Is screening for OSA a good thing for GA?

Is the proposed screening for OSA a good thing for GA?

  • Yes. Many overweight pilts will get treatment they need and the accident rate should go down.

    Votes: 10 17.2%
  • No. Many pilots are likely to quit, or never start and this will reduce the pilot population.

    Votes: 33 56.9%
  • It really won't make much difference either way.

    Votes: 15 25.9%

  • Total voters
    58

Dav8or

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
5,174
Location
Discovery Bay, CA
Display Name

Display name:
Dave
This is just an opinion poll, so no demands for facts, figures and citations required. The reason being, those facts aren't known yet.

The FAA wants to have AMEs to start requiring all pilots seeking a valid medical that have a BMI over 40 and eventually over 36, to go and get a sleep study done at certified sleep center to see if these pilots suffer from OSA. I'm told the study costs about $2000. If negative, the test results are fine and you get your medical until the next medical when you do it again. If you are positive, you must get treatment which usually involves buying a machine (not sure how much they cost) called CPAP and strapping it on your face at night to help you breath. If the treatment is proven successful, you get a SI and you can fly.

They want to do this because OSA causes sleep deprivation and medical studies have shown that sleep deprivation is cognitively impairing about the same as having .088 alcohol in your blood, so legally drunk. The 2012 Nall Report states that for 2010, 62%, or 856 accidents out a total of 1377 for the year, were caused by pilot error. These accidents resulted in 148 deaths.

The medical establishment also has good science that shows that if you have a BMI over 40, there is a 90% chance you suffer from OSA. If your over 36 BMI, I assume the likelihood of OSA is somewhat less, but still high. I don't know that number, but the point is, this is why the FAA is using BMI to select out the airmen that need testing. If you're over a BMI of 36, you likely suffer from OSA, if you suffer from untreated OSA, you're flying as though you were legally drunk and you very well may end up in one of those 62% of pilot error accidents.

The counter perspective to this is this- is this new requirement worth the potential damage to the pilot population and by extension, GA as a whole? Healthy, alert pilots are a good thing, but how many will see this as yet another obstacle and either quit flying, or never start in the first place? This is unknown and we won't know until after the mandate.

We know the pilot population is dwindling, pilots are flying less and less and as a result the cost of flying is going up. Rising costs cause more to quit. A vicious cycle. The way out of the cycle is more pilots. Pilots of all sizes.

Is some unknown potential reduction in total accidents (1377 for 2010) worth the unknown risk of further pilot population reduction at this time in America's GA history? Will overweight pilots gladly submit and get tested and treated, or quit? If they do quit, will the loss of these pilots in the population make a difference in cost to other pilots? Will the newly vetted pilot population stop making so many pilot errors that result in accidents? Will the skies be safer?

Nobody knows, that's why this is an opinion poll and nothing more.
 
They are driving locomotives with passengers inside.
 
My layman's view of this: I'm concerned that people will fixate on using simple numbers/tests.

From a risk analysis POV, is it really worth the expense? At some point we have to stop unlimited spending spending spending to maybe save one life.
 
All of the above. Many pilots will get treatment and the accident rate will go down. Many pilots will simply quit or not start and the pilot population will go down. It won't make much difference either way.
 
They are driving locomotives with passengers inside.

My guess is, there aren't many people, including me, that would argue screening and treatment for commercial operators with critical positions that involve dozens, or hundreds of passengers like that of trains and airliners, isn't a good idea. The question is, is it a good idea to screen and treat everyone operating any type of vehicle in public areas? Trucks, RVs, planes, boats, motorcycles, etc.
 
The question is, is it a good idea to screen and treat everyone operating any type of vehicle in public areas? Trucks, RVs, planes, boats, motorcycles, etc.

No.

If there was a poll attached, that would be my vote.
 
All it's going to do is cost a lot of people a lot of money.

Airline pilots have died in flight. Should they be forced to take an EKG before each flight?
 
Gonna end up with a lot of overweight sport pilots. If the FAA wants this screening ,they should pay for the tests.
 
Gonna end up with a lot of overweight sport pilots. If the FAA wants this screening ,they should pay for the tests.
The tests need to get a lot cheaper. I took a couple that ranged in thousands of dollars. If it was a cheap (and covered by insurance) as an EKG, that would be OK.
 
They want to do this because OSA causes sleep deprivation and medical studies have shown that sleep deprivation is cognitively impairing about the same as having .088 alcohol in your blood, so legally drunk.

