Are strict medical requirements counterproductive?

U

Unregistered

Guest
I've been reading this sub board for years. along with 'never again' it is probably the most entertaining part of this board-to me anyway.

As I was reading these posts today I found myself thinking to myself, "self, you should be careful to never take any drugs that a physician might want to prescribe unless and until I know if it will impact my flight privileges. ". Which lead me to wonder if my fear of losing my cert might be pushing me farther from being a healthy person. I understand that the goal is to have a safe pilot population, but this seems in a way counterproductive.

I don't have any physically or mentally disqualifying conditions, but like a lot of you I lead a somewhat stressful life. And someday I might be faced with the choice of submitting myself to extensive medical care which might disqualify me, or refusing treatment to preserve my ticket. I'd like to think that I would make the mature choice, but am realistic enough to admit that the options and alternatives would need to be clear cut, and important life decisions are not always so....
 
In the case of obstructive sleep apnea the FAA is definately acting against safety by making pilots with OSA jump through hoops to get an SI.

It's rare for a doctor to diagnose sleep apnea, it's really up to the patient to fess up to it. The sleep doctor just confirms what most of us already knew.

The good news is that OSA can be controlled with a CPAP machine or other techniques.

Once you control your OSA your overall state of health increases dramatically. At least it did for me.

But no. Instead every year three doctors (my GP, AME, and a Sleep Doctor) have to get involved. I have to have someone other than me print out CPAP machine data, because somehow I can't be trusted to do it myself.

The FAA might as well put up billboards that say "WHATEVER YOU DO, STAY IN DENIAL ABOUT YOUR SLEEP APNEA!"

The FAA ought to give me a medal, not punish me for doing the right thing.
 
The FAA should drop all medical requirements, and while they are at it they should drop all certification requirements for pilots and simply have anyone wanting to be a pilot go down to the Post Office and simply fill out a card and write down name and address and what level of pilot certificate you desire (check a box).

However the complaints will begin to happen that going to the Post Office is too "burdensome" and that too should be dropped...............:rolleyes:

:rofl:
 
The FAA should drop all medical requirements, and while they are at it they should drop all certification requirements for pilots and simply have anyone wanting to be a pilot go down to the Post Office and simply fill out a card and write down name and address and what level of pilot certificate you desire (check a box).

However the complaints will begin to happen that going to the Post Office is too "burdensome" and that too should be dropped...............:rolleyes:

:rofl:

I would be fine with that and I do think the Post Office trip would be unnecessary and I am not kidding. :no:
 
The FAA should drop all medical requirements, and while they are at it they should drop all certification requirements for pilots and simply have anyone wanting to be a pilot go down to the Post Office and simply fill out a card and write down name and address and what level of pilot certificate you desire (check a box).

However the complaints will begin to happen that going to the Post Office is too "burdensome" and that too should be dropped...............:rolleyes:

:rofl:

Safety wouldn't change much. For the ops question the rules are written by people that can't imagine the rules not being followed, so everything in their minds works perfect. When you medicate out of eligibility you just quit. Simple. On the other hand they are doing us a favor pilots will live longer avoiding doctors and lifestyle prescriptions.
 
I don't think the FAA's requirements would pass a reasonable cost benefit analysis.
 
In the case of obstructive sleep apnea the FAA is definately acting against safety by making pilots with OSA jump through hoops to get an SI.

It's rare for a doctor to diagnose sleep apnea, it's really up to the patient to fess up to it. The sleep doctor just confirms what most of us already knew.

The good news is that OSA can be controlled with a CPAP machine or other techniques.

Once you control your OSA your overall state of health increases dramatically. At least it did for me.

But no. Instead every year three doctors (my GP, AME, and a Sleep Doctor) have to get involved. I have to have someone other than me print out CPAP machine data, because somehow I can't be trusted to do it myself.

The FAA might as well put up billboards that say "WHATEVER YOU DO, STAY IN DENIAL ABOUT YOUR SLEEP APNEA!"

The FAA ought to give me a medal, not punish me for doing the right thing.

ixnay on the eepslay apneaway alktay. :wink2:
 
The FAA should drop all medical requirements, and while they are at it they should drop all certification requirements for pilots and simply have anyone wanting to be a pilot go down to the Post Office and simply fill out a card and write down name and address and what level of pilot certificate you desire (check a box).

