Almost all of the aviation accidents in the U.S. happen to a pilot
who holds a valid medical
Dan C
On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Jerry Eichenberger wrote:
Mike -
That's great news about the rule change in the U.K. Can you fly
IFR without a medical?
I probably won't live long enough to see it here in the U.S., but I
hope that someday the class 3 medical is totally eliminated for
pilots who are not flying for hire.
In the U.S. glider pilots have never had to have a medical, and the
accident rate for medical incapacitation accidents is the same for
glider and powered aircraft pilots. And many power pilots who have
lost their medicals revert to glider flying to stay aloft in at
least something. So you can make a valid argument that theirs is a
less fit sample of pilots. Still, no increase in medical related
accidents.
Jerry E.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:ercoupe-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Willis
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Proposed rule changes ie is it a C
or a D
Very fortunately for me and many others, we have a 'non-medical'
license in the UK. The NPPL (National Private Pilots Licence) was
brought in a few years ago and does not require a medical, just a
valid drivers licence. In fact due to my medical history I can
only get a 3 year drivers licence before I have to reapply and have
my application supported by my doctor. But I can still fly!
Compared to a 'normal' JAA PPL I am restricted to daytime VFR, and
can only fly outside the UK with written permission from that
country (reciprocal arrangements are not in place yet). Very
sensibly the CAA (our equivalent of the FAA) did not impose any
weight restriction so I can legally fly any type I would otherwise
have been able to fly.
As well as allowing many people like myself to start flying, the
scheme has also allowed many veteran pilots to stay in the air. I
may be wrong, but I believe there have been no increase in accident
rates etc. since the NPPL scheme was introduced.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Eichenberger
To: John Cooper ; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Proposed rule changes ie is it a C
or a D
I agree with John Cooper.
The sport pilot rule is the best thing since sliced bread. Let's
not screw with it, and open up cans of worms, when the comments
affect only a tiny minority of those exercising sport pilot
privileges.
I'm just thankful we have an enlightened FAA (and I mean that) who
allowed guys like me to continue flying.
Sure, we all could have written it differently, but remember that
virtually everywhere else in the world, even glider pilots have to
have medicals, and medicals with far stricter standards than our
3rd class. I know of no other country that allows real, powered
airplanes to be flown without a medical - not even Canada.
Be thankful for what we've got - it's good.
Jerry E.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:ercoupe-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Cooper
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:47 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ercoupe-tech] Re: Proposed rule changes ie is it a C
or a D
>>Would this even effect any other certificated aircraft but the
Ercoupe? If
so maybe it would be a small enough change that they would go for
it.<<
I know for a fact that there are Luscombes that would be affected.
Also
probably some Taylorcrafts. Maybe others, but I don't know.
I think you want to stress meeting the type certificate as the
criteria, and
avoid discussions around planes that have been converted
incorrectly. The
latter would open a huge can of worms that is best avoided, IMHO.
John Cooper
Skyport Services
4996 Delaware Tnpk
Rensselaerville, NY 12147
518 797-3064
www.skyportservices.net