I don't think it's valid to equate having OSA with being drunk. Doesn't being drunk have effects that are a lot more serious than cognitive impairment?

As for the poll, I don't feel that I have enough information to select an answer.
 
Gonna end up with a lot of overweight sport pilots.

This is a possibility. We could see an uptick in sport pilots and LSA sales and that wouldn't be a bad thing. However, the FAA has mandated the LSA to have such a low gross weight that the aircraft itself filters out many overweight pilots and of course, there are those pilots that would rather quit than step down in capability.
 
Kinna hard to be 280 lbs and fly an LSA with a useful load of 540....you can go solo, for sure....but that's about it.
 
For second-class and first-class, probably. As with truck drivers and locomotive engineers, higher standards for operators responsible for the lives / property of others can be justified.

For third-class, no. The bulk of flying done by third-class certificate holders is low-risk and doesn't justify the intrusion. (Yeah, there are exceptions, like Travolta, but they're unusual.)

-Rich
 
For second-class and first-class, probably. As with truck drivers and locomotive engineers, higher standards for operators responsible for the lives / property of others can be justified.

For third-class, no. The bulk of flying done by third-class certificate holders is low-risk and doesn't justify the intrusion. (Yeah, there are exceptions, like Travolta, but they're unusual.)

-Rich

I agree with this...I can justify and validate the OSA requirement for second and third class medicals.

It is already a standard for commercial truckers that have a Class A license. Making all the third class medical aviation folks fall under the requirement would be like making anyone that drives a car get tested.

Commercial, sure...recreational...way outta line since the applicant will have to shell out the $2k in testing out of pocket!
 
I don't think it's valid to equate having OSA with being drunk. Doesn't being drunk have effects that are a lot more serious than cognitive impairment?

Well they are saying .088, which is like having two beers in a row. Many people here have experience with that. I think they mean stuff like a slightly slower reaction time and making mistakes on calculations and fast decisions, not slurring words and falling down. They don't mean drunk like hammering tequila shots all night.

As for the poll, I don't feel that I have enough information to select an answer.
That's the thing about it. There isn't a lot of information about what will happen, or what effect it will have on safety. All we know is what the medical establishment has told us and that many pilots that have already gone through this report that it does cost significant money, but the results of treatment are positive with them feeling better and more alert.

I wonder if any of the pilots here that have been treated for OSA can say that they now make significantly less mistakes, or bad judgements since treatment? Would be interesting to know.
 
Last edited:
Presumably, yes. An argument could be made that the FAA's mandate could potentially make nation's highways a tiny bit safer too. To what degree, nobody knows.

While the effect on road safety would be infinitesimal in either direction, I would actually expect it to make road safety worse. While you'll get some people who are treated and thus less sleep-drunk, I bet there'd be a higher number of people who either stop flying if they're already pilots, or never finish their pilot certificate if they're not yet pilots, due to the expense of the test. Thus, they will not be treated and they'll be driving on the road rather than flying in the sky, and so you'll have more "sleep-drunk" drivers on the road.

Kinda the same logic as the FAA not requiring a seat for a kid under 2 on an airplane.
 
Well they are saying .088, which is like having two beers in a row. Many people here have experience with that. I think they mean stuff like a slightly slower reaction time and making mistakes on calculations and fast decisions, not slurring words and falling down. They don't mean drunk like hammering tequila shots all night.

I was thinking of things like impaired judgement and reasoning, and lowering of inhibitions.
 
The quicker you get this fixed (OSA) the less money you're gonna cost ME and ALL of us when you are on Medicare. Nomex suit and gloves on.
 
I was thinking of things like impaired judgement and reasoning, and lowering of inhibitions.

I'm not sure what the official finds are, but my anecdotal finds are, it's a lot harder to score with the ladies when they're tired and sleepy vs. when they're drunk!:lol:
 
The only thing that would be good for GA is carnage tolerance and cheaper fuel, planes, and parts. Neither is going to happen. We let the safety first culture grow, first it shat on things we didn't care about, now it is an unstoppable monster walking through downtown general aviation. Enjoy the decline. If you know any fat guys with airplanes you lust for, now is a good time to start scheming...
 
I voted NO, but your reasons don't have squat to do with mine.
 
The only thing that would be good for GA is carnage tolerance and cheaper fuel, planes, and parts. Neither is going to happen. We let the safety first culture grow, first it shat on things we didn't care about, now it is an unstoppable monster walking through downtown general aviation. Enjoy the decline. If you know any fat guys with airplanes you lust for, now is a good time to start scheming...

