Captain dies. PBOR threatened?

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
Am I the only one to think that every time we think we're on the step to get Medical relief, some incident happens to ka-bosh it?

I read that Senator Inhofe is dealing with opposition to the PBOR from Senators listening to the Airline Pilots Association claiming safety issues (and WHY?)

Now we can imagine, "THANK GOD! This jet had two pilots. What happens in a plane with only one pilot?" !!!!
 
mikea said:
Am I the only one to think that every time we think we're on the step to get Medical relief, some incident happens to ka-bosh it?

I read that Senator Inhofe is dealing with opposition to the PBOR from Senators listening to the Airline Pilots Association claiming safety issues (and WHY?)

Now we can imagine, "THANK GOD! This jet had two pilots. What happens in a plane with only one pilot?" !!!!
Click to expand...

what good did it do to catch this captain's affliction before he died at the controls? And I don't think you can fly for American with a Class III...

Every Pilot evaluates him/herself physically before every flight... Or at least should...
 
Yeah. The reply with logic that will never be heard would be that this Captain passed his tougher 1st Class medical, so what good did that do, but jerking knees have no problem coming up with fixes that wouldn't fix the problem being aimed at.

Item: The 9/11 attackers were known to the feds, passed gate security personnel that fully did their job as defined, .. so the fix was that we need to create a new federal department posting 1000s of power-mad illiterates and investigate and strip search everybody.
 
Someone keels over dead while in the front seat about every month or two. And, most of the dead pilots have medicals. It's been happening for years and years. If you need a 6 month stretch between heart attacks to get the bill passed, it will never happen.

The 24th Nall report lists 11 cases.

"By FAA estimates, the active U.S. pilot population exceeded 610,000 in 2012.
These 11 pilots therefore represent less than two one-thousandths of one
percent (.002%) of that total."
 
mikea said:
...I read that Senator Inhofe is dealing with opposition to the PBOR from Senators listening to the Airline Pilots Association claiming safety issues (and WHY?)...
Click to expand...

According to AOPA, ALPA has changed their minds about that:


The modifications to Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 outlined by Inhofe in his floor speech closely match the terms of the so-called Manchin Amendment, which was submitted, but did not become part of, the Senate highway bill passed in July. That amendment came under fire from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which said it would not support the measure, although numerous other pilot groups and unions have endorsed it. Since that time AOPA has met with ALPA to seek common ground.

"We’ve worked with the leaders of ALPA and addressed their concerns," said Coon. "We’ve been told that they now believe that third class medical reform does not pose a safety risk."

[emphasis added]​

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...r-before?_ga=1.114046468.207739898.1424218278
 
mikea said:
What happens in a plane with only one pilot?
Click to expand...

The same thing that happens when the pilot has a 3rd class medical. The airplane makes a crater proportional to it's mass plus altitude.

We hope there's nobody else involved, but it's not in our control other than to completely ground all aviation activity.
 
A good pal who flew for eastern for 33 years said it happened only twice that he knew of in that time. I think the FAA does a pretty sensible job when one considers the vast amount of squirrels that they have to contend with, aircraft not kept up correctly, medicals ignored, idiots continually disregarding bad weather and flying into it either with no inst. ticket or very low time instrument time, on and on. The airlines overall saftey record is amazing for the miles flown.
 
FlySince9 said:
what good did it do to catch this captain's affliction before he died at the controls?
Click to expand...

The "failure" to prevent this particular death in flight is not the only consideration when evaluating the medical standards.

I believe that the more significant question is what percentage of the people denied a medical had a heart attack?
 
Bob Noel said:
The "failure" to prevent this particular death in flight is not the only consideration when evaluating the medical standards.

I believe that the more significant question is what percentage of the people denied a medical had a heart attack?
Click to expand...
Look at the geezers flying under the sport pilot rule (one assumes because they knew they couldn't maintain a medical). If you can draw a statistically significant conclusion, then you are a better mathematician than every one else that has tried.
 
