On making it difficult for everyone else

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

"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.

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

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.

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

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