, Tennessee, for a chapter anniversary and I had town hall meetings in both places, and that was the number one item that came up at both of those.”
Pilots are not only concerned about whether a doctor will sign off saying they are fit to fly, but they are also concerned that things will change between now and when the FAA releases the final rules.
Pelton can put that second concern to rest right now. The medical reform that was passed this summer by Congress is law and the FAA can’t change it, he said.
“If the FAA does nothing, it gets implemented by default,” he noted.
Called the most significant legislative victory for general aviation in decades, the medical reform was included in a bill that temporarily extends the FAA authorization. The FAA has up to a year from the date the president signed the legislation — July 15, 2016 — to enact the new regulations. If it fails to meet that deadline, the legislation automatically goes into effect.
Under the reforms, pilots who have held a valid medical certificate any time in the decade prior to July 15, 2016, may not need to take another FAA medical exam. The 10-year period applies to both regular and special issuance medicals.
Pilots whose most recent medical certificate was revoked, suspended, withdrawn, or denied will need to obtain a new medical certificate before they can operate under the reforms.
After meeting the initial requirements to fly under the reforms, pilots will need to visit a state-licensed physician — not an Aviation Medical Examiner — at least once every four years and provide an FAA-developed checklist of issues to be discussed during the visit.
Both you and your physician will need to sign the checklist saying that you discussed the items on it. You will then need to make a note of the visit and include the checklist in your logbook.
You do not need to report the outcome of the visit or file any paperwork with the FAA unless you are specifically requested to do so.
You also must take a free online course on aeromedical factors every two years, which will be offered through the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s Air Safety Institute.
Pilots who have never held an FAA medical certificate will need to go through the medical certification process once. Even pilots who have a medical condition that requires a special issuance medical certificate will only have to go through the process once in most cases.
Pilots flying under the new rules will be allowed to operate aircraft that weigh up to 6,000 pounds, carry up to five passengers, plus the pilot in command, fly at altitudes below 18,000 feet, and at speeds of up to 250 knots. Pilots, if appropriately rated, can fly VFR or IFR in qualified aircraft.
The new rules include twin-engine aircraft, as long as the plane meets the definition of a covered aircraft.
Want to fly a plane that carries more than five passengers or weighs more than 6,000 pounds?
You’ll need to keep going through the third class medical process. That means visiting an AME for your medical exam and renewing your medical certificate as needed.
What’s next
As the FAA works to enact the new reforms, EAA and other GA advocates say they will work closely with the agency, especially in the creation of the document that doctors will be asked to sign off on.
“While that’s a very legitimate concern, I think it’s no different than the process we go through today with our AMEs as to how various AMEs interpret whether you meet the criteria to get a medical,” Pelton said. “We’re going to have some doctors that this won’t be an issue and they’ll take your $65 or whatever the number is and you’ll be on your way no matter what, and other ones are going to say, ‘Sorry, I’m just not comfortable with making that kind of determination,’ and unfortunately we’re going to be faced with that going forward. I think that’s the nature of the profession.”
“That being said, I think the real proof will be in what does the document look like and what are the intended or unintended liabilities associated with that,” he continued. “How will a medical professional view what are they signing off on? And it’s something we are going to have to work with the FAA and the medical community, to get that done appropriately.
He points out the aviation medical exam is not much different than the regular physical many of us undergo every year. When physicians conduct a routine physical and include that information in your records, they are not implying that when you leave the office, you will be fine.
“You hear about people who get a physical and they are out exercising the next day and drop dead and there’s no liability for a doctor in doing that,” Pelton noted.
Another concern raised by many pilots at the recent Town Halls is that there are quite a number of AMEs retiring. That makes it difficult for pilots who still need a first or second class medical exam.
For those who choose to fly without a medical, the new reforms will “open up a lot more physicians” who will be able to give the required exam, Pelton noted.
I have the same problem here in the Los Angles area… Neither my Primary Care physician nor any of the others that I have contacted are willing to sign off on it… I may have to go to an occupational medicine office (at much greater cost).
We need serious tort reform to eliminate the predations of injury lawyers. Absurd lawsuits actually killed single engine aircraft manufacturing in the USA for many years, and although some relief was later given by congress, it never really recovered. If not general tort reform, at least medical tort reform is needed to eliminate liability for AMEs and doctors signing these examinations. Hopefully the new administration will address tort reform, finally.