Perception will not be favorable for medical reform. That's the way it goes. That the flight was concluded safely is no mistake. The system worked.

My condolences to his family and friends.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Look at the geezers flying under the sport pilot rule (one assumes because they knew they couldn't maintain a medical). If you can draw a statistically significant conclusion, then you are a better mathematician than every one else that has tried.
Click to expand...

Nothing hard about the math at all. It's getting valid data that is the challenge.

But the point is, if we could know

1) how many applicants for the first class were denied

2) and if we could know how many other applicants didn't apply in the first place because of the critiera

3) what percentage of that populations (1) & (2) had an event such as a heart attack

4) what percentage of the pilot population with a first class medical had event such as a heart attack

If (3) is much higher than (4) then it would suggest that the first class medical criteria are effective in reducing the risk of in-flight medical emergencies. If not, then it would be legitimate to question the value of the first class medical criteria with respect cardiac conditions.


This is not rocket science.
 
Bob Noel said:
Nothing hard about the math at all. It's getting valid data that is the challenge.

But the point is, if we could know

1) how many applicants for the first class were denied

2) and if we could know how many other applicants didn't apply in the first place because of the critiera

3) what percentage of that populations (1) & (2) had an event such as a heart attack

4) what percentage of the pilot population with a first class medical had event such as a heart attack

If (3) is much higher than (4) then it would suggest that the first class medical criteria are effective in reducing the risk of in-flight medical emergencies. If not, then it would be legitimate to question the value of the first class medical criteria with respect cardiac conditions.


This is not rocket science.
Click to expand...
No. But the data you would need to do that analysis doesn't even come close to existing.

On the other hand, geezers without medicals have been flying under the sport pilot rule for 11 years now. And, what data that does exist shows, ummm, nothing.

Would your analysis show some difference in heart attack rates? Most likely. But what would be the increase in heart attacks in flight that result in accidents? Too small to measure? Or is the argument that even one is too many? No cost is too high? We are going after fly specks in the horse ****.

If you want to stop pilots from dying, put the resources wasted on medicals into getting them to stop running out of gas or losing control in IMC or the stall/spin turning final. Fixing one of those could make actual, measurable, difference in accidents and fatalities. The third class medical system doesn't.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If you want to stop pilots from dying, put the resources wasted on medicals into getting them to stop running out of gas or losing control in IMC or the stall/spin turning final. Fixing one of those could make actual, measurable, difference in accidents and fatalities. The third class medical system doesn't.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
If you want to stop pilots from dying, put the resources wasted on medicals into getting them to stop running out of gas or losing control in IMC or the stall/spin turning final. Fixing one of those could make actual, measurable, difference in accidents and fatalities. The third class medical system doesn't.
Click to expand...

I think those cases mostly fall into "you can't fix stoopid" category, where more regulation or training won't help. :(
 
Sounds like you guys have an after school project. Change the world. If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem.
 
Stewartb said:
Sounds like you guys have an after school project. Change the world. If you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Well, to do an apples to apples comparison using a consistent population, about the only thing where hard data exists is to compare accidents per year for traditional LSAs before and after the implementation of the sport pilot rule and compare to non LSA aircraft. When you do that you get this (Data normalized by the number of accidents in 2000-2004):

Normalized_Accident_rates.jpg


So, what you find is that given a specific population of aircraft, changes in the economy drive changes in annual accident (and fatal accident) rates that make an evaluation of the impact of the sport pilot rule pretty much meaningless.

Now, one could attempt to quantify accidents per pilot, per pilot hour, or whatever, but you quickly find that there are no statistics on how many pilots are flying under the sport pilot rule - the geezers may be flying daily, but they are considered "inactive" by the FAA because they don't have medicals. So, since we can't count pilots or hours, then we can't come up with much in the way of a valid comparison. It's almost like the FAA planned it that way...