However the complaints will begin to happen that going to the Post Office is too "burdensome" and that too should be dropped...............:rolleyes:

:rofl:

Really Ron? This helps the conversation how? Promotes GA how?

I don't think the FAA's requirements would pass a reasonable cost benefit analysis.

I would rather listen to the good Dr. G.s advice. :yes:

I talked to a guy today that has trouble passing the color blindness test. He can't see pastels. He can read a map, and see red and green. He can pass if he takes one test and not another. Most of the testing in arbitrary. Why does the ME need to check for hernias and prostrate? And not check for drugs or alcohol? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
I've been reading this sub board for years. along with 'never again' it is probably the most entertaining part of this board-to me anyway.

As I was reading these posts today I found myself thinking to myself, "self, you should be careful to never take any drugs that a physician might want to prescribe unless and until I know if it will impact my flight privileges. ". Which lead me to wonder if my fear of losing my cert might be pushing me farther from being a healthy person. I understand that the goal is to have a safe pilot population, but this seems in a way counterproductive.

I don't have any physically or mentally disqualifying conditions, but like a lot of you I lead a somewhat stressful life. And someday I might be faced with the choice of submitting myself to extensive medical care which might disqualify me, or refusing treatment to preserve my ticket. I'd like to think that I would make the mature choice, but am realistic enough to admit that the options and alternatives would need to be clear cut, and important life decisions are not always so....

A scary percentage of the pilots I know IRL who have FAA medicals also admit -- surprisingly casually -- that they're hiding some DQ'ing medical condition from the FAA. Most often it's diabetes, high blood pressure, or other conditions that tend to come with age.

I'm not talking about guys who fly SP or 103, by the way. I'm talking about pilots (and a couple of CFIs) whose operations require third-class medicals. About a third of the ones I know as friends have admitted to hiding something from FAA. I suspect a few others are, as well, but have the good sense to keep quiet about it.

These pilots go to great lengths to keep their diagnoses "off the record," usually by self-diagnosis and self-medication, and buying their meds from questionable overseas "pharmacies" or other grey-market sources that don't ask about prescriptions or keep records.

So is it counter-productive to hold private pilots to standards that seem more suited for the first manned mission to Mars? Um, yeah, it sure seems that way to me.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Of course it's counterproductive. A casual reading of this board makes it clear there are many (most?) pilots who avoid going to the doctor for things that could/should be treated. Pay cash, don't get a diagnoses and self medicate, OK. To the FAA, ignorance is truly bliss.

It sure seems to me, using the example above, diagnosed and treated sleep apnea is preferable to active avoidance and no diagnoses in a pilot. But the FAA sees it differently.
 
The FAA should drop all medical requirements, and while they are at it they should drop all certification requirements for pilots and simply have anyone wanting to be a pilot go down to the Post Office and simply fill out a card and write down name and address and what level of pilot certificate you desire (check a box).

However the complaints will begin to happen that going to the Post Office is too "burdensome" and that too should be dropped...............:rolleyes:

:rofl:

Great idea Rotor,maybe that would help to save the post office.
 
I don't think the FAA's requirements would pass a reasonable cost benefit analysis.

Tell that to the Ford people who made the same analysis when it came to fixing the Pinto gas tanks . . .

I think even with the punitive damages actually paid it still cost less . . .
 
The FAA should drop all medical requirements, and while they are at it they should drop all certification requirements for pilots and simply have anyone wanting to be a pilot go down to the Post Office and simply fill out a card and write down name and address and what level of pilot certificate you desire (check a box).

However the complaints will begin to happen that going to the Post Office is too "burdensome" and that too should be dropped...............:rolleyes:

:rofl:
If you fly certificated plane- Post office if your plane is from the 20th century. On-line if your plane is from the 21st century.
If you fly experimental- then nothing necessary.:wink2:
 
Tell that to the Ford people who made the same analysis when it came to fixing the Pinto gas tanks . . .

I think even with the punitive damages actually paid it still cost less . . .
You are being at least a little absurd.

