Body Mass Index

[mcmanigle]

So there's a lot of talk around two variations on the same theme:

1. "The BMI is only relevant for those who fit precisely under a narrow mid-point +/-standard deviation from the distribution of body types."

2. "It's well known that BMI is not a realistic measure for someone who has a lot of muscle mass."

Number 1 is fairly wrong. The population for whom BMI is generally meaningful is huge. Just because you exercise a few times a week or are "big boned" or pretty strong or whatnot doesn't mean that BMI doesn't apply to you. Number 2 has some more truth to it, as far as "obesity" goes. If you really are muscle-bound, ie you look in the mirror and see abdominal muscle rather than abdominal fat, you're probably not obese. And clearly there's a bit of a range between #1 and #2. But we can go back and forth all day about what we want to call "obese". That's not the issue. The issue is sleep apnea risk.

So let's look at a population that might give us some insight to people who have a lot of muscle, with or without fat. The study attached looked at 129 retired NFL players. It found:

BMI is NOT a good measure of body fat obesity in this population of retired NFL players, but
BMI IS a risk factor for sleep apnea in this population, regardless of body fat obesity

My conclusion: even if you're one of those people for whom BMI is calling you obese when really a lot of your weight is muscle rather than fat, that high BMI is still putting you at higher risk of OSA.

By all means continue the debate as to whether the FAA should have this kind of index of suspicion, but the argument that "so many people are getting to 40 / 35 / 30 because of all of their muscle; they're not a risk" is moot both because there really aren't that many people in that category, and even those who are present a heightened risk.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Well said.

So there's a lot of talk around two variations on the same theme:

1. "The BMI is only relevant for those who fit precisely under a narrow mid-point +/-standard deviation from the distribution of body types."

2. "It's well known that BMI is not a realistic measure for someone who has a lot of muscle mass."

Number 1 is fairly wrong. The population for whom BMI is generally meaningful is huge. Just because you exercise a few times a week or are "big boned" or pretty strong or whatnot doesn't mean that BMI doesn't apply to you. Number 2 has some more truth to it, as far as "obesity" goes. If you really are muscle-bound, ie you look in the mirror and see abdominal muscle rather than abdominal fat, you're probably not obese. And clearly there's a bit of a range between #1 and #2. But we can go back and forth all day about what we want to call "obese". That's not the issue. The issue is sleep apnea risk.

So let's look at a population that might give us some insight to people who have a lot of muscle, with or without fat. The study attached looked at 129 retired NFL players. It found:

BMI is NOT a good measure of body fat obesity in this population of retired NFL players, but
BMI IS a risk factor for sleep apnea in this population, regardless of body fat obesity

My conclusion: even if you're one of those people for whom BMI is calling you obese when really a lot of your weight is muscle rather than fat, that high BMI is still putting you at higher risk of OSA.

By all means continue the debate as to whether the FAA should have this kind of index of suspicion, but the argument that "so many people are getting to 40 / 35 / 30 because of all of their muscle; they're not a risk" is moot both because there really aren't that many people in that category, and even those who are present a heightened risk.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

120,000 obese pilots * $2000 = $240,000,000 dollars.

How many accidents will these $240 million dollars prevent?

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...icy.aspx?WT.mc_sect=adv&WT.mc_id=131213epilot

 

[ScottM]

120,000 obese pilots * $2000 = $240,000,000 dollars.

How many accidents will these $240 million dollars prevent?

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...icy.aspx?WT.mc_sect=adv&WT.mc_id=131213epilot

Zero.

 

[ifconfig]

This is the funniest thing I've read this morning … "If you like your medical, you can keep it.”

 

[bbchien]

Zero.

So you think pilots are different from trainmen? State evidence.
We have Go airlines (2008, Honolulu)
We have NWA (2011, MSP)
That's about 400 people flying around at the end of fuel with no pilots.