I agree with Ken Jones – if the FAA does not implement this law by January 11, 2017 (180 days after July 15, 2016 when the bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama), they are in violation of the law. The FAA should not be allowed to prosecute pilots who comply with the intent of the law between January and July 2017 if the FAA has failed to implement the law within the time frame provided in the law.
I know that the FAA is not required to inform the public about their progress on the rule making process but I think that it would help some of us trust the FAA a bit more if the process was more transparent. Each day that goes by without ANY information being published about the NPRM erodes our confidence in the integrity of the FAA a little more.
Stephen, It appears, based on the wording of the law, that no one in the Congress ever expected the FAA to follow the law. Aren’t government agencies required to follow the law? This is just one more reason I voted for our, now, President-elect. We need accountability in D.C.
Perhaps AOPA’s Pilot Protection Services plan coverage would afford legal counsel for any FAR (that, in itself, is in violation of the law and therefore illegal) violation, provided PPS coverage was in force prior to the alleged violation occurring.
Ken, I am not an attorney nor do I have access to the actual law so i can’t comment on its wording and I certainly can’t speculate about whether or not anyone in Congress thought the FAA would follow the law. However, my personal opinion is that government agencies are required to follow the law just as all private citizens are required to follow the law. The problem with this law is that it does not contain any consequences for the FAA;s failure to enact the necessary revisions to the FAR’s within 180 days. If you knew that there were no adverse consequences for failing to do something you didn’t want to do in the first place, would you be in a hurry to do it just because the law says that you should?
I won’t comment on your choice for casting your vote in this presidential election but I agree that we need accountability in D.C. Personally, I will vote for anyone who supports less government intrusion in the affairs of private citizens.
Perhaps I’ve missed it, but come July and everything is a “go”, will we have to visit a physician immediately or can we wait until 2021 (4 years)?
All I’ve seen is that we will need to visit our physician every 4 years—–but WHEN does that 4 year requirement start?
RE: “The FAA has up to a year from the date the president signed the legislation — July 15, 2016 — to enact the new regulations. If it fails to meet that deadline, the legislation automatically goes into effect.”
Over and over I read that the FAA has 1 year to implement this law but, If I read the law correctly, the FAA only has 180 days to implement the law, NOT a year (See Sec. 2. (a) “Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise regulations………”). If they don’t, they are in violation of the law.
Then, if the FAA are still in violation of the law one year after the law was signed by the President, the FAA cannot prosecute a pilot who has made a good faith effort to comply with the the law.
It seems that it the FAA doesn’t change the regulations as required by the law within 180 days, then nothing will happen to the FAA, but if a pilot flies without a medical between January 2017 and July 2017 that pilot may be prosecuted. What am I missing, or why is it more important for a pilot to comply with outdated regulations that do not comply with law than for the FAA to comply with the law?
Inhofe, Pelton, AOPA are LYING in claiming they “had” to offer that “within ten years FAA medical ” and four year “checklist doc visit” to get reform. They only “had to” because they insisted on letting their fatcat right wing 1%er buddies keep their six seat 250mph IFR privileges. FAA was OK with the original truly “no medical for private ops” with a four seat, 160 hp, VFR limit that was all 90% of GA begged for. Sold out by EAA and AOPA again, suckers.
And you know this how, Steve?
And as if there aren’t any left-wing, fatcat, 1%ers.
Sure, youre right, there MUST be luxo-lefties…but when veteran Republican White House inside manipulator and later AOPA Prez Craig Fuller was the first to mislead us on this bill ( after going coast to coast lying that President Obama’s proposed budget required charging Piper Cub owners $200 per pie hop which I personally heard him claim in two different convention speeches) and when mid80s-aged uberconservative Senator “global warming is a hoax and I’ll NEVER hire a GDgay staffer” Inhofe says he “doesn’t want to take another medical OR give up” his 400hp Harmon Rocket Ii or the Cessna twin he lands on yellow X runways, well…my bad. Where/why do YOU think the change happened?
You DO know we GA “commoners” thought we were backing a simple SP-style no-medical extension for low slow day VFR use of our Cherokees, 150s, and 172s when this current millionaire’s IFR overreach suddenly appeared, right? And that AOPA/EAA execs refuse to go back to that for a TRUE no medical privilege?
1+
Currently, CFIs need a 3rd Class medical to instruct students who are not PIC (think primary). Will instructors still need the 3rd class medical under the new rules?