Please explain to me what is the purpose of the FAA medical certification process. Then you can explain if the current process serves the goal as intended? Is it possible that the process can be improved?

IOW, What is the FAA trying to achieve? Does it achieve it's objective(s)? Are there parts of the process that do not improve the outcome? Is it possible that the parts of the process that do not improve the outcome reduce the effectiveness of the necessary parts?
 
Last edited:
The current process basically discourages pilots from seeking treatment.
 
You are being at least a little absurd.

Please explain to me what is the purpose of the FAA medical certification process. Then you can explain if the current process serves the goal as intended? Is it possible that the process can be improved?

IOW, What is the FAA trying to achieve? Does it achieve it's objective(s)? Are there parts of the process that do not improve the outcome? Is it possible that the parts of the process that do not improve the outcome reduce the effectiveness of the necessary parts?


Judging by the responses to your question, critical thinking skills are not a requirement of a medical. :lol:

Seriously, why does an ME check my prostrate, but not to see of I'm taking illegal drugs? It makes no sense.
 
The current process basically discourages pilots from seeking treatment.



:goofy: We have a winner! :goofy:

Like Rich said, I know of pilots who don't report issues, and medicate themselves to stay "current" with the FAA. The system is full of abuse, and dangerous to pilots.

How many 3rd class medical pilots have medical issues? The number is extremely low.
 
Last edited:
You are being at least a little absurd.

Please explain to me what is the purpose of the FAA medical certification process. Then you can explain if the current process serves the goal as intended? Is it possible that the process can be improved?

IOW, What is the FAA trying to achieve? Does it achieve it's objective(s)? Are there parts of the process that do not improve the outcome? Is it possible that the parts of the process that do not improve the outcome reduce the effectiveness of the necessary parts?
As the present medical certification process is I think the underlying goal is the desire of the FAA to eliminate any possibility of an inflight incident being caused by a medical incapacitation of the pilot flying the plane. I also think this is a misguided, and naïve way to accomplish this, and as a result caused more damage and risk than it prevents. The only possible service it may perform is to wrongly convince the public that the only people operating those flying contraptions are medically fit. Unfortunately, the way the medical certification process is presently done it only serves to prevent perfectly capable and potential pilots from flying, and encourages those with possibly disqualifying conditions to either hide them from the FAA, or ignore them.

How does the medical certification for GA in other countries compare to the FAA's process?
 
Judging by the responses to your question, critical thinking skills are not a requirement of a medical. :lol:

Seriously, why does an ME check my prostrate, but not to see of I'm taking illegal drugs? It makes no sense.
Yours checks your prostate? I have only undergone third class medicals, is that something required of first or second class, or is your ME just sadistic?
 
A nurse friend recently told me she's been encouraging a friend of her to get a CPAP as he seems to have symptoms of sleep apnea. He's refusing because he hopes to start flight lessons and doesn't want anything that creates a hassle for his medical. She couldn't believe that would be an issue, but I told it would be and I could understand his concerns. I think I'd be inclined to ignore it if I faced that issue. I'd rather fly than sleep anyways!
 
Fortunately, it's a possibility that OSA might get the CACI blessing. When is unknown, but that OKC is permitting the local AME's to make the call (see the diabetes CACI for example) is encouraging. I believe I read somewhere that many of the more active AME's were lobbying for the OSA CACI.

In the case of obstructive sleep apnea the FAA is definately acting against safety by making pilots with OSA jump through hoops to get an SI.

It's rare for a doctor to diagnose sleep apnea, it's really up to the patient to fess up to it. The sleep doctor just confirms what most of us already knew.

The good news is that OSA can be controlled with a CPAP machine or other techniques.

Once you control your OSA your overall state of health increases dramatically. At least it did for me.

But no. Instead every year three doctors (my GP, AME, and a Sleep Doctor) have to get involved. I have to have someone other than me print out CPAP machine data, because somehow I can't be trusted to do it myself.

The FAA might as well put up billboards that say "WHATEVER YOU DO, STAY IN DENIAL ABOUT YOUR SLEEP APNEA!"

The FAA ought to give me a medal, not punish me for doing the right thing.
 
Safety wouldn't change much. For the ops question the rules are written by people that can't imagine the rules not being followed, so everything in their minds works perfect.

