ALPA and medical reform

[PositionAndHold]

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.

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.

It's actually very debatlable. Hell, you're debating yourself. You say in one breath it's a joke and if you can't get a third class you're almost dead and in the other you say it makes us more safe. Which is it, a total joke or a major factor in pilot safety?

No matter the class of medical we self certify every time we go flying. One medical exam once every 6 months, year or three years does not make us safe. We do. For every person you say the medical system catches with a unknown medical issue, I would imagine (or guess, like what you're doing) there's at least ten more get through with out catching some thing they either aren't reporting or the exam isn't designed to catch.

 

[mshunter]

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.

False again. Rocky Child's of Child's and Albertd Racing flew for more than 40 years with Type1 Diabetes. I know because I knew him. I built one of his trucks, in his garage, at his home. He was never found out.

 

[USMCmech]

The real question is "why do we have Medical certificates in the first place?"

I think the consensus opinion is to prevent a pilot from passing out or dying at the controls of an airplane. Particularly in a single pilot scenario and/or with public passengers on board. Even still this happens occasionally, but I can't recall the last injury or fatality due to a pilot becoming incapaciated.

No one is arguing for relaxing 1st or 2nd class medical requirements (although 1st class was relaxed by reducing the interval from 6 to 12 months). One of the proposals I have read about would still require a medical for any IFR flight and any airplane over 4 seats or heavier than 5000lbs. Glider, ultralight, and balloon pilots already do not have to hold a medical. Parachutists don't hold an FAA rating of any type, yet they can carry tandem passengers.

I think the guy flying his family and friends around in a skyhawk on a VFR day is hardly a safety risk, even if he has type 1 diabetes.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

ALPA is opposed because they don't want somebody who really shouldn't (medically) be in a plane, tooling around the taxiway, passing out (due to medical reasons) and slamming their Cessna into a Boeing.

(Embraer jockeys, and their people, are expendable; ALPA only care about "real" airplanes and "real" pilots built in 'merica.)

 

[etflies]

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.

All this tells me is that we need to make it tougher to obtain a driver's license. ALPA/mid-air argument aside, why argue in favor of putting more potentially unfit pilots in the sky?

 

[PositionAndHold]

All this tells me is that we need to make it tougher to obtain a driver's license. ALPA/mid-air argument aside, why argue in favor of putting more potentially unfit pilots in the sky?

Because I don't think we are. I think we need to expand the sport pilot rules. They've proven effective. The problem is the price of relatively new sport pilot airplanes. GA is not getting bigger it's shrinking. Why not open up a class of airplane that is cheaper to get into to people who are perfectly safe?

Or change the sport pilot medical rules. Right now if you do decide to get a special issuance medical and in a year or two it's denied, or you are ever denied a medical for any reason, you can never operate under the sport pilot medical rules. Does that make sense? If you get denied a first class you might still qualify for a third under special issuance. I know several people who won't even try to get a special issuance for fear of future denial and not being able to fly under the sport pilot rules. Their access to a sport pilot airplane is limited but they're are plenty of 150/172’s readily available for rent.

 

[Gonzo]

No one is arguing for relaxing 1st or 2nd class medical requirements (although 1st class was relaxed by reducing the interval from 6 to 12 months). One of the proposals I have read about would still require a medical for any IFR flight and any airplane over 4 seats or heavier than 5000lbs. Glider, ultralight, and balloon pilots already do not have to hold a medical. Parachutists don't hold an FAA rating of any type, yet they can carry tandem passengers.

I think the guy flying his family and friends around in a skyhawk on a VFR day is hardly a safety risk, even if he has type 1 diabetes.

You might want to read what is on the floor. Under 6K and less than 250 KTS no medical needed IFR or VFR.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It's actually very debatlable. Hell, you're debating yourself. You say in one breath it's a joke and if you can't get a third class you're almost dead and in the other you say it makes us more safe. Which is it, a total joke or a major factor in pilot safety? No matter the class of medical we self certify every time we go flying. One medical exam once every 6 months, year or three years does not make us safe. We do. For every person you say the medical system catches with a unknown medical issue, I would imagine (or guess, like what you're doing) there's at least ten more get through with out catching some thing they either aren't reporting or the exam isn't designed to catch.

I'm not willing to sacrifice safety based on your imaginings or guesses. Safety first. Period.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You might want to read what is on the floor. Under 6K and less than 250 KTS no medical needed IFR or VFR.

Absolutely insane. Congress needs to get out of FAA regulations. The FAA is there for a reason. Let them do their job.

 

[PositionAndHold]

You might want to read what is on the floor. Under 6K and less than 250 KTS no medical needed IFR or VFR.

You have a link? From what I always remember it was the same speed and weight but day/night VFR. Even if IFR was included I really don't think we'd see any noticeable increases in accidents due to pilot incapacitation. It's such a small percentage of the already small pilot population it would be statistically insignificant.

