SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
LSAs shouldn't even exist.
ALPA and medical reform
- Thread starter MidlifeFlyer
- Start date
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
When the whole LSA movement started, it was more intended to regulate the 2 seat, non-compliant Part 103 "ultralights." It was never intended to be what it is today, and yes, you're right.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
True, but the goal of allowing pilots who couldn't hold a 3rd class medical and were already flying "overweight" ultralights to fly was incorporated by the FAA into the final LSA rule.
FYI, I stand corrected about my previous posts about hypertension being a DQ for a medical. I thought that only medically controlled hypertension was a probelm. I assumed that only extreme hypertension would DQ a would be pilot, but I had no idea that the threshold (155/95) was so low.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...m/ame/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item55/amd/
I spoke to a cardiologist (not an AME) and he said that while 155 would concern him in a 60 year old patient, he probably would not do anything more than recommend a change in diet. He definitely sees little risk of a heart attack from that symptom alone. Here is a link
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...pressure/in-depth/blood-pressure/art-20050982
Which gets us back to Joe Weekend Warrior Skyhawk pilot who has a BP of 157/90. Is he a walking time bomb? Every M.D. I've spoken to says no.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Thank you so much for posting this.
To answer your question, NO! You are NOT alone in skipping going to doctors. A lot of aviation professionals have the same mindset 'hey I don't want to go to the doctor if I don't really need to as I don't want to risk my medical'. This mindset is extremely common and the FAA is aware of it and they do want to change it. They want folks flying who are treated for the condition they have.
Personal story....My paternal grandfather died of a heart attack when he was 56. My father died of a heart attack when he was 36. I am 32, want to break the trend of males on my fathers side, so I went last year for an Interventional Cardiologist last year for the first time to have him look for issues. He was a little surprised to see a 32 year old sitting in front of him, but I went over my family history, it all made sense to him. When he went over my social history, he just started smiling when I said I was an airline pilot. His exact words were, "you guys have some of the most disastrous and severe conditions I have see from people still walking around. What is it with you guys?" That really hit home for me that we as pilots really don't take good care of ourselves.
When I went to my AME a few months later, (on the medical I simply stated the Doctor I saw, the date, his specialty, and routine visit due to family history, no issues found) he even mentioned that he doesn't see this often, but likes it.
Not sure of your background, but if you have an issue that you think needs to be looked at, go to the Doctor and see what is going on. Fix the condition. This is the advice directly from ALPA Aeromedical folks who I called before I went to see the Cardiologist. If you need to talk to someone about it, check to see what the resource is you may have whether it be through a union, company, or give these folks a call...
https://www.aviationmedicine.com/
Thank you again for posting this.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
You are ignoring the fact that if there is an issue (think Eurowings or even that Skywest guy in 2012) a knee jerk reaction may mean Congress is dictating we sit down on a couch before we fly every flight with a psychiatrist. That is the dangerous road the AOPA and EAA are leading us down. Do you NOT see that? Yes or no.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
First, the cardiologist should be looking at the family history of the individual to really develop a treatment plan. To say a 60 year old with 157/90 BP isn't a problem is to simplistic without family history, other medical conditions they have etc.
Secondly, it may be 157/90 today, yes, I will give you that! But if they don't get it checked for 8 years and gain 20 more pounds and are still flying around on the weekends, it may be a ticking time bomb.
Thirdly, I said BP could be an indicator of something else. Not that it is the definitive factor of health. Regardless, I am sure the cardiologist you talked to would say that it should be controlled. How can it be controlled if it is not checked?
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Post of the thread!
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I see your argument, and I can agree wholeheartedly about the need for 1st and 2nd class medicals for ATP and commercial pilots flying the general public around.
Agreed, BP is just one indicator of cardiovascular health, and I agree that there is value for having a pilot get a semi regular checkup (particularly if he is going to be flying advanced airplanes in and around busy airspace).
Like I said,
In my opinion (which is all this is) letting a guy fly his 40 year old Skyhawk around on a VFR day without a medical certificate in his wallet is not a significant risk to aviation safety or the general public.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
It has also happened in General Aviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack
Once again, you are failing to see the dangerous game the AOPA and EAA are playing here.
We are taking away a level of safety we CURRENTLY have in place now if we allow this.
It is like someone arguing 'well we have radar everywhere, let us take the TCAS out of airplanes.'
