FAA adds another hoop for medicals

I diagnosed myself with OSA using a $150 (now 75) recodign pulse oximeter.
Then I wnet and had an offical sleep study and thanks to Dr Bruce I now have my 3rd class again.


Note that this screening criterion has been in place for CDL truck drivers, for awhile, so getting it applied to pilots is no surprise.

Back when I got my CPAP (2010 I think) there were a lot of truckers on the sleep apnea forums bitching about their CDL being invalid if they did not have good complance numbers on their cpap machine. It really makes a huge difference in the auality of your life.

The Pulseox screening is easy and if you have OSA be happy it is diagnosed as it really changes your life for the better.
 
Unregistered said:
Note that this screening criterion has been in place for CDL truck drivers, for awhile, so getting it applied to pilots is no surprise.
Click to expand...
I've heard that as well, along with claims that it has cost the trucking industry somewhere in the realm of a $Billion to implement.
 
Unregistered said:
This also applies to controllers. Has anyone from AAM ever been in a radar room? It'll hit 1/4 of that population. Now we get into labor issues (because controllers and their medicals are funded by FAA). Now controllers are paid for sleep studies and overtime must be called in to backfill for them. Now insurance won't cover a CPAP - it was the FAA that wanted it, let them pay for it. This is going to cost ATO millions. In the fight between ATO and AAM...well...
Click to expand...

And they'll fund that with... (drumroll)... "user fees".
 
weilke said:
The thing with obstructive apnea is that your chest is still moving, but no air is going in and out. During a polysomnogram, you have a little tube in your nose that records and temperature of the air going in and out and a sensor on your chest that records chest wall movement. An obstructive episode is when your chest wall moves but the nasal probe doesn't record air moving. It also records pulse-oximetry which documents the result of no air getting into the lungs.

Many OSA patients don't have their spouses reporting apneic episodes yet on a recording they still have many of them.
Click to expand...

What if you're a mouth breather?
 
There are some zingers in the comments section at AOPA:

“… the truly obese ones in this country are the Federal bureaucracies - too[sic] include our beloved FAA.”

“i forget...which part of the flight do you sleep?”

“For a syndrome that was not even recognized until about 1984, sleep apnea has created a whole new industry in the medical device world.”

LOL! Erm, sorry.

Fat pilots should be ashamed of themselves. :nono:
 
ifconfig said:
There are some zingers in the comments section at AOPA:

“… the truly obese ones in this country are the Federal bureaucracies - too[sic] include our beloved FAA.”

“i forget...which part of the flight do you sleep?”

“For a syndrome that was not even recognized until about 1984, sleep apnea has created a whole new industry in the medical device world.”

LOL! Erm, sorry.

Fat pilots should be ashamed of themselves. :nono:
Click to expand...

Kinda sad really, as is the AOPA going against it, it is only something that can help those affected. This is another great example of why I quit supporting the AOPA, the fights they choose, they often choose the wrong, non productive course to take. While 'sleep apnea' wasn't recognized until 1984, the condition of narcolepsy was known long before then, they just didn't know what was causing it. As accident investigation mostly of highway related accidents got more in depth, they found the reason (as an aside, if you snore, you very likely suffer from sleep apnea as the causes are the same), and the medical industry found a way to overcome it. There is no reason to protect a person from getting the oxygen they need, there is no positive to maintaining a lifestyle of brain oxygen deprivation, yet this is what the AOPA is trying to do. They would be serving their member base better by lobbying the sleep study centers to give an AOPA discount and making sure that insurance provides coverage regardless why the test/treatment is being conducted, that would get my support back. But no, once again AOPA chooses to take the spoiled toddler approach of saying "NO NO NO!!!" As for obese pilots who don't want to deal with it, I have even a lower opinion because this is something that can only help your life.
 
Last edited:
ifconfig said:
“My bet is that DR. Tilton will get this requirement implemented, then retire, then open a chain of sleep apnea treatment centers..”

Cynical but H-Y-larious! :rofl:
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't worked in the government.

The way it actually works is that some government bureaucrat pushes something like this through and then retires and conveniently takes an executive level job with an already existing commercial outfit.
 
JimNtexas said:
At some point the FAA has to have an innocent until proven guilty approach to these things.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen.

Administrative Law is not about "innocent until proven guilty". We're talking privileges, not rights.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You obviously haven't worked in the government.

The way it actually works is that some government bureaucrat pushes something like this through and then retires and conveniently takes an executive level job with an already existing commercial outfit.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, no lol, they start as industry executives and then become politicians. Look at the relationships between the oil industry and even Monsanto for proof.
 
