FAA adds another hoop for medicals

You are just tooooo negative, man. if you tell the doc you have rest issued, he'll order the test, then if negative, it works out superbly for everyone, including you...

Bruce,

If someone has an appointment listed on their medical app for sleep issues, they did a sleep study and got a negative apnea diagnosis, wouldn't it become an "undiagnosed sleep issue" with potential consequences?

You know the system. For those of us who don't know the system, it's very scary as it seems as if the only purpose is to take away our wings.
 
If someone has an appointment listed on their medical app for sleep issues, they did a sleep study and got a negative apnea diagnosis, wouldn't it become an "undiagnosed sleep issue" with potential consequences?

If you have a negative monitored sleep study, you don't have sleep apnea (obstructive or central). Just like if you have a negative CT scan of the chest for 'cough', you dont have lung-cancer. You have a symptom of 'cough'.
 
Have you read all the posts in this string- from NealKas, and from myself about our local orthopedist narcoleptic surgeon.....and there are several others. The problem is the data you want to demand cannot possibly exist- how do you prove an accident was due to narcolepsy. Demand in cockpit image recorders on steel tape?

I'm not asking for accident data, Bruce. Like I said, "height/weight/apnea data". Not BMI - Height and weight. And I mean raw data, so I can do some analysis on it myself - That's what I do.

Demanding that sort of data would require 80-100 pounds of CDR equipment even on a C150.....That correlation (SA vs BMI, is very very good and is very vetted. Do a Medline search. That work I will not do for you.

Hmmm. I googled Medline. Looks like that's just a database of journal articles? I got as far as here, and there's this Databases menu, but I'm not sure what I'm looking for next to get raw data. Should I be looking under Medline, MeSH, UMLS, ClinicalTrials.gov, MedlinePlus, ToxNet, or LocatorPlus? Again, not looking for journal articles or any sort of summarized data - I'm looking for the raw individual data points containing at least height, weight, and whatever sleep apnea severity rating the docs would assign to a person. (I'm assuming there is a standard scale of some sort?)

The data are published in this string. 90% of the population with BMI>=40 have Sleep Apnea. 90% of aviation accidents are pilot error.

Right, but how many of the rest of the population have sleep apnea? Based on the initial document that says even 30% of those with a BMI under 30 have it, it seems like there needs to be a solution that involves easier/cheaper tests if they want to "identