Congress Examines Pilot Medical Record Fraud

[Larry Dighera]

CONGRESS EXAMINES PILOT MEDICAL RECORD FRAUD
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656)
Does the FAA need to do more to ensure that pilots are not lying
about dangerous medical problems so they can keep their
certification? That's the question that was discussed in
Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at a hearing

(http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=217)
before the House Subcommittee on Aviation. Investigators with the
DOT Office of Inspector General say they have discovered thousands
of "egregious cases" of airmen lying about debilitating medical
conditions on their applications for airman medical certificates.
The FAA said it would be too labor-intensive to cross-check and
verify every application, and the safety risk would not justify
the resources it would consume. The subcommittee said that
response was "unacceptable," and this week's hearing was part of
the continuing effort to address the issue. Among the witnesses
was AOPA President Phil Boyer, who proposed some simple steps
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070717medical.html)
to inform and educate pilots and cross-check a random sample of
applications.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656

This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate the
thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
medical certificates?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> CONGRESS EXAMINES PILOT MEDICAL RECORD FRAUD
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656)
> Does the FAA need to do more to ensure that pilots are not lying
> about dangerous medical problems so they can keep their
> certification? That's the question that was discussed in
> Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at a hearing
>
> (http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=217)
> before the House Subcommittee on Aviation. Investigators with the
> DOT Office of Inspector General say they have discovered thousands
> of "egregious cases" of airmen lying about debilitating medical
> conditions on their applications for airman medical certificates.
> The FAA said it would be too labor-intensive to cross-check and
> verify every application, and the safety risk would not justify
> the resources it would consume. The subcommittee said that
> response was "unacceptable," and this week's hearing was part of
> the continuing effort to address the issue. Among the witnesses
> was AOPA President Phil Boyer, who proposed some simple steps
> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070717medical.html)
> to inform and educate pilots and cross-check a random sample of
> applications.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656
>
> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate the
> thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
> medical certificates?

Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:49:15 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> CONGRESS EXAMINES PILOT MEDICAL RECORD FRAUD
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656)
>> Does the FAA need to do more to ensure that pilots are not lying
>> about dangerous medical problems so they can keep their
>> certification? That's the question that was discussed in
>> Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at a hearing
>>
>> (http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=217)
>> before the House Subcommittee on Aviation. Investigators with the
>> DOT Office of Inspector General say they have discovered thousands
>> of "egregious cases" of airmen lying about debilitating medical
>> conditions on their applications for airman medical certificates.
>> The FAA said it would be too labor-intensive to cross-check and
>> verify every application, and the safety risk would not justify
>> the resources it would consume. The subcommittee said that
>> response was "unacceptable," and this week's hearing was part of
>> the continuing effort to address the issue. Among the witnesses
>> was AOPA President Phil Boyer, who proposed some simple steps
>> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070717medical.html)
>> to inform and educate pilots and cross-check a random sample of
>> applications.
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656
>>
>> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate the
>> thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
>> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
>> medical certificates?
>
>Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.
>

Why do you feel that this alleged lying _only_ concerns airmen who are
receiving disability compensation from the government? Is it not
plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA medical
application?

[Dallas]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:43:24 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> Is it not
> plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
> document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA medical
> application?

We have some very strong medical privacy laws in effect, does the
government even have the power to snoop into someone's medical records for
any reason?

--
Dallas

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate
>>> the thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
>>> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
>>> medical certificates?
>>
>> Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.
>>
>
> Why do you feel that this alleged lying _only_ concerns airmen who are
> receiving disability compensation from the government? Is it not
> plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
> document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA medical
> application?

I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
where this came from.

Do you have reason to think that they are getting the data from somewhere
else?

[RomeoMike]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> CONGRESS EXAMINES PILOT MEDICAL RECORD FRAUD
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656)
> Does the FAA need to do more to ensure that pilots are not lying
> about dangerous medical problems so they can keep their
> certification? That's the question that was discussed in
> Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at a hearing
>
I was discussing the health of airline pilots with a recently retired
captain of a major airline. He commented that the flying public would be
upset if they knew the truth about medical conditions being hidden. He
also told of pilots going to MEs on the other side of the country from
home to get their physicals with sympathetic examiners.

