On making it difficult for everyone else

[Frank Whiteley]

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

[Jack]

Frank Whiteley wrote:

> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!

Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
real villain?

How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
"Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".


Jack

[Shawn[_3_]]

Jack wrote:
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
>
> Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile in
> his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield from which
> he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or otherwise, into Dublin
> with all those around him unaware? Surely the Irish must rise up in arms
> and place all of those with heart problems under house-arrest, if such
> is the case!
>
> Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
> themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
> which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
> real villain?

Did you read the article?
Protection from you and your lot's flagrant disregard for reasonable
regulation (i.e. flying with a current medical), that you seem to
endorse, is why the rest of us need the "Nanny State".

Shawn

[Mike the Strike]

On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


To the best of my knowledge, pilot incapacitation through ill health
has not resulted in any serious injuries to anyone other than the
pilot of a single-seat glider.

Certainly it's against the regulations in most countries to fly when
your health is in question, but I doubt there are few who would
censure a solo glider pilot for ignoring this regulation.

I, like most pilots, break a few regs from time to time.

Mike

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 3, 9:12 pm, Jack > wrote:
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
> >http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
> Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
> in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
> from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
> otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
> Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
> problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!
>
> Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
> themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
> which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
> real villain?
>
> How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
> "Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".
>
> Jack

I don't disagree that an individual in a personal glider accepts the
risk, but that's definitely not the case here.

I think the stated fact that he continued to flaunt the regs by flying
power and the club's tow plane for four years after the expiration of
his license and medical disqualification is telling. He was flight
disqualified, period, and did not sign the required self-certification
document.

The fact that he died in the glider drew significant attention. He
might have died in the pub later that night, in bed, or on the road,
and that would not have drawn this review. Re-read the last
paragraph. The tone is ominous, yet it has been shown over the years
that a flight medical is not a reliable predictor of whether a pilot
will succumb at the controls.

What it shows is that the club committee or board did not take due
diligence in it's obligations to the members and the greater soaring
community to ensure that those entrusted instructional and towing
duties were, in fact, qualified. The point is, whether some of them
knew, or suspected, they clearly were not auditing the situation.
It's a relatively simple matter to do so. The important fact is that
the individual put all of the members at risk, if not in personal
terms (instruction and towing), at the very least in financial terms.
It was a club glider after all.

Now it appears that entire national organization is is pressured to
jump through hoops due to the arrogance, and lack of personal
integrity, of one, and the negligence of a few.

Frank

[BG[_2_]]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
Hi Frank

Regrettably all a current medical certificate is useful for is knowing that the
recipient WAS fit to fly at the time that they took the medical. Half an hour
later, who knows.

There is very little correlation between having a valid - one year old medical,
and fitness to fly.

Of course I agree that this does make it more difficult for the rest of us.
Because, of course, the various bureaucracies involved are not interested - they
want more stuff to administer, and more stuff to cover their ample posteriors with.

Mr Mulhall either felt fit to fly, or had decided to die in his glider. Given
the record presented one assumes it was the former, and that some eventuality
happened. Sadly, one of the soaring greats in South Africa died at my club, in
very similar circumstances. Helle Lasch (also in his late seventies) flew a
cross country in his Ventus, called downwind and flew a nice circuit, then
failed to appear from behind the hangars. When they reached the scene he had
impacted nose down, wings level, on the runway threshold...

On the subject of casting stones - have you ever driven while unfit?
Cold/flu/alcohol? Far more risk to self and others involved there, yet there is
no regular drivers medical. (OK we have a five yearly vision test)

[BG[_2_]]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On May 3, 9:12 pm, Jack > wrote:
>
>>Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>>
>>Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
>>in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
>>from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
>>otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
>>Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
>>problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!
>>
>>Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
>>themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
>>which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
>>real villain?
>>
>>How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
>>"Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".
>>
>>Jack
>
>
> I don't disagree that an individual in a personal glider accepts the
> risk, but that's definitely not the case here.
>
> I think the stated fact that he continued to flaunt the regs by flying
> power and the club's tow plane for four years after the expiration of
> his license and medical disqualification is telling. He was flight
> disqualified, period, and did not sign the required self-certification
> document.
>
That part is worrying - I am pretty sure all of us have had at least one flight
where we realised that we were not really fit to fly no matter what our medical
certificate said. I know I have. But this is different - It looks like he
consciously elected to disregard the rules and four years of illegal power
flying is cause for concern. This was clearly not a momentaty oversight, on his
part, or on the management where he flew.

> The fact that he died in the glider drew significant attention. He
> might have died in the pub later that night, in bed, or on the road,
> and that would not have drawn this review. Re-read the last
> paragraph. The tone is ominous, yet it has been shown over the years
> that a flight medical is not a reliable predictor of whether a pilot
> will succumb at the controls.
>
> What it shows is that the club committee or board did not take due
> diligence in it's obligations to the members and the greater soaring
> community to ensure that those entrusted instructional and towing
> duties were, in fact, qualified. The point is, whether some of them
> knew, or suspected, they clearly were not auditing the situation.
> It's a relatively simple matter to do so. The important fact is that
> the individual put all of the members at risk, if not in personal
> terms (instruction and towing), at the very least in financial terms.
> It was a club glider after all.

Maybe the club was too short of members to be viable without him. Maybe he was
so dominant as the incumbent CFI that no checks were made on him.
People assume that previous behaviour will continue - so probably no-one
presumed to check up on the CFI.

>
> Now it appears that entire national organization is is pressured to
> jump through hoops due to the arrogance, and lack of personal
> integrity, of one, and the negligence of a few.
>
This is sadly very true. While it is trite to say, the nanny state will make the
lives of those who follow the rules harder, while making very little difference
to those who for whatever reason have decided to ignore them.

We have the requirement to have and carry a valid license, with your ratings and
medical and flight review dates on it. This gets posted anually to the clubs
safety officer. (in our club thats me) Safety officer has job of keeping an eye
on who is due for renewal. Duty instructor is expected to make occasional checks
and enforce the rules. Expired anything means loss of solo flying privileges.

The associated assumption of responsibility is one factor in the increasing
difficulty we experience in getting people to fill the leadership roles such as
CFI, or Safety Officer or Club Exco. As a self empoloyed person, the reward I
can expect for my voluntary and unremunerated work is that the time and cost
involved in a legal case involving an incident at my club could bankrupt me.

Bruce

[Alistair Wright]

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>

There is really no correlation between medical status and certification as
far as I can see. It is well documented that very few accidents have been
attributed to a pre-existing medical condition.

You never know your moment when flying. One day I was duty instructor at
Husbands Bosworth and I was sitting in the back seat of our Ka2, cable
connected, all out given, when the wing tip holder suddenly collapsed and
dropped the wing. I released the cable at once, and fortunately the tug
pilot was a bit slow to open up and there was no damage done. The wing tip
man (who was NEXT to fly with me) had had a heart attack and in spite of our
best efforts we could not revive him and he died at the scene. Very sad. I
count myself very lucky that this event occurred when it did, and not twenty
minutes later when we would have been airborne.

There was no way that this episode could have been predicted or prevented as
in those days only instructors had to hold a medical certificate which was
annually renewed. My own doctor just used to look at me and sign, as it was
the only time I ever visited his surgery. As it happens I am going to do a
bit of gliding this summer, and as I am now 74 not un-naturally the club
concerned has asked for a medical certificate in case I get to fly solo. My
doctor on this occasion did in fact do a fairly detailed check of my vital
functions but as he was basically doing only the same tests as those
required for renewal of a driving licence after an illness I don't really
feel that it tells us very much about my medical state.

Alistair Wright

[Dan G]

On May 4, 5:22 am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
> To the best of my knowledge, pilot incapacitation through ill health
> has not resulted in any serious injuries to anyone other than the
> pilot of a single-seat glider.
>

Actually it likely has, but the pilot had the correct medical for his
role at the time:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/HCD.pdf

Quite a lot of information about British medical requirements and
Puchaz spinning in that report.


