no medical consequenses

[av8rps]

I know of a guy that flew a Cub around for 20+ yrs with no medical (he knew he wouldn't pass one, but yet drove a car and a motorcycle all over north America with a valid drivers license, so he figured he was safe to fly an airplane). And that was long before Light Sport was even heard of.

I actually used him as an example (anonymously) in discussions with the FAA when we were pushing for a new pilot license (modified Recreational Pilot which ultimately became Light Sport) that would allow us to fly without a medical. He never harmed anyone or himself, or had an accident during that time, and to keep himself from getting in trouble, he did what he could to avoid big airports and big cities.

And honestly, that wasn't a big issue to him as he had sold his 172 but kept his Cub. And being that it was a Cub, grass strips were his favorite place to go anyhow. He commented once to me that he never had more fun (since not having a medical) as he had learned all the small airstrips and airports in the state, and had gained a whole bunch of new friends.

Obviously I will never really know if me telling his story influenced the FAA or not to give the go-ahead on Light Sport. But I'd like to think it did.

And honestly, if it weren't for the violators like my friend, along with many in the Ultralight community not following the rules, I don't know if we would have ever got Light Sport? In some regards it might have taken a bunch of people like that to get the law changed? I'll never really know that I'm sure, as I doubt anyone will ever admit the law was changed because they had to make the violators legal. But at minimum I think that was part of the reason we today can enjoy flying Light Sport without a medical.

And in addition, now that there is a 10 yr history (from the Light Sport pilots) proving that medicals don't keep people from having accidents, I believe it is likely that Private Pilots may get to enjoy flying larger aircraft than LSA's without medicals. If that happens as I believe it will, that would be a VERY large, POSITIVE step for what is left of the aviation community.

I'm not a renegade myself. But sometimes I think that as a society we accept rules too easily. How many thousands upon thousands of pilots have left aviation because of minor medical concerns over the decades? Even worse, all those pilots we lost were probably lost for no valid reason...we learned from the Light Sport crowd over the last 10 yrs that there never was any proven correlation between being safe and having a medical, or not having one.

So it was gross over-regulation all along. That only further proves how sad it is that we still have to work to convince the FAA to let us fly (not-for-hire) aircraft without a medical. The proof a medical isn't needed has been there for DECADES.

And for those that disagree with that viewpoint, just think about this; Every aircraft accident in FAA's history that happened due to a pilot medical condition proves that having a valid medical means nothing, unless of course the pilot was flying without a medical.

Face it, you can be healthy one day, and unhealthy the next. My grandfather passed an extensive physical with flying colors on his 69th birthday, only to die that night in his sleep.

Here's a quote from a friend of mine that is a retired heart surgeon that I think says it all: "We are all ticking time bombs..."

[TahoeTim]

Since the introduction of LSA, there is absolutely NO excuse not to fly legally.

The kitfox is a great plane and with 20 hours of flight training, you can become a legal pilot. I have been patiently been waiting for the new third class medical ruling to pass so I can fly at night if I choose but until then I will follow the rules.

[Geowitz]

A comment was made and removed, but... The mere act of flying without a medical infringes on no one's rights, where as in most instances of "breaking the law" there would be an infringement against another person.

The allowing of a miniscule off chance that a pilot could harm someone because they didn't have a medical is no different than any other standard policy with regard to managing risks within our society.

The decision of medical fitness should be left to the PILOT IN COMMAND. We're held responsible for every other part of the flight and would face recourse if we made a bad decision. What's the difference here?

Is there recourse against a pilot who has a valid medical, but for some reason knew of an impairment not covered by an FAA medical that caused a crash? Here's where the regulations can cut both ways. Lets say my family is killed by an irresponsible pilot who had a "Valid" medical due to an impairment not discovered by the FAA process. Can I sue him or his estate?... Or is he insulated from all liability now because the FAA said he followed the law?

[TahoeTim]

Since I apparently crossed a line, let me try again.

Is driving with a suspended drivers license ok? Yes, the odds of injuring or killing an innocent person in a plane is less than in a car but I cant justify either one. The way I read the above comments about rebelling against the rules, if enough people drove cars without a license their actions could influence a change in the law.

I have afib and have a third class medical. It costs me a bunch of money every year to renew it so I guess i am more sensitive to read about cheaters that ignore the rules. I am going to let it lapse this year and stay LSA unless the proposed rule passes.

[896tr]

[quote=TahoeTim;46796]Since I apparently crossed a line, let me try again.

The way I read the above comments about rebelling against the rules, if enough people drove cars without a license their actions could influence a change in the law.


And yes, the motor vehicle laws have changed, because of the number of unlicensed drivers in Nevada. Undocumented aliens can now get a drivers license.