[C Gattman]

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> CONGRESS EXAMINES PILOT MEDICAL RECORD FRAUD
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656)
>> Does the FAA need to do more to ensure that pilots are not lying
>> about dangerous medical problems so they can keep their
>> certification? That's the question that was discussed in
>> Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at a hearing
> I was discussing the health of airline pilots with a recently retired
> captain of a major airline. He commented that the flying public would be
> upset if they knew the truth about medical conditions being hidden. He
> also told of pilots going to MEs on the other side of the country from
> home to get their physicals with sympathetic examiners.

I'm curious: Is there an actual problem based on statistics suggesting that
pilots lying on their medical exams is
a significant contributor to accidents, or is this more likely driven by
paranoia, ignorance or politics?

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

C Gattman wrote:
> "RomeoMike" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> CONGRESS EXAMINES PILOT MEDICAL RECORD FRAUD
>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/910-full.html#195656)
>>> Does the FAA need to do more to ensure that pilots are not lying
>>> about dangerous medical problems so they can keep their
>>> certification? That's the question that was discussed in
>>> Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at a hearing
>> I was discussing the health of airline pilots with a recently retired
>> captain of a major airline. He commented that the flying public
>> would be upset if they knew the truth about medical conditions being
>> hidden. He also told of pilots going to MEs on the other side of the
>> country from home to get their physicals with sympathetic examiners.
>
> I'm curious: Is there an actual problem based on statistics
> suggesting that pilots lying on their medical exams is
> a significant contributor to accidents, or is this more likely driven
> by paranoia, ignorance or politics?
>
> -c

No statisticly you are probably more likely to get shot in the face by the
Vice President. What SHOULD be ****ing folks off is that there are people
getting SSA payments who shouldn't be.

[Ken Finney]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate
>>>> the thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
>>>> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
>>>> medical certificates?
>>>
>>> Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you feel that this alleged lying _only_ concerns airmen who are
>> receiving disability compensation from the government? Is it not
>> plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
>> document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA medical
>> application?
>
> I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
> where this came from.
>
> Do you have reason to think that they are getting the data from somewhere
> else?

Being that at least one airplane manufacturer (Diamond?) has a option to get
it configured for being flown by disabled pilots, is it not possible that a
person can be disabled "enough" to draw SS but not disabled enough to not
have a medical?

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:11:05 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:43:24 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> Is it not
>> plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
>> document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA medical
>> application?
>
>We have some very strong medical privacy laws in effect, does the
>government even have the power to snoop into someone's medical records for
>any reason?

It would seem the Bush administration has the power, if not the
authority, to snoop at will. :-(

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:44:35 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate
>>>> the thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
>>>> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
>>>> medical certificates?
>>>
>>> Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you feel that this alleged lying _only_ concerns airmen who are
>> receiving disability compensation from the government? Is it not
>> plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
>> document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA medical
>> application?
>
>I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
>where this came from.

Can you cite a source that corroborates that assertion? I've heard it
alleged before, but I've seen nothing to substantiate it.

>Do you have reason to think that they are getting the data from somewhere
>else?

No. But I try not to make unfounded assumptions.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Ken Finney" > wrote
>
> Being that at least one airplane manufacturer (Diamond?) has a option to
> get it configured for being flown by disabled pilots, is it not possible
> that a person can be disabled "enough" to draw SS but not disabled enough
> to not have a medical?

I would certainly think so, but I don't have anything but gut feeling to
back that up.

At some point, I will probably be drawing disability, for a wretched back.
I could certainly see a point where I could not stand being at work for more
than a couple hours at a time (without laying down flat), but if I could
stand 2 hours at work, I could fly for two hours.
--
Jim in NC

[Dallas]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:38 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
>>where this came from.
>
> Can you cite a source that corroborates that assertion? I've heard it
> alleged before, but I've seen nothing to substantiate it.

Yeah, I can.. it came from following one of your links. Page one, last
paragraph.

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER:

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf


--
Dallas

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ken Finney wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate
>>>>> the thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
>>>>> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
>>>>> medical certificates?
>>>>
>>>> Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you feel that this alleged lying _only_ concerns airmen who
>>> are receiving disability compensation from the government? Is it
>>> not plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that
>>> might document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their
>>> FAA medical application?
>>
>> I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases
>> is where this came from.
>>
>> Do you have reason to think that they are getting the data from
>> somewhere else?
>
> Being that at least one airplane manufacturer (Diamond?) has a option
> to get it configured for being flown by disabled pilots, is it not
> possible that a person can be disabled "enough" to draw SS but not
> disabled enough to not have a medical?