. . . .

That's true of many, many acts of government. Because they overwhelmingly suffer from delusions of grandeur, legislators labor under the irrational belief that they can eliminate a problem simply by passing a law against it. This delusional belief is made manifest when politicians repeatedly promise that whatever new legislation they're sponsoring will insure that [insert bad thing here] will "never happen again," tacitly implying that they have an almost God-like ability to bring about Utopia.

On a macro level, this sort of grandiose, delusional thinking on the parts of politicians has led to a more generalized mass delusion that we can bring about a perfect world, where everyone is happy, and bad **** never happens, if only we enact enough laws. When bad **** continues to happen despite those laws being enacted, we enact new, "tougher" laws, being unwilling to accept that no amount of legislation will ever be able to repeal one of the truest, most universal laws in the universe, namely, "**** happens."

And that's really the root of the problem. We've become a society with zero tolerance for risk, and zero acceptance of the fact that we can't eliminate risk -- no matter how many laws we enact. There is no longer any such thing as risk-benefit analysis because there is no longer any such thing as acceptable risk. We're all on a forced march to Utopia.

The public's devotion to this quest to achieve that imaginary world where bad **** never happens inspires bureaucrats. Specifically, it inspires them to spend a grossly inordinate percentage of their time trying to assure that they'll not be in the line of fire when the **** hits the fan.

Consequently, it really doesn't matter very much that a more relaxed approach to the medical might actually enhance aviation safety. What matters is how any proposed changes would appear to a moron. And so aviators with illnesses that modern medicine has made easily treatable go untreated -- all in the name of public safety.

From a practical perspective, it might make more sense require only self-certification and an annual physical from a PCP for low-risk, non-commercial flight, in order to actually encourage airmen to take care of their health, rather than the opposite.

Or it might make more sense to allow a CDL medical card. The actual examination is pretty much identical, anyway, but the examiner is allowed more discretion when issuing.

And I'm sure there are other ideas that people who are smarter than I am could come up with that would make more sense than a system that discourages airmen from seeing their doctors for fear that they may actually be found to be less-than-perfect specimens of humanity.

But in the end, whether a proposal makes sense to people who know about aviation and medicine doesn't make a bit of difference, and never will. What matters, and what will always matter, is whether that proposal makes sense to people who know nothing at all about aviation or medicine -- and especially to those who are eagerly marching toward Utopia, idiotic grins on their faces, having been promised by politicians that that we can legislate a perfect world where **** never happens into existence, and who are now insisting that the politicians make good on their promises.

The more I really look at this whole issue, and the better I understand it, the more bizarre and macabre it gets.

Luckily for me, as someone who flies SP and part 103, it's all of little more than academic interest to me. At this stage of my life I have no place I need to get to quickly, nor any need to carry more than one passenger, nor any desire to fly in bad weather. Being able to legally fly at night would be kind of cool, though; and that's the only reason I sometimes consider going through the rigmarole to get a medical.

But then I drop in at this neck of the POA woods, and suddenly the urge passes.

Truth be told, my flying interests keep moving toward ever lighter and simpler flying machines, anyway. It's gotten to the point that even the lighthearted banter coming over the handheld seems an intrusion at times. There's plenty of time for hangar talk when we're in the hangar. When I'm in the sky, I'd rather dance with the raptors.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
As the present medical certification process is I think the underlying goal is the desire of the FAA to eliminate any possibility of an inflight incident being caused by a medical incapacitation of the pilot flying the plane. I also think this is a misguided, and naïve way to accomplish this, and as a result caused more damage and risk than it prevents. The only possible service it may perform is to wrongly convince the public that the only people operating those flying contraptions are medically fit. Unfortunately, the way the medical certification process is presently done it only serves to prevent perfectly capable and potential pilots from flying, and encourages those with possibly disqualifying conditions to either hide them from the FAA, or ignore them.

How does the medical certification for GA in other countries compare to the FAA's process?
That may well be the case but the only way to accomplish that goal is to flunk everybody. Much of what they require has almost no relationship to sudden incapacitation. This is what I meant by reasonable risk benefit analysis. For years I had to get an annual letter from a Rheumatologist concerning an autoimmune musculoskeletal disease. Overkill. I think the FAA medical department is well represented by former military flight surgeons who think of us the same as those who fly high performance aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Yours checks your prostate? I have only undergone third class medicals, is that something required of first or second class, or is your ME just sadistic?

