Are strict medical requirements counterproductive?

[douglas393]

Let's say you are an active GA pilot and fly 100 hours per year. There are 8760 hours in a year. So a 1.14% chance of having an acute medical condition strike you while flying. Of that percentage what are the chances the issue will be so instant and debilitating that you will be unable to land the plane? Infinitesimal. How many of these potential situations will come with some warning, previous history, etc.? Many I would think. Of the remaining issues, which will be stopped by having a current (1-3 year old) medical? Not many.

Lawmakers need to grow a pair when questioned about aviation accidents. If they really want to increase the public safety, push to outlaw texting and driving, I see that everyday and it scares the crap out of me.

Your points make sense from a statistical point of view, but forget to remember that we live in a society that is more reactional than rational. Look at the what happened to the country after 9-11 just to see that. The gun debates are also an example of this. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that a reactional response to something often results in irrational decisions. From my little observation post, I see the FAA position on medicals as being draconian may inconvienence those trying to become pilots, and may prevent or discourage some potential pilot candidates, but such is life. For them it is easier to do it this way, then have to deal with the media and public outcry when that rare event occurs in which someone is flying on a less strigent medical, and has an incapacitating medical event, and takes out a school or surburban home or what not. It is all about the court of public opinion, and it would not surprise me that there is a concerted effort to downplay or totally ignore medical conditions contributing to accidents in the NTSB reports.

Remember at the end of the day, FAA funding is going to be the same regardless of whether or not some potential pilots do not become GA pilots because of draconian medical requirements. Furthermore, it will not surprise me that when some sport pilot has an accident that is solely the result of a medically incapacitating event that would have prevented said pilot from flying if they had undergone a third class medical, that the end result of the congressional hearings and witch hunt will be the end of the less strigent medical requirements for sport pilot.

 

[DFH65]

What interest does the FAA have in everyday Joes flying airplanes? None. We have highly skilled professionals to get you from here to there.

 

[Henning]

What interest does the FAA have in everyday Joes flying airplanes? None. We have highly skilled professionals to get you from here to there.

Not true, they have Congress on their backs because Congress has constituents on their backs because your neighbors are afraid of those little planes crashing in their kid's playground at recess because the sensationalistic media takes every event and turns it into the Hindenburg over and over again because you want 24 hr news channels. It's not the FAAs fault.

 

[douglas393]

Not true, they have Congress on their backs because Congress has constituents on their backs because your neighbors are afraid of those little planes crashing in their kid's playground at recess because the sensationalistic media takes every event and turns it into the Hindenburg over and over again because you want 24 hr news channels. It's not the FAAs fault.

And so it is in the FAA's interest to make GA as difficult as feasible, and what better way than making joining the club more difficult. Medicals fit the purpose well. Plausible deniability for the FAA, and good PR for the public. It's a win win with the only losers being us. Now where do a tattoo the big L? The one on my forehead has faded with age.

 

[Henning]

The majority of people don't have a problem passing a medical, many of those who have trouble still get one under further review with continued heightened scrutiny.

 

[bbchien]

OK - I'll buy that. I just have a visceral distrust of bureaucracy that makes me quick to ascribe mal intent...

Well hey. We're not dumb. But uncorking the genie....well we may or we may NOT like the outcome.

 

[Unregistered]

Well hey. We're not dumb. But uncorking the genie....well we may or we may NOT like the outcome.

OP here.

I'm sort of refreshed that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

Nor, like one of the first replies reports,am I necessarily saying that I do or do not have any suspicions about disqualifying medical factors (I think any intern at the NSA could probably tie me right back to this post if recent news is at all accurate).

But the post from Dr. Bruce above (and my unyielding respect for a man who has done more to keep us in the skies than anyone else I can think of) makes me think that perhaps this thread should 'go away'.....is there a way for that to happen?

I'm all for the first amendment, but in our reactive, hyper vigilant society I'm wondering if the rather frank and accurate comments here might not one day be used by said congresscritters as 'evidence' against us when things get (as Dr. Bruce predicts) worse.

 

[Palmpilot]

But the post from Dr. Bruce above (and my unyielding respect for a man who has done more to keep us in the skies than anyone else I can think of) makes me think that perhaps this thread should 'go away'.....is there a way for that to happen?

Mods, please don't delete this thread. There's information here that's of value to us.

 

[Henning]

OP here.

I'm sort of refreshed that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

Nor, like one of the first replies reports,am I necessarily saying that I do or do not have any suspicions about disqualifying medical factors (I think any intern at the NSA could probably tie me right back to this post if recent news is at all accurate).

But the post from Dr. Bruce above (and my unyielding respect for a man who has done more to keep us in the skies than anyone else I can think of) makes me think that perhaps this thread should 'go away'.....is there a way for that to happen?