I am curious what population of GA aircraft SE/ME are even capable of 250kts? I know a piper meridian will true out at 250@FL250 and weighs around 5k max gross. A TBM 700-900 will do 330kts and is over the weight limit so that's out. Who else knows of some thing in that weight and speed range? I'm generally curious. A Beech 18 and Twin Bonanza are both over the max weight even if slower. A Baron is right around 5k, so probably at the most we're talking about is a Baron being the biggest thing available in this medical class? Really most light ME/SE aircraft will be either well below the speed or weight range. Again, no different than a modern SUV.

 

[PositionAndHold]

I'm not willing to sacrifice safety based on your imaginings or guesses. Safety first. Period.

Any chance of answering the question I asked? Which is it, an absolutely necessary safety tool, or some thing any one with a pulse can pass?

This started as an ALPA stance on a GA subject. So if we want to talk "safety first" let's talk ALPA's house. US Part 121 currently has the best safety record since its inception. However, people are still managing to crash airplanes the same way they always have. Energy management. I don't see ALPA condemning the pilots of SkyWest and calling for "one level of safety " Or writing congress stating that if they only oversaw SkyWest's pilot group they could make a difference. Where's thier outrage? This is a true safety matter. The fact that they even thought about putting this letter out while remaining silent on the SkyWest issue is beyond laughable.

 

[Seggy]

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.

How can you compare that data? LSA can't fly at night, can't fly over 10,000 feet, and have a bunch of other restrictions. There are a ton of vision issues that can make a pilot perfectly safe during the day, have an issue at night. If they don't know about those issues as they haven't had a medical, at night alone would be a bad time to find out about them.

 

[Seggy]

There is an insane amount of bull fecal matter being thrown around in this thread, but you win in slinging it in your attempt at pontificating below.

Allow me to explain.

There are several assumptions that the FAA medical is based upon.

I wouldn't be accusing anyone but yourself of assuming anything.

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

Actually it is. A perfect example of how the medical qualifications are related to current medical science can be seen in the recent relaxation on anti-depressants and the new sleep apnea policy. If you were paying attention, you would see that the sleep apnea policy actually got better for the pilots as the FAA has a much better understanding of the science of sleep disorders and mental issues. There are only a handful of conditions that (like 14) that can permanently cost you your medical. To have so few shows that the science is trusted. The FAA Flight Surgeon meets at least quarterly with representatives from ALPA to discuss new policy changes. They are up to snuff on the current science out there. Do they always implement it? No. But it is a flat out lie to say that the current regs aren't based on current science.

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

Most pilots don't lie on their medicals. Most of the issues the FAA had with the information on the medical has been corrected now with the MedExpress.

3rd, That sudden incapacitation of pilots of light airplanes is a serious safety risk. (debatable)

Debatable my ass. It is a SERIOUS safety risk.

 

[Seggy]

make you look ignorant.

The only ignorance I see in this thread are from folks who think the FAA should do away with a 3rd class medical.

 

[Seggy]

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.

Once again, at least in the world I live in, I want the stake holders to do EVERYTHING they can to make the system as safe as possible. Seeing an AME who catches your high blood pressure (happens a lot) contributes to making the system safer.

As I said before 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.

You can seriously question all you want, you are taking away a layer of safety by not having reasonable medical certification standards for those that we share the airways with.

 

[Seggy]

but I can't recall the last injury or fatality due to a pilot becoming incapaciated.

March 24th, 2015 150 killed.

Which brings me to another point you, @wheelsup, @PositionAndHold ,and anyone else who supports this rule change is missing. This is a dangerous game AOPA and EAA are playing. They are basically saying, 'Congress, mandate our medicals'. Do ANY of you really think that is a good idea?

 

[USMCmech]

March 24th, 2015 150 killed.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

The FO was NOT incapacitated.

The FO LIED on his medical

The piece of paper in his wallet did nothing to prevent him from killing himself and his passengers. None of his medical/psychological problems were detectable in a basic physical.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I'm not willing to sacrifice safety based on your imaginings or guesses. Safety first. Period.

So I take it you also support the post-Colgan ATP rules. And would tend to support increased regulation in all areas (I understand you do rental housing) so long as someone can come up with a safety-related imagining or guess..

That's fine. Although I have issues with folks who display a "let's regulate more" political mentality, I admire consistency.

 

[Seggy]

Thank you for proving my point for me.

The FO was NOT incapacitated.

The FO LIED on his medical

The piece of paper in his wallet did nothing to prevent him from killing himself and his passengers. None of his medical/psychological problems were detectable in a basic physical.

The only thing proved is that it shows lessening the time one talks to an AME isn't the answer. You, I, or even the FAA have no idea how many conditions have been caught because of a simple medical every so often.

 

[Seggy]

So I take it you also support the post-Colgan ATP rules. And would tend to support increased regulation in all areas (I understand you do rental housing) so long as someone can come up with a safety-related imagining or guess..

That's fine. Although I have issues with folks who display a "let's regulate more" political mentality, I admire consistency.

If one has nothing to hide, why would they care if they have a medical once every three years just as a basic check up? Once again it has saved folks from certain medical conditions we have no way of knowing about.