Medical Incapacitation: Sport vs. Private

[Palmpilot]

Is there any data available that would allow comparison between the rates of medical incapacitation of sport pilots vs. private pilots with current medical certificates? If not, what would it take to gather such data?

(I'm aware of the argument that politicians are not interested in doing objective analysis, but my thinking is that that doesn't necessarily stop AOPA or EAA from doing it.)

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Nope.

There are two big problems with any analysis:

1) Medical incapacitation is so rare that you just don't have enough events to draw any meaningful statical conclusion.

2) Nobody knows how many pilots are flying under the sport pilot rules much less how many hours they are flying. Private pilots without medicals are simply considered as "inactive" in the FAA statistics - no matter how much they fly.

You can look at accidents / year for traditional LSA aircraft to see if the annual accident rate increased when the requirement for a medical went away, but then you would find that the economy has a big effect on those numbers and the effect of the sport pilot rule is too small to see.

There has allegedly been a study done by performing autopsies on pilots that died in accidents comparing those with and without medicals. That study reportedly showed that pilots who did not have medicals had a higher rate of medical problems. Duh. However - it didn't show any correlation to actual accidents (based on the descriptions that I read).

 

[Stewartb]

I think the better analysis is whether there's any difference in self-grounding decision making between the two categories. If I'm not well enough to fly I don't fly. Having a med cert in my pocket doesn't affect that. Sudden incapacitation shouldn't be the primary concern.

 

[SbestCFII]

No doubt little data. Though medications are not infrequent contributing factors in accident, they are not generally the primary cause. True incapacitation in flight is a very rare event.

 

[flyingron]

I did a check on Gliders vs. Airplanes several years ago. As pointed out, medical issues during flight are infrequent so it's hard to make any statistical analysis. My finding was that there were hardly any (I think I found one) case where a glider pilot had a medical incapacitation (though it was a stroke and I'm not sure the Third Class would have found that). I found a bunch of airplane ones. Of course, you don't know what the relative hours flown are, etc...


There's a whole realm of statistics for dealing with infrequently occuring events. Of course the FAA doesn't quite understand that. I battled this one on a sweeping AD that stemmed from one single incident and there's no indication just what it was during that incident that failed (the AD concerned the fuel valve and the report didn't even which list of the several dozen fuel valves it might have been. I can almost GUARANTEE it was not one provided by the airframe manufacturer whose successors were stumping for the AD as a revenue generator).

 

[QuiQuog]

Nope.

There are two big problems with any analysis:

1) Medical incapacitation is so rare that you just don't have enough events to draw any meaningful statical conclusion.

2) Nobody knows how many pilots are flying under the sport pilot rules much less how many hours they are flying. Private pilots without medicals are simply considered as "inactive" in the FAA statistics - no matter how much they fly.

You can look at accidents / year for traditional LSA aircraft to see if the annual accident rate increased when the requirement for a medical went away, but then you would find that the economy has a big effect on those numbers and the effect of the sport pilot rule is too small to see.

There has allegedly been a study done by performing autopsies on pilots that died in accidents comparing those with and without medicals. That study reportedly showed that pilots who did not have medicals had a higher rate of medical problems. Duh. However - it didn't show any correlation to actual accidents (based on the descriptions that I read).

It would seem that there's enough need for correlating statistics between native sport pilots and private pilots flying sport, that someone would suggest a rule change so that if a private pilot wanted to fly under sport rules after letting their medical expire, they would need to state it somewhere for the record. Maybe by either by checking a box on the 8500-8 that states the pilot will be exercising sport privileges until further notice, or trading in their private ticket for a sport ticket. I'm surprised that the FAA would want to allow this unaccountable flying.

 

[Old Geek]

It would seem that there's enough need for correlating statistics between native sport pilots and private pilots flying sport, that someone would suggest a rule change so that if a private pilot wanted to fly under sport rules after letting their medical expire, they would need to state it somewhere for the record. Maybe by either by checking a box on the 8500-8 that states the pilot will be exercising sport privileges until further notice, or trading in their private ticket for a sport ticket. I'm surprised that the FAA would want to allow this unaccountable flying.

I'm gonna have to nominate that as the Bad Idea of the Month.

I don't understand the "unaccountable flying" part. I have a pp-asel, my 3rd class medical has expired, and I fly my LSA when I want to. I haven't broken any rules and I'm not taking any shortcuts. I could have just as easily gotten a light sport certificate, but then I wouldn't have the flexibility to re-up my medical and fly at night or in a Cessna. If I'm involved in an accident or incident in a standard-certificated aircraft, I will be asked to produce a medical certificate and will be held accountable. Likewise, if I'm involved in an accident or incident in my LSA and my health is in question I will also be held accountable.

Adding to the paperwork and hassle-factor to gain a tiny bit of probably useless information is pretty much ridiculous.