If either had run out of fuel, you'd be singing a different tune.
Want to ignore sentinel events?
If we did that in the hospital, you, the press and the attorneys would be all over it....

 

[ScottM]

So you think pilots are different from trainmen? State evidence.
We have Go airlines (2008, Honolulu)
We have NWA (2011, MSP)
That's about 400 people flying around at the end of fuel with no pilots.

If either had run out of fuel, you'd be singing a different tune.
Want to ignore sentinel events?
If we did that in the hospital, you, the press and the attorneys would be all over it....

Tell me how many accidents for aircraft are a result of BMI?

It is up to you, as a Sr. AME who is advocating that this is necessary, to show why BMI screening to give sleep apnea tests improves pilot safety and reduces accidents. It is not for the government to come up with a new medical requirement and say "ok you guys prove us wrong." It is for them to prove it is necessary and improves flight safety. Showing correlation between BMI and sleep apnea is one thing, but it does not prove the goal of this which is to reduce accidents. To reduce accidents we must first know how many accidents were occurring because of high BMI and undiagnosed sleep apnea. Prove that to me and I will be supportive.

So how many accidents have there been? I went and looked at the accidents you posted and none of them list undiagnosed sleep apnea as the cause. The NWA incident, might be, but how do we know it was just not over scheduling, too much stress and other factors that attributed to the lack of sleep?

This whole thing is a solution looking for a problem. There are many things that could be added to the FAA medical to screen for, but that does not mean that there is a real benefit. Even if we were to believe that those incidents you mentioned were the caused by undiagnosed sleep apnea, what you have shown is that it is NOT A PROBLEM. That undiagnosed sleep apnea has only been a tiny fractional blip of an issue in the whole of the flying world and that a costly, intrusive testing regime is not warranted.

 

[bbchien]

Tell me how many accidents for aircraft are a result of BMI?

It is up to you, as a Sr. AME who is advocating that this is necessary, to show why BMI screening to give sleep apnea tests improves pilot safety and reduces accidents. Stating that they correlate is one thing. But it does not prove the goal of this which is to reduce accidents. To reduce accidents we must first know how many accidents were occurring because of high BMI and undiagnosed sleep apnea.

So how many accidents have there been? I went and looked at the accidents you posted and none of them list undiagnosed sleep apnea as the cause. The NWA incident, might be, but how do we know it was just not over scheduling, too much stress and other factors that attributed to the lack of sleep?

This whole thing is a solution looking for a problem. There are many things that could be added to the FAA medical to screen for, but that does not mean that there is a real benefit. Even if we were to believe that those incidents you mentioned were the caused by undiagnosed sleep apnea, what you have shown is that it is NOT A PROBLEM. That undiagnosed sleep apnea has only been a tiny fractional blip of an issue in the whole of the flying world and that a costly, intrusive testing regime is not warranted.

Scott, you are a big guy. Let's get that out front. Unless you've lost a lot of weight from when we met, you are in the gunsight....or near it.

If you look at this string, and the one on the red board, not a single physician is opposed to this. We see it and it's a "clear and present" danger" that Dr. Tilton resisted doing something directly about, until 2008.

The body of literature from the Trucking and Railroad literature as well as from the public medical literature is overwhelming. NTSB had been beating on FAA to do something.

Then comes NWA's flight to Canada....err MSP. They were subsequently show to have SA. Then the ATC guy at Washington DC asleep on the graveyard shift. Two air carriers land on Unicom. "Oh heavens, think of the children!". Yeah right.

Now we have the "microsleep trainman" on the Hudson line two weeks ago, killed 4, wounded 18 seriously.

This is an area where in failure analysis we respond to sentinel events. So your metric isn't directly applicable.

We could say the same thing about alcoholic doctors. You might be able to show a handful of medical outcomes different from an alcoholic doctor. But you sure won't find many. Do we respond? Or do we not? You seem to argue that we do not. I disagree.

