That AOPA piece is silent on the driving licence issue. It maybe that it’s no longer relevant since they’ve gone for a more restrictive ‘visit with GP’ requirement. I wonder if UK GPs would be willing to sign such a document in our public service culture, or if a foreign GP ’s signature would do in the event of an incident involving insurance.
So it looks like the biennial trudge to an FAA AME is still going to be required for foreign visitors, but at least it’s not an annual trip!
My point about FBOs not understanding this nuance regarding foreign pilots stands, with the added complexity of how to verify the GP signed bit of paper in the logbook being problematic at least.
The US Senate passed the bill yesterday, 15 December. Now the House of Representatives will consider their own version.
I agree that the Senate passed version is quite compicated, perhaps too complicated for my use within the US, never mind for a foreign pilot. I’m not willing to mix the MD I see for routine care with my aviation medical review, and I’m having a difficult time imagining him wanting to do it anyway given the legal exposure. The best option with that in mind might be to get my AME to sign off on the MD paperwork every four years, which I guess is better than two years. It occurs to me that this may have been an intentional feature of the bill, to buy off the AMEs. I’m also not particularly interested in on-line classes every two years, dealing with FAA websites etc. It takes me 30 minutes and $85 or something every two years to get a Third Class FAA Medical so another possibility is just to keep doing that.
It looks to me like the state driver’s license issue is no longer a factor.
No the AME will still have plenty of business and it makes absolutely no sense to get the AME to sign off an examination he has not performed. The doctor is only indicating that he has performed the services indicated. As it stands today, I get a special issuance for diabetes type 2 and related issues and have to get various doctors to sign very specific statements which are provided to the FAA. I have to collect reports from those same doctors, including any relevant lab results, last three BP readings, sleep doctor tests, diabetic eye exam and test results. It takes me at least 60 days duration to schedule and make all of my doctor visits and report assembly before I have all the data I need to forward to the FAA. My doctors already provide similar information annually, so having to merely fill out a simple form once every 4 years that doesn’t even get sent to anyone other than myself, should be no big deal at all. It will probably save me and the insurance company a few thousand per year in unnecessary doctor visits. I already see my eye doctor annually and my GP at least quarterly. I will probably eliminate visiting my sleep apnea doctor because all she does is ask me if I doing a good job with my CPAP. Since I use it religiously, the only reason I visit her is for the FAA report and although she is a nice doctor, it is a waste of my time and money. I also visit my cardiologist every year and get a stress test which I pass. He says that I should have a stress test every 3 years or so, but the FAA mandates one every year and that pictures and stress test reports be printed and provided. I will probably still visit him annually and get a stress test whenever he orders it for medical reasons.
So hopefully I will only have to go thru this one more time.
The FAA has not always met the mandates of congress. Examples include regulations to simplify part 23, requirements to implement a picture ID on the pilot certificate, rules for drone operation in the US NAS.
Martin wrote:
I’m assuming this is not ICAO compliant, right?
That’s correct. You’ll still need a Class 3 or get an exemption to fly outside the US. My guess is that Canada will grant a default exemption the same as they do for US experimentals.
Silvaire wrote:
But FAA in principle does what it’s told by US lawmakers
I wish the Congress would put a bill together that if the FAA does not meet a Congressional law/mandate by certain date that the pensions of all FAA personnel above G-21 would have their pensions defunded by Congress by 25%.
After all if Reagan could dismiss ALL the striking air traffic controllers and turn our airway system into turmoil this should be a piece of cake.
Archie wrote:
At least the FAA (apparently) have it in their charter that they are actually to promote aviation as well. CASA doesn’t seem to care. Empty skies are safe skies….
Actually Archie your wrong. That portion of the Mandate was taken out of the Charter I believe in the mid 70s because as usual Congress was given information by some Trade group which Congress never read just passed because it sounded good.
" The FAA cant regulate and still promote aviation because it may lead to a possible conflict of interest."
Just not sure if the CAA had the same mandate which then became the FAA. Im almost sure it did because that is why the US had the glory years of civil aviation. Meanwhile the rest of the world had the glory years of building military airfields and military aviation.
In that context, interesting to see the objectives in the proposal for the new EASA Basic Regulation.
Article 1
Subject matter and objectives
1. The principal objective of this Regulation is to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in the Union, while ensuring a high uniform level of environmental protection.
2. This Regulation further aims at:
(a) contributing to the wider Union aviation policy and to the improvement of the overall performance of the civil aviation sector;
Peter wrote:
Can anybody guess why the 14000ft altitude limit?
Yes, it’s the FAA threshold above which flight crew must be on oxygen (15k for pax).
Article 1
Subject matter and objectives
1. The principal objective of this Regulation is to establish and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in the Union, while ensuring a high uniform level of environmental protection.
2. This Regulation further aims at:
(a) contributing to the wider Union aviation policy and to the improvement of the overall performance of the civil aviation sector;
To me that reads like somebody is going for an University of Upper Warlingham MBA in Risk Management™, with assistance from this
it’s the FAA threshold above which flight crew must be on oxygen (15k for pax).
It is the altitude at which o2 needs to be used continuously by the pilot(s). However, it merely needs to be offered to passengers at 15k. They can refuse to use it, and the flight will still be legal. My Q stands… why was 14k picked? Most people will be utterly shagged at 14k after an hour or so.
