ALPA and medical reform

Seggy said:
No, you are along with the folks who foolishly think Congress should mandate medical requirements.





Those supporting doing away with the 3rd class medical are now saying blood should be taken to get a good diagnosis on a psychical. A flight physical is a place to look for conditions that may be an issue. Yet, those that want to do away with them now are saying they want more to happen during them.

Their arguments make no sense.
Click to expand...

Don't steer this away from what I said. I have no real stance on this issue. I'm just pointing out the fact half of what you point out is complete bull. I never said congress should do anything in this thread.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
In other words, you're frustrated that you have no rational arguments to make for why safety should be degraded.
Click to expand...

Not at all what I said. Not even close. What I said was you are a hypocrite. You two (@Seggy) have this uncanny knack to try and steer debates to where you are comfortable. I'm not going somewhere that I haven't personally stated I hold a position.

Cancel your AOPA membership Todd. Prove that you really give a crap about this, or sit down. Giving money to an organization that supports something you are so admittedly apposed to completely destroys your credibility.

Notice, I haven't made a stance on this issue being debated. I'm calling you out on the carpet in front of your peers for something that I see a huge conflict of interest over.
 
mshunter said:
Not at all what I said. Not even close. What I said was you are a hypocrite. You two (@Seggy) have this uncanny knack to try and steer debates to where you are comfortable. I'm not going somewhere that I haven't personally stated I hold a position. Cancel your AOPA membership Todd. Prove that you really give a crap about this, or sit down. Giving money to an organization that supports something you are so admittedly apposed to completely destroys your credibility. Notice, I haven't made a stance on this issue being debated. I'm calling you out on the carpet in front of your peers for something that I see a huge conflict of interest over.
Click to expand...

Every organization has pluses and minuses. You take the good with the bad, and try to change the bad.
 
Seggy said:
You are wrong again.
Click to expand...
I don't mind being wrong, it's the easiest way to learn if someone I trust points out my transgressions. You both trample on any line of thought that doesn't align with yours and I have zero reason to trust either of you, the Buffet wannabe bought a Mooney when he probably could've gotten a Bonanza. I wait with baited breath for your retort, hoping you realize I'm not an airline pilot and your ALPA opinions will effect me not one bit. But I am still a member of this community.
 
Derg said:
I really don't care who started it and I am fully aware that it's one of many issues national is working on.

On the topic of national, I'm heavily curious on what's being said in the backchannels of what happened at Delta the last month. The natives are restless. Very.
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask Seggy. The Moak crowd runs national nowadays. That's not my crowd. :)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
You'd have to ask Seggy. The Moak crowd runs national nowadays. That's not my crowd. :)
Click to expand...

Not mine either.

Which kept me out of some appointments that I could help with.

And we all know what happened with social media and the "If we step on all the landmines, where won't be any more landmines, right?" approach to handling the meltdown from the past month.

Every. Single. Possible. Mistake. Twice.
 
uncreative said:
I don't understand how ALPA could take any position other than this. It will be framed as a safety issue to the general public, and ALPA has to appear to be on the side of safety.
Click to expand...
Now, that's a valid reason I can understand.

The "It would just look bad" is an honest reason, even if it is mostly political.
 
hook_dupin said:
My understanding of the AOPA/EAA argument is that the sport pilot data shows that safety isn't degraded by doing away with third class medicals.
Click to expand...

That argument doesn't hold up. In the sport pilot category, you can't fly at night. There are a lot of medical conditions that you wouldn't have to worry about during the day, but at night, they become a huge issue. So, the data is skewed.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
IMO, It shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

IMO....gotcha.....yep......the Federal Air Surgeon doesn't see it the way you do.

The AME has a specific job to do - to check you based on a specific set of standards set by the FAA based on the medical certificate you are applying for. Even in the case of a first class certificate, it's pretty basic. It's simply not his job to give you a thorough examination and, AFAIK, most of the really good ones don't (and I say that even though I have a really good one who does).

If your AME is your basic defense of your medical health, that's too bad. Read Doc Forred's post here on the subject and go find a personal physician. Choose not to? That's your choice.
Click to expand...

The AME is another layer to see if there is an issue. Your primary care doctor may not give you a color blind test, but an AME will. That could lead to a discovery of night vision problems. Also, you are assuming that everyone has a primary care doctor. A lot of folks don't. The first time they find out they have high blood pressure is when they are at their AME. Is it that hard to understand?
 
USMCmech said:
Now, that's a valid reason I can understand.