Dr. Tilton already has the by REGULATION authority to do this. Read 67.313, it applies DIRECTLY to YOU. the manner in which he is implementing this, is slow enough that except for the BMI 40 guys, it has the character of the senior fleet surgeon saying, "men, time to get in shape". If you loose 20 pounds, you'll be out of the gunsight.

AOPA should be spending its efforts on getting this CHEAP. For example, ANY FP or Internist can read the overnight desaturation tape and apply published standards......it does not require a member of the guild of sleep physicians, to do this......

****

Now let me tell you an anecdote that is worth a thousand studies: I was on a PIC on pilot evaluation ride with my Cdr. (rt. seat) about 3 weeks into my active PIC service. I was at 128,000 lbs and I was given a #1 failure + failure to feather drill on departure.

I put in appropriate rudder, lessend off the climb AOA and looked at my FE, who was asleep. "Never mind, I've got it!" sez I, and I isolate the hydraulics so that it would feather....(to get the failure to feather you have to setup the hydraulics in an inappropriate manner). At the debrief I asked to speak freely and inquired why this particular FE was more or less permanently assigned to me. The response was, "there is a reason. AND that is ALL!"

That cannot be good. Safety is not all in outcomes. In that case we did not have a bad outcome because there was a layer of safety below my FE that caught it- namely me. But that was NOT good.

THAT is from where I am coming, as is doggityRed (who outed himself on this board, brave soul), and every other doc on this board. "We see this".

 

[ClimbnSink]

Every accident that has a pilot with a bmi over 40 and not on cpap is sleep apnea related. You can't be obese and pass imsafe. Fatties think they can, but if they had good judgement they wouldn't be fat.

 

[Morne]

Every accident that has a pilot with a bmi over 40 and not on cpap is sleep apnea related. You can't be obese and pass imsafe. Fatties think they can, but if they had good judgement they wouldn't be fat.

That is shockingly ignorant. So if a mechanical failure occurs on a fat guy's plane it is because he's fat? Really?

Body fat content is no indication of good judgement.

@Bruce,

You make very valid points about the safety of the flying public. Truck drivers have been dealing with this for their CDLs for awhile, now. But the equivalent in flying is a medical class that qualifies for, "Flying for hire." Why should class 3 medicals require it? I'm not endangering hundreds of people in a 182 and no one buys a ticket to get on my bird. The same logic says that we should test everyone with a drivers license that falls into this range and deny re-issue for the same reason. In short, what I PRIVATELY wish to do with a PRIVATE pilots license shouldn't have the same degree of scrutiny that guys flying for Delta get. I drive a pickup truck, not an 18-wheeler, see the difference? And if you don't, then why the Niflheim bother having the classes of medical at all? Just roll class 1 requirements down onto everyone and hold an Irish wake for general aviation.

 

[bbchien]

That is shockingly ignorant. So if a mechanical failure occurs on a fat guy's plane it is because he's fat? Really?

Body fat content is no indication of good judgement.

@Bruce,

You make very valid points about the safety of the flying public. Truck drivers have been dealing with this for their CDLs for awhile, now. But the equivalent in flying is a medical class that qualifies for, "Flying for hire." Why should class 3 medicals require it? I'm not endangering hundreds of people in a 182 and no one buys a ticket to get on my bird. The same logic says that we should test everyone with a drivers license that falls into this range and deny re-issue for the same reason. In short, what I PRIVATELY wish to do with a PRIVATE pilots license shouldn't have the same degree of scrutiny that guys flying for Delta get. I drive a pickup truck, not an 18-wheeler, see the difference? And if you don't, then why the Niflheim bother having the classes of medical at all? Just roll class 1 requirements down onto everyone and hold an Irish wake for general aviation.