Dan

[Dan G]

On May 4, 11:01 am, "Alistair Wright" >
wrote:
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
> There is really no correlation between medical status and certification as
> far as I can see. It is well documented that very few accidents have been
> attributed to a pre-existing medical condition.

Depends on the arena looked at I guess. In commercial aviation the
situation is similar to that of the millenium bug: after the date
rolled over and nothing failed, lots of people spouted that there
never was a problem and those billions of dollars should never have
been spent on the issue. Of course, it was purely *because* that money
had been spent that there were no issues.

So it is with commercial aviation medicals. The fact that few - not
none, but few - accidents are due to medical conditions points to the
fact that the commercial medical certification process works.
Cardiology is in fact very good at detecting pre-existing but
superficially asymptomatic conditions. However the tests are
expensive.

An ASN database query gives:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=FCI

Note that the last incident - the 2004 USAF crash - seems to have
parallels with the Kilkenny crash.


Dan


Dan

[Dan G]

On May 4, 12:12 pm, Dan G > wrote:
> An ASN database query gives:
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=FCI
>

Should say that list is for "flight crew incapacitation", which
includes a range of occurences. However a notable absence from that
list is the 1972 Trident crash near Staines, just outside of London.
The captain had an acute heart condition during a cockpit emergency
that no doubt compounded the problem.


Dan

[Derek Copeland]

There was another case where an airline captain who
had passed a full CAA Class 1 ATP medical only a few
days previously had a heart attack and died during
a commercial flight with many passengers on board.
The co-pilot completed the flight without further incident.

State regulation does not guarantee flight safety,
but just costs pilots lots of money!

Derek Copeland


At 11:24 04 May 2007, Dan G wrote:
>On May 4, 12:12 pm, Dan G wrote:
>> An ASN database query gives:
>>
>> http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=FCI
>>
>
>Should say that list is for 'flight crew incapacitation',
>which
>includes a range of occurences. However a notable absence
>from that
>list is the 1972 Trident crash near Staines, just outside
>of London.
>The captain had an acute heart condition during a cockpit
>emergency
>that no doubt compounded the problem.
>
>
>Dan
>
>

[Bullwinkle]

On 5/4/07 5:23 AM, in article
om, "Dan G"
> wrote:

> On May 4, 12:12 pm, Dan G > wrote:
>> An ASN database query gives:
>>
>> http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Event=FCI
>>
>
> Should say that list is for "flight crew incapacitation", which
> includes a range of occurences. However a notable absence from that
> list is the 1972 Trident crash near Staines, just outside of London.
> The captain had an acute heart condition during a cockpit emergency
> that no doubt compounded the problem.
>
>
> Dan
>
Medical examinations are really useless in determining who is safe to fly.
Very few pilots are grounded due to objective medical findings. Listening to
the heart and lungs, looking in eyes and ears, reviewing EKG's and lab
results: those items have a very low yield in detecting medical problems.

The only portion of the exam with significant relevance to determining
health or lack thereof is the history: what the individual says they are
experiencing. This requires honest reporting, and we all know that there is
a tremendous incentive to report that all is well, and to ignore those pesky
heart palpitations, or the migraines that come on with visual disturbances,
or those chest pains that get worse with exercise, etc.

That's how folks continue flying with disqualifying medical conditions: they
lie about them on their medicals.

JMHO,
Bullwinkle

[Bill Daniels]

IMHO, there is an ethical distinction that needs to be made here. Pilot
incapacitation in a single seat glider is indeed not likely to hurt anyone
but the pilot. Except, in Frank's case, where it may lead to additional
regulatory burden on others. (Though one might imagine additional
scenarios.)

Where it REALLY crosses the line is when a medically unfit pilot assumes PIC
responsibilities in a two-seater with a non-pilot on board. This would
include an instructor who flies with a pre-solo student. The passenger and
student are totally reliant on the rated pilot for their safety and have
every reason to expect that their pilot meets high medical standards.

Unfortunately, I know of several instructors who have lost their medicals
for very serious conditions yet continue to fly (Legally in the US) with
pre-solo students. It would seem to me that clubs who have authorized these
instructors to instruct in club aircraft incur some liability here.

Bill Daniels


"Mike the Strike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, pilot incapacitation through ill health
> has not resulted in any serious injuries to anyone other than the
> pilot of a single-seat glider.
>
> Certainly it's against the regulations in most countries to fly when
> your health is in question, but I doubt there are few who would
> censure a solo glider pilot for ignoring this regulation.
>
> I, like most pilots, break a few regs from time to time.
>
> Mike
>

[Shawn[_3_]]

Alistair Wright wrote:
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>>
>
> There is really no correlation between medical status and certification as
> far as I can see. It is well documented that very few accidents have been
> attributed to a pre-existing medical condition.

snip

Presumably most people who lose their medical certificate stop flying.
Sort of the point of a medical, isn't it?


> There was no way that this episode could have been predicted or prevented as
> in those days only instructors had to hold a medical certificate which was
> annually renewed. My own doctor just used to look at me and sign, as it was
> the only time I ever visited his surgery. As it happens I am going to do a
> bit of gliding this summer, and as I am now 74 not un-naturally the club
> concerned has asked for a medical certificate in case I get to fly solo. My
> doctor on this occasion did in fact do a fairly detailed check of my vital
> functions but as he was basically doing only the same tests as those
> required for renewal of a driving licence after an illness I don't really
> feel that it tells us very much about my medical state.


This is interesting to me. The way I see it: If "The Rules" (law,
club, etc.) say you don't need a medical to fly a glider (as in the US),
some group coming along saying "Your too old. We need to see a medical
from you", should be told "Hook up to tow rope, then F--- Off!" ;-)


Shawn

[Dan G]

On May 4, 1:54 pm, Bullwinkle > wrote:
> Medical examinations are really useless in determining who is safe to fly.
> Very few pilots are grounded due to objective medical findings. Listening to
> the heart and lungs, looking in eyes and ears, reviewing EKG's and lab
> results: those items have a very low yield in detecting medical problems.

ECGs and cholesterol levels - both tested in medicals - are good
indicators of cardiac health. I expect pilots normally pass this part
of the medical because they keep themselves healthy in order to do so.

Cardiac disease is the second biggest killer in the 44-65 age group -
behind cancer - and the fact so few pilots collapse at the controls
suggests that these tests do work.

In this case the results of the tests meant the crash pilot knew that
sudden collapse was a stronger-than-normal possibility for him. The
problem is that he knowingly put other people at risk too by
continuing to tow and his club's procedures were not good enough to
find him out. (And while afaik it's never happened it's conceivable
that an out-of-control single seater could harm people on the ground.
Such an event would be quite bad for gliding I think.)

I think the point the accident report was making is that *everyone*
needs to be properly checked that they meet requirements, and
procedures should be put in place in Ireland to make sure that
happens. I don't think that's harmful to gliding.


Dan

[Alistair Wright]

"Shawn" > wrote in message
. ..
> This is interesting to me. The way I see it: If "The Rules" (law, club,
> etc.) say you don't need a medical to fly a glider (as in the US), some
> group coming along saying "You're too old. We need to see a medical from
> you", should be told "Hook up to tow rope, then F--- Off!" ;-)
>
>
Well let me tell you that the UK BGA have introduced rules about old pilots
flying solo. When I get to 76, which will occur in about 18 months, I will
no longer be allowed to fly without a safety pilot. I officially retired
from instructing in 1978 and have not flown gliders since. However I do have
500 hrs P1 and 2100 sorties in my book. All of this cuts no ice with the
BGA, or indeed the club I am going to fly with this summer. I have to
produce a full medical certificate or I will not fly solo, assuming that I
can cope with these new fangled glass ships. So I have had the medical. The
fact that I am fitter than people twenty years my junior has nothing to do
with it either. However I do not mind any of this in the least, as it was
very re-assuring to be advised by my medical man that I was in better shape
than some 50 year olds on his books. I still maintain my view that all this
medical examining has little to do with the possibility of an accident or
incident taking place due to some problem hitherto undiscovered.