Sure, but the point is that they lied to either the FAA or the SSA because
the FAA database did not list the problems they were getting benefits for
from the SSA.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:11:05 GMT, Dallas
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:43:24 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> Is it not
>>> plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that might
>>> document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their FAA
>>> medical application?
>>
>> We have some very strong medical privacy laws in effect, does the
>> government even have the power to snoop into someone's medical
>> records for any reason?
>
> It would seem the Bush administration has the power, if not the
> authority, to snoop at will. :-(

Can you show a single cite showing that the Bush administration has obtained
private medical records without the proper warrants?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:44:35 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> This begs the question, by what means did the DOT IG substantiate
>>>>> the thousands of alleged "egregious cases" of airmen lying about
>>>>> debilitating medical conditions on their applications for airman
>>>>> medical certificates?
>>>>
>>>> Well they either lied to the FAA or they lied to the SSA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you feel that this alleged lying _only_ concerns airmen who
>>> are receiving disability compensation from the government? Is it
>>> not plausible that there exists a medical reporting database that
>>> might document medical conditions undisclosed by airmen on their
>>> FAA medical application?
>>
>> I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases
>> is where this came from.
>
> Can you cite a source that corroborates that assertion? I've heard it
> alleged before, but I've seen nothing to substantiate it.

Sure I can. Does a case that ended with a criminal conviction provide the
level corroboration you need?

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/press_releases/docs/2007/03-20-07PenningtonConviction.pdf

"This case is the product of an extensive/joint investigation by the Office
of Inspector General, Department of Transportation, and the Office of
Inspector General, Social Security Administration. The investigation began
in 2004 as part of Operation Safe Pilot, a joint effort between the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA)
to cross-check their databases for people receiving social security
disability payments who were also being licensed to fly aircraft."

>
>> Do you have reason to think that they are getting the data from
>> somewhere else?
>
> No. But I try not to make unfounded assumptions.

Bull****, you love to do that. In fact just 4 minutes before you posted this
completely reasoned message you posted...

"It would seem the Bush administration has the power, if not the
authority, to snoop at will. :-("

....when talking about the same subject.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:36:27 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:38 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>>I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
>>>where this came from.
>>
>> Can you cite a source that corroborates that assertion? I've heard it
>> alleged before, but I've seen nothing to substantiate it.
>
>Yeah, I can.. it came from following one of your links. Page one, last
>paragraph.
>
>SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER:
>
>http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf


That is an interesting document indeed.

Here's the relevant cite:

In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
receiving Social Security benefits, including those for medically
disabling conditions. While the U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately
prosecuted more than 40 cases, the IG believes that hundreds more
could have been pursued if the U.S. Attorney's resources had not
been constrained. These cases involved pilots with a variety of
medical conditions including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
The extent of the problem of falsified Airmen Medical Certificate
applications is unknown beyond the initial IG investigation.

As a result of this investigation, the Inspector General
recommended that the FAA coordinate with the Social Security
Administration and other providers of medical disability to
identify individuals whose documented medical conditions are
inconsistent with sworn statements made to the FAA. The IG also
recommended that the application for an Airman Medical Certificate
be amended to ask applicants whether they are currently receiving
medical disability payments from any disability provider.

But that only addresses airmen receiving medical disability. Consider
those airman medical certificate applicants who are using
disqualifying drugs prescribed by a private physician who fail to
report it on their applications. The above sample of 40,000 airmen
revealed that 8% were receiving disability; the percentage would
doubtless be considerably larger if all "egregious cases" were
discovered.

Here's another quote from the document:

The FAA's own researchers have documented hundreds of fatal
accidents where pilots failed to disclose potentially
disqualifying medical conditions on their Airman Medical
Certificate applications. In a research study that analyzed the
post-mortem toxicology reports in every fatal accident (386)
during a ten-year period (1995-2005), the FAA research team found
toxicology evidence of serious medical conditions in nearly 10
percent of pilots. Fewer than 10 percent of these medical
conditions (or medications used to treat the conditions) were
disclosed to the FAA. Furthermore, of the 386 pilots included in
the FAA study, 38 percent (147) were rated for Air Transport or
Cargo operations. Fifty-seven percent (219) were private or
student pilots. Of the total number of pilots involved in fatal
accidents, one-third (127) held first or second class medical
certificates. These statistics imply that the falsification issue
is not limited to recreational general aviation pilots.

