And the first step to understanding by objectively focusing on the data and their analysis is to actually find it.
I haven't, but I will look!
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
The first is just a general index to a bunch of reports. The second, while interesting from a historical point of view, does not appear to contain any data or analyses which would suggest that the requirement for a 3rd class medical improves the safety of flight. But if I missed in in a quick read, please feel free to point to the proper page or section.
To have a meaningful discussion on this, it really is best to do as suggested, read the various reports, look at and critically analyze the data.
Hardly.
Basic Med was not created by the FAA; it was rammed down their throats by Congress after years of FAA stonewalling. You make it sound like the FAA did some sort of in-depth study and then implemented Basic Med to test their findings, but that isn't what happened.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Just also found this report which bears on the question:" Do NTSB Statistics Support Current FAA Third Class Medical Policy?"
[PDF] okstate.edu . Analyses data 1982-1996, so somewhat older.
From that report "The statistics do not allow rejection of the null hypothesis, and so do not show a statistically significant linkage between percentage of medical elapsed and likelihood of incident occurrence."
"Incidentally, descriptive statistics of the control population show an unexpected negative linkage between recentness of medical certification and likelihood of being involved in an incident (R2 = .821). This counterintuitive finding indicates that recent third class medical certification correlates to increased pilot risk, rather than increased levels of safety"
I have not looked at it in detail, but it is certainly a counter-intuitive finding. It also has some links to the literature which the article claims were involved in this discussion earlier in the 1990s. Seems worth a close read and check on the references.
[PDF] okstate.edu . Analyses data 1982-1996, so somewhat older.
From that report "The statistics do not allow rejection of the null hypothesis, and so do not show a statistically significant linkage between percentage of medical elapsed and likelihood of incident occurrence."
"Incidentally, descriptive statistics of the control population show an unexpected negative linkage between recentness of medical certification and likelihood of being involved in an incident (R2 = .821). This counterintuitive finding indicates that recent third class medical certification correlates to increased pilot risk, rather than increased levels of safety"
I have not looked at it in detail, but it is certainly a counter-intuitive finding. It also has some links to the literature which the article claims were involved in this discussion earlier in the 1990s. Seems worth a close read and check on the references.
"A bunch of reports".
Okay, I surrender. I thought my point was there there are decades and decades of research on aeromedical factors and safety, and have now provided such. Apparently that's not of interest. So I surrender. I flat-out give up.
Enjoy.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Here is a link to Webb's letter when what has now become BasicMed was being debated. http://www.asma.org/asma/media/asma...ical-Letter-to-FAA-Administrator-4-9-2014.pdf . Number of references there which are probably worth a read.
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Certainly these are of interest generally and a good resource, and do in fact demonstrate that there are decades and decades of research, thanks.
But how does that bear on the question of whether the requirement for 3rd class medical certification improves the safety of flight? Why would one think the existence of a bunch of research on various aeromedical topics somehow proves that 3rd class medicals improve the safety of flight?
As an argument, this is what is known formally as a non sequitur. It just doesn't follow.
It would refute the argument that the FAA is just making up regs to inconvenience people, to some extent, but I don't think anyone here has been arguing that. So that would be a straw man fallacy.
Seriously, to understand the data and analyses, one does have to read and understand them. That takes some effort, especially when first starting.
Of course, if one doesn't have the time or inclination, that is fine and understandable, but it might be best then to not insist that others are incorrect, trying to avoid the truth, etc.
Last edited:
The letter itself is amusing. Huerta comes off sounding like a fool. I especially liked this:
Cars and trucks don't fall from the sky onto people, but planes do!
As though cars and trucks don't run down pedestrians, crash into other vehicles, run over motorcycles, plow through buildings, etc.
His arguments are in many cases simply nonsense. He admits that the FAA only screens out about 1.2% of applicants, so that brings up the question of how much would danger increase were that 1.2% allowed to fly? Intuitively the increased risk seems minuscule. Unless there is persuasive statistical data showing great risk to passengers and the public from that 1.2% of applicants, I would conclude that the class 3 exam is unwarranted.
It was DOT stonewalling, not FAA stonewalling. The FAA had an NPRM ready to go, and DOT blocked it.