You don't have the same degree of scrutiny. Younger than age 40 you only have one physical in 5 years. The standards for waiver for 3rd class can be substantially easier than that for second or first. Diabetes on meds due to being too fat, if your Hb A1c is 6.5 or less, FBG is 125 or less, I can issue you for FIVE YEARS.....Above 40 I can issue you for TWO years, the delta guys are doing it every 6 months.....same level of scrutiny....I don't think so.

A private guy, like Travolta, lies a 707 on a Private.

See the issue?
Now do we create a 4th class medical.....OMG.

 

[PilotAlan]

Every accident that has a pilot with a bmi over 40 and not on cpap is sleep apnea related. You can't be obese and pass imsafe. Fatties think they can, but if they had good judgement they wouldn't be fat.

That is an amazingly ignorant and sanctimonious statement.
Attitudes like that are exactly the reason why we resist allowing any bureaucrat to have the power to make these decisions. If you were the Federal Air Surgeon you would simply deny anyone over 40 BMI, as you have previously said and repeated here.

I'm 39BMI and safely operate emergency vehicles, command hundreds or thousands of personnel in critical emergencies, have run emergency operations centers for 30-50 hours straight, commanded field ops on 13 hours days for two months straight.

But in your eyes if I gain 3 pounds I'm medically disqualified from piloting an aircraft. If you think you can make a determination about someone's cognitive ability based on a single data point, you're a fool, and too sanctimonious to realize it.
And you wonder why pilots are pushing back against an individual having the authority to impose their opinions on the pilot population.

 

[ClimbnSink]

There is a 90% chance you have apnea. You might not have the judgment to know your judgement is off. As the cured point out life is soo much better with a cpap machine, they had no idea until they were treated. So do the right thing, get checked out on the cheap and get a simple SI if needed. Or the man will force you to do it. Wait aren't you in law enforcement? So you should know how important it is to follow the public safety rules and not question those above you telling you the right thing to do. And welcome to the future your blue line brohood can't get you out of this one. Or the next one or the one after that.

That is an amazingly ignorant and sanctimonious statement.
Attitudes like that are exactly the reason why we resist allowing any bureaucrat to have the power to make these decisions. If you were the Federal Air Surgeon you would simply deny anyone over 40 BMI, as you have previously said and repeated here.

I'm 39BMI and safely operate emergency vehicles, command hundreds or thousands of personnel in critical emergencies, have run emergency operations centers for 30-50 hours straight, commanded field ops on 13 hours days for two months straight.

But in your eyes if I gain 3 pounds I'm medically disqualified from piloting an aircraft. You're a fool, and too sanctimonious to realize it.
And you wonder why pilots are pushing back against an individual having the authority to impose their opinions on the pilot population.

 

[PilotAlan]

There is a 90% chance you have apnea. You might not have the judgment to know your judgement is off. As the cured point out life is soo much better with a cpap machine, they had no idea until they were treated. So do the right thing, get checked out on the cheap and get a simple SI if needed. Or the man will force you to do it. Wait aren't you in law enforcement? So you should know how important it is to follow the public safety rules and not question those above you telling you the right thing to do. And welcome to the future your blue line brohood can't get you out of this one. Or the next one or the one after that.

First, that's not what you said. You said (on more than one occasion) that in your opinion a BMI of 40 or more is in itself disqualifying, and an indicator of poor judgment incompatible with flying.

Further, you said cannot be obese and pass IMSAFE (although you don't define obese), therefore obesity (not SA) is a disqualifying condition in your mind.

As far as "You might not have the judgment to know your judgement is off", how about assessing my judgment, rather than making an assumption that my judgment is impaired?

And no, police officers do not 'follow orders', they follow the law and the protections afforded by the Constitution, and have a legal duty to refuse improper orders and report violations by others.
No one can order me to violate the rights of another, I cannot order my subordinates to violate the laws or rights of another, and I cannot make up new requirements as I go along.

Or here's an idea, how about coming out and admitting your antipathy toward those who are heavier than you think correct?

PS: Does this post sound like it was written by someone who is legally drunk?
You keep saying that my judgment is impaired, and to the equivalent of legal intoxication, and I'm too impaired to know it.