And that study was limited to only those airmen who were killed. The
implications are ominous.

It looks like the court sentence for failing to report disqualifying
medications on airman medical application is $1,000 and three years
probation. Ouch!

[Dallas]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:18:11 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> That is an interesting document indeed.

I don't know where to come down on this issue... On the one hand I think
the government has better things to do than fix a non-problem.

On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
Oxycontin?


--
Dallas

[C Gattman]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .

> I don't know where to come down on this issue... On the one hand I think
> the government has better things to do than fix a non-problem.
>
> On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
> Oxycontin?

It depends. Are there any demonstrated problems with pilots taking
oxycontin? (I kinda shudder at the thought, but, what if there are no
accidents involving oxycontin?)

The FAA has a pretty interesting system for random drug testing that rewards
the industry for lack of positive results. As long as the flying community
stays below the rate of failure threshold, the random testing rate is
halved.



-c

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:34 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:18:11 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> That is an interesting document indeed.
>
>I don't know where to come down on this issue...

It think the issue is pretty clear. Those who violate FAA regulations
are dishonest in addition to causing a hazard to themselves and
others.

>On the one hand I think the government has better things to do than fix a non-problem.

What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
medical regulations is a "non-problem?" As I recall, one study showed
10% of fatal accidents had a pilot aboard who violated FAA medical
regulations.

>On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
>Oxycontin?

Not only that, but I don't want her commanding my airline flight nor
over-flying my home, nor person, nor those of those I love.

If you believe the rigor of FAA medical regulations should be
reformed, that's another issue.

[C Gattman]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>>On the one hand I think the government has better things to do than fix a
>>non-problem.
>
> What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
> medical regulations is a "non-problem?" As I recall, one study showed
> 10% of fatal accidents had a pilot aboard who violated FAA medical
> regulations.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just throwing out thoughts. Here's one:
If the study showed that 10% of fatal accidents had a pilot onboard who had
violated regs, might that indicate:

1) It was a direct cause of the accident, or
2) It demonstrates that 10% of pilots are in violation of FAA medical
regulations

I wonder how much the medical conditon of that 10% actually had anything to
do with the accidents.

>>On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
>>Oxycontin?
>
> Not only that, but I don't want her commanding my airline flight nor
> over-flying my home, nor person, nor those of those I love.

Again, I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but, so what? Does it matter
what we want if we're not passengers? FWIW, I live under the approach for
both Portland International and Portland Troutdale; I've got jets and props
thundering overhead so often it doesn't even wake our baby. I don't
particularly want some methed-out pilot either, but, on the other hand, as
long as the airline flies -over- my home and not through it, in the absence
of statistics what right do I have to demand anything in the matter except
as a taxpayer?

> If you believe the rigor of FAA medical regulations should be reformed,
> that's another issue.

Well.... I hear they're a little more, eh, detailed once you hit 40 and, not
being there just yet, I'd REALLY not mind it at all of they relaxed certain
procedures in the exam. *cough* :> My .02!

-c

[Al G[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken Finney" > wrote
>>
>> Being that at least one airplane manufacturer (Diamond?) has a option to
>> get it configured for being flown by disabled pilots, is it not possible
>> that a person can be disabled "enough" to draw SS but not disabled enough
>> to not have a medical?
>
> I would certainly think so, but I don't have anything but gut feeling to
> back that up.
>
> At some point, I will probably be drawing disability, for a wretched back.
> I could certainly see a point where I could not stand being at work for
> more than a couple hours at a time (without laying down flat), but if I
> could stand 2 hours at work, I could fly for two hours.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

I flew with a vet who was medically disabled, and he had no problem
getting a 2nd class med, and going to work as a flight instructor. I think
his medical problem was his back.

Al G

[Dallas]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:08:16 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
> medical regulations is a "non-problem?"

