Cutting and pasting an email. If you are reading this forum please visit the link


EAA and AOPA are trying to get federal law changed to eliminate the
requirement for a Class III Medical Certificates for pilots who fly
recreationally--- BRAVO! This would be a giant victory for sport
aviation over excessive government regulation. The public comment
period is now open, but will close July 2. We all need to register our
comments in support of this, and spread the word to friends.

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-06-12_exemption.asp



Act Now! Comment on Medical Exemption Request By July 2
Comments already submitted online to be included

June 12, 2012 - The FAA is allowing a short 20-day official public comment period for the EAA/AOPA third-class medical certification exemption request, beginning with the notice published in today's Federal Register.

The 20-day public comment period, which ends July 2, is shorter than the typical 30- or 60-day period established for comments. More than 1,800 public comments have already been submitted on the exemption request through the Regulations.gov website. Those comments will be included as part of the docket on the exemption request, which was unveiled in late March as a way to significantly reduce a substantial economic and regulatory burden for pilots who fly recreationally.

"The short comment period makes it more urgent that people submit their comments now. If you have not commented on our exemption request, do it as soon as possible, because this request opens an important discussion about creating more participation in aviation while maintaining a high safety standard," said Sean Elliott, EAA's vice president of advocacy and safety. "Make your voice heard now as part of our 'Drive for 3,000' comments on this important initiative."

Current FAA regulation 14 CFT Part 61 requires all pilots to hold at least a third-class medical certificate to exercise the privileges of a private or recreational certificate. EAA and AOPA are asking the FAA for an exemption to that rule, which would give pilots who fly recreationally the option of getting a third-class medical or, instead, participating in a recurrent online education program that will teach them how to self-assess their fitness to fly. If the request is granted, pilots flying recreationally would be required to carry the online education program course completion certificate during each flight.

The exemption would allow completers of the online program to medical self-certify for single-engine aircraft with 180 hp or less, four seats or fewer, fixed gear, and day VFR flight with one passenger.

Review the EAA/AOPA Guide to the Medical Petition, or consult the frequently asked questions to learn more about the exemption request. You can submit your comments and/or review previously submitted comments at the Regulations.gov website by searching Docket FAA-2012-0350.

Here is the Gov't web page.

They apparently don't like to make it too easy...



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/F.../html/2012-14285.htm



[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14285]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-14]


Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0350 using any of the following methods:
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas ARM-105, (202) 267-7626,
FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

Docket No.: FAA-2012-0350.
Petitioner: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and Experimental
Aircraft Association.
Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.3(c) and 61.23(a).
Description of Relief Sought: The relief sought would allow the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and Experimental Aircraft
Association members to conduct certain operations of aircraft without
having to hold an FAA-issued medical certificate.

[FR Doc. 2012-14285 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

This would be great. It would get more older guys back into flying and buying airplanes.

quote:

Originally posted by Palmer:
This would be great. It would get more older guys back into flying and buying airplanes.

and crashing them. no fool like an old fool

quote:

Originally posted by richj:

quote:

Originally posted by Palmer:
This would be great. It would get more older guys back into flying and buying airplanes.

and crashing them. no fool like an old fool

Rich,

Are you being serious?

This seems to be the knee jerk response to anyone who does not actually fly an airplane. Having a medical certificate has absolutely nothing to do with pilot proficiency. As a pilot you are forbidden to fly if you think you are medically impaired.

In regards to "old fools", driving in traffic is much more demanding. If EVERYONE was required to pass a physical exam every 24 months in order for a drivers license to be valid we would be much "safer" than any amount of pilot regulations, do you propose that drivers licenses should only be 24 months in duration AND you need to pass a physical exam in addition to a driving test in order to keep it? If not, what is the difference with flying that makes it that much more demanding in your opinion?

Amen.

One of the stupidist bits of Gov't over regulation.

probably was knee jerk. It just seems every time I hear of a small plane crash it was some 70 y/o Dr, Lawyer, Stock broker, etc....

quote:

Originally posted by Mark:

quote:

Originally posted by richj:

quote:

Originally posted by Palmer:
This would be great. It would get more older guys back into flying and buying airplanes.

and crashing them. no fool like an old fool

Rich,

Are you being serious?

This seems to be the knee jerk response to anyone who does not actually fly an airplane. Having a medical certificate has absolutely nothing to do with pilot proficiency. As a pilot you are forbidden to fly if you think you are medically impaired.

In regards to "old fools", driving in traffic is much more demanding. If EVERYONE was required to pass a physical exam every 24 months in order for a drivers license to be valid we would be much "safer" than any amount of pilot regulations, do you propose that drivers licenses should only be 24 months in duration AND you need to pass a physical exam in addition to a driving test in order to keep it? If not, what is the difference with flying that makes it that much more demanding in your opinion?

I read a factoid last week that less than .02% of accidents are related to pilot health -- more are related to tire pressure than blood pressure ..

go figure, right?

Devils advocate....Said factoid might just as well be interpreted as evidence that the existing health requirements are functioning quite well...

Personally, and I do hold an ATP, I don't think that's the right interpretation but as written it does fit the evidence.

Well it is a moot point now as the comment period is over, but I am wondering what the statistics are for sailplanes and medical incapacitation?

If one were to use the "devils advocate" approach, and if a valid drivers license is not a suitable replacement, should every legal driver be required to have a medical exam every 24 months? And if there is an issue, should they be prohibited from driving any automobile until it is resolved?

In a answer to the advocate.

What is the percentage of heart or color blind issues that result in car crashes?

Somethings are leftover from military screenings I think