 

[bbchien]

That is an amazingly ignorant and sanctimonious statement.
Attitudes like that are exactly the reason why we resist allowing any bureaucrat to have the power to make these decisions. If you were the Federal Air Surgeon you would simply deny anyone over 40 BMI, as you have previously said and repeated here.

I'm 39BMI and safely operate emergency vehicles, command hundreds or thousands of personnel in critical emergencies, have run emergency operations centers for 30-50 hours straight, commanded field ops on 13 hours days for two months straight.

But in your eyes if I gain 3 pounds I'm medically disqualified from piloting an aircraft. If you think you can make a determination about someone's cognitive ability based on a single data point, you're a fool, and too sanctimonious to realize it.
And you wonder why pilots are pushing back against an individual having the authority to impose their opinions on the pilot population.

That's an exaggeration, Alan. +6 lbs, all you will need is an overnight sat study to acquit you of SA and you continue as before.

Or you could choose to lose 10 lbs.....which would be healthier.....but "weee don't need any of that "better" stuff".

 

[denverpilot]

You don't have the same degree of scrutiny. Younger than age 40 you only have one physical in 5 years. The standards for waiver for 3rd class can be substantially easier than that for second or first. Diabetes on meds due to being too fat, if your Hb A1c is 6.5 or less, FBG is 125 or less, I can issue you for FIVE YEARS.....Above 40 I can issue you for TWO years, the delta guys are doing it every 6 months.....same level of scrutiny....I don't think so.

A private guy, like Travolta, lies a 707 on a Private.

See the issue?
Now do we create a 4th class medical.....OMG.

2nd or 1st class or anything that requires a type rating. I already offered the Travola solution.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[PilotAlan]

That's an exaggeration, Alan. +6 lbs, all you will need is an overnight sat study to acquit you of SA and you continue as before.

No offense Doc, YOU have not said that, and I respect your opinion and help here.
But Greg stated "You can't be obese and pass imsafe", and in the other thread stated flatly that BMI>=40 should be disqualified from flying aircraft.

I am taking issue with Greg's statements, not yours. Statements like that don't help the cause of getting pilots into better condition.
Attitudes like that only drive the perception of pilots that the medical certification system is driven to cause them to fail, and sanctimony only drives problems underground.

Pejorative statements that "Fatties think they can, but if they had good judgement they wouldn't be fat" don't help the cause, they only drive a wedge between airmen and the medical community.

 

[PilotAlan]

Or you could choose to lose 10 lbs.....which would be healthier.....but "weee don't need any of that "better" stuff".

This isn't about me. I am down 12 pounds, aiming for 30 before I get my knee replacement.
And it's not about you.

It's about the system, the process, and the insanity of the bureaucracy.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The whole country is a bureaucracy gone mad and you make your living enforcing the bureaucracies rules. As the Docs have pointed out apnea is a valid aeromedical concern and most big folks have it. You can't hide from it.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Wouldn't the more effective system to address pilot attentiveness be something like this?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/for-sleepy-drivers-a-portable-alertness-monitor/?_r=0

Probably more effective than BMI screening, in practice, and less expensive than a tank of gas for most planes.

 

[Morne]

Wouldn't the more effective system to address pilot attentiveness be something like this?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/for-sleepy-drivers-a-portable-alertness-monitor/?_r=0

Probably more effective than BMI screening, in practice, and less expensive than a tank of gas for most planes.

Finally something constructive. Also performance based. I can see why the entrenched bureaucracy would never want such an elegant solution.

 

[ClimbnSink]

The problem isn't as simple as keeping pilots awake, apnea folks have greatly reduced performance while awake. This device is a cure for pilots with apnea same as those buzz strips on the side of the road are a cure for drunk driving. Lose the weight get treated or stop flying (and driving please.) Heavy pilots in apnea denial use the same talking points as alcoholics discussing their drunk driving ability.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The problem isn't as simple as keeping pilots awake, apnea folks have greatly reduced performance while awake.