I'm using ole Uncle Phil:

"Boyer said that only 0.25 percent of all general aviation accidents were
caused by medical incapacitation, and only nine accidents in nine years
were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying with a fraudulent
medical certificate."

Everybody is playing fuzzy math games.


--
Dallas

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:12:49 GMT, Dallas
> wrote in
>:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:08:16 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
>> medical regulations is a "non-problem?"
>
>I'm using ole Uncle Phil:
>
>"Boyer said that only 0.25 percent of all general aviation accidents were
>caused by medical incapacitation, and only nine accidents in nine years
>were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying with a fraudulent
>medical certificate."

Well, if the DOT IG's intent in pursuing this issue is to reduce GA
accidents, and AOPA's information is correct, than its not going to be
very fruitful. If, on the other hand, the DOT IG's intent is to
collect fines, or reduce other medical incapacitation fatalities,
s/he's probably on the right track. I would guess, it's more likely
the SSA looking to expose fraudulent claims that precipitated this
issue.

In any event, the airman who fraudulently fails to accurately complete
his Airmans Medical Certificate application, so that s/he can continue
flying, despite the hazard it may cause to the public and himself, not
to mention his friends and family, is probably criminally negligent at
least. The PIC is expected to place the wellbeing of his passengers
above his own selfinterest, IMHO.

[Tina]

I had a look at a website that listed those items that would be
disqualifying for a medical certificate and really saw nothing that
was awful.

Some conditions, like loss of conciousness, seem fairly obvious. Many
things that would allow someone to collect disability (back problems
are an obvious example) are not reasons to lose one's medical.

I had really been looking to see if signing the medical certificate
also gave 'informed consent' for a waiver of privicy with respect to
medical records, but did not find that. You might remember whenever
you do have a medical condition that involves a third party payer you
sign away some rights so that the insurance company can get the
information they want.

If the FAA wants to 'send a message' all they need do is enforce this
a few hundred times.

"FAR 67.403 Falsification of the airman medical application form
8500-8 may result in adverse action including fines up to $250,000,
imprisonment up to 5 years and revocation of medical and all pilot
certificates."

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:58:12 -0000, Tina > wrote
in om>:

>I had really been looking to see if signing the medical certificate
>also gave 'informed consent' for a waiver of privicy with respect to
>medical records, but did not find that.

I didn't see that either:

http://www.leftseat.com/8500.htm
http://www.leftseat.com/pdffiles/8500-8new.pdf

20. APPLICANT'S DECLARATION - Two declarations are contained
under this heading. The first authorizes the National Driver Register
to release adverse driver history information, if any, about the
applicant to the FAA. The second certifies the completeness and
truthfulness of the applicant's responses on the medical application.
The declaration section must be signed and dated by the applicant
after the applicant has read it.

[Denny]

You are being manipulated!
There is no herd of pilots flying over your head while impaired...
There is no crises other than the cynically created media blitz...
The public is not in danger - other than from special interest groups
(anti gun, anti GA, etc.)...


There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
incident that will always pop up now and then...
If you want fraud, better look at drivers - no licenses, expired
licenses, mis-tagged cars, drunk, stoned, epileptics, nearly blind,
psychotic, road ragers, arrest warrants, and on, and on... Both the
absolute numbers and the percentages vastly exceed anything that
general aviation has to offer...


And being disabled under SSI criteria does not necessarily mean that
you cannot and should not fly... The FAA has provisions in the
regulations that allow for demonstration of ability, fer cripes sake..
There are paraplegics flying and they certainly meet the SSI criteria
for disability... There are one arm pilots... There are diabetics
flying... There are one eyed pilots flying... There are post heart
attack pilots flying... There are post stroke pilots flying... And all
of them have valid medical certificates...

You are being manipulated - time to wake up and pay attention to who
is manipulating you and why...

denny

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The FAA said it would be too labor-intensive to cross-check and
> verify every application, and the safety risk would not justify
> the resources it would consume.

The answer to that problem is so obvious that it should hit you right
between the eyes...eliminate the third class medical and concentrate the FAA's
resources on what remains. But alas, that was apparently not even mentioned.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:34 GMT, Dallas
> What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
> medical regulations is a "non-problem?" As I recall, one study showed
> 10% of fatal accidents had a pilot aboard who violated FAA medical
> regulations.