Alistair Wright
Old wooden pilot

[Tony Verhulst]

> Regrettably all a current medical certificate is useful for is knowing
> that the recipient WAS fit to fly at the time that they took the
> medical. Half an hour later, who knows.

It's actually a little better than that. Since you must report all
medications you are taking, the medical examiner can assess if one, or a
combination of several medications, might impair your coordination
and/or judgment which could affect your ability to act as PIC (or to
drive a car for that matter).

On the other hand, the AOPA is fond of (correctly) reporting that there
is no statistical correlation between a pilot having a medical
certificate and accidents due to medical causes.

Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

[[email protected]]

Actually, even a solo pilot is putting someone else at risk: the guy
flying the tug.

If you want to fly while medically unfit, take a winch launch.

[Nyal Williams]

At 04:18 05 May 2007, wrote:
>Actually, even a solo pilot is putting someone else
>at risk: the guy
>flying the tug.
>
>If you want to fly while medically unfit, take a winch
>launch.

No; take a co-pilot.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> Regrettably all a current medical certificate is useful for is knowing
>> that the recipient WAS fit to fly at the time that they took the medical.
>> Half an hour later, who knows.
>
> It's actually a little better than that. Since you must report all
> medications you are taking, the medical examiner can assess if one, or a
> combination of several medications, might impair your coordination and/or
> judgment which could affect your ability to act as PIC (or to drive a car
> for that matter).
>
> On the other hand, the AOPA is fond of (correctly) reporting that there is
> no statistical correlation between a pilot having a medical certificate
> and accidents due to medical causes.
>
> Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

My dad passed his 3rd class medical in the morning. Went out to the airport
to test fly an airplane he was thinking of buying. Then passed out in mens
room at the FBO from some complication from his (up to then) undetected
prostate cancer (It was never clear to me excatly why he passed out...)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[[email protected]]

On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

Frank,

Before you run off and start demonizing a pilot LEGALLY excercising
his rights, you should research the subject. The fact is that
possessing a current Airmen's medical is not guarantee WHATSOEVER that
the pilot is fit to fly on any given day.

I just received a medical denial letter from the FAA because I was
taking Trazodone for insomnia. Insominia is not by itself a disabling
medical condition, but Trazodone is on their prohibited list because
it is an old anti-depresent drug. ALL anti-depresents are prohibited.
PERIOD. It does not matter what the condition is for which you are
taking the prescribed medicine: medical denied, DO NOT FLY! Well, I am
flying my glider while the paper work is being sorted out (I have a
different, much more expensive, drug prescribed for the same IDENTICAL
condition). By your reasoning, I AM UNFIT TO FLY. PERIOD, END OF
STORY! because I don't have a CURRENT MEDICAL! Never mind that glider
pilots DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE to LEGALLY fly!!

My doctor DOES have a disabling disease; it is DIABETES. But he is
LEGALLY able to fly his motorgliders WITHOUT an aviation medical. I am
very confident in his ability to fly his motorgliders, to the extent
that I have allowed my wife, my kids and my mother to fly with him. By
your standards he should be GROUNDED!!!

Once, while getting a 3rd class medical, the doctor remarked about my
good health. By comparison, he pointed out another patient of his, to
whom he had granted the 3rd class medical with the warning that he
might not get it the next time, that had DIED within one year! That
guy was LEGALLY fit to fly, but died shortly after getting the
medical.

What you apparently don't realize is the system is more about the FAA
covering their respective asses than it is about protecting the
public. The system TOTALLY depends upon self reporting of medical
conditions; if you report you come under INTENSE SCRUTINY. Thus, the
incentive is: DO NOT REPORT! The Inspector General did a study
matching Social Security disability payments with certified pilots.
They found nearly 10% held CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATES while
simultaneously receiving DISABILITY PAYMENTS! Only 40 of these cases
were prosecuted because of limited resources (http://
flightphysical.com/FAA/FAA-Report-Falsification/index.htm). Another
pilot I know once reported that he had an EKG performed that was
negative. The FAA required him to take an ANNUAL EKG for no damn good
reason, just to cover their asses!

Tom

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:
> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
> Frank,
>
> Before you run off and start demonizing a pilot LEGALLY excercising
> his rights, you should research the subject. The fact is that
> possessing a current Airmen's medical is not guarantee WHATSOEVER that
> the pilot is fit to fly on any given day.
>
> I just received a medical denial letter from the FAA because I was
> taking Trazodone for insomnia. Insominia is not by itself a disabling
> medical condition, but Trazodone is on their prohibited list because
> it is an old anti-depresent drug. ALL anti-depresents are prohibited.
> PERIOD. It does not matter what the condition is for which you are
> taking the prescribed medicine: medical denied, DO NOT FLY! Well, I am
> flying my glider while the paper work is being sorted out (I have a
> different, much more expensive, drug prescribed for the same IDENTICAL
> condition). By your reasoning, I AM UNFIT TO FLY. PERIOD, END OF
> STORY! because I don't have a CURRENT MEDICAL! Never mind that glider
> pilots DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE to LEGALLY fly!!
>
> My doctor DOES have a disabling disease; it is DIABETES. But he is
> LEGALLY able to fly his motorgliders WITHOUT an aviation medical. I am
> very confident in his ability to fly his motorgliders, to the extent
> that I have allowed my wife, my kids and my mother to fly with him. By
> your standards he should be GROUNDED!!!
>
> Once, while getting a 3rd class medical, the doctor remarked about my
> good health. By comparison, he pointed out another patient of his, to
> whom he had granted the 3rd class medical with the warning that he
> might not get it the next time, that had DIED within one year! That
> guy was LEGALLY fit to fly, but died shortly after getting the
> medical.
>
> What you apparently don't realize is the system is more about the FAA
> covering their respective asses than it is about protecting the
> public. The system TOTALLY depends upon self reporting of medical
> conditions; if you report you come under INTENSE SCRUTINY. Thus, the
> incentive is: DO NOT REPORT! The Inspector General did a study
> matching Social Security disability payments with certified pilots.
> They found nearly 10% held CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATES while
> simultaneously receiving DISABILITY PAYMENTS! Only 40 of these cases
> were prosecuted because of limited resources (http://
> flightphysical.com/FAA/FAA-Report-Falsification/index.htm). Another
> pilot I know once reported that he had an EKG performed that was
> negative. The FAA required him to take an ANNUAL EKG for no damn good
> reason, just to cover their asses!
>
> Tom

Yo Tom, I wasn't demonizing anyone and if the pilot in the article
wanted to come out and fly _his_ glider, fine by me, as I've stated
before. However, I think he was flying a _club_ glider and clearly
instructing and towing, at least one of those things he definitely
should not have been doing. At some point, people need enough
personal integrity to do the right thing, especially within a club
framework, where responsibilities extend to the other members. (If
you don't like it, don't fly in clubs). This chap didn't and that's
quite simply stated in the article. I suspect if he had admitted the
loss of his medical and loss of power flight privileges to the club,
that body may well have banned him from flying club equipment and/or
the national association may have prohibited him from instructing.

I knew a youngish, at the time, BGA instructor that lost his
instructor privileges due to a heart valve replacement. He was about
30 and hiked extensively as a second pastime, but a heart valve
replacement may lead to a increase in the chance of clotting, hence
the restriction. He was not banned from flying club or personal
equipment solo.

It's certainly a tough call if it has to be made.

BTW, when the SSF does a safety audit of a soaring site, they do look
to see if the operation is tracking pertinent information about their
flying group, and suggests some internal audits to perform that are
germane to this discussion.

The FAA does all sorts of things. Heck, I know a man, at 79yo, that
got his medical back from a US Senator following a quad by-pass. It
took that sort of clout to stop the FSDO foot dragging and get the
attention of the FAA Flight Surgeon. 79yo pilots don't like to waste
time;^) He wanted to get back to test flying.

