ALPA and medical reform

MidlifeFlyer

MidlifeFlyer

Well-Known Member
At the risk of flames, just a question out of curiosity about the ALPA opposition to 3rd class medical reform.

Given the issues facing career and aspiring career pilots including such things as increased training costs "balanced" by poverty level wages, don't they have more important things to be concerned about than proposals that don't appear to have any effect whatsoever on them or their membership?

I might be completely off base but it strikes me as the typical American political ploy of trying to find a nice but meaningless wedge issue to cover up policy impotence.
 
Last I checked the idea of having a medical is to increase safety. Having people fly around that should have medicaled out years ago puts not only the pilot in danger but it puts their passengers, other aircraft, and people on the ground in danger as well.

I understand getting a 3rd class medical back (if denied) can be tough and very expensive if lost and finding a way to simplify the process and reduce the cost would be a good idea. Killing the third class all together just doesn't make much sense.

I honestly can't find out why they want to get rid of the 3rd class and why AOPA considers it to be safe.

The LSA thing is around but there are a lot of restrictions that are meant to help eliminate a lot of the additional risk from not having a medical.
 
Last edited:
Maurus said:
Last I checked the idea of having a medical is to increase safety. Having people fly around that should have medicaled out years ago puts not only the pilot in danger but it puts their passengers, other aircraft, and people on the ground in danger as well.

I understand getting a 3rd class medical back (if denied) can be tough and very expensive if lost and finding a way to simplify the process and reduce the cost would be a good idea. Killing the third class all together just doesn't make much sense.

I honestly can't find out why they want to get rid of the 3rd class and why AOPA considers it to be safe.

The LSA thing is around but there are a lot of restrictions that are meant to help eliminate a lot of the additional risk from not having a medical.
Click to expand...
I've said it before. The average weight of an SUV is around 6,000 pounds. A person in their 80's can load 6-8 of their friends or loved ones and go driving down the highway at 75-80mph (legal posted speeds in some states) and be perfectly fine. We as a society accept this every day we drive. One of these people can have a medical issue, cross the double yellow and take out the school bus full of orphans on thier way to Disney. That same person with thousands of accident free flying hours can't go shoot landings in thier 2,500lb Stinson at their local class G airport because it weighs more and holds more people than a standard LSA? Come on. Now ALPA is worried about one of them having a medical issue, crossing the hold short bars and running into an airliner? How bout we worry about professional 121 pilots stalling (or almost stalling) perfectly good airplanes enough times the FAA has to amend their ops specs. Yeah, I think that might be a bigger issue.
 
PositionAndHold said:
I've said it before. The average weight of an SUV is around 6,000 pounds. A person in their 80's can load 6-8 of their friends or loved ones and go driving down the highway at 75-80mph (legal posted speeds in some states) and be perfectly fine. We as a society accept this every day we drive. One of these people can have a medical issue, cross the double yellow and take out the school bus full of orphans on thier way to Disney. That same person with thousands of accident free flying hours can't go shoot landings in thier 2,500lb Stinson at their local class G airport because it weighs more and holds more people than a standard LSA? Come on. Now ALPA is worried about one of them having a medical issue, crossing the hold short bars and running into an airliner? How bout we worry about professional 121 pilots stalling (or almost stalling) perfectly good airplanes enough times the FAA has to amend their ops specs. Yeah, I think that might be a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

Double like. Can't even remember the last time I heard about an old guy passing out in his cessna and crashing into a Boeing either.
 
Bonanzaman said:
Double like. Can't even remember the last time I heard about an old guy passing out in his cessna and crashing into a Boeing either.
Click to expand...

I believe ALPA's point is that they don't want to see it in the future, either, and it's far more likely if there are people flying around without medical examinations.

This crap is exactly why I dread paying my AOPA dues. No concern for safety whatsoever.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I believe ALPA's point is that they don't want to see it in the future, either, and it's far more likely if there are people flying around without medical examinations.

This crap is exactly why I dread paying my AOPA dues. No concern for safety whatsoever.
Click to expand...
So stop paying if you feel so strongly. Don't take thier Insurance discount and at the same time bad mouth thier policy. Put your money where you're mouth is. It's all about principle right?

121 pilots have been far more dangerous to 121 passengers than any old guy in a 172 could ever hope to be. On the list of things that concern me about 121 safety risks, this is about as far down as you can get. It's like age 65, while I disagree with the way it was implemented, there was no science behind age 60 in the first place.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I believe ALPA's point is that they don't want to see it in the future, either, and it's far more likely if there are people flying around without medical examinations.

This crap is exactly why I dread paying my AOPA dues. No concern for safety whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope argument. And stop paying AOPA dues. They're trolling the *blank* out of my email, only thing I agree with them about is people like my dad can drive an 80,000lb truck at 75mph down the interstate no problem but has a huge problem trying to fly a cessna 172 without wasting a whole bunch of money and time. There's no comparison. The CDL is way easier for him to get and is much more dangerous to the American people. You may think I'm a dick for saying that, but you're still wrong.
 