This demonstrates how one can lie with statistics.

Most of those accidents had nothing to do with the medical condition.
According to statistics that were presented at the hearing, only 0.25 percent of
all general aviation accidents were caused by medical incapacitation, and only
nine accidents in nine years were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying
with a fraudulent medical certificate.

This is a non-problem! The best way to virtually eliminate the
"non-problem" is to eliminate the third-class medical certificate.

Vaughn

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:31:14 -0700, Denny > wrote
in om>:

>There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
>incident that will always pop up now and then...

This government document seems to contradict your subjective
assessment of the issue:


http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf

In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
receiving Social Security benefits, including those for medically
disabling conditions. While the U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately
prosecuted more than 40 cases, the IG believes that hundreds more
could have been pursued if the U.S. Attorney's resources had not
been constrained. These cases involved pilots with a variety of
medical conditions including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
The extent of the problem of falsified Airmen Medical Certificate
applications is unknown beyond the initial IG investigation.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:59:10 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>According to statistics that were presented at the hearing, only 0.25 percent of
>all general aviation accidents were caused by medical incapacitation, and only
>nine accidents in nine years were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying
>with a fraudulent medical certificate.

I haven't seen a transcript of the hearing. Are you able to provide a
link to it?

[Tina]

It has been pointed out that collecting SSI benefits and holding a
valid medical certificate are not mutually exclusive. There was an
analysis of GA accidents (I posted the URL on the weekend insurance
thread, don't have it handy now) that looked at the causes of GA
accidents, and I don't remember medically unift pilots being high on
the list.

It may be a case of someone with authority solving a non-problem.

Tina

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:31:14 -0700, Denny > wrote
> in om>:
>
> >There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
> >incident that will always pop up now and then...
>
> This government document seems to contradict your subjective
> assessment of the issue:

"seems" is an important word here.

caveat: I'm not defending anyone falsifying information on their
medical application. My primary motiviation in this response is
to try to point out the egregious misuse of statistics and lack of
useful information in the hearing document.


>
>
> http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf
>
> In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
> ("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
> about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
> Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
> certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
> airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
> receiving Social Security benefits,

Which is not proof of a problem since receiving social security
benefits is not necessarily inconsistent with holding a valid medical
certificate.

> including those for medically
> disabling conditions.

What would be much more useful would be the number of those
with medically disabling conditions. Unfortunately the IG apparently
didn't bother to count those, implying that all 3200 had disqualifying
conditions. I hope people can understand that this is not necessarily
true.

The hearing document references a research study (without attribution)
where approximately 9% of the toxicology reports from fatal accidents
indicate an airment with a serious unreported medical condition. One flaw
in the document is that it doesn't indicate whether or not the fatal accident
was a result of the unreported medical condition. A second flaw is that
it doesn't indicate if the serious unreported medical condition should have
disqualified the airman from having a valid medical. A third flaw is that
there is no discussion of whether or not the unreported medical condition
had existed prior to the airmen's last medical (e.g., was the condition new?).

In any case, the document indicates some 9% of the pilots in fatals accidents
had a unreported serious medical condition. Then the document makes the
claim that since ~1/3 of the pilots held first or second class medical
certificates that "the falsification issue is not limited to recreational general
aviation pilots." The reality is that there is insufficient information
presented to determine whether or not ANY of the pilots with first or second
class medicals falsified anything. In fact, there isn't sufficient information
presented to determine if any of the "recreational" pilots falsified anything.
Someone had the information, why didn't they indicate how many people
with first class medicals failed to report their serious medical condition?
How many with second class failed to report? How many with third
class? And how many of each these contributed the fatal accident?

If that pdf file is representative of the information that will be provided
at the hearings and used for future policy changes (if any), then I have
zero confidence that anything of any value will come of the hearings.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:31:14 -0700, Denny > wrote
in om>:

>There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
>incident that will always pop up now and then...

This government document seems to contradict your subjective
assessment of the issue:


http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf

In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
receiving Social Security benefits, including those for medically
disabling conditions. While the U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately
prosecuted more than 40 cases, the IG believes that hundreds more
could have been pursued if the U.S. Attorney's resources had not
been constrained. These cases involved pilots with a variety of
medical conditions including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
The extent of the problem of falsified Airmen Medical Certificate
applications is unknown beyond the initial IG investigation.