Henning said:
Kinda sad really, as is the AOPA going against it, it is only something that can help those affected.
Click to expand...

Sorry Henning. AOPA is saying that the FAA is not my Primary Care Physician and has no business requiring pilots to get screened for a condition without evidence of its existence in that individual, and without evidence that the condition is an actual hazard to safety of flight.

When did it become the FAA's place (or yours) to decide what's in my best interest and force me to do it, rather that to identify conditions likely to cause sudden incapacitation in flight?
 
PilotAlan said:
Sorry Henning. AOPA is saying that the FAA is not my Primary Care Physician and has no business requiring pilots to get screened for a condition without evidence of its existence in that individual, and without evidence that the condition is an actual hazard to safety of flight.

When did it become the FAA's place (or yours) to decide what's in my best interest and force me to do it, rather that to identify conditions likely to cause sudden incapacitation in flight?
Click to expand...

Well, they are a hazard. People falling asleep in the cockpit during flight is a reality. They don't say you have to get the test, they are saying you have to get the test to maintain an airman medical. The first time I encountered this I got a call from SoCal approach, "04Y opposite direction traffic 12 oclock, 5 miles your altitude." I finally spotted him (he was west bound at 5500) and I avoided him with a close port to port pass, I could see him with his head back and sleeping. I called SoCal "You may want to send someone up after that Mooney to wake him up or they'll be pulling him out of the Pacific".
 
Papa Foxtrot said:
EAA: FAA Sleep Apnea Policy Would Set a Dangerous Precedent
Click to expand...

Seems like they have a point that there is a lack of evidence that sleep apnea is contributing to the accident record. That does seem to weaken the case that it "makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held," in the words of Part 67.

This thread certainly establishes that it's beneficial for a person who is at risk for it to be evaluated for it, but if a pilot seeks testing, tests positive, and gets treatment, then he would have to not only prove that he has been continuing the treatment (on an ongoing basis?), but also apply for (and wait for!) SIs on a continuing basis. Do I have that right? If so, it seems like all that would be a disincentive to get tested.
 
Palmpilot said:
Seems like they have a point that there is a lack of evidence that sleep apnea is contributing to the accident record. That does seem to weaken the case that it "makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held," in the words of Part 67.

This thread certainly establishes that it's beneficial for a person who is at risk for it to be evaluated for it, but if a pilot seeks testing, tests positive, and gets treatment, then he would have to not only prove that he has been continuing the treatment (on an ongoing basis?), but also apply for (and wait for!) SIs on a continuing basis. Do I have that right? If so, it seems like all that would be a disincentive to get tested.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the machines themselves can provide the proof, and the fact that several of the airmen on this board have the SI shows that it is not an insurmountable encumbrance.
 
Henning said:
There is no reason to protect a person from getting the oxygen they need, there is no positive to maintaining a lifestyle of brain oxygen deprivation, yet this is what the AOPA is trying to do.
Click to expand...

Maybe the FAA should be EDUCATING pilots about it, instead of disincentivising treatment by imposing a boatload of bureacratic BS on pilots who get it.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe the FAA should be EDUCATING pilots about it, instead of disincentivising treatment by imposing a boatload of bureacratic BS on pilots who get it.
Click to expand...

The problem is the people who don't want to be educated. There are already plenty of people educated on the subject who voluntarily go through the process as is evidenced by several posts in this thread alone, I have not heard one person using the therapy complain about the results yet. It's the stupid the rules are written for, not the smart, the smart keep themselves out of trouble.
 
Henning said:
My understanding is that the machines themselves can provide the proof, and the fact that several of the airmen on this board have the SI shows that it is not an insurmountable encumbrance.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the 100 day backlog (or whatever it is), is an insurmountable incumbrance. I'm saying that it's a pain in the rear, and therefore a disincentive to getting treated.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not saying that the 100 day backlog (or whatever it is), is an insurmountable incumbrance. I'm saying that it's a pain in the rear, and therefore a disincentive to getting treated.
Click to expand...

Too freakin bad, that's all I have to say to that. If that is a disincentive to improve someone's health and quality of life then they are too stupid to be PIC IMO, they fail the test of being able to make a good decision.
 
I think that if the faa wants to add OSA screen then in trade it should then be something that a ame can verify and remove the si requirement, ie let the ame do the issuance with some fixed protocol, and no si for treated osa.