Yeah, like how to keep them from losing weight or using a CPAP machine...:rolleyes:
 
Yeah, like how to keep them from losing weight or using a CPAP machine...:rolleyes:

The FAA has an effective disincentive against using a CPAP machine: They just put pilots who do so through considerable expense and a bureaucratic hassle at least once a year. (See the text file I just posted in the original OSA thread.)
 
If eliminating the requirement for an FAA medical didn't make a statistically significant change in the accidents per year for aircraft that fall under the LSA category, then this will probably not make a statistically significant change in anything either.
 
The FAA has an effective disincentive against using a CPAP machine: They just put pilots who do so through considerable expense and a bureaucratic hassle at least once a year. (See the text file I just posted in the original OSA thread.)

Right, the trick is to argue against the disincentive rather than the entire issue. Make the situation easy and manageable for both sides. This is one of those few things that can easily be a win-win, however we have to work cooperatively in order to achieve it. Demanding this go through the rule making process is counterproductive. What AOPA and EAA should be doing is getting together with Sleep Centers and working out a deal to preemptively screen and get people with OSA on a CPAP in exchange for allowing just proof of continued use of the machine from it's internal data recorder to supplant the full SI process. Make it easier for everyone and save the cost burden on both the Pilots and FAA. I know it's unAmerican to cooperate with government, but occasionally it's the most effective.
 
If eliminating the requirement for an FAA medical didn't make a statistically significant change in the accidents per year for aircraft that fall under the LSA category, then this will probably not make a statistically significant change in anything either.

Logical fallacy there since we haven't eliminated undiagnosed OSA from the non LSA pilot community yet.
 
The FAA has an effective disincentive against using a CPAP machine: They just put pilots who do so through considerable expense and a bureaucratic hassle at least once a year. (See the text file I just posted in the original OSA thread.)
Burden? You go to see your sleep doc once per year. BIG burden. :mad2:
 
Myself, I think that all government employees, especially the FAA, should be required to undergo the same tests and standards in order to keep their jobs. Many FAA employees have to fly as part of their jobs, so it makes sense.

Studies have shown that OSA can affect your decision making and judgment, something that could cause a lot of damage to the general public who must deal with such people. Teachers and administrators especially should be rigorously monitored.

I also feel that if the government would require citizens to pay for such tests, and equipment if needed, out of their own pockets in order to meet government requirements, so to should government employees pay for them out of their own pockets.

This is a serious issue that has been affecting millions of Americans for probably the country's entire existence, fat bureaucrats making bad OSA induced decisions.

I would go far a to suggest that the attack on Eddy Lanes pilot examinations was instigated by a chubby FAA employee. A decision that made me finally give up on aviation as a pastime.... and I am sure at least a few hundred others made the same choice..

-John
 
This proposal will have no effect on the safety of GA. It will allow some AME's to upgrade from a E class to a S class on the dwindling number of pilots. I attend a lot of FAA and AOPA safety seminars over the course of the year, the VAST Majority of crashes are caused by poor preflight planing. VFR into IFR conditions by both IFR and VFR pilots alike ending in crashes. Then flight into terrain. And the common factor I see is its doctors crashing a lot of the time. I think a study why a large number of docs make poor decision while flying would be a good thing. High rates of alcoholism? Abuse of prescription drugs.Don't know but if they have a problem it should be addressed. it might lower the accident rates.
 
Burden? You go to see your sleep doc once per year. BIG burden. :mad2:

Do you get more than two weeks of paid vacation per year? Because I don't and I've been in my industry for almost 20 years.

An extra once a year doc visit eats 10% of my paid time off and most useless middle managers won't do the paperwork to approve unpaid time off. They'll instead hide that you're gone if they're nice and you spend the day hoping the cell phone doesn't ring with someone asking, "when will you be back from lunch"?

We noticed Karen's folks were out of touch in this regard years ago too. They assumed employees still get to visit Docs as part of Sick time or something reasonable like back in their day. You asked many of your patients how much time they get off per year lately, Doc?
 
Do you get more than two weeks of paid vacation per year? Because I don't and I've been in my industry for almost 20 years.

Damn, third year airline pilots get Three weeks ! I get five but then again nobody would want to be an airline pilot - right ?
 
6 years with a Utility Co and I get 4 weeks a year :). As far as these tests go, I highly doubt it will change much.
 
Damn, third year airline pilots get Three weeks ! I get five but then again nobody would want to be an airline pilot - right ?

And here I was told unions don't serve any purpose anymore!
 
Back
Top