Frank

[Bullwinkle]

On 5/5/07 11:33 PM, in article
. com, "Frank Whiteley"
> wrote:

> On May 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:
>> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> Before you run off and start demonizing a pilot LEGALLY excercising
>> his rights, you should research the subject. The fact is that
>> possessing a current Airmen's medical is not guarantee WHATSOEVER that
>> the pilot is fit to fly on any given day.
>>
>> I just received a medical denial letter from the FAA because I was
>> taking Trazodone for insomnia. Insominia is not by itself a disabling
>> medical condition, but Trazodone is on their prohibited list because
>> it is an old anti-depresent drug. ALL anti-depresents are prohibited.
>> PERIOD. It does not matter what the condition is for which you are
>> taking the prescribed medicine: medical denied, DO NOT FLY! Well, I am
>> flying my glider while the paper work is being sorted out (I have a
>> different, much more expensive, drug prescribed for the same IDENTICAL
>> condition). By your reasoning, I AM UNFIT TO FLY. PERIOD, END OF
>> STORY! because I don't have a CURRENT MEDICAL! Never mind that glider
>> pilots DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE to LEGALLY fly!!
>>
>> My doctor DOES have a disabling disease; it is DIABETES. But he is
>> LEGALLY able to fly his motorgliders WITHOUT an aviation medical. I am
>> very confident in his ability to fly his motorgliders, to the extent
>> that I have allowed my wife, my kids and my mother to fly with him. By
>> your standards he should be GROUNDED!!!
>>
>> Once, while getting a 3rd class medical, the doctor remarked about my
>> good health. By comparison, he pointed out another patient of his, to
>> whom he had granted the 3rd class medical with the warning that he
>> might not get it the next time, that had DIED within one year! That
>> guy was LEGALLY fit to fly, but died shortly after getting the
>> medical.
>>
>> What you apparently don't realize is the system is more about the FAA
>> covering their respective asses than it is about protecting the
>> public. The system TOTALLY depends upon self reporting of medical
>> conditions; if you report you come under INTENSE SCRUTINY. Thus, the
>> incentive is: DO NOT REPORT! The Inspector General did a study
>> matching Social Security disability payments with certified pilots.
>> They found nearly 10% held CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATES while
>> simultaneously receiving DISABILITY PAYMENTS! Only 40 of these cases
>> were prosecuted because of limited resources (http://
>> flightphysical.com/FAA/FAA-Report-Falsification/index.htm). Another
>> pilot I know once reported that he had an EKG performed that was
>> negative. The FAA required him to take an ANNUAL EKG for no damn good
>> reason, just to cover their asses!
>>
>> Tom
>
> Yo Tom, I wasn't demonizing anyone and if the pilot in the article
> wanted to come out and fly _his_ glider, fine by me, as I've stated
> before. However, I think he was flying a _club_ glider and clearly
> instructing and towing, at least one of those things he definitely
> should not have been doing. At some point, people need enough
> personal integrity to do the right thing, especially within a club
> framework, where responsibilities extend to the other members. (If
> you don't like it, don't fly in clubs). This chap didn't and that's
> quite simply stated in the article. I suspect if he had admitted the
> loss of his medical and loss of power flight privileges to the club,
> that body may well have banned him from flying club equipment and/or
> the national association may have prohibited him from instructing.
>
> I knew a youngish, at the time, BGA instructor that lost his
> instructor privileges due to a heart valve replacement. He was about
> 30 and hiked extensively as a second pastime, but a heart valve
> replacement may lead to a increase in the chance of clotting, hence
> the restriction. He was not banned from flying club or personal
> equipment solo.
>
> It's certainly a tough call if it has to be made.
>
> BTW, when the SSF does a safety audit of a soaring site, they do look
> to see if the operation is tracking pertinent information about their
> flying group, and suggests some internal audits to perform that are
> germane to this discussion.
>
> The FAA does all sorts of things. Heck, I know a man, at 79yo, that
> got his medical back from a US Senator following a quad by-pass. It
> took that sort of clout to stop the FSDO foot dragging and get the
> attention of the FAA Flight Surgeon. 79yo pilots don't like to waste
> time;^) He wanted to get back to test flying.
>
> Frank
>
>
All,

I think everyone here needs a basic course in FAA medical standards policy.
I can't provide one here, but recommend you do some research, instead of
just shooting from the hip. Start with the FAA Guide for Aviation Medical
Examiners (available on the FAA website) and pay close attention to the
"protocols" for various diseases.

When you are surprised that someone got their medical back after a CABG
(coronary artery bypass graft), or that it required a US Senator to
intervene, or that the FSDO has any role whatsoever in the medical
certification process, then you are seriously confused about the how system
works. Recommend you also take a look at www.aviationmedicine.com . And if
you have questions, call those guys.

There are many, many airline pilots with valid first class medicals flying
(on special issuance) for things like CABG, heart valve replacement, atrial
fibrillation, ongoing use of anticoagulant medication, history of cancers of
most types, diabetes controlled on oral meds, history of recurrent kidney
stones, history of depression, etc, etc.

It's all in how you approach the FAA.

Frank, the suggestion that clubs start making independent medical
certification decisions is ridiculous. The club should operate within the
law, and let the pilots make the decisions they are supposed to make under
the FAR's (61.53).

Regards,
Bullwinkle

[Bill Daniels]

"Bullwinkle" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/5/07 11:33 PM, in article
> . com, "Frank Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:
>>> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>>>
>>> Frank,
>>>
>>> Before you run off and start demonizing a pilot LEGALLY excercising
>>> his rights, you should research the subject. The fact is that
>>> possessing a current Airmen's medical is not guarantee WHATSOEVER that
>>> the pilot is fit to fly on any given day.
>>>
>>> I just received a medical denial letter from the FAA because I was
>>> taking Trazodone for insomnia. Insominia is not by itself a disabling
>>> medical condition, but Trazodone is on their prohibited list because
>>> it is an old anti-depresent drug. ALL anti-depresents are prohibited.
>>> PERIOD. It does not matter what the condition is for which you are
>>> taking the prescribed medicine: medical denied, DO NOT FLY! Well, I am
>>> flying my glider while the paper work is being sorted out (I have a
>>> different, much more expensive, drug prescribed for the same IDENTICAL
>>> condition). By your reasoning, I AM UNFIT TO FLY. PERIOD, END OF
>>> STORY! because I don't have a CURRENT MEDICAL! Never mind that glider
>>> pilots DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE to LEGALLY fly!!
>>>
>>> My doctor DOES have a disabling disease; it is DIABETES. But he is
>>> LEGALLY able to fly his motorgliders WITHOUT an aviation medical. I am
>>> very confident in his ability to fly his motorgliders, to the extent
>>> that I have allowed my wife, my kids and my mother to fly with him. By
>>> your standards he should be GROUNDED!!!
>>>
>>> Once, while getting a 3rd class medical, the doctor remarked about my
>>> good health. By comparison, he pointed out another patient of his, to
>>> whom he had granted the 3rd class medical with the warning that he
>>> might not get it the next time, that had DIED within one year! That
>>> guy was LEGALLY fit to fly, but died shortly after getting the
>>> medical.
>>>
>>> What you apparently don't realize is the system is more about the FAA
>>> covering their respective asses than it is about protecting the
>>> public. The system TOTALLY depends upon self reporting of medical
>>> conditions; if you report you come under INTENSE SCRUTINY. Thus, the
>>> incentive is: DO NOT REPORT! The Inspector General did a study
>>> matching Social Security disability payments with certified pilots.
>>> They found nearly 10% held CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATES while
>>> simultaneously receiving DISABILITY PAYMENTS! Only 40 of these cases
>>> were prosecuted because of limited resources (http://
>>> flightphysical.com/FAA/FAA-Report-Falsification/index.htm). Another
>>> pilot I know once reported that he had an EKG performed that was
>>> negative. The FAA required him to take an ANNUAL EKG for no damn good
>>> reason, just to cover their asses!
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Yo Tom, I wasn't demonizing anyone and if the pilot in the article
>> wanted to come out and fly _his_ glider, fine by me, as I've stated
>> before. However, I think he was flying a _club_ glider and clearly
>> instructing and towing, at least one of those things he definitely
>> should not have been doing. At some point, people need enough
>> personal integrity to do the right thing, especially within a club
>> framework, where responsibilities extend to the other members. (If
>> you don't like it, don't fly in clubs). This chap didn't and that's
>> quite simply stated in the article. I suspect if he had admitted the
>> loss of his medical and loss of power flight privileges to the club,
>> that body may well have banned him from flying club equipment and/or
>> the national association may have prohibited him from instructing.
>>
>> I knew a youngish, at the time, BGA instructor that lost his
>> instructor privileges due to a heart valve replacement. He was about
>> 30 and hiked extensively as a second pastime, but a heart valve
>> replacement may lead to a increase in the chance of clotting, hence
>> the restriction. He was not banned from flying club or personal
>> equipment solo.
>>
>> It's certainly a tough call if it has to be made.
>>
>> BTW, when the SSF does a safety audit of a soaring site, they do look
>> to see if the operation is tracking pertinent information about their
>> flying group, and suggests some internal audits to perform that are
>> germane to this discussion.
>>
>> The FAA does all sorts of things. Heck, I know a man, at 79yo, that
>> got his medical back from a US Senator following a quad by-pass. It
>> took that sort of clout to stop the FSDO foot dragging and get the
>> attention of the FAA Flight Surgeon. 79yo pilots don't like to waste
>> time;^) He wanted to get back to test flying.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
> All,
>
> I think everyone here needs a basic course in FAA medical standards
> policy.
> I can't provide one here, but recommend you do some research, instead of
> just shooting from the hip. Start with the FAA Guide for Aviation Medical
> Examiners (available on the FAA website) and pay close attention to the
> "protocols" for various diseases.
>
> When you are surprised that someone got their medical back after a CABG
> (coronary artery bypass graft), or that it required a US Senator to
> intervene, or that the FSDO has any role whatsoever in the medical
> certification process, then you are seriously confused about the how
> system
> works. Recommend you also take a look at www.aviationmedicine.com . And
> if
> you have questions, call those guys.
>
> There are many, many airline pilots with valid first class medicals flying
> (on special issuance) for things like CABG, heart valve replacement,
> atrial
> fibrillation, ongoing use of anticoagulant medication, history of cancers
> of
> most types, diabetes controlled on oral meds, history of recurrent kidney
> stones, history of depression, etc, etc.
>
> It's all in how you approach the FAA.
>
> Frank, the suggestion that clubs start making independent medical
> certification decisions is ridiculous. The club should operate within the
> law, and let the pilots make the decisions they are supposed to make under
> the FAR's (61.53).
>
> Regards,
> Bullwinkle
>