Sadistic, or thorough. :dunno: I really don't mind it as I need to keep on top of my health, I just don't see what it has to do with flying.
 
That may well be the case but the only way to accomplish that goal is to flunk everybody. Much of what they require has almost no relationship to sudden incapacitation. This is what I meant by reasonable risk benefit analysis. For years I had to get an annual letter from a Rheumatologist concerning an autoimmune musculoskeletal disease. Overkill.
You are right, maybe any is too strong of a word, but it seems to be that is the perception they want the nonflying public to have. Now we know this is BS, and we also know that medical incapcitation of the pilot is accounts for an exceedlingly small number of accidents or incidents. So it seems to be more of a public relations ploy than anything else. Though this does not explain why they allowed for the sport cert medical requirements.
 
Tell that to the Ford people who made the same analysis when it came to fixing the Pinto gas tanks . . .

I think even with the punitive damages actually paid it still cost less . . .

thread sidejack:

You mean the gas tanks that met the safety standards of the day, those gas tanks?
 
The current process basically discourages pilots from seeking treatment.

How many pilots have had a small amount of chest pain and deliberately chose to not discuss with their doctor?

Following an accident, I was very specific that I was not having chest pain, rather it hurt when I took a breath.

I'd say it isn't so much the strict requirements, it's the excessively burdensome recurring requirements.
 
Following an accident, I was very specific that I was not having chest pain, rather it hurt when I took a breath.
The guy who goes in with severe heartburn caused by some esophogeal issue will be coded as chest pain whether he protests or not.
 
Kinda off topic, but just to get health insurance coverage, I have to take a yearly health screening that measures, height, weight, blood pressure, glucose, HDL & LDL, tobacco product usage etc.

I expect this to get more and more common.
 
The guy who goes in with severe heartburn caused by some esophogeal issue will be coded as chest pain whether he protests or not.

ok, but that guy won't necessarily know that and can truthfully answer "no" on the FAA medical, right?
 
b*tch b*tch b*tch
It's only going to get worse.

They are going to start screening airmen for sleep apnea by weight and weight, in 2014 (they have not yet published the spec), so get slender.

What really gets me is that the AME can perfectly well read the report. OKC central is overwhelmed. They need to farm this stuff out.

What most don't realize is the obvious: every time there is an accident, the congresscritters stand up before the cameras and declaim, "this will never happen again" (Dick Durbin), and "we will tolerate no more accidents" (Federico Pena). Then, they grill the agency. Do you really think any technical expert is going to want to stick their necks out in that environment?

Get it together! The problem is the fact that the entire special issuance program could be squashed by congress, in pique.

Yeah, be militant. That the ticket! (....not).
Sadly, if I had $10 and only $10 to spend on safety, it would be in training, not on medical. Douglas has got it spot on. But we ain't a gonna change it....
 
Last edited:
How many pilots have had a small amount of chest pain and deliberately chose to not discuss with their doctor?

Following an accident, I was very specific that I was not having chest pain, rather it hurt when I took a breath.

I'd say it isn't so much the strict requirements, it's the excessively burdensome recurring requirements.
I could tell a very good story if not for confidentiality issues. :yikes:
b*tch b*tch b*tch
It's only going to get worse.

What really gets me is that the AME can perfectly well read the report. OKC central is overwhelmed. They need to farm this stuff out.

.
Or the FAA could come up with more a reasonable simplified process for non-commercial GA pilots but we know that won't happen for political reasons.
 
Last edited:
b*tch b*tch b*tch
It's only going to get worse.

They are going to start screening airmen for sleep apnea by weight and weight, in 2014 (they have not yet published the spec), so get slender.
<sigh...>I've got a co-worker that went for sleep study last week. He's a runner - as in marathons. Not an ounce of excess fat on his body... :mad2:
 
What most don't realize is the obvious: every time there is an accident, the congresscritters stand up before the cameras and declaim, "this will never happen again" (Dick Durbin), and "we will tolerate no more accidents" (Federico Pena). Then, they grill the agency. Do you really think any technical expert is going to want to stick their necks out in that environment?

Get it together! The problem is the fact that the entire special issuance program could be squashed by congress, in pique.
...............
Douglas has got it spot on. But we ain't a gonna change it....[/I]

Bruce is correct.

You need look no further than than the TSA or the gun debate to see it in action. Heck, look at President Obama's speech yesterday at the memorial service for the victims at the Navy Yard in DC: we can't let it happen again. Calls for gun control and more background checks: the perp in the Navy Yard case had a secret security clearance, which requires much more of a background check than any of the proposed gun control measures... and the gun that was used was a shotgun, which was/is not usually in the cross-hairs of most moderate gun control advocates.

In other words, more background checks for gun purchases would not have prevented the Navy Yard massacre.

To a congresscritter, it's all about looking like you're doing "something" to "protect the public" and prevent "needless" deaths. Doing "something" to "save lives" is fodder for re-election, whether that's background checks for guns or medical requirements for aviators.

A very significant portions of Americans lack critical thinking skills. If critical thinking skills were applied, our aviation medical standards would look much different than it does today.
 
We had a case a few years back of some AIRLINE pilots falling asleep during flight. One of the two involved had "undiagnosed" sleep apnea. It may seem like a small thing to you (and perhapss for non-commercial aviation it is, that's another issue entirely).
 
We had a case a few years back of some AIRLINE pilots falling asleep during flight. One of the two involved had "undiagnosed" sleep apnea. It may seem like a small thing to you (and perhapss for non-commercial aviation it is, that's another issue entirely).

You really can't assume just because someone falls asleep on the job that they have sleep apnea. Not saying it isn't a possible contributing factor but...zzz zzzzz zzzzzzz sorry dozed off for a bit there.

I know a guy who was diagnosed with moderate-severe sleep apnea 10 years ago and for various reasons he didn't do anything about it. He is rarely sleepy during the day although admittedly there are those occasional afternoons with the warm sun streaming through the win.....zzzzzzz zzzzz zzzzz...dow where he could take that occasional afternoon nap. In any case he is trying to schedule another sleep study and plans to take action this time but due to a high deductible insurance plan has had to wait to build up some funds in the HSA account.

So the whole reason for a copilot isn't so the other guy can take a nap? :dunno:

What are the actual steps for the SI for OSA? What is required the first time and subsequently? Are there major ongoing costs?
 
What are the actual steps for the SI for OSA? What is required the first time and subsequently. Are there major ongoing costs?
Sleep study for the dx and minimum 30 days confirmed compliance. So, if you're ATP and suspect you have a problem, it could mean about a 2 month vacation...

That's sorta' the point of this thread. "Undiagnosed" sleep apnea because the heavy metal drivers know what will happen if they do what they should for their own health.

BTW - if you've got it, weight loss most likely won't make it go away...
 
The point of the thread is well taken the guy I know was not flying at the time and hasn't since the diagnosis but has told me that had he known it was even something considered on an FAA medical he wouldn't have messed with it at the time and since he now is considering getting a medical again he has to deal with the past diagnosis. In his case the initial recommendation was surgery to fix a deviated septum which was one of the reasons he didn't pursue it. In any case as I understand it the FAA does not accept surgery or weight loss as evidence of mitigation of the condition.
 
We had a case a few years back of some AIRLINE pilots falling asleep during flight. One of the two involved had "undiagnosed" sleep apnea. It may seem like a small thing to you (and perhapss for non-commercial aviation it is, that's another issue entirely).

Hence the NTSB recommendation that FAA (and other transportation agencies) screen folks for Sleep Apnea.

Whether or not that should apply to non-commercial is, as you say, a different question - but in the court of public opinion the non-critical-thinkers will not understand the difference.
 
Hence the NTSB recommendation that FAA (and other transportation agencies) screen folks for Sleep Apnea.

Whether or not that should apply to non-commercial is, as you say, a different question - but in the court of public opinion the non-critical-thinkers will not understand the difference.
Given the extremely low number of accidents attributed to falling asleep at the yoke, it doesn't seem to me that sleep apnea should really be much of a concern for GA.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top