On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:05:19 -0000, Tina > wrote
in >:

>It has been pointed out that collecting SSI benefits and holding a
>valid medical certificate are not mutually exclusive.

I'm aware of that. Unfortunately, it does not address the issue
raised in the article to which I was following up. (I have included
that article above for your convenience.)

>There was an analysis of GA accidents (I posted the URL on the weekend insurance
>thread, don't have it handy now)

Would that be this one?:
http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/gaFY04HFACSrpt.pdf

>that looked at the causes of GA accidents, and I don't remember
>medically unift pilots being high on the list.

The issue I followed up was 'pilot medical record fraud' not the cause
of GA accidents.

>It may be a case of someone with authority solving a non-problem.

It may be a case of someone in authority unearthing fraudulent airmen
medical certificate applications.

While those alleged, or real, cases of omitting required information
on airmen medical certificate applications may not result in a
significant number of aviation accidents, they none the less
apparently do constitute chargeable offences.

You aren't attempting to make a case for relaxing federal judicial
statuates against fraud, are you?

Airmen who willfully violate federal law for their own self-interest
do not possess the sort of character worthy of airmen.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:46:27 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:31:14 -0700, Denny > wrote
>> in om>:
>>
>> >There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
>> >incident that will always pop up now and then...
>>
>> This government document seems to contradict your subjective
>> assessment of the issue:
>
>"seems" is an important word here.
>
>caveat: I'm not defending anyone falsifying information on their
>medical application. My primary motiviation in this response is
>to try to point out the egregious misuse of statistics and lack of
>useful information in the hearing document.
>

The hearing document was written by politicians not scientists or
scholars. Granted it seems to make some implications that may or may
not be relevant to fraudulent airman medical applications:

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Federal Aviation
Administration's oversight of the Airman Medical Certification
process. Pilots who are physically or mentally unfit not only
pose a danger to themselves and the flying public, they also
jeopardize the lives and safety of anyone in their flight path.

It merely raises an issue of fraud, and calls for a hearing.

>>
>> http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf
>>
>> In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
>> ("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
>> about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
>> Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
>> certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
>> airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
>> receiving Social Security benefits,
>
>Which is not proof of a problem since receiving social security
>benefits is not necessarily inconsistent with holding a valid medical
>certificate.

It's not indicative of a "problem" concerning the cause of aviation
accidents, perhaps. But it is apparently indicative of criminal
fraud, isn't it?

>> including those for medically disabling conditions.
>
>What would be much more useful would be the number of those
>with medically disabling conditions.

Why? It would seem that such information would be beyond the scope of
the hearing document.

>Unfortunately the IG apparently didn't bother to count those, implying
>that all 3200 had disqualifying conditions.

Unfortunately we don't have a copy of the July 2005 DOT IG's
investigation, so don't know what the IG did.

But the hearing document indicates that forty pilots were charged,
fined, and placed on probation for falsifying their FAA airmans
medical certificate applications. That is a small subset of the 3,200
to which you refer, and seems to demonstrate the DOT IG's intent not
to imply that all airmen receiving disability benefits are guilty.
Perhaps your misconception is a result of your not having access to
the IG's investigation.

>I hope people can understand that this is not necessarily true.

Those who read the DOT IG's investigation probably figured that out.

>The hearing document references a research study (without attribution)

Here's what was written in the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Oversight and Investigations Staff Subcommittee on
Aviation Hearing on "FAA's Oversight of Falsified Airman Medical
Certificate Applications" document:


http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf
The FAA's own researchers have documented hundreds of fatal
accidents where pilots failed to disclose potentially
disqualifying medical conditions on their Airman Medical
Certificate applications. In a research study that analyzed the
post-mortem toxicology reports in every fatal accident (386)
during a ten-year period (1995-2005), the FAA research team found
toxicology evidence of serious medical conditions in nearly 10
percent of pilots. Fewer than 10 percent of these medical
conditions (or medications used to treat the conditions) were
disclosed to the FAA. Furthermore, of the 386 pilots included in
the FAA study, 38 percent (147) were rated for Air Transport or
Cargo operations. Fifty-seven percent (219) were private or
student pilots. Of the total number of pilots involved in fatal
accidents, one-third (127) held first or second class medical
certificates. These statistics imply that the falsification issue
is not limited to recreational general aviation pilots.