Any pilot who is fatigued has reduced performance. You could test a bunch of commuter airline or freight pilots to find that toward the end of their legal shift their performance is significantly impaired. Same for swing-shift ATC.

Would you rather have a solution that addresses 3% of the fatigue issue, or one that at least partially addresses 50% of the problem? Do you want a solution that has a chance at a statistically meaningful result or just a feel-good approach that goes after a small number of pilots, most of whom fly probably 25-50 hours a year as "weekend warriors"? If you're concerned about the "flying public" then just apply the new rule to Class I (for which you'd see a lot less resistance).

 

[James_Dean]

The problem isn't as simple as keeping pilots awake, apnea folks have greatly reduced performance while awake. This device is a cure for pilots with apnea same as those buzz strips on the side of the road are a cure for drunk driving. Lose the weight get treated or stop flying (and driving please.) Heavy pilots in apnea denial use the same talking points as alcoholics discussing their drunk driving ability.

You see here's the thing. You are making very broad and sweeping generalizations that have very little basis in fact. Want to screen pilots for OSA? Fine with me. The data shows it appropriate. Your asinine claim that because I'm a big guy automatically disqualifies me from flying myself from point A to point B is arrogant, discriminatory, and ignorant. I don't know you, your life or your qualifications, but I'm damn sure I know that I'm a high functioning person. I run a business with 900 employees. I have five happy and well adjusted kids that are 11 and under. I do these things while spending 150 - 200 nights a year on the road. I know that later today I will hop on the treadmill and run a 10k and then hit the weights. I know my BP, RHR, and cholesterol are all in great shape. I take no medications.

Am I overweight? Yes. Am I doing something about it? Yes. Do I think I should have extra screening? Already scheduled it with my GP due to the data I've learned during these threads.

Do I think you are qualified to judge or dismiss me? GFY.

You regularly display some of the hazardous attitudes in your posts which is concerning. I'm certain I wouldn't fly with you.

Eggman

 

[Whiskey Romeo]

The problem isn't as simple as keeping pilots awake, apnea folks have greatly reduced performance while awake. This device is a cure for pilots with apnea same as those buzz strips on the side of the road are a cure for drunk driving. Lose the weight get treated or stop flying (and driving please.) Heavy pilots in apnea denial use the same talking points as alcoholics discussing their drunk driving ability.

SA has varying degree of severity. I believe, one of the problems with these discussions is that statements like that (I assume directed at the upper end of the spectrum) will draw a defense from the lower end. Often offense is accepted when none is presented.

I have OSA and am being treated, but never noticed that much of a problem prior to treatment. I didn't have trouble staying awake while flying or driving. And I would have been one of those to argue in defense. But I have felt a distinct improvement in my daily life since treatment.

I agree with your comparison of SA denial & alcoholic. The use of such a device is indicative of a pilot that has a problem and knows it to be so. It is absolutely senseless for anyone suffering from OSA to use that device in lieu of treatment. It is simply negligent.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

The use of such a device is indicative of a pilot that has a problem and knows it to be so.

This is not at all accurate. Do you have a CO sensor in your cockpit? (If not, you should.) Just because I have a CO sensor doesn't mean I know I have a problem with an exhaust leak.

 

[ateamer]

Me: age 46, 6'0", 228 pounds, BMI 31. 12-14% bodyfat, resting pulse 64, BP 115/75 - 120/80, excellent physical fitness level, 17-1/2" neck because I work it twice a week with weights. Well-rested, no indications of apnea. Obese, unhealthy and a danger to all who veunture skyward according to the FAA.

 

[bbchien]

Me: age 46, 6'0", 228 pounds, BMI 31. 12-14% bodyfat, resting pulse 64, BP 115/75 - 120/80, excellent physical fitness level, 17-1/2" neck because I work it twice a week with weights. Well-rested, no indications of apnea. Obese, unhealthy and a danger to all who veunture skyward according to the FAA.