However my original question had nothing to do with debating whether a third class medical certificate is necessary or not, nor was it intended to start a rebellion confessional. I merely wanted to know if anyone had first hand knowledge of someone being penalized for not having one.

[av8rps]

I'm not surprised that no one can cite an example of someone being prosecuted for flying without a medical. I'm guessing it's not that common, or it is kept quiet by those that get caught.

But for the record, I think this is a good discussion for us in the aviation community to have. Some of these things should probably be said more often.

However my original question had nothing to do with debating whether a third class medical certificate is necessary or not, nor was it intended to start a rebellion confessional. I merely wanted to know if anyone had first hand knowledge of someone being penalized for not having one.

[av8rps]

My comment about my friend was from years ago, long before sport pilot. So since we now have sport pilot that allows us to fly without a medical, there would be only one reason people would fly an LSA illegally. That would be if they were a private pilot that lost their medical before they voluntarily stopped going for medicals.

And I think that is a SNAFU that needs to be fixed. If you are a private pilot and fail a medical, then you can't fly anything except a part 103 ultralight.

But if you were an Ultralight pilot that earned a Sport Pilot license and had never in your life seen an aeromedical examiner, they can never stop you from flying your LSA. It is completely your call to decide whether or not you are medically fit to fly, as long as you have a valid automobile drivers license. That to me hardly seems fair to the guy that has the Private Pilot license. I think he too should be able to make his own call as to whether or not he is medically fit to fly his LSA, as long as he has a valid drivers license.

Hopefully the FAA will fix that problem when they eliminate the PPL medical.

I've always thought that only professional pilots for hire should need medicals (like professional truck drivers). That would be the simplest, most effective way to resolve any concerns about recreational pilot medicals. At least that's my take on it...

[Kurt.A]

My comment about my friend was from years ago, long before sport pilot. So since we now have sport pilot that allows us to fly without a medical, there would be only one reason people would fly an LSA illegally. That would be if they were a private pilot that lost their medical before they voluntarily stopped going for medicals.

And I think that is a SNAFU that needs to be fixed. If you are a private pilot and fail a medical, then you can't fly anything except a part 103 ultralight.

But if you were an Ultralight pilot that earned a Sport Pilot license and had never in your life seen an aeromedical examiner, they can never stop you from flying your LSA. It is completely your call to decide whether or not you are medically fit to fly, as long as you have a valid automobile drivers license. That to me hardly seems fair to the guy that has the Private Pilot license. I think he too should be able to make his own call as to whether or not he is medically fit to fly his LSA, as long as he has a valid drivers license.

Hopefully the FAA will fix that problem when they eliminate the PPL medical.

I've always thought that only professional pilots for hire should need medicals (like professional truck drivers). That would be the simplest, most effective way to resolve any concerns about recreational pilot medicals. At least that's my take on it...

This makes perfect logical sense. Hope our governing bodies can have some of that.

[av8rps]

To me the simple fact that the president of the united states just decided to make millions of people that illegally entered our country "LEGAL" says it all. He took it upon himself (ironically, without the legal, or constitutional right) to make them all legal rather than to do anything to them.

So if you compare that action to this scenario, it would be beyond ludicrous if the FAA would make any serious issue over one of us citizens flying our little putt putt airplanes around because we didn't have one proper form in our pocket.

And again, I'm not advocating we break laws. I personally have no reason to do any of that. But you have to admit when our president illegally legalizes millions of people that came into our country illegally, it's almost laughable we are having this discussion.

The illegal immigrants being legalized proves they will change laws for violators.

Since I apparently crossed a line, let me try again.

Is driving with a suspended drivers license ok? Yes, the odds of injuring or killing an innocent person in a plane is less than in a car but I cant justify either one. The way I read the above comments about rebelling against the rules, if enough people drove cars without a license their actions could influence a change in the law.

I have afib and have a third class medical. It costs me a bunch of money every year to renew it so I guess i am more sensitive to read about cheaters that ignore the rules. I am going to let it lapse this year and stay LSA unless the proposed rule passes.

[Paul Z]

On point. They don't look at the end results, they don't care about the Rule of Law.

To me the simple fact that the president of the united states just decided to make millions of people that illegally entered our country "LEGAL" says it all. He took it upon himself (ironically, without the legal, or constitutional right) to make them all legal rather than to do anything to them.

So if you compare that action to this scenario, it would be beyond ludicrous if the FAA would make any serious issue over one of us citizens flying our little putt putt airplanes around because we didn't have one proper form in our pocket.

And again, I'm not advocating we break laws. I personally have no reason to do any of that. But you have to admit when our president illegally legalizes millions of people that came into our country illegally, it's almost laughable we are having this discussion.

The illegal immigrants being legalized proves they will change laws for violators.