Paul
 
Henning said:
Too freakin bad, that's all I have to say to that. If that is a disincentive to improve someone's health and quality of life then they are too stupid to be PIC IMO, they fail the test of being able to make a good decision.
Click to expand...

I don't think getting self-righteous about it is likely to improve the percentage of pilots who get testing and treatment.
 
PilotAlan said:
Sorry Henning. AOPA is saying that the FAA is not my Primary Care Physician and has no business requiring pilots to get screened for a condition without evidence of its existence in that individual, and without evidence that the condition is an actual hazard to safety of flight.

When did it become the FAA's place (or yours) to decide what's in my best interest and force me to do it, rather that to identify conditions likely to cause sudden incapacitation in flight?
Click to expand...

Nothing new about that. Pilots with SI medicals for a wide variety of problems are treated differently under FAA medical certification rules compared to usual medical practice.

Gary F
 
Henning said:
My understanding is that the machines themselves can provide the proof, and the fact that several of the airmen on this board have the SI shows that it is not an insurmountable encumbrance.
Click to expand...

The sleep study, and evaluation of the results, gives you a diagnosis. There is an SI for this - the first time it will probably be deferred, although Doc Bruce might have enough magic up his sleeve to bypass this. There is the possibility FAA will want another test called MWT, but many of us do it preemptively or combined with the sleep study. It is a follow-up to verify your treatment is working. It is a test where you have to stay awake while reclining on a bed in a darkened room. The tech told me he'd only seen two people fail it, both truck drivers.

After that, on an annual basis, you pull the records from the machine, visit your personal doc for a status rerport that says the treatment is still working, no heart problems, ..., then go to your AME and pay a couple bucks for his time and get renewed in office. Or, you can mail that info to FAA, wait a few months but get renewed for free. On the years when your normal medical is due, you will also have to deal with that.

If you have corrective surgery or drastic weight loss, you can get a clean sleep study and a new diagnosis and be done with it.

There is no annual testing. I schedule an annual physical about a month before I have to renew my SI or medical then use that appointment to get a status report at the same time. Easy.

But, the SI letter does say that if there are questions about compliance, FAA can request an MWT.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Too freakin bad, that's all I have to say to that. If that is a disincentive to improve someone's health and quality of life then they are too stupid to be PIC IMO, they fail the test of being able to make a good decision.
Click to expand...

Again, is the FAA's role to be my primary care physician?
Or to screen for conditions that have a demonstrated likelihood of resulting in incapacitation?
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think getting self-righteous about it is likely to improve the percentage of pilots who get testing and treatment.
Click to expand...

I don't really care lol. It's not me being self righteous, self righteous are the people saying "I shouldn't be required this" when there are known safety (and health) issues surrounding it.
 
Matthew said:
The sleep study, and evaluation of the results, gives you a diagnosis. There is an SI for this - the first time it will probably be deferred, although Doc Bruce might have enough magic up his sleeve to bypass this. There is the possibility FAA will want another test called MWT, but many of us do it preemptively or combined with the sleep study. It is a follow-up to verify your treatment is working. It is a test where you have to stay awake while reclining on a bed in a darkened room. The tech told me he'd only seen two people fail it, both truck drivers.

After that, on an annual basis, you pull the records from the machine, visit your personal doc for a status rerport that says the treatment is still working, no heart problems, ..., then go to your AME and pay a couple bucks for his time and get renewed in office. Or, you can mail that info to FAA, wait a few months but get renewed for free. On the years when your normal medical is due, you will also have to deal with that.

If you have corrective surgery or drastic weight loss, you can get a clean sleep study and a new diagnosis and be done with it.

There is no annual testing. I schedule an annual physical about a month before I have to renew my SI or medical then use that appointment to get a status report at the same time. Easy.

But, the SI letter does say that if there are questions about compliance, FAA can request an MWT.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I understood, as far as an SI goes, relatively painless, and potentially reversible through loss of weight.
 
Henning said:
I don't really care lol. It's not me being self righteous, self righteous are the people saying "I shouldn't be required this" when there are known safety (and health) issues surrounding it.
Click to expand...

Self-righteousness is looking down your nose at people who are concerned about things that you are not concerned about.
 
PilotAlan said:
Again, is the FAA's role to be my primary care physician?
Or to screen for conditions that have a demonstrated likelihood of resulting in incapacitation?
Click to expand...

This is screening for the cause of a condition that can cause incapacitation at any time. I worked with a car salesman that had the glass walled cube next to mine, he used to regularly nod off in the middle of a sale, I got more than one sale from that effect when they would walk over to my cube. He also crashed two of the dealership's cars falling asleep behind the wheel, once on the way to picking up lunch.
 