I'm all for the first amendment, but in our reactive, hyper vigilant society I'm wondering if the rather frank and accurate comments here might not one day be used by said congresscritters as 'evidence' against us when things get (as Dr. Bruce predicts) worse.

Nope, Google already has it archived.

 

[JimNtexas]

...
for Jim, the screening is an overnight recording oximetry, which is Not a sleep study, it's done in your bed unassisted. It's proposed one time, for some BMI above ~30, IIRC and then 35 if you climb that high. Just the overnight rental of a machine from the wheelchair store. This can be had for about $200 and always insured. But Dr. L_m_ng_no faces pretty stiff opposition as to being "paternal" within the division. We'll see.

Funny you should mention that, I just ordered a recording pluse oximeter , that should work with my open source Sleepy Head CPAP software.

In my case I've lost at least 70 pounds since I was diagnosed with OSA*. I'm sure my OSA is much less severe than it was then, but I'm not sure how much less.

I figured this thing should give me enough data to decide if it's worth going to a sleep doctor to see if I can discontinue CPAP.

I still use my CPAP, and will continue to do so until and unless I'm convinced I don't need it.

-----
* For people who suspect that they might have OSA (clue: your collar size is 16" or more): I can't say that correlation is causation, but I don't think it was a coincidence that after years of trying I was able to really lose weight shortly after starting CPAP.

 

[JimNtexas]

Great. No sooner do I mention OSA on an aviation forum and this happens.

 

[RotorAndWing]

And so it is in the FAA's interest to make GA as difficult as feasible, and what better way than making joining the club more difficult. Medicals fit the purpose well. Plausible deniability for the FAA, and good PR for the public. It's a win win with the only losers being us. Now where do a tattoo the big L? The one on my forehead has faded with age.

Where you forced to get a pilot's license against your will? Are you being forced to maintain your license?

The rules were in place long, long before you ever considered flying. You were aware of these rules before you gained your pilot certificate.

And now that you have it the rules are "unreasonable"?

Same ol' broken record being played over and over...........

 

[douglas393]

Where you forced to get a pilot's license against your will? Are you being forced to maintain your license?

The rules were in place long, long before you ever considered flying. You were aware of these rules before you gained your pilot certificate.

And now that you have it the rules are "unreasonable"?

Same ol' broken record being played over and over...........

Really!!! I think your criticism of my post is misplaced and unwarranted, or based on a misinterpretation of my issue. Personally, I have had no problems passing my physical, and have no problems with taking a medical for my license. The complaint from me is not the issue of physicals or taking physicals, but the issue of some of the disqualifying conditions that make no sense from a medical perspective.

The point is some of the rules are antiquated and need to be changed. My view however, is that the FAA is not going to change them.

So to answer your question, I would like to continue to be able to fly as long as I can, and would hate to lose my license or have to go through expensive unnecessary testing to prove go through the FAA hoops because of some disqualifying medical condition that any reasonable flight surgeon would say should not be disqualifying.

 

[DFH65]

Where you forced to get a pilot's license against your will? Are you being forced to maintain your license?

The rules were in place long, long before you ever considered flying. You were aware of these rules before you gained your pilot certificate.

And now that you have it the rules are "unreasonable"?

Same ol' broken record being played over and over...........

Your logic is flawed. Someones willingness to comply with a law has nothing to do with the validity of the law. I am generally a law abiding person. I comply with laws every day I think are unreasonable. I also work diligently to change them when I can.

 

[douglas393]

Your logic is flawed. Someones willingness to comply with a law has nothing to do with the validity of the law. I am generally a law abiding person. I comply with laws every day I think are unreasonable. I also work diligently to change them when I can.

Much better said than my response. Thanks.

 

[Unregistered]

So nice to no longer play the medical game. I could, but I don't by choice. Rarely go to the doc but I did today for a bugger of a sore swollen throat. Got a script for prednisone don't know or care if affects medical status because I ain't got one and don't need one to fly. Winner.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Your logic is flawed. Someones willingness to comply with a law has nothing to do with the validity of the law. I am generally a law abiding person. I comply with laws every day I think are unreasonable. I also work diligently to change them when I can.

Nope, it's not flawed. Just the same 'ol ****ing and moaning that's been going on in aviation for years. People come into it knowing the rules and regulations, then after certification they want the rules changed. I watched the same thing happen with the age 60 rule, the young guys were glad it was there, but when they got older then it became " it's not fair".

 

[Gary F]

Nope, it's not flawed. Just the same 'ol ****ing and moaning that's been going on in aviation for years. People come into it knowing the rules and regulations, then after certification they want the rules changed. I watched the same thing happen with the age 60 rule, the young guys were glad it was there, but when they got older then it became " it's not fair".