PositionAndHold said:
So stop paying if you feel so strongly. Don't take thier Insurance discount and at the same time bad mouth thier policy. Put your money where you're mouth is. It's all about principle right?
Click to expand...

They do some good, and as long as they're saving me more than I'm spending on them, I find it to be of value, even though I cringe as I pay the dues. I laugh when they ask me to contribute more, though.

121 pilots have been far more dangerous to 121 passengers than any old guy in a 172 could ever hope to be
Click to expand...

Oh, do tell, seeing as how we've got the safest commercial aviation system in the world.

On the list of things that concern me about 121 safety risks, this is about as far down as you can get.
Click to expand...

That's not really the point. Sure, there are bigger things to worry about. But this legislation seeks to make things less safe. And for what? To save some cheapskates a lousy $60 bucks every three years? Give me a frickin' break. It pisses me off that AOPA even talks about this nonsense. Good for ALPA for standing up and calling BS.

It's like age 65, while I disagree with the way it was implemented, there was no science behind age 60 in the first place.
Click to expand...

Simply false.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Oh, do tell, seeing as how we've got the safest commercial aviation system in the world.
Click to expand...

How many grandpa's have crashed a Boeing with their Cessna? How many 121 pilots have made mistakes, and have lawn darted an airplane? Just a few recent high profile cases of 121 pilots doing it to themselves, UPS, Colgan and Comair. The only midair I can remember was the PSA deal with the 727, and if memory serves correct, weren't the PSA pilots held more at fault than the Cessna/Piper? It's not about spending $60 every three years either. It's about being able to continue to fly with out archaic restrictions.

And your argument about AOPA is destroying your credibility.
 
Thanks for posting this MidLifeflyer. I was going to post this same question tonight, so you saved me the trouble.
 
BobDDuck said:
ALPA is opposed because they don't want somebody who really shouldn't (medically) be in a plane, tooling around the taxiway, passing out (due to medical reasons) and slamming their Cessna into a Boeing.
Click to expand...

Of course @Seggy and @ATN_Pilot like this post because ALPA can do no wrong.

But seriously, part of your argument would require all baggage cart and tug drivers to have a medical.

usa.jpg


I agree ALPA needs to focus on helping professional pilots from stalling the airplane or taking it through the fence into the self-serve pumps at the QuikTrip.
 
mshunter said:
It's not about spending $60 every three years either. It's about being able to continue to fly with out archaic restrictions.
Click to expand...

If you can't even pass a third class medical, then you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, let alone a yoke.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
If you can't even pass a third class medical, then you shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, let alone a yoke.
Click to expand...
My wife could never pass. She a heart condition, a weird version of it where she has mild heart attack symptoms. She can feel it coming on, which is nice. No way in heck would she be able to hold a medical, yet she's been driving for almost two decades without issue.

I completely disagree with ALPA on this one. There has been no data suggesting an increase in LSA accidents due to medical issues.
 
mshunter said:
How many grandpa's have crashed a Boeing with their Cessna? How many 121 pilots have made mistakes, and have lawn darted an airplane? Just a few recent high profile cases of 121 pilots doing it to themselves, UPS, Colgan and Comair. The only midair I can remember was the PSA deal with the 727, and if memory serves correct, weren't the PSA pilots held more at fault than the Cessna/Piper? It's not about spending $60 every three years either. It's about being able to continue to fly with out archaic restrictions.

And your argument about AOPA is destroying your credibility.
Click to expand...

PSA/San Diego and AeroMexico/Cerritos are the two big ones, GA-wise. HughesAirWest/USMC, if one wants to count military too. Though neither had anything to do with medical issues with the crews of either of the planes involved in those cases.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I might be completely off base but it strikes me as the typical American political ploy of trying to find a nice but meaningless wedge issue to cover up policy impotence.
Click to expand...

Yep! You are completely off base.

ALPA has a fantastic relationship with the FAA Aeromedical folks and have been extraordinarily successful (A LOT more successful than the EAA and AOPA) in Aeromedical related issues and policy changes. A perfect and recent example is the sleep apnea changes.


deadstick said:
Of course @Seggy and @ATN_Pilot like this post because ALPA can do no wrong.

But seriously, part of your argument would require all baggage cart and tug drivers to have a medical.



I agree ALPA needs to focus on helping professional pilots from stalling the airplane or taking it through the fence into the self-serve pumps at the QuikTrip.
Click to expand...

ALPA does wrong. However, even when they are wrong, it is much better than the alternative of no representation and having no stake in the process. ALPA focuses on all areas of being a professional pilot. Opposing this RIDICULOUS provision is part of that area.

The bottom line is ALPA knows what they are doing here. Look at the initial proposal a few years ago the FAA wanted with the sleep apnea policy. Look what was eventually put in place. The new policy isn't in place because of the EAA and AOPA...
 
deadstick said:
But seriously, part of your argument would require all baggage cart and tug drivers to have a medical.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with that. But there isn't any law requiring that they do now so adding the requirement would be an INCREASE in safety (a good thing) where as this law change would be a (potential) DECREASE in safety. Apples and Bananas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top