Un-normalized data for those that care:
Annual_Accicent_Rates.jpg


LSA only data:
Annual_LSA_Accicent_Rates.jpg


Have fun with it.
 
Last edited:
Compare health impairment incidents for pilots with 1st Class Medicals to those with 3rd Class Medicals to those with Sport Pilot DL Medicals.

And then they will ignore the facts.
 
mikea said:
Compare health impairment incidents for pilots with 1st Class Medicals to those with 3rd Class Medicals to those with Sport Pilot DL Medicals.

And then they will ignore the facts.
Click to expand...
First vs. third you could do if you took several years worth of data. But, for anything vs. sport pilot, the number of incidents for someone with an actual Sport Pilot certificate number is close to 0 (for at least 5 years it was exactly 0). And, while there have been PP flying under SP rules that had impairments, but again, without knowing the total number of pilots involved, you can't get a statistic.
 
I keep reading this as our user "Captain" has died.
 
Well, I think that the captain in this story may have trouble passing his next medical....
 
mikea said:
Yeah. The reply with logic that will never be heard would be that this Captain passed his tougher 1st Class medical, so what good did that do, but jerking knees have no problem coming up with fixes that wouldn't fix the problem being aimed at.

Item: The 9/11 attackers were known to the feds
Click to expand...

They were?
 
Bob Noel said:
The "failure" to prevent this particular death in flight is not the only consideration when evaluating the medical standards.

I believe that the more significant question is what percentage of the people denied a medical had a heart attack?
Click to expand...

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Look at the geezers flying under the sport pilot rule (one assumes because they knew they couldn't maintain a medical). If you can draw a statistically significant conclusion, then you are a better mathematician than every one else that has tried.
Click to expand...
He didn't say he could, only that it would be a more significant question, and he's correct. Also, your rebuttal assumes that everyone who either failed or knew/assumed they couldn't pass a medical is flying sport pilot, which, of course, is not true.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Horsepuckey. I assume nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
Mature response. This is what you said:

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Look at the geezers flying under the sport pilot rule (one assumes because they knew they couldn't maintain a medical).
Click to expand...

This is so flawed it's almost not even worth replying to. Are all sport pilots "geezers"? What about the ones who know they couldn't pass and left flying? You're asking us to base a statistical analysis on only a select group of people which you think will support your position. That's just silly.
 
mryan75 said:
Mature response. This is what you said:



This is so flawed it's almost not even worth replying to. Are all sport pilots "geezers"? What about the ones who know they couldn't pass and left flying? You're asking us to base a statistical analysis on only a select group of people which you think will support your position. That's just silly.
Click to expand...
And here is what you said:

mryan75 said:
He didn't say he could, only that it would be a more significant question, and he's correct. Also, your rebuttal assumes that everyone who either failed or knew/assumed they couldn't pass a medical is flying sport pilot, which, of course, is not true.
Click to expand...

I never said that "everyone who either failed or knew/assumed they couldn't pass a medical is flying sport pilot" - obviously lots of people don't fly under sport pilot.

Nor did I say that all sport pilots are "Geezers".

Those are your words, and yours alone.

I'm saying that some people who fly under the sport pilot rule are those who can't or won't get a medical. That's a fact.

Another fact is that even 11 years after the implementation of the sport pilot rule, there is no data that suggests that the accident rate due to incapacitation are statistically different between those with and without FAA medicals.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
And here is what you said:



I never said that "everyone who either failed or knew/assumed they couldn't pass a medical is flying sport pilot" - obviously lots of people don't fly under sport pilot.

Nor did I say that all sport pilots are "Geezers".

Those are your words, and yours alone.

I'm saying that some people who fly under the sport pilot rule are those who can't or won't get a medical. That's a fact.