Henning said:
This is screening for the cause of a condition that can cause incapacitation at any time. I worked with a car salesman that had the glass walled cube next to mine, he used to regularly nod off in the middle of a sale, I got more than one sale from that effect when they would walk over to my cube. He also crashed two of the dealership's cars falling asleep behind the wheel, once on the way to picking up lunch.
Click to expand...

How do you know the cause was sleep apnea?
 
Palmpilot said:
Self-righteousness is looking down your nose at people who are concerned about things that you are not concerned about.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok, well, I don't look down my nose at people so stupid they can't make a good decision, I do pity the recipients of the effect of their stupidity though and I don't think that they should be allowed to let their stupidity endanger others. If they want to fly Pt 103, then I have no issues with them falling asleep while flying. IMO reinforcing someone's 'right to make stupid decisions' is idiocy, and I will not give my money in support of idiocy, that is my qualm with the AOPA, they support idiocy. If morbidly obese people want to fight the FAA on this, they can spend their own money doing so, we don't need an advocacy group for all pilots doing so making all pilots look stupid.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Oh, ok, well, I don't look down my nose at people so stupid they can't make a good decision, I do pity the recipients of the effect of their stupidity though and I don't think that they should be allowed to let their stupidity endanger others. If they want to fly Pt 103, then I have no issues with them falling asleep while flying. IMO reinforcing someone's 'right to make stupid decisions' is idiocy, and I will not give my money in support of idiocy, that is my qualm with the AOPA, they support idiocy. If morbidly obese people want to fight the FAA on this, they can spend their own money doing so, we don't need an advocacy group for all pilots doing so making all pilots look stupid.
Click to expand...

No looking down your nose there! Nope! None at all! :rofl:
 
Henning said:
... potentially reversible through loss of weight.
Click to expand...
Sorry there, pardner ... not likely - at least based on my experience. I have OSA and probably have had it most if not all my life. ... 6' and 185 as a high school senior football/wrestling and track and best shape of my life ... still had OSA.
 
weilke said:
...That said, I believe that there is a fair amount of unethical conduct in the commercial 'sleep center' industry. The relatively good reimbursement for sleep studies and the lure of an ongoing income stream from DME rentals and consumables seems to push some of the practicioners towards a generous interpretation of what is an episode and what isn't. I would feel a lot more confident about the results of many commercial sleep studies if there was not a link between diagnosing someone and profiting off their ongoing equipment needs...
Click to expand...

Getting back to this issue of unethical conduct, is there anything the patient can watch out for, to determine if the place he is going to is on the up-and-up or not?
 
gkainz said:
Sorry there, pardner ... not likely - at least based on my experience. I have OSA and probably have had it most if not all my life. ... 6' and 185 as a high school senior football/wrestling and track and best shape of my life ... still had OSA.
Click to expand...

As I said, potentially, as reported by others who have the condition due to weight issues. I suspect there are other ways to end up with this condition due to the way a person is structured despite weight.
 
Henning said:
Pretty much what I understood, as far as an SI goes, relatively painless, and potentially reversible through loss of weight.
Click to expand...

Potentially - if it's OSA (most common). But for CSA (less common) I think it's a denial.

I see a couple things at work here. DOT already requires many operators (truck drivers, for example) to get tested or maintain some level of follow up testing. I can see DOT trying to bring pilots and controllers into the same kind of compliance.

I'm no expert, but I do think, statistically, you can find a correlation between BMI, neck size, and OSA. There are certainly exceptions, and I didn't fit the profile. There is also the political aspect. Again, statistically, untreated OSA results in more 'asleep at the wheel' incidents than normal. There have been some high profile cases in the news of pilots and controllers nodding off. OSA related? Who knows? But it made the news and brought unwanted attention to FAA.

Probably, if there were a simple blood test or urine test, FAA would have added it to our medicals by now. But they also have to not overload the SI system, too.
 
Matthew said:
...DOT already requires many operators (truck drivers, for example) to get tested or maintain some level of follow up testing. I can see DOT trying to bring pilots and controllers into the same kind of compliance...
Click to expand...

Isn't that required testing for commercial drivers?
 
Is it:

(BMI > 40 AND NECK > 17") must be evaluated - i.e., a candidate must meet BOTH conditions to be captured

OR:

(BMI > 40) AND THOSE WITH (NECK > 17") must be evaluated - captures TWO sets of conditions (i.e., neck size over 17 but BMI < 40 still must be tested)
 
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