New chance to comment on 3rd class medical exemptions

So...

If you're a member of these two organizations, you can operate aircraft in certain operations with an FAA medical?

Hmm...

What am I missing here? Day VFR within 5sm of an airport? lol
 
surreal1221 said:
So...

If you're a member of these two organizations, you can operate aircraft in certain operations with an FAA medical?

Hmm...

What am I missing here? Day VFR within 5sm of an airport? lol
Click to expand...

The NPRM has nothing to do with membership in AOPA, EAA, FAA or any other organization.
 
Nihon_Ni said:
The NPRM has nothing to do with membership in AOPA, EAA, FAA or any other organization.
Click to expand...

The period to comment and the text within clearly made it out to sound that way.

Care to still catch me up to speed on what this is all about?
 
Straight from the Petition for Exemption:

This action reopens the comment period for a Petition for
Exemption that was published on June 12, 2012. The petition for
exemption from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), if granted, would allow AOPA
and EAA members to conduct certain operations of aircraft without
having to hold an FAA-issued medical certificate.

So...what makes the AOPA and EAA members special? And, more importantly, what were the proposed changes in the first place? Sorry - yes - I don't pay much attention to the GA scene right now, but was looking for some insight into what the original changes were and then why the EAA and AOPA think their members should have some sort of operational benefit without having an FAA Approved medical, for certain operations.
 
surreal1221 said:
Straight from the Petition for Exemption:

This action reopens the comment period for a Petition for
Exemption that was published on June 12, 2012. The petition for
exemption from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), if granted, would allow AOPA
and EAA members to conduct certain operations of aircraft without
having to hold an FAA-issued medical certificate.

So...what makes the AOPA and EAA members special? And, more importantly, what were the proposed changes in the first place? Sorry - yes - I don't pay much attention to the GA scene right now, but was looking for some insight into what the original changes were and then why the EAA and AOPA think their members should have some sort of operational benefit without having an FAA Approved medical, for certain operations.
Click to expand...

From the petition:
" AOPA and EAA may only legally represent the interest of their members, however we would not be opposed if the FAA were to grant a similar exemption to other petitioners who are not members of either organization."
 
A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may:
  1. Carry no more than one passenger; and
  2. Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.
  • b. A person operating under the AOPA/EAA medical exemption may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft—
    1. That is certificated—
      • i. For more than four occupants;
      • ii. With more than one powerplant;
      • iii. With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower, except aircraft certificated in the rotorcraft category; or
      • iv. With retractable landing gear;
    2. That is classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft;
    3. That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire;
    4. For compensation or hire;
    5. In furtherance of a business;
    6. Between sunset and sunrise;
    7. At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;
    8. When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles;
    9. Without visual reference to the surface;
    10. On a flight outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted;
    11. To demonstrate that aircraft in flight as an aircraft salesperson to a prospective buyer;
    12. That is used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable organization; and
    13. That is towing any object;
    14. Without completion of the AOPA/EAA airman self-certification medical education course within the preceding 24 months.
So it is more in line with recreational than private privileges.
 
Awesome.

Can't operate above 2,000 AGL...so if a pilot wanted to operate above 2,000 AGL they would still require a 3rd class medical.

I must say I'm surprised not to see an age restriction. No offense, but for the older pilots within the GA ranks - taking away the requirement to have even a simple 3rd class medical does certainly open up the liabilty opportunities.

Who started this? Was it the FAA trying to relax things or the AOPA/EAA taking an opportunity to increase the GA ranks?
 
surreal1221 said:
Awesome.

Can't operate above 2,000 AGL...so if a pilot wanted to operate above 2,000 AGL they would still require a 3rd class medical.

I must say I'm surprised not to see an age restriction. No offense, but for the older pilots within the GA ranks - taking away the requirement to have even a simple 3rd class medical does certainly open up the liabilty opportunities.

Who started this? Was it the FAA trying to relax things or the AOPA/EAA taking an opportunity to increase the GA ranks?
Click to expand...

At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher
 
Hah. Thanks ;)

Deeerrr. Been a VERY busy and long week.

Link to the original language perhaps? Not the exemption that was filed, but the language that AOPA/EAA are taking exception with?
 
surreal1221 said:
Hah. Thanks ;)

Deeerrr. Been a VERY busy and long week.

Link to the original language perhaps? Not the exemption that was filed, but the language that AOPA/EAA are taking exception with?
Click to expand...

They're taking exception with the third class medical. They want to completely do away with it for flights that meet the criteria that flyoverny posted. Basically a driver's license would be your third class medical.

I personally think the whole thing is a joke anyway. There are plenty of guys in podunk nowhere that fly without a certificate, you think they bother getting a medical? On the flip side, I know a few that could legitimately get a medical, but still choose to ground themselves.
 
And here I am thinking that instead of making it easier for folks to kill themselves and others with airplanes, we need to make it harder...
 
surreal1221 said:
And here I am thinking that instead of making it easier for folks to kill themselves and others with airplanes, we need to make it harder...
Click to expand...

Because you've witnessed a lot of pilots killing themselves without a third class medical in their pocket?
 
rframe said:
Because you've witnessed a lot of pilots killing themselves without a third class medical in their pocket?
Click to expand...

Guess it's taboo now to make sure people behind a flying machine would actually have to attest to some sort of presentation in front of an AME?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top