No, not at all. BMI 31 will never get screened

 

[Whiskey Romeo]

This is not at all accurate. Do you have a CO sensor in your cockpit? (If not, you should.) Just because I have a CO sensor doesn't mean I know I have a problem with an exhaust leak.

I have a CO sensor in my plane. I have it as a precaution to developing an exhaust leak. Poor comparison.

Why is a pilot taking precautions against falling asleep? A pilot should be able to fly without falling asleep. If he can't, I doubt he would pass a the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT).

No one has to get anywhere so badly that it is worth flying when sleepy. Get someone else to do the flying or don't go.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[denverpilot]

The problem isn't as simple as keeping pilots awake, apnea folks have greatly reduced performance while awake. This device is a cure for pilots with apnea same as those buzz strips on the side of the road are a cure for drunk driving. Lose the weight get treated or stop flying (and driving please.) Heavy pilots in apnea denial use the same talking points as alcoholics discussing their drunk driving ability.

And yet they pass the toughest checkrides the industry has to offer. Hmm. Maybe the sim ride should include a single-pilot overwater leg with nothing to do. LOL.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

I have a CO sensor in my plane. I have it as a precaution to developing an exhaust leak. Poor comparison.

You should inspect and maintain your exhaust system frequently enough so that it should never leak, so why do you need the CO sensor?

We are imperfect beings, that is the point of having a system to help confirm you are maintaining an alert state.

I could put someone with a BMI of 24, who had 8 hours of sleep the night before, on a long stretch of highway driving into the sun for a couple hours and I bet they'd have a heck of a time maintain a perfectly alert state. That's a position/condition many pilots can find themselves in.

 

[ClimbnSink]

And yet they pass the toughest checkrides the industry has to offer. Hmm. Maybe the sim ride should include a single-pilot overwater leg with nothing to do. LOL.

If I pass the roadtest drunk can I then be allowed to drink and drive? That would be awesome.

 

[denverpilot]

If I pass the roadtest drunk can I then be allowed to drink and drive? That would be awesome.

How would anyone know?

I'm pointing out the current testing sucks as much as saying they passed the tests.

I'd also bet an impaired 10,000 hour pilot can still outfly my ass in their own aircraft. So then who's more dangerous?

If pilots were falling out of the sky because of this, the insurance companies would have already found the correlation.

 

[jbarrass]

No, not at all. BMI 31 will never get screened

Ummm.. Tilton was clear, and he speaks for the agency. He say's 30% of people *below* 30 have OSA and he's going to screen for them.

31 is a target too.....

 

[bbchien]

Ummm.. Tilton was clear, and he speaks for the agency. He say's 30% of people *below* 30 have OSA and he's going to screen for them.

31 is a target too.....

He won't have the resources to do that, JBarass. The numbers get out of control at 36. Right now it's completely unclear that he had even accomplish BMI>40, unless the agency is willing to tolerate the correspondence wait going out to 125 days+....(it's at 105 days now, not even with the additional 6,000 guys).

That is why the DANGER of going through formal rulemaking, mandated by congress, then results in the agency returning to congress to legitimately demand the money to do the mandated mission.

Rulemaking on this IS going to make the FAA bigger, the LAST THING any sane aviator desires.

Get it?
*****

Remember, Transp. Secy. Pena declaring "We will tolerate no further accidents?". Did that happen? Well, no. There is a point at which the administration is simply addressing Congress, JB.

Like the Hon Senate Majority leader, Sen Dick(h_d)Durbin said, as he ran before the mighty 150, "this will NEVER happen again!" You think that happened....? uh, no, it's happened about 1,000 times since he said that.

Some things are just for the cameras.

****
And so we watch. This could turn out right, but could also turn out very very badly.