ALPA and medical reform

PositionAndHold said:
I've said it before. The average weight of an SUV is around 6,000 pounds. A person in their 80's can load 6-8 of their friends or loved ones and go driving down the highway at 75-80mph (legal posted speeds in some states) and be perfectly fine. We as a society accept this every day we drive. One of these people can have a medical issue, cross the double yellow and take out the school bus full of orphans on thier way to Disney. That same person with thousands of accident free flying hours can't go shoot landings in thier 2,500lb Stinson at their local class G airport because it weighs more and holds more people than a standard LSA? Come on. Now ALPA is worried about one of them having a medical issue, crossing the hold short bars and running into an airliner?
Click to expand...

Sadly your example is likely only true due to age discrimination lawsuits. Just because something is legal it doesn't mean it is safe or smart. My bet is most people would rather have 80+ year old people off the road or require additional testing to renew their licenses.

In the end all these people need to do is find a safety pilot in order to fly their Stinson. I wouldn't be surprised if a local kid building time would be willing to do just that.

PositionAndHold said:
How bout we worry about professional 121 pilots stalling (or almost stalling) perfectly good airplanes enough times the FAA has to amend their ops specs. Yeah, I think that might be a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

Funny joke. Especially since ALPA has no input in SkyWest operations due to a lack of, you know, not having been voted in by the pilot group.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
They do some good, and as long as they're saving me more than I'm spending on them, I find it to be of value, even though I cringe as I pay the dues. I laugh when they ask me to contribute more, though.



Oh, do tell, seeing as how we've got the safest commercial aviation system in the world.



That's not really the point. Sure, there are bigger things to worry about. But this legislation seeks to make things less safe. And for what? To save some cheapskates a lousy $60 bucks every three years? Give me a frickin' break. It pisses me off that AOPA even talks about this nonsense. Good for ALPA for standing up and calling BS.



Simply false.
Click to expand...
So, when you say they are making things "less safe", ALPA has commissioned studies and has actual data? Again, we don't know it's less safe, we just know they want to change a rule. Just like age 65. Age 60 was an arbitrary number, much like age 65 is. I don't agree with the age change as every one knew the rules when they started but there isn't a shred of evidence that 65 is any less safe than 60.

We have the safest commercial aviation system in the world today. And still people are stalling 121 airplanes at altitude. Hell, they're even stalling them on perfectly clear days just short of the runaway at SFO. 121 pilots have caused more damage to their own passengers then any GA conflict could ever hope to. Heck, even the GA conflicts that have been mentioned all were medically certified. This will not change the accident rate of GA or 121 a fraction of a percent.

It's also not about saving the cost of a third class medical. It's about the archaic rules the FAA uses to certify medical conditions.
 
Maurus said:
Sadly your example is likely only true due to age discrimination lawsuits. Just because something is legal it doesn't mean it is safe or smart. My bet is most people would rather have 80+ year old people off the road or require additional testing to renew their licenses.

In the end all these people need to do is find a safety pilot in order to fly their Stinson. I wouldn't be surprised if a local kid building time would be willing to do just that.



Funny joke. Especially since ALPA has no input in SkyWest operations due to a lack of, you know, not having been voted in by the pilot group.
Click to expand...
The not so funny joke is ALPA doesn't represent the pilots of Skywest just like they don't represent any one on the GA side. Yet they're willing to take a stand against third class medical issues but remain silent regarding 121 pilots stalling airplanes with passengers on them? That's your defense? ALPA wasn't voted in? Stalling airplanes in most situations is not safe or smart let alone the passenger carrying commercial environment. It's laughable that ALPA put out a stance on this.
 
Thanks for the interesting responses. Seem to be in two groups, primarily focused on a hypothetical senile 80 year old who cares nothing about safety (but at the same time just wouldn't feel right about violating 61.23) crashing his Cessna 172 into the tire of a 747.

Group 1 - there is no evidence there is a problem, so let's deregulate it.

Group 2 - there is no evidence there is a problem, but let's say there is one anyway and keep regulating it.
 
I don't get it. I'm going to write AOPA and have them weigh in on the 67 rule coming that ALPA so tacitly accepts. Keep those old geezers out of the sky. It's not safe.

Mind your own garden, ALPA.
 
PositionAndHold said:
I've said it before. The average weight of an SUV is around 6,000 pounds. A person in their 80's can load 6-8 of their friends or loved ones and go driving down the highway at 75-80mph (legal posted speeds in some states) and be perfectly fine. We as a society accept this every day we drive. One of these people can have a medical issue, cross the double yellow and take out the school bus full of orphans on thier way to Disney. That same person with thousands of accident free flying hours can't go shoot landings in thier 2,500lb Stinson at their local class G airport because it weighs more and holds more people than a standard LSA? Come on. Now ALPA is worried about one of them having a medical issue, crossing the hold short bars and running into an airliner? How bout we worry about professional 121 pilots stalling (or almost stalling) perfectly good airplanes enough times the FAA has to amend their ops specs. Yeah, I think that might be a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

Talk to those of us who live in Florida about the threat posed by senior drivers. Next time you're at a CVS or Walgreens, check out the concrete barriers surrounding them. That's because the state past time in Florida is cruising through drug stores (literally).

Don't take the fact that we allow this to mean that it's right - rather, it's a function of AOPA being more responsible in their lobbying than AARP.
 