I've listened to this arguement for all my life and now I'm old enough that
it may soon apply to me. In that time I've seen two sharply divided groups.
One loudly proclaims their 'right' to fly as PIC with innocent non-pilot
passengers until they are dead or incapcitated. They will 'game' the system
as long as they can get away with it. The other will say that their medical
conditions preclude accepting PIC responsibilities and continue to fly but
only with a safety pilot. The former group outnumbers the latter by a
significant margin. When the day comes, I intend to be in the later group.

It is correct to say that the current state of medical science, at least as
it is practiced by AME's, can't accurately predict the physical performance
of a pilot once he has left the doctor's office. It is also correct to say
that the pilot is in the best position to judge his physical condition. The
problem is that pilots are often, understandably, in denial about the extent
of their medical conditions.

Responsibility for one's actions and concern for the safety of others should
trump mere pride but sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. At some point
organizations will have to deal with a pilot in denial. It should be done
with respect, care and courtesy since we all will have to face that day -
but it should be done.

Bill Daniels

[Wayne Paul]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...
>
> I've listened to this arguement for all my life and now I'm old enough
> that it may soon apply to me. In that time I've seen two sharply divided
> groups. One loudly proclaims their 'right' to fly as PIC with innocent
> non-pilot passengers until they are dead or incapcitated. They will
> 'game' the system as long as they can get away with it. The other will
> say that their medical conditions preclude accepting PIC responsibilities
> and continue to fly but only with a safety pilot. The former group
> outnumbers the latter by a significant margin. When the day comes, I
> intend to be in the later group.
>
> It is correct to say that the current state of medical science, at least
> as it is practiced by AME's, can't accurately predict the physical
> performance of a pilot once he has left the doctor's office. It is also
> correct to say that the pilot is in the best position to judge his
> physical condition. The problem is that pilots are often, understandably,
> in denial about the extent of their medical conditions.
>
> Responsibility for one's actions and concern for the safety of others
> should trump mere pride but sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. At
> some point organizations will have to deal with a pilot in denial. It
> should be done with respect, care and courtesy since we all will have to
> face that day - but it should be done.
>
> Bill Daniels

Bill,

A few years ago an elderly pilot, who's ability to fly far exceeds mine,
determined it was time to give up the sport. He had just completed an
outstanding flight from Sun Valley, Idaho. During the after flight
debriefing (you know, beer and "there I was, scratching the Bolders") he
stated he wanted his memories of flying to be the great flight he and just
finished and put his Mini-Nimbus on the market.

Though we miss him when we fly, we all adminre his wisdom and judgement.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 6, 6:45 am, Bullwinkle > wrote:
> On 5/5/07 11:33 PM, in article
> . com, "Frank Whiteley"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On May 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:
> >> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
> >> Frank,
>
> >> Before you run off and start demonizing a pilot LEGALLY excercising
> >> his rights, you should research the subject. The fact is that
> >> possessing a current Airmen's medical is not guarantee WHATSOEVER that
> >> the pilot is fit to fly on any given day.
>
> >> I just received a medical denial letter from the FAA because I was
> >> taking Trazodone for insomnia. Insominia is not by itself a disabling
> >> medical condition, but Trazodone is on their prohibited list because
> >> it is an old anti-depresent drug. ALL anti-depresents are prohibited.
> >> PERIOD. It does not matter what the condition is for which you are
> >> taking the prescribed medicine: medical denied, DO NOT FLY! Well, I am
> >> flying my glider while the paper work is being sorted out (I have a
> >> different, much more expensive, drug prescribed for the same IDENTICAL
> >> condition). By your reasoning, I AM UNFIT TO FLY. PERIOD, END OF
> >> STORY! because I don't have a CURRENT MEDICAL! Never mind that glider
> >> pilots DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE to LEGALLY fly!!
>
> >> My doctor DOES have a disabling disease; it is DIABETES. But he is
> >> LEGALLY able to fly his motorgliders WITHOUT an aviation medical. I am
> >> very confident in his ability to fly his motorgliders, to the extent
> >> that I have allowed my wife, my kids and my mother to fly with him. By
> >> your standards he should be GROUNDED!!!
>
> >> Once, while getting a 3rd class medical, the doctor remarked about my
> >> good health. By comparison, he pointed out another patient of his, to
> >> whom he had granted the 3rd class medical with the warning that he
> >> might not get it the next time, that had DIED within one year! That
> >> guy was LEGALLY fit to fly, but died shortly after getting the
> >> medical.
>
> >> What you apparently don't realize is the system is more about the FAA
> >> covering their respective asses than it is about protecting the
> >> public. The system TOTALLY depends upon self reporting of medical
> >> conditions; if you report you come under INTENSE SCRUTINY. Thus, the
> >> incentive is: DO NOT REPORT! The Inspector General did a study
> >> matching Social Security disability payments with certified pilots.
> >> They found nearly 10% held CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATES while
> >> simultaneously receiving DISABILITY PAYMENTS! Only 40 of these cases
> >> were prosecuted because of limited resources (http://
> >> flightphysical.com/FAA/FAA-Report-Falsification/index.htm). Another
> >> pilot I know once reported that he had an EKG performed that was
> >> negative. The FAA required him to take an ANNUAL EKG for no damn good
> >> reason, just to cover their asses!
>
> >> Tom
>
> > Yo Tom, I wasn't demonizing anyone and if the pilot in the article
> > wanted to come out and fly _his_ glider, fine by me, as I've stated
> > before. However, I think he was flying a _club_ glider and clearly
> > instructing and towing, at least one of those things he definitely
> > should not have been doing. At some point, people need enough
> > personal integrity to do the right thing, especially within a club
> > framework, where responsibilities extend to the other members. (If
> > you don't like it, don't fly in clubs). This chap didn't and that's
> > quite simply stated in the article. I suspect if he had admitted the
> > loss of his medical and loss of power flight privileges to the club,
> > that body may well have banned him from flying club equipment and/or
> > the national association may have prohibited him from instructing.
>
> > I knew a youngish, at the time, BGA instructor that lost his
> > instructor privileges due to a heart valve replacement. He was about
> > 30 and hiked extensively as a second pastime, but a heart valve
> > replacement may lead to a increase in the chance of clotting, hence
> > the restriction. He was not banned from flying club or personal
> > equipment solo.
>
> > It's certainly a tough call if it has to be made.
>
> > BTW, when the SSF does a safety audit of a soaring site, they do look
> > to see if the operation is tracking pertinent information about their
> > flying group, and suggests some internal audits to perform that are
> > germane to this discussion.
>
> > The FAA does all sorts of things. Heck, I know a man, at 79yo, that
> > got his medical back from a US Senator following a quad by-pass. It
> > took that sort of clout to stop the FSDO foot dragging and get the
> > attention of the FAA Flight Surgeon. 79yo pilots don't like to waste
> > time;^) He wanted to get back to test flying.
>
> > Frank
>
> All,
>
> I think everyone here needs a basic course in FAA medical standards policy.
> I can't provide one here, but recommend you do some research, instead of
> just shooting from the hip. Start with the FAA Guide for Aviation Medical
> Examiners (available on the FAA website) and pay close attention to the
> "protocols" for various diseases.
>
> When you are surprised that someone got their medical back after a CABG
> (coronary artery bypass graft), or that it required a US Senator to
> intervene, or that the FSDO has any role whatsoever in the medical
> certification process, then you are seriously confused about the how system
> works. Recommend you also take a look atwww.aviationmedicine.com. And if
> you have questions, call those guys.
>
> There are many, many airline pilots with valid first class medicals flying
> (on special issuance) for things like CABG, heart valve replacement, atrial
> fibrillation, ongoing use of anticoagulant medication, history of cancers of
> most types, diabetes controlled on oral meds, history of recurrent kidney
> stones, history of depression, etc, etc.
>
> It's all in how you approach the FAA.
>
> Frank, the suggestion that clubs start making independent medical
> certification decisions is ridiculous. The club should operate within the
> law, and let the pilots make the decisions they are supposed to make under
> the FAR's (61.53).
>
> Regards,
> Bullwinkle

