On July 15, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) celebrated the signing of third-class medical reform into law, a milestone reached after a multi-year push both on Capitol Hill and at the FAA.

Aeromedical reform had become one of the most pressing issues for the general aviation organizations, who viewed the changes a key step forward in their efforts to arrest the erosion of the pilot population. “It was by far our top legislative priority,” said Jim Coon, senior v-p, government affairs and advocacy for AOPA. “We think there are thousands of pilots sitting on the sidelines who are capable of flying safely.”

These pilots did not want to deal with the expense or hassle of the FAA medical process, especially when the prospect of a lengthy special issuance process arises, he said, estimating that medical process is costing pilots a cumulative $20 million annually.

The measure, Coon said, is “one of the most monumental reforms in decade for general aviation and will have a real, positive impact.”

Aeromedical reform was among a limited number of measures included in the FAA extension bill that passed the House and Senate in July. (See AIN, August, page 1.) But getting the measure to that point wasn’t easy. It began with a 2012 joint petition by EAA and AOPA that had garnered 16,000 comments, and had to be passed three times by the Senate alone before the reform measure made its way to the must-pass FAA extension bill.

“[The measure has] been a long time coming and resulted from an incredible amount of work over the past five years,” said EAA chairman and CEO Jack Pelton. “This is a win for everyone who loves recreational flight.”

“It has taken years of commitment and hard work to make these reforms a reality,” added AOPA president Mark Baker, who had called the changes “the most significant legislative victory for general aviation in decades. These reforms will provide relief to hundreds of thousands of pilots from an outdated, costly and unnecessarily burdensome system.”

Less Onerous Rule

The final reform language, as passed, ended up being much more expansive than earlier measures under consideration and beyond even what the associations originally sought. Importantly, the measure establishes a hard timeline for implementation to make sure the FAA rulemaking process does not bog down the required changes. The FAA has up to six months to issue a rule. But if a final rule is not out within a year, the bill protects pilots from enforcement actions under current medical renewal policies.

The reform essentially eliminates the requirement for certain certified pilots to renew their third-class medical. The measure applies to pilots who have held a medical certification within the past decade. New pilots must still obtain an initial third-class medical, but will not need to renew.

To qualify for the exemption from renewal, pilots are limited to operating aircraft that have no more than six seats (a maximum of five passengers) with a max takeoff weight of no more than 6,000 pounds. Also, the pilots must remain below 18,000 feet msl and fly no faster than 250 knots indicated airspeed. The pilots may not fly for compensation or hire. But the aircraft can be single- or twin-engine and can be operated either day or night, VFR or IFR.

While an FAA medical is not required under the reforms, the pilots must still get checked out by their own physician every four years and take a free online medical training course every two years.

While applicability captures pilots who have been certified over the past 10 years, pilots who have lost their medical—either through revocation, suspension, withdrawal or denial—must obtain a new one.

AOPA estimates that the measure possibly could cover hundreds of thousands of pilots, far more than the tens of thousands of recreational pilots who would have been covered under earlier reform proposals.

Protracted Process

AOPA traces its efforts as far back as 1979, when it pushed to extend the two-year renewal requirement to three years. But the most recent effort began with a petition it filed jointly with EAA in 2012. That petition was armed with data gathered through the experience of the sport-pilot certificate, which does not required a medical.

The original petition sought an outright exemption from the third-class medical but was more limited in scope: applying to pilots who fly under day VFR conditions in fixed-gear, single-engine aircraft with up to four seats and up to a 180-hp engine. That exemption would have limited flight to no higher than 10,000 feet msl (or 2,000 feet agl) and a single passenger.

The FAA had published that petition for comment, and more than 16,000 people weighed in—mostly in favor. Agency officials had indicated plans to act on the petition and, after an apology from FAA Administrator Michael Huerta for a prolonged delay, even stated in mid-2014 that a proposed rule had reached the Department of Transportation for review. But a year later, the Administrator offered little hope that any proposal would be coming in a timely fashion. “I know that this is extremely frustrating for all of you here,” Huerta told EAA AirVenture attendees last year. “We want a standard, as painful as this is, that is not going to require yet another debate or another process for years to come.”

While the proposal languished at the FAA, Congress became engaged, beginning with the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act introduced by the House in late 2013 and then the Senate in early 2014. While the bills attracted substantial support, 178 House representatives and senators signed on to co-sponsor, Congress ran out of time to act on them. The bills died in both chambers at the end of the 113th Congress.

But the 114th Congress jumped back in, introducing measures as part of the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 (PBOR 2). Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), along with Reps. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), led the charge on Capitol Hill. Inhofe had called PBOR 2 “the single most important general aviation bill” that was before Congress.

Once again, medical reform quickly gained support, with the number of co-sponsors of PBOR 2 surpassing 250 in the House and Senate. The Senate then passed medical reform three times^—once as an independent bill, once as part of the comprehensive Senate FAA reauthorization bill, and once part of the National Defense Authorization Act. But the full House did not take up PBOR 2 or a comprehensive FAA bill, and had disagreements with the Senate on the National Defense Authorization.

At the same time, the associations waged major grassroots campaigns, calling on members to keep the pressure on Congress. Their members responded. Coon notes that lawmakers received thousands of calls, letters, emails and other forms of appeals. Two action calls by AOPA in the summer last year alone generated close to 150,000 responses.

He credited this grassroots support, as well as the strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, for pushing the issue to the forefront when lawmakers crafted the FAA extension bill. And this became one of the limited measures thrown into the bill that reached President Obama’s desk for signature on July 15.

While significantly expanded, the measure did represent a compromise. The original reform sought by associations earlier did not call for a medical checkup by a private doctor. This was included after some lawmakers raised concerns about a blanket exemption. In fact, the bill was temporarily derailed in one Senate Commerce Committee meeting, with Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) calling an earlier version of PBOR 2 “a very flawed piece of legislation.” Nelson insisted that the checkup with private physicians involve a checklist. The checklist requirement was included in the final measure.

But Coon said the association is pleased with the scope of the final measure, which he said evolved after substantial research of safety data and discussions on Capitol Hill.

The associations have vowed to follow the rulemaking process closely since many details will be ironed out through then.