Why don't you tell us what you *really* don't like about light sport.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

It would seem that there's enough need for correlating statistics between native sport pilots and private pilots flying sport, that someone would suggest a rule change so that if a private pilot wanted to fly under sport rules after letting their medical expire, they would need to state it somewhere for the record. Maybe by either by checking a box on the 8500-8 that states the pilot will be exercising sport privileges until further notice, or trading in their private ticket for a sport ticket. I'm surprised that the FAA would want to allow this unaccountable flying.

The obvious solution would be to have a form to mail in when you get yea olde flight review - everybody (except part 103) gets those. But, if data existed, there would be no basis for the wild speculation and tales of doom that some seem to enjoy so much.

But I would count it as "un-counted" - not "unaccountable" flying.

 

[RJM62]

It would seem that there's enough need for correlating statistics between native sport pilots and private pilots flying sport, that someone would suggest a rule change so that if a private pilot wanted to fly under sport rules after letting their medical expire, they would need to state it somewhere for the record. Maybe by either by checking a box on the 8500-8 that states the pilot will be exercising sport privileges until further notice, or trading in their private ticket for a sport ticket. I'm surprised that the FAA would want to allow this unaccountable flying.

I'm curious why you believe there's such a need. Has there been a rash of LSA falling out of the sky because they were piloted by PPs with expired medicals flying under the SP rule? Because I have to tell you, I haven't noticed any.

Rich

 

[Henning]

It would seem that there's enough need for correlating statistics between native sport pilots and private pilots flying sport, that someone would suggest a rule change so that if a private pilot wanted to fly under sport rules after letting their medical expire, they would need to state it somewhere for the record. Maybe by either by checking a box on the 8500-8 that states the pilot will be exercising sport privileges until further notice, or trading in their private ticket for a sport ticket. I'm surprised that the FAA would want to allow this unaccountable flying.

Why? Where do you see the need for this? The insurance actuaries have figured it out (if you really want the data, call the actuary for the insurance companies selling product to the SP/LSA sector, they will have the best numbers.) and deem from what I see the same 1.5% insured value base premium.

 

[FastEddieB]

Has there been a rash of LSA falling out of the sky because they were piloted by PPs with expired medicals flying under the SP rule? Because I have to tell you, I haven't noticed any.

Rich

Has there been a single documented case?

Serious question to which I don't know the answer.

 

[RJM62]

Has there been a single documented case?

Serious question to which I don't know the answer.

I'm only aware of one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20110918X93633&ntsbno=ERA11LA496&akey=1

However, in that accident the pilot (PP) was not flying legally anyway because his most recent medical application had been deferred.

There were a lot of other factors -- the guy was pretty much a mess and apparently had made some unwise modifications to the homebuilt Zephyr -- but what killed him and caused the crash was a heart attack on takeoff.

Nonetheless, this accident can't be considered a failure of the DL medical because this fellow was not flying legally due to the deferral.

Rich

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Has there been a single documented case?

Serious question to which I don't know the answer.

In a glider, Dick Johnson is believed to have been incapacitated by heart problems which lead to the crash which caused his death.

I've seen at least one related to alcohol in an LSA.

Then you get things like:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...44cc-4b2e-9df9-7b52281bcee0&pgno=35&pgsize=50

Accident occurred Monday, July 17, 2006 in a J-3
Drugs were blamed (THC), but...
"The 199-hour, 31-year old pilot, who was occupying the front seat, was a private pilot with ratings for airplane single-engine land. The pilot's most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued January 2005. However, FAA records showed that his last medical was conducted May, 1998. The AME (Aviation Medical Examiners) that signed the pilot's flight medical had her medical license suspended in October 2004, and her AME designation suspended in April, 2005."
So, does this fall under the "sport pilot" rules or not?

 

[QuiQuog]

I think I may have been misunderstood.

Right now there's no way to say how many pilots are flying under sport rules, which his makes it difficult to come up with figures on the safety of flying without a medical. I think this has been discussed at length in various threads, and while there may not be a consensus on whether pilots should fly without a medical, it's a fact that nobody knows how many pilots are flying under sport pilot rules. If there were a way to count the pilots that have switched from private to sport, they could be accounted for, giving more accurate numbers.

I never suggested that planes are falling out of the sky, or that I'm against light sport. I'm suggesting that more pilots safely flying without medicals makes a stronger argument for 3rd class medical reform.

 

[frfly172]

Not sure the pilots who go from ppl to Lsa ,want any attention directed towards them. I'm sure the govt. will find a way to get those figures sooner or later.

 

[Henning]

There may not be a way to measure it through the FAA resources, but actuaries can get a good idea through the sales numbers of the craft that get sold, and the statistics of those they insure. I would bet that the insurance industry can provide the numbers to a pretty good degree of accuracy.