I didn't suggest that at all in any post. What I did say was that the
SSF suggests some auditing systems of persons at the club levels.
More specifically, last medical date/type, flight review annual part
61.69 requirements of tow pilots and last flight review date of
members and instructors. The rest is a matter of personal prerogative
except when there are extenuating circumstances.

Cheers,
Frank

[Bullwinkle]

This is an interesting discussion.

Frank said: >I didn't suggest that at all in any post.>>

From the earlier post:
>>I suspect if he had admitted the
> > loss of his medical and loss of power flight privileges to the club,
> that body may well have banned him from flying club equipment and/or
>>> the national association may have prohibited him from instructing.

If that's not a club or national association (like the SSA or BGA?) making
aeromedical decisions, I don't know what is.

If you don't require a medical for your national certifying body (like the
FAA), and your club bans someone from flying because of their medical
condition, that club is making an aeromedical decision.

I suppose it could be club policy to not allow pilots to fly if their FAA
(or other national certifying body) medical application has been denied. But
what about a person with the exact same medical condition(s), who has never
applied for FAA aeromedical certification, and thus has not been denied? If
that person shows up, and is willing to state they "have no known medical
condition that would affect my ability to fly safely", would you be happy
with that?

This is the whole light sport pilot issue with medical certification and FAA
denials. We in gliding can ignore that, since it doesn't apply to us.

Clubs, at least in the litigious USA, would be well advised to avoid getting
sucked into this kind of discussion.

Bullwinkle

[Alistair Wright]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> A few years ago an elderly pilot, whose ability to fly far exceeds mine,
> determined it was time to give up the sport. He had just completed an
> outstanding flight from Sun Valley, Idaho. During the after flight
> debriefing (you know, beer and "there I was, scratching the Bolders") he
> stated he wanted his memories of flying to be the great flight he and just
> finished and put his Mini-Nimbus on the market.
>
> Though we miss him when we fly, we all adminre his wisdom and judgement.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"
> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
My father-in -law (now deceased alas) was driving cars well into his
eighties. He was a very keen driver - he had learned on a Model T when he
was doing his BS at Carnegie Mellon in the 20s. We used to lunch together
from time to time and yarn (both of us were engineers with loads of
stories). Normally I drove us to the lunch spot, but on this particular day
he said he would drive. We had our usual jolly lunch and as I paid the bill
he passed his car keys across the table to me and said ' The car's yours
now; I'm not driving any more'. A very sensible decision by a man for whom I
had enormous respect. I would hope that all pilots would be able to face
facts as he did. There is no shame in flying with a safety pilot. When my
time comes (soon) I will accept this gracefully.

Alistair Wright

[jcarlyle]

Alistair,

A pedantic correction - your father-in-law wasn't getting his BS in
the 20s from Carnegie Mellon, he was getting it from Carnegie
Institute of Technology. My class (1970) was the last to graduate from
CIT, before they defiled a proud name solely because of naked greed.

-John

> He was a very keen driver - he had learned on a Model T when he
> was doing his BS at Carnegie Mellon in the 20s.

[fred]