Another fact is that even 11 years after the implementation of the sport pilot rule, there is no data that suggests that the accident rate due to incapacitation are statistically different between those with and without FAA medicals.
Click to expand...
Oh boy. This is going to be one of those conversations. Let's try this again:

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Look at the geezers flying under the sport pilot rule (one assumes because they knew they couldn't maintain a medical). If you can draw a statistically significant conclusion, then you are a better mathematician than every one else that has tried.
Click to expand...
He was talking about people who were denied a medical. You responded about "geezers" flying under the sport pilot rule. Your response had nothing to do with his statement. Those two populations are not the same. Regardless of what you can establish about "geezers" flying sport pilot, it's completely irrelevant to the health of the population of people either denied medical or people who didn't apply because they knew they wouldn't pass. You're talking about a tiny sliver of the population he was referring to. It's silly.
 
mryan75 said:
Oh boy. This is going to be one of those conversations. Let's try this again:


He was talking about people who were denied a medical. You responded about "geezers" flying under the sport pilot rule. Your response had nothing to do with his statement. Those two populations are not the same. Regardless of what you can establish about "geezers" flying sport pilot, it's completely irrelevant to the health of the population of people either denied medical or people who didn't apply because they knew they wouldn't pass. You're talking about a tiny sliver of the population he was referring to. It's silly.
Click to expand...

How many third class holders actually have a known and unreported disqualifying condition?
 
Zeldman said:
Well, I think that the captain in this story may have trouble passing his next medical....
Click to expand...

I'm sure the first thing the FAA did was send him a letter rescinding his medical certificate.
 
The dude had a class I medical, it didn't stop him from dying. I don't see how any rational person could use this event as an argument for the efficacy of the third class medical in preventing pilot incapacitation.
 
bullwinkle said:
The dude had a class I medical, it didn't stop him from dying. I don't see how any rational person could use this event as an argument for the efficacy of the third class medical in preventing pilot incapacitation.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:


I'm guessing zero sport pilots have died while in flight this year.

A CDL can haul hazmat loads with much more damage potential than a private pilot flying a 172. CDL do loads up to 105,500lbs at 55 mph and in some states 70 mph.
 
Last edited:
bullwinkle said:
The dude had a class I medical, it didn't stop him from dying. I don't see how any rational person could use this event as an argument for the efficacy of the third class medical in preventing pilot incapacitation.
Click to expand...

But we're talking about Congress here, right?
 
bnt83 said:
:yeahthat:


I'm guessing zero sport pilots have died while in flight this year.

A CDL can haul hazmat loads with much more damage potential than a private pilot flying a 172. CDL do loads up to 105,500lbs at 55 mph and in some states 70 mph.
Click to expand...

And pretty much everywhere, here in California for sure, you need a medical identical to the 3rd class to haul those loads. Renewed every two years. I have one and do it at the same time as the pilot medical.
 
Dav8or said:
And pretty much everywhere, here in California for sure, you need a medical identical to the 3rd class to haul those loads. Renewed every two years. I have one and do it at the same time as the pilot medical.
Click to expand...

It's mandatory anywhere if you drive interstate, and some states (like New York) require it even if you don't. However, it's not really identical to an airman medical.

For one thing, although a DOT exam is equally thorough, a DOT examiner has a lot more discretion to approve in-office if he or she is satisfied that whatever once ailed the driver no longer does. The words "current" and "currently" appear many times in the instructions for examiners on the form. If the doc is satisfied that the driver "currently" meets the standards, he or she can issue without (literally) making a federal case out of it. No one cares about what happened when the driver was 9.

Prescription drugs are also a non-issue as long as the prescribing physician is satisfied that the medications "will not adversely affect the driver’s ability to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle," no diabetes waiver is needed unless the driver is insulin-dependent, and no one cares if the driver got arrested for stealing the opposing football team's mascot the night before the big game when he or she was in college. The only thing they care about is whether the driver is currently fit to drive and is expected to stay that way for the duration of the medical (which can be one or two years).

I look at the DOT physical as being what the FAA third-class would look like if the FAA had a modicum of common sense about it.

Rich
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top