PositionAndHold said:
So, when you say they are making things "less safe", ALPA has commissioned studies and has actual data?
Click to expand...

ALPA doesn't need to commission studies, because ALPA isn't the one trying to change a rule to remove a level of safety. You are.

I don't agree with the age change as every one knew the rules when they started but there isn't a shred of evidence that 65 is any less safe than 60.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Go back and read Captain Woerth's testimony to Congress in the early to mid '00s. There is plenty of evidence that cognitive decline is a serious issue and that accident rates increase for pilots over the age of 60. Why do you think it is that the regulation change didn't allow two pilots over the age of 60 to fly together?

It's also not about saving the cost of a third class medical. It's about the archaic rules the FAA uses to certify medical conditions.
Click to expand...

Do you say this with a straight face? I know I couldn't. Getting an FAA medical is a joke. If you can't pass a third class medical, then you're practically dead, and definitely shouldn't be flying an airplane.

cezzna said:
Mind your own garden, ALPA.
Click to expand...

Anything involving aviation is ALPA's "garden."
 
cezzna said:
I don't get it. I'm going to write AOPA and have them weigh in on the 67 rule coming that ALPA so tacitly accepts. Keep those old geezers out of the sky. It's not safe.

Mind your own garden, ALPA.
Click to expand...


There have been pilots with current 1st class medicals who have died in the cockpit. Make it 55 like the controllers.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Thanks for the interesting responses. Seem to be in two groups, primarily focused on a hypothetical senile 80 year old who cares nothing about safety (but at the same time just wouldn't feel right about violating 61.23) crashing his Cessna 172 into the tire of a 747.

Group 1 - there is no evidence there is a problem, so let's deregulate it.

Group 2 - there is no evidence there is a problem, but let's say there is one anyway and keep regulating it.
Click to expand...

You really have an invalid argument here. I would say, on the outside, there wasn't a problem with sleep apnea and pilots. However, there is now much emphasis on sleep apnea. Why? To make the system safer.

You can never really tell how many accidents have been avoided because of the medical standards in place as those who can't get a medical or receive treatment to get a medical are either not flying or caused a break in the chain of someone having a medical issue in flight.
 
Seggy said:
You really have an invalid argument here. I would say, on the outside, there wasn't a problem with sleep apnea and pilots. However, there is now much emphasis on sleep apnea. Why? To make the system safer.

You can never really tell how many accidents have been avoided because of the medical standards in place as those who can't get a medical or receive treatment to get a medical are either not flying or caused a break in the chain of someone having a medical issue in flight.
Click to expand...
That's true but one could look at LSA and see if there were any in flight medical issues. Pretty easy to pull that data.
 
There are several assumptions that the FAA medical is based upon.

1st, The FAA's medical qualification rule book is based on current medical science. (It's not)

2nd, That pilots are honestly reporting their medical histories when they apply for their medicals. (Many don't)

3rd, That sudden incapacitation of pilots of light airplanes is a serious safety risk. (debatable)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Do you say this with a straight face? I know I couldn't. Getting an FAA medical is a joke. If you can't pass a third class medical, then you're practically dead, and definitely shouldn't be flying an airplane.
Click to expand...

This is simply false. One thing that comes to mind instantly is a student I had that didn't let on he was diagnosed with ADD as a child. AFAIK, he never was able to get a medical. He was ready to solo, and never did. If you have ever needed to be on anti depressants, the ridiculous hoops required to jump through deter so many away. The current system is broken. Is eliminating the 3rd class the answer? Hell, I don't know. But blanket statements like you love to make, make you look ignorant.
 
USMCmech said:
3rd, That sudden incapacitation of pilots of light airplanes is a serious safety risk. (debatable)
Click to expand...

It's debatable that a 5,000 pound projectile hitting a house at 200 knots isn't a safety risk? What color is the sky in your world?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
It's debatable that a 5,000 pound projectile hitting a house at 200 knots isn't a safety risk? What color is the sky in your world?
Click to expand...

No, that is a very real risk. However IMHO, it's debatable that FAA medical certificates prevent 5000 pound projectiles from hitting houses at 200 kts. I don't see how a pilot lying about his type 2 diabetes to his AME prevents him from flying over you house.

Given the very low rate of auto drivers becoming suddenly incapacitated, I seriously question how much of a risk of light airplane pilot becoming incapacitated presents the general public.
 
USMCmech said:
No, that is a very real risk. However IMHO, it's debatable that FAA medical certificates prevent 5000 pound projectiles from hitting houses at 200 kts. I don't see how a pilot lying about his type 2 diabetes to his AME prevents him from flying over you house. Given the very low rate of auto drivers becoming suddenly incapacitated, I seriously question how much of a risk of light airplane pilot becoming incapacitated presents the general public.
Click to expand...

Many people are denied medical certificates every year. Do some people try to hide things? Sure. Most don't, though. And others who try are discovered.

I'm sorry, but it's just not debatable that medicals don't make us more safe. It's a crazy argument.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Many people are denied medical certificates every year. Do some people try to hide things? Sure. Most don't, though. And others who try are discovered.

I'm sorry, but it's just not debatable that medicals don't make us more safe. It's a crazy argument.
Click to expand...
I don't think folks would argue against that.

The real question is, how much is 'safety' compromised?

Staying on the ground and never launching is the safest choice of all, yet very impractical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top