On May 6, 8:16 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Bullwinkle" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/5/07 11:33 PM, in article
> > . com, "Frank Whiteley"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> On May 5, 8:40 pm, wrote:
> >>> On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621
>
> >>> Frank,
>
> >>> Before you run off and start demonizing a pilot LEGALLY excercising
> >>> his rights, you should research the subject. The fact is that
> >>> possessing a current Airmen's medical is not guarantee WHATSOEVER that
> >>> the pilot is fit to fly on any given day.
>
> >>> I just received a medical denial letter from the FAA because I was
> >>> taking Trazodone for insomnia. Insominia is not by itself a disabling
> >>> medical condition, but Trazodone is on their prohibited list because
> >>> it is an old anti-depresent drug. ALL anti-depresents are prohibited.
> >>> PERIOD. It does not matter what the condition is for which you are
> >>> taking the prescribed medicine: medical denied, DO NOT FLY! Well, I am
> >>> flying my glider while the paper work is being sorted out (I have a
> >>> different, much more expensive, drug prescribed for the same IDENTICAL
> >>> condition). By your reasoning, I AM UNFIT TO FLY. PERIOD, END OF
> >>> STORY! because I don't have a CURRENT MEDICAL! Never mind that glider
> >>> pilots DO NOT NEED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE to LEGALLY fly!!
>
> >>> My doctor DOES have a disabling disease; it is DIABETES. But he is
> >>> LEGALLY able to fly his motorgliders WITHOUT an aviation medical. I am
> >>> very confident in his ability to fly his motorgliders, to the extent
> >>> that I have allowed my wife, my kids and my mother to fly with him. By
> >>> your standards he should be GROUNDED!!!
>
> >>> Once, while getting a 3rd class medical, the doctor remarked about my
> >>> good health. By comparison, he pointed out another patient of his, to
> >>> whom he had granted the 3rd class medical with the warning that he
> >>> might not get it the next time, that had DIED within one year! That
> >>> guy was LEGALLY fit to fly, but died shortly after getting the
> >>> medical.
>
> >>> What you apparently don't realize is the system is more about the FAA
> >>> covering their respective asses than it is about protecting the
> >>> public. The system TOTALLY depends upon self reporting of medical
> >>> conditions; if you report you come under INTENSE SCRUTINY. Thus, the
> >>> incentive is: DO NOT REPORT! The Inspector General did a study
> >>> matching Social Security disability payments with certified pilots.
> >>> They found nearly 10% held CURRENT MEDICAL CERTIFICATES while
> >>> simultaneously receiving DISABILITY PAYMENTS! Only 40 of these cases
> >>> were prosecuted because of limited resources (http://
> >>> flightphysical.com/FAA/FAA-Report-Falsification/index.htm). Another
> >>> pilot I know once reported that he had an EKG performed that was
> >>> negative. The FAA required him to take an ANNUAL EKG for no damn good
> >>> reason, just to cover their asses!
>
> >>> Tom
>
> >> Yo Tom, I wasn't demonizing anyone and if the pilot in the article
> >> wanted to come out and fly _his_ glider, fine by me, as I've stated
> >> before. However, I think he was flying a _club_ glider and clearly
> >> instructing and towing, at least one of those things he definitely
> >> should not have been doing. At some point, people need enough
> >> personal integrity to do the right thing, especially within a club
> >> framework, where responsibilities extend to the other members. (If
> >> you don't like it, don't fly in clubs). This chap didn't and that's
> >> quite simply stated in the article. I suspect if he had admitted the
> >> loss of his medical and loss of power flight privileges to the club,
> >> that body may well have banned him from flying club equipment and/or
> >> the national association may have prohibited him from instructing.
>
> >> I knew a youngish, at the time, BGA instructor that lost his
> >> instructor privileges due to a heart valve replacement. He was about
> >> 30 and hiked extensively as a second pastime, but a heart valve
> >> replacement may lead to a increase in the chance of clotting, hence
> >> the restriction. He was not banned from flying club or personal
> >> equipment solo.
>
> >> It's certainly a tough call if it has to be made.
>
> >> BTW, when the SSF does a safety audit of a soaring site, they do look
> >> to see if the operation is tracking pertinent information about their
> >> flying group, and suggests some internal audits to perform that are
> >> germane to this discussion.
>
> >> The FAA does all sorts of things. Heck, I know a man, at 79yo, that
> >> got his medical back from a US Senator following a quad by-pass. It
> >> took that sort of clout to stop the FSDO foot dragging and get the
> >> attention of the FAA Flight Surgeon. 79yo pilots don't like to waste
> >> time;^) He wanted to get back to test flying.
>
> >> Frank
>
> > All,
>
> > I think everyone here needs a basic course in FAA medical standards
> > policy.
> > I can't provide one here, but recommend you do some research, instead of
> > just shooting from the hip. Start with the FAA Guide for Aviation Medical
> > Examiners (available on the FAA website) and pay close attention to the
> > "protocols" for various diseases.
>
> > When you are surprised that someone got their medical back after a CABG
> > (coronary artery bypass graft), or that it required a US Senator to
> > intervene, or that the FSDO has any role whatsoever in the medical
> > certification process, then you are seriously confused about the how
> > system
> > works. Recommend you also take a look atwww.aviationmedicine.com. And
> > if
> > you have questions, call those guys.
>
> > There are many, many airline pilots with valid first class medicals flying
> > (on special issuance) for things like CABG, heart valve replacement,
> > atrial
> > fibrillation, ongoing use of anticoagulant medication, history of cancers
> > of
> > most types, diabetes controlled on oral meds, history of recurrent kidney
> > stones, history of depression, etc, etc.
>
> > It's all in how you approach the FAA.
>
> > Frank, the suggestion that clubs start making independent medical
> > certification decisions is ridiculous. The club should operate within the
> > law, and let the pilots make the decisions they are supposed to make under
> > the FAR's (61.53).
>
> > Regards,
> > Bullwinkle
>
> I've listened to this arguement for all my life and now I'm old enough that
> it may soon apply to me. In that time I've seen two sharply divided groups.
> One loudly proclaims their 'right' to fly as PIC with innocent non-pilot
> passengers until they are dead or incapcitated. They will 'game' the system
> as long as they can get away with it. The other will say that their medical
> conditions preclude accepting PIC responsibilities and continue to fly but
> only with a safety pilot. The former group outnumbers the latter by a
> significant margin. When the day comes, I intend to be in the later group.
>
> It is correct to say that the current state of medical science, at least as
> it is practiced by AME's, can't accurately predict the physical performance
> of a pilot once he has left the doctor's office. It is also correct to say
> that the pilot is in the best position to judge his physical condition. The
> problem is that pilots are often, understandably, in denial about the extent
> of their medical conditions.
>
> Responsibility for one's actions and concern for the safety of others should
> trump mere pride but sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. At some point
> organizations will have to deal with a pilot in denial. It should be done
> with respect, care and courtesy since we all will have to face that day -
> but it should be done.
>
> Bill Daniels- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Most of you are too young to remember that the CAA and the FAA has
investigated the accident records of gliders extensively, thinking
that medical exams would reduce the accident rate. All accidents in
volve that aspect of investigation. The result of the years long study
found that most injury accidents happened to pilots that had a valid
medical. Almost no accidents happen as a result of pilot medical
failure. Some do, and they get more attention. At my operation, I have
a FAA rule that I preach...and apply to myself. Fred's air regulation
#1.01 "If for ANY reason you don't feel like flying, then don't take
off.
Fortunately, glider pilots are under less pressure to fly under
adverse conditions than other pilots.
Before anyone should apply the factors of a single accident and
propose rules, they should check all accidents to determine the
overall cause or number of accidents related to the subject
accident... For example, how do regulations stop a pilot from running
out of fuel? I love the discussion. Fred Robinson

[Alistair Wright]

"jcarlyle" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Alistair,
>
> A pedantic correction - your father-in-law wasn't getting his BS in
> the 20s from Carnegie Mellon, he was getting it from Carnegie
> Institute of Technology. My class (1970) was the last to graduate from
> CIT, before they defiled a proud name solely because of naked greed.
>
> -John
>
>> He was a very keen driver - he had learned on a Model T when he
>> was doing his BS at Carnegie Mellon in the 20s.
>
Hi John,

I was aware of the difference, I just didn't think anyone would remember. I
am looking at Fred's Degree scroll as I write, and of course it is from CIT.
You are not the only one to suffer this kind of thing. I graduated from the
Royal Technical College Glasgow in 1954, an institution with dozens of
famous alumni. It is now greatly altered and it has become the University of
Strathclyde. They issued all us alumni with new degree parchments as well!
I've kept my old RTC one though! At least C-M retains the Carnegie
connection in the name. Fred attended a 50 year re-union of CIT graduates
from his year in 1982.

It wasn't pedantic in the least. You have every right to feel annoyed when
people forget inportant things.

Alistair Wright
Melrose
Scotland.

[Andy[_1_]]

On May 6, 12:24 pm, Bullwinkle > wrote:

"But what about a person with the exact same medical condition(s), who
has never
applied for FAA aeromedical certification, and thus has not been
denied? If
that person shows up, and is willing to state they "have no known
medical
condition that would affect my ability to fly safely", would you be
happy
with that? "


Actually that's FAA policy when it comes to USA sport pilot
regulations. Fail a medical and you can never qualify for sport pilot
unless you pass a subsequent medical. Don't take the medical, no
problem your qualified.

Andy

[jcarlyle]

Hi, Alistair,

I may have had the honor of meeting your father-in-law! Up until 1985
I faithfully attended the yearly Spring Carnivals at Carnegie. Mostly
I was supporting my fraternity's winning buggy teams, but I also went
to the actitivies that were held to honor the older alums and made
small talk with some of them. Small world...

I apologize for being sensitive - a nephew had said just the day
before "don't you mean Carnegie-Mellon" when I told him that I
graduated from Carnegie Tech. His remark, combined with your innocent
message, triggered anew my resentment that the old name has been
mostly forgotten due to the trustees desire to increase the endowment.
My feelings aren't helped by the Mellon family's politics, which
weren't laudable back at the height of the Vietnam era and which have
no doubt played a part in the mid-east adventure we're now in.

Anyway, I see that you understand all too well, being a victim
yourself. I hope your beloved RTC was discarded for better reasons
than cash. Take care, and fly safe.