The "It would just look bad" is an honest reason, even if it is mostly political.
Click to expand...

It isn't political. It is for safety. ALPA is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) Safety NGOs in the world. Folks listen to them when they speak on safety issues.
 
ALPA just sent this out...

July 27, 2015

As you may know, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) filed a petition for exemption with the FAA that would give pilots the option of conducting certain operations without having to hold an FAA medical certificate. The FAA has not yet acted on this request.

Currently, legislation is pending in the U.S. Congress that would implement the request made by AOPA/EAA through legislative mandate. Late last week, there was an attempt to attach this legislation, referred to as the "Pilot's Bill of Rights 2," to the surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Complex aviation safety issues have no place on a highway bill—period.

ALPA's sole responsibility is to advocate for its members in their capacity as professional airline pilots. ALPA's long-standing policy as adopted by its Board of Directors is to maintain the highest level of safety within the national airspace system. As such, ALPA has weighed in on the proposed amendment due to its obligation to the safety of our members in their capacity as airline pilots. The proposed amendment introduces risk that takes a step backwards from maintaining the highest levels of safety. If not for how this legislation impacts the safety of the airspace in which our members fly, ALPA would not weigh in on this matter.

On July 23, ALPA president, Capt. Tim Canoll, sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote "no" on an amendment by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to the highway bill.

In his letter, he outlined ALPA's opposition to this amendment:

  • This legislation has the potential to allow medically unfit pilots unfettered access to the national airspace at altitudes up to 18,000 feet with aircraft large enough to accommodate 6 occupants, at speeds up to 250 knots, in airspace which includes commercial airline traffic carrying passengers and cargo.
  • It would eliminate the requirement that these pilots see an aviation medical examiner (AME) at regular intervals for mental and physical evaluation in order to show medical fitness to operate an aircraft.
  • It may reduce some medical conditions that could disqualify a pilot from receiving a medical certificate and relies on the pilot to self-report when a disqualifying condition is identified. Even if a pilot develops and discloses a serious medical condition that creates risk in the national airspace, the amendment could prevent the FAA from ensuring that the pilot seek treatment.
This has been ALPA's position since 2012 when ALPA submitted comments to the FAA in opposition to the AOPA/EAA petition for exemption (Docket No. FAA-2012-0350) from the third-class medical requirement.

ALPA has engaged with stakeholders to address concerns about medical evaluation processes for pilots who hold a third-class medical certificate and believes that a compromise position can be developed to ensure that added risk to the airspace we operate in is mitigated and the highest levels of safety are maintained. In fact, there are other provisions in the Pilot's Bill of Rights that ALPA supports, and we intend to continue collaboration with our Hill and aviation partners.

Again, ALPA believes that a common-sense solution is within reach, but the amendment as written introduces a level of risk within the national airspace that we cannot support.

If you have any questions, please contact EAS@alpa.org.
Click to expand...
 
Seggy said:
What is your experience that even remotely qualifies you to make a statement like that?

As I said, a lot of bull fecal matter is being thrown around in this thread.
Click to expand...
The same experience that leads you to say the things you do. I've admitted several times these are my opinions and observations based on living my entire life in or around general/commercial aviation. Some how when you type a response you think it's fact. It's not, it's your opinion, much like every other person on this site. We discuss things based on our own experiences and give our opinion. You talk to a couple docs at the FAA and you think you have facts. You volunteer for a few ALPA drives and you think you have facts. You don't. It's. Your. Opinion. Make sense?

.
 
PositionAndHold said:
I even stated in my quote that commercial aviation is the safest it has been since inception. I also never stated people are being killed, I said people are still crashing airplanes the same way. How many hull losses have there been? United off the side on takeoff in Denver, Southwest hard landing, Southwest off the end killing a kid in a car, AA off the end in Jamaica. I know there has been an RJ or two written off but those are just what I can remember off the top of my head. Since no one was killed does it make those incidents any less important? The AA 737 was broken into three pieces. I think we've been pretty lucky there hasn't been any deaths.

I guess I don't expect ALPA to comment on Skywest's issues until they bother to take a stance on some thing like this.

Thanks for answering the medical part. While I mostly agree, I just don't think the medical system as it currently stands encourages full disclosure or catches as many things as we think. I think the FAA needs to overhaul the medical system and getting rid of a the third class or increasing what can be flown under the sport pilot medical rules is a start.
Click to expand...
So @ATN_Pilot what is your opinion on the incidents I mention. I didn't mention deaths, I mentioned crashes or hull loses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top