First Class Medical

[Amish RakeFight]

Why is this so hard to grasp for some.

FIRST CLASS:
Duration of exercised privileges from date of exam.
ATP: 6 months
Comm: 12 months
Private: 24 (over 40), 36 (under 40)



SECOND CLASS:
Duration of exercised privileges from date of exam.
ATP: N/A
Comm: 12 months
Private: 24 (over 40), 36 (under 40)



THIRD CLASS:
Duration of exercised privileges from date of exam.
ATP: N/A
Comm: N/A
Private: 24 (over 40), 36 (under 40)

 

[nosehair]

Why it is written the way it is, and why not just say a First Class Medical expires in 6 months.

Hey Look Kid, Flyin' an airplane is easy. If that's all we had to know how to do it would be too easy. Gettin' thru these regs weeds out the riff-raff.

 

[lawfly]

I have read before on here and also in this thread that "the FARs are written by lawyers". Maybe they are, but I think they're more often written by FAA bureaucrats who are not necessarily lawyers. A good lawyer-draftsman usually seeks to avoid vagueness or ambiguity, not to create it. It's true the class denoted on the medical certificate is not physically changed--it's still a first--but the airline transport-related privileges associated with a current first class class medical have expired after 6 months. This is why the medical certificate does not bear an expiration date. Because some of the operating privileges continue after 6 months, after 12 months, etc. So, while the class denoted on the certificate has not changed, the first class privileges have expired, and, per the quoted FAR, the lesser included second class privileges remain intact for the next 6 months. The quoted reg mentions both class of certificate and privileges. The quoted reg does not say that the class of the certificate changes, but it does say that the associated privileges change. So, the posts addressing privileges are correct. If the certificate expired after six months, without further qualifying language in the regulation, then no privileges would remain.

 

[wt219200]

Hey Look Kid, Flyin' an airplane is easy. If that's all we had to know how to do it would be too easy. Gettin' thru these regs weeds out the riff-raff.

Kid? Thats funny. Riff-Raff? Thats also funny. I'm sure I'm the first person to misinterpret a reg, I should send my tickets back to the FAA. If there were only a way to eliminate the Riff-Raff on flightinfo like this jackass.

 

[nosehair]

If there were only a way to eliminate the Riff-Raff on flightinfo like this jackass.

'Twas meant in jest, Sir. Hopefully indicated by the 'rolleyes' symbol.
The meaning of my comment is that we are all in the same boat, here; we all share the g*#ldanged irritation at the hard-to-follow wording of the regulations, especially this one, and many of the other 'currency' ones.

 

[wt219200]

'Twas meant in jest, Sir. Hopefully indicated by the 'rolleyes' symbol.
The meaning of my comment is that we are all in the same boat, here; we all share the g*#ldanged irritation at the hard-to-follow wording of the regulations, especially this one, and many of the other 'currency' ones.

Sorry came across a little too strong there. I was reading a FAR/AIM at the time.

 

[avbug]

Kid? Thats funny. Riff-Raff? Thats also funny. I'm sure I'm the first person to misinterpret a reg, I should send my tickets back to the FAA. If there were only a way to eliminate the Riff-Raff on flightinfo like this jackass.

Nosehair made a kindly comment. I was a little taken back to see to see that anyone took it any other way. Nosehair does quite a bit of work here, helping people and addressing issues such as this. I don't believe I've ever seen him do anything that would warrant being called a jackass.

 

[wt219200]

Nosehair made a kindly comment. I was a little taken back to see to see that anyone took it any other way. Nosehair does quite a bit of work here, helping people and addressing issues such as this. I don't believe I've ever seen him do anything that would warrant being called a jackass.

Yup sorry. Again, I took it as a smart response not in jest as he intended. I've gone back back and read many of his posts and I would agree with your above post.

 

[avbug]

I think that's really the thing about the internet...it lacks expression to a large degree. Often context leaves the only clue...is the poster sarcastic, angry, impartial? Flightinfo sees a lot of contention go on which in many cases I think is nothing more than inferences to the post which can't speak for itself. No big deal; these are only words.

I think most would agree that your input is just as valueable here as any other. Post on!