>where approximately 9% of the toxicology reports from fatal accidents
>indicate an airment [sic] with a serious unreported medical condition. One flaw
>in the document is that it doesn't indicate whether or not the fatal accident
>was a result of the unreported medical condition.

I don't see that as a flaw in providing evidence of airman medical
certificate application fraud; it's another issue entirely, and is
being (erroneously?) used to justify the hearing.

>A second flaw is that it doesn't indicate if the serious unreported medical
>condition should have disqualified the airman from having a valid medical.

While your "second flaw" is meritorious in its intent to ascertain the
IMPACT of airman medical certificate application fraud on aviation
safety, it doesn't address the issue the DOT IG is raising: the fact
that airman medical certificate application fraud is occurring.

>A third flaw is that there is no discussion of whether or not the unreported
>medical condition had existed prior to the airmen's last medical (e.g., was the condition new?).

That is apparently true, and relevant.

>In any case, the document indicates some 9% of the pilots in fatals [sic] accidents
>had a [sic] unreported serious medical condition. Then the document makes the
>claim that since ~1/3 of the pilots held first or second class medical
>certificates that "the falsification issue is not limited to recreational general
>aviation pilots." The reality is that there is insufficient information
>presented to determine whether or not ANY of the pilots with first or second
>class medicals falsified anything. In fact, there isn't sufficient information
>presented to determine if any of the "recreational" pilots falsified anything.

The hearing document's conclusion seems to be based on a lot of
possibly erroneous assumption, not hard fact. But it indicates that
there is probable cause adequate to hold a hearing on the issue.
Presumably, the "faults" you raise would be addressed in that hearing.

>Someone had the information, why didn't they indicate how many people
>with first class medicals failed to report their serious medical condition?
>How many with second class failed to report? How many with third
>class? And how many of each these contributed the fatal accident?

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Oversight and
Investigations Staff Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on "FAA's
Oversight of Falsified Airman Medical Certificate Applications"
document is not a definitive study; it is a call for a hearing. You'd
have to have access to the DOT IG's investigation to see if the issues
you raised were addressed by the IG.

>If that pdf file is representative of the information that will be provided
>at the hearings and used for future policy changes (if any), then I have
>zero confidence that anything of any value will come of the hearings.

It is disappointing to see the hearing document with its flaws, but
airmen are used to seeing that all the time in the news media. I
guess we should expect a little more insight from those congressmen
who write the laws.

Unfortunately, my expectations of congressmen have fallen
substantially in light of the absolute crap (Terri Shivo resolution,
....) and fraud (Abramoff, Cunningham, De Lay, ear marks, ...)
occurring in that branch of our government. But I digressed.

There is fraud occurring on airman medical certificate applications,
and it should be addressed, or the application process should be
changed.

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Aviation/20070717/SSM71707.pdf
>
> In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
> ("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
> about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
> Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
> certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
> airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
> receiving Social Security benefits, including those for medically
> disabling conditions. While the U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately
> prosecuted more than 40 cases, the IG believes that hundreds more
> could have been pursued if the U.S. Attorney's resources had not
> been constrained. These cases involved pilots with a variety of
> medical conditions including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
> The extent of the problem of falsified Airmen Medical Certificate
> applications is unknown beyond the initial IG investigation.

This is OLD news and contains the _deliberately_ misleading statement "the
Inspector General found more than 3,200 airmen holding current medical
certificates while simultaneously receiving Social Security benefits,
including those for medically disabling conditions."

It is deliberately misleading because the only important number, for
"including those for medically disabling conditions," was excluded. If they
had an estimate, they refused to disclose it. If they didn't have a number,
that didn't stop them from deliberately impugned the reputation of
thousands of retired aviators for their private political gain. It is
disgusting motivation and they should be held to account for it.

The closest the U.S. AG comes to stating the important number is where they
state "the IG believes that hundreds more could have been pursued...." So
the it appears even the IG believes the number is probably under 1000. That
means about 2.5% tops.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> This is OLD news and contains the _deliberately_ misleading statement
.....

Argh. Please try to disregard the posting referenced above since it is
redundant to what others have already written and debated.