Aviation, the small community that it is will weed out those physicians who will not perform such a “sign-off”. Rather like it is currently with AME’s, the reasonable ones will be known as such and will be visited by many pilots. The un-initiated or new pilot/student will provide those “other” AME’s a small portion of examination business. SO, those general physicians who will sign off on a healthy individual will become known locally and will get the lions share of the business.
I have had an AME try to step outside his examination area and have heard the same from others. I visit an AME for one reason. I visit my general physician and/or specialist for everything else. It will be a welcome change not to have to visit an AME every two years……….
How will medical reform effect CFIs?
“after meeting the initial requirements to fly under the reforms, pilots will need to visit a state-licensed physician — not an Aviation Medical Examiner — at least once every four years and provide an FAA-developed checklist of issues to be discussed during the visit.
Both you and your physician will need to sign the checklist saying that you discussed the items on it. You will then need to make a note of the visit and include the checklist in your logbook.”
I don’t see anywhere that the MD is making a “fit to fly” determination. Only a signature that the items on the checklist were discussed. It’s just like a BFR- you can’t “fail” a BFR; the Flight Instructor is simply signing your logbook that he provided the necessary training to qualify as a flight review. The same as with an aircraft annual inspection- there’s no pass/fail- just that the A&P performed the annual inspection.
There’s no requirement that the Flight Instructor records that the student scared the crap out of him. (But if he did, he would be wise to call the FSDO and suggest a 709 re-examination).
There’s no requirement that the mechanic log that the aircraft is unairworthy, only that the inspection was performed. (If the A/C is unairworthy, he provides a list of discrepancies and the owner can go elsewhere on the airport to remedy them). Again, if the mechanic sees the pilot fly a known unairworthy aircraft, call the FSDO. Enforcement is their job, not yours.
Concerning your comment on the Steven, when conducting the BFR flight in accordance with Part 61.56(a)(2), the pilot needs to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate. If a pilot does not demonstrate handling the aircraft safely, I would not sign off the BFR for the pilot. I would suggest further training to allow signing off the BFR.
So a BFR is a little more than flying around for an hour with an instructor.
If the final form that the FAA ‘checklist’ takes does — indeed — only require “discussing” issues that the doctor feels the pilot / client ought to be watching, third class medical relief will have achieved MOST of it’s purpose. Unfortunately for those who are somehow on the edge medically and have not passed a third class AME exam in the past 10 years, they’re still out of luck. But, as I understand it directly from Sen Inhofe, this capitulation HAD to be done in order to pass the legislation.
IF — on the other hand — the FAA merely smears lipstick on a pig to disguise continuation of the onerous (and ridiculous) third class medical requirement, then it’ll be time for AOPA and EAA and the pilot population to take the FAA to Court. We all know that there are MANY folks out there safely driving huge Class A motorhomes pulling trailers on just a regular driver’s license. And — likely — we know people flying illegally without medicals. In either case, airplanes aren’t falling out of the sky.
The bottom line is that recreational flying and its safety record don’t support the requirement for such draconian and onerous and continuous medical exams. A pilot will wither be safe … or not … regardless of whether he/she possesses a medical. Hopefully, now more pilots will stay in the fold longer and maybe a few will come back. Time will tell.
I’d like to add that all of the pilot population needs to be extra vigilant now … let’s NOT give the FAA any reason to modify or seek going back to the “old ways.” If you shouldn’t be flying … don’t. Do it tomorrow or whenever. Also, fly with a pilot friend if you don’t feel 100%. I talked with an FAA AME at SnF last year who said the FAA is just fine with such an “MO.” Two pilots in the cockpit provide for reliability and safety.
Everything stated up to this point is true. However, there is one more very important thing to consider. Personal injury lawyers.
Not all, certainly, but there are enough of them looking for a “payday” to make life miserable for anyone with deep pockets, and/or heavy insurance, that could be held even remotely possible. And doctors are a prime target.
You can be sure that the medical profession, and their malpractice insurance underwriters, are watching this closely. You can also be sure that the insurance companies will strongly suggest that the doctors NOT take part if there is any chance of liability.
This “capitulation had to be done to pass” HIS (Inhofe’s) IFR twin engine high performance “Rocket” perversion of the legislation… ***NOT*** the day VFR four seat puddle jumper version tens of thousands of now screwed commoner GA pilots were begging for and FAA and most legislators were OK with.