Last edited:
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
It's also happened in the military, which has even higher medical standards than the FAA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button
You keep focusing on suicides, which can't be predicted by even the most intense medical screening and are the most likely to be concealed by a pilot who was suffering from depression or other mental illness. Even if a pilot was denied a medical because he was suicidal, that still wouldn't stop him from gaining access to an airplane and flying.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Reading comprehension.
I am saying that it we don't want knee jerk reactions by Congress in regard to regulating our certificates. What AOPA and EAA is doing allows for that. It can be for a number of reasons. Doesn't matter.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Well, you should talk to my last few doctors, because they've all disagreed. My doctor put me on BP medication about 8 years ago when I was just 150/90. I was in my 20s. He decided that due to my family history of hypertension, it was warranted to get it under control. I've had two different doctors since him, and they've both agreed that I should be on medication. And you know what? I never would have caught it if I didn't have to get an FAA medical, because I generally don't go to the doctor unless I absolutely have to.
Your assessment of significance isn't the question. The question is this: would removing the requirement for a third class medical decrease the level of safety, even slightly? If the answer is yes, then there is no reason to do it. And sorry, no one can argue that the answer is no with a straight face.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Here is the thing I really don't get. If ALPA was saying "Hey now, we need ALL Pilots to have a Class 1 Medical no matter if you are flying a LSA or a Transport Category Aircraft", then I can see why folks would be livid and rightfully so!
ALPA is just saying, 'Let us keep things as they are, keep it away from Congress and work with the FAA to make the changes we need'. Why are people enraged over that stance?
ALPA is just saying, 'Let us keep things as they are, keep it away from Congress and work with the FAA to make the changes we need'. Why are people enraged over that stance?
I honestly don't think people are really enraged over anything other than you and Todd's approach to the situation, and the way you two speak down to people.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
I have NO patience for folks who are just spreading lies about the FAA Aeromedical Certification processes, not reading what I am writing, and spewing misinformation.
That's fine. So open a dialogue. Don't speak down, because when you do, no one listens. It's like yelling at children. Every time I've yelled at mine, it does nothing. But when I speak to them, rather than at them, I accomplish much more. We're all adults here. Some of us have held some very influential positions. Use that to your advantage. I've never met you, but I get this sneaking suspicion that you'd give your shirt to someone if they really needed it. But your online persona doesn't match that. I'd like to think that most people here do behave the same if they were sitting across the table. I took a debate class years ago, and the way you deliver a message is a lot more important than what you are delivering. Some people can sell ice to Eskimos and make then realize why they need more of it. Some couldn't give water to a man dying of thirst.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
You are talking down to me with your attempt at advice. I don't need to be lectured. Folks like @DE727UPS just post in the thread and others to personally attack Todd and myself. Why aren't you lecturing him about that behavior like you are trying to pontificate to me?
I have opened a dialogue. Folks aren't listening.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
mshunter said:
Wrong. The outrage is all over Facebook, and neither of us have posted there about it.
In any case, get over it and man up instead of bitching about how someone doesn't talk to you in the way that you want.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
mshunter said:
I've found that when people don't have a defensible position, they switch to attacking the opponent instead of talking about the issue. Since you can't defend this legislation, it's easier for you to complain about us "talking down" to you. Sorry, but no one is entitled to being treated with kid gloves when they go spouting nonsense. Neither of us has been insulting or violated any rules of this site, but you want to silence us because we point out bluntly that your position is absurd.
And this is my exact point. I'm not talking down to you. I'm giving you my perspective on why this thread went to hell. Opening a dialogue isn't "you're wrong." It's not speaking down to someone and dancing around telling them your an idiot. It's not saying "that's the dumbest thing I've ever read."
I'm not talking to him that way, because he isn't one of the worst offenders. YOU and Todd are the ones who is in just about EVERY thread turning it into a chit show. You two remind of of why Velocipede was banned. Because you two can't seem to approach a situation with tact. You guys act like a couple of spoiled brat children. When someone doesn't see it from your point of view, you get upset, offended, and go on an attack. Grow up, act like an adult. You guys bring a vibe to this site, THAT NO ONE CARES FOR. You're not polite, you just want everyone to agree with you, and if they don't, they are all idiots. It's disgusting that people with attitudes like that are in a position of union leadership. And that's what talking down to someone sounds like.