John Carlyle
Yardley, PA

> Hi John,
>
> I was aware of the difference, I just didn't think anyone would remember. I
> am looking at Fred's Degree scroll as I write, and of course it is from CIT.
> You are not the only one to suffer this kind of thing. I graduated from the
> Royal Technical College Glasgow in 1954, an institution with dozens of
> famous alumni. It is now greatly altered and it has become the University of
> Strathclyde. They issued all us alumni with new degree parchments as well!
> I've kept my old RTC one though! At least C-M retains the Carnegie
> connection in the name. Fred attended a 50 year re-union of CIT graduates
> from his year in 1982.
>
> It wasn't pedantic in the least. You have every right to feel annoyed when
> people forget inportant things.
>
> Alistair Wright
> Melrose
> Scotland.

[danlj]

On May 7, 11:59 pm, fred > wrote:
> At my operation, I have
> a FAA rule that I preach...and apply to myself. Fred's air regulation
> #1.01 "If for ANY reason you don't feel like flying, then don't take
> off.
> ... how do regulations stop a pilot from running
> out of fuel? I love the discussion.

I write as a power and glider pilot who's been an FAA-designated
aviation medical examiner for 20+ years...

This thread is interesting for several reasons, one of which is that
it exposes on one hand the folks that are thoughtful and base their
opinion on the best evidence they can find; and on the other had the
folks whose own opinion is the strongest evidence, but only to
themselves, that they are right.

Medical screening of pilots was put in place due to the experience in
WWI that something like 80% of the accidents were judged to be due to
the physical inability of the pilot. The consequence is that we saw a
change from no screening at all to unnecessarily strict screening,
from which we have been unsuccessful in fully extricating ourselves.

The chief usefulness of medical screening, it seems to me, is that it
focuses the attention of the prospective pilot on his or her own
physical condition and abilities, resulting in self-selection that is
far more judicious and effective than the formal screening required by
law.

Yet there is an important role for formal screening -- to hinder
pilots whose ambition to control an aircraft overwhelms good judgment
-- and there are not a few of these, and as an enthusiastic pilot I
fully understand. For example, a 28 year old airline pilot, whose
life dream is being fulfilled, collapses in the ready room of his air
carrier with an epileptic fit. The psychological blow and threat to
him personally is incalculable. We physicians, sympathetic to him,
expend every effort to prove whether or not this was truly epilepsy or
simply twitching from a faint due to illness. But in the end, the
existence of the formal process forces both him and us to the larger
sympathy we owe to the safety of others. In this case, he did have
epilepsy due to an old closed head injury in sport; he will never fly
again; he would not have been able to make this decision by himself.
The bureaucracy necessarily needed to put him into the paperwork
corral.

We medical professionals are often put in the uncomfortable position
of trying to predict the future. Being required to do the impossible
is a severe stress for any of us, and we decompensate as individuals
and institutions in interesting ways when such is required.

In this regard, the FAA aeromedical certification is viewed, by the
FAA, as a statement that the pilot is *unlikely* to suffer sudden in-
flight incapacitation for the duration of the certificate. We have
reduced the impossible to a risk assessment. This assessment is
always "wrong" in a sense, but the best we can do is to perform a
thoughtful judgment based on the information at hand, about natural
course of disease and about the pilot's current health status.

We eventually die. Prior to death, we begin losing physical
capability. For some of us, this is more or less gradual, and we have
the opportunity to exercise good judgment and adapt to it. Or we have
good judgment forced upon us by brave friends or an inexorable
bureaucracy. For a few, death is sudden and calamitous, and
occasionally this occurs while driving a vehicle or piloting an
aircraft. In this regard I like to tell patients for whom I'm doing a
cardiac stress test, "This test is pretty good at telling who's of the
verge of needing bypass surgery, but it doesn't predict sudden death.
You could pass this test with flying colors and drop dead on the way
home -- but you might be stuck by a speeding semi, too."

This is humorous, but makes the point about our inability to see the
future. Hence, "self-certification."

And hence our need to hold ourselves up to the light before each
flight (and during it) and ask if it's *really* a good idea to go (or
continue); and we must be brave and, gently or assertively, speak to
our colleagues who seem to be risking themselves or others. It's
hard, it's risky, and it's socially frightening. But we must do it.

Dan Johnson

[Bill Daniels]

I've entertained a theory that if a pilot can assemble his glider solo, push
it to the end of the runway and strap in, then he has, in effect,
self-administered a stress test sufficiently rigorous to indicate he is fit
to fly that day.

Bill Daniels


"danlj" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 7, 11:59 pm, fred > wrote:
>> At my operation, I have
>> a FAA rule that I preach...and apply to myself. Fred's air regulation
>> #1.01 "If for ANY reason you don't feel like flying, then don't take
>> off.
>> ... how do regulations stop a pilot from running
>> out of fuel? I love the discussion.
>
> I write as a power and glider pilot who's been an FAA-designated
> aviation medical examiner for 20+ years...
>
> This thread is interesting for several reasons, one of which is that
> it exposes on one hand the folks that are thoughtful and base their
> opinion on the best evidence they can find; and on the other had the
> folks whose own opinion is the strongest evidence, but only to
> themselves, that they are right.
>
> Medical screening of pilots was put in place due to the experience in
> WWI that something like 80% of the accidents were judged to be due to
> the physical inability of the pilot. The consequence is that we saw a
> change from no screening at all to unnecessarily strict screening,
> from which we have been unsuccessful in fully extricating ourselves.
>
> The chief usefulness of medical screening, it seems to me, is that it
> focuses the attention of the prospective pilot on his or her own
> physical condition and abilities, resulting in self-selection that is
> far more judicious and effective than the formal screening required by
> law.
>
> Yet there is an important role for formal screening -- to hinder
> pilots whose ambition to control an aircraft overwhelms good judgment
> -- and there are not a few of these, and as an enthusiastic pilot I
> fully understand. For example, a 28 year old airline pilot, whose
> life dream is being fulfilled, collapses in the ready room of his air
> carrier with an epileptic fit. The psychological blow and threat to
> him personally is incalculable. We physicians, sympathetic to him,
> expend every effort to prove whether or not this was truly epilepsy or
> simply twitching from a faint due to illness. But in the end, the
> existence of the formal process forces both him and us to the larger
> sympathy we owe to the safety of others. In this case, he did have
> epilepsy due to an old closed head injury in sport; he will never fly
> again; he would not have been able to make this decision by himself.
> The bureaucracy necessarily needed to put him into the paperwork
> corral.
>
> We medical professionals are often put in the uncomfortable position
> of trying to predict the future. Being required to do the impossible
> is a severe stress for any of us, and we decompensate as individuals
> and institutions in interesting ways when such is required.
>
> In this regard, the FAA aeromedical certification is viewed, by the
> FAA, as a statement that the pilot is *unlikely* to suffer sudden in-
> flight incapacitation for the duration of the certificate. We have
> reduced the impossible to a risk assessment. This assessment is
> always "wrong" in a sense, but the best we can do is to perform a
> thoughtful judgment based on the information at hand, about natural
> course of disease and about the pilot's current health status.
>
> We eventually die. Prior to death, we begin losing physical
> capability. For some of us, this is more or less gradual, and we have
> the opportunity to exercise good judgment and adapt to it. Or we have
> good judgment forced upon us by brave friends or an inexorable
> bureaucracy. For a few, death is sudden and calamitous, and
> occasionally this occurs while driving a vehicle or piloting an
> aircraft. In this regard I like to tell patients for whom I'm doing a
> cardiac stress test, "This test is pretty good at telling who's of the
> verge of needing bypass surgery, but it doesn't predict sudden death.
> You could pass this test with flying colors and drop dead on the way
> home -- but you might be stuck by a speeding semi, too."
>
> This is humorous, but makes the point about our inability to see the
> future. Hence, "self-certification."
>
> And hence our need to hold ourselves up to the light before each
> flight (and during it) and ask if it's *really* a good idea to go (or
> continue); and we must be brave and, gently or assertively, speak to
> our colleagues who seem to be risking themselves or others. It's
> hard, it's risky, and it's socially frightening. But we must do it.
>
> Dan Johnson
>