Are you still flying? If so, do you believe that you will never have to deal with the consequences of developing a medical condition? Your perspective on what is reasonable and what is not may change someday. From my perspective, the FAAs medical regulations and procedures are substantially flawed.

 

[douglas393]

Nope, it's not flawed. Just the same 'ol ****ing and moaning that's been going on in aviation for years. People come into it knowing the rules and regulations, then after certification they want the rules changed. I watched the same thing happen with the age 60 rule, the young guys were glad it was there, but when they got older then it became " it's not fair".

Actually, my guess is that your supposition is not true. I was vaguely familiar with the wide assortment of disqualifying conditions when I took my first AF medical when I was a senior in college. I almost lost my commission before it started because I had a resting heart rate of 45 with a BP of 90/60. Took a cardiologist to tell the USAF that for someone who was riding a bicycle some 300 to 400 miles a week, that was pretty much normal. Fast forward 27 years and now I am taking my physical for my PPL in my presolo days and I probably knew about as much about what were the disqualifying conditions as I did when I was a senior in college. Being fairly healthy, I was not too concerned about failing the third class physical.

My medical knowledge is probably slightly better than the average or even above average PPL candidate, and while there is some very basic didactic teaching about aviation health and medicine, I do not remember anything about the requirements of the physical, other than it needs to be done, and over 40 every 2 years, and under 40 every 5 years. I would suggest to you that most learn about disqualifying conditions when they get the bad news, or from learning about it from forums like this. I would not be surprised if the average CFI is fairly oblivious to the range of disqualifying conditions as well.

Even if your supposition is true, it does not mean that there cannot be changes made when the rules and regulations are felt to be antiquated. Using your logic it would still be illegal to shop on Sundays, and for women, non whites, and non land owners to vote.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Are you still flying?

Yes, I'm still flying.

If so, do you believe that you will never have to deal with the consequences of developing a medical condition?

Never said that. I just understand the rules as they were in place when I began this.

Your perspective on what is reasonable and what is not may change someday. From my perspective, the FAAs medical regulations and procedures are substantially flawed.

My perspective has remained the same, I accepted the rules when I began.

As far as the FAA is concerned they have made improvements over the years I've been flying in their rules and procedures on medical. Someone like Dr. Bruce is better versed on the medical conditions that were absolutely not allowed to being allowed in today's FAA.

Right now my First Class medical is from another country as I have a foreign ATP as well as my US version. The medical requirements over here (and many countries) are far more stringent than the FAA requirements.

 

[RotorAndWing]

My medical knowledge is probably slightly better than the average or even above average PPL candidate, and while there is some very basic didactic teaching about aviation health and medicine, I do not remember anything about the requirements of the physical,

So by your own admission you went blindly into this without understanding the requirements? And you blame who?

Using your logic it would still be illegal to shop on Sundays, and for women, non whites, and non land owners to vote.

You're grasping at straws now. Try to stay on topic.

 

[douglas393]

So by your own admission you went blindly into this without understanding the requirements? And you blame who?

First I see no place where I am blaming anyone. Second I see no place where I am saying I went into it blindly. I was told I needed to take a physical and knew I was healthy, and so was not really worried about be disqualified. However, what I did not know, nor really would have been concerned about was the number of disqualifying conditions that really should not be disqualifying. Wanting to change outdated requirements has nothing to do with anything you are saying. It has to do with improving an outdated and antiquated set of rules that most would agree should be changed.

You're grasping at straws now. Try to stay on topic.

I respectfully disagree with this characterization.

 

[Gary F]

My perspective has remained the same, I accepted the rules when I began.

As far as the FAA is concerned they have made improvements over the years I've been flying in their rules and procedures on medical. Someone like Dr. Bruce is better versed on the medical conditions that were absolutely not allowed to being allowed in today's FAA.

Right now my First Class medical is from another country as I have a foreign ATP as well as my US version. The medical requirements over here (and many countries) are far more stringent than the FAA requirements.

It's nice that you have accepted the rules. I suspect that we can both agree that the system is not perfect and it follows that the system has potential for improvement. Blind acceptance of the status quo is not going to lead to a better result.

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's nice that you have accepted the rules. I suspect that we can both agree that the system is not perfect and it follows that the system has potential for improvement. Blind acceptance of the status quo is not going to lead to a better result.

Agreed.

 

[bbchien]

Douglas, influencing federal policy is very difficult to do in the environment of "We will tolerate no more accidents!" (Frederico Pena), and our current situation of sound bytes by politician ("This will never happen again!"-Sen, Dick Durbin, a somehow appropriate name). They only understand what will sell to the masses.

We did manage to do that with SSRIs for chronic simple depression in remission, however, that took five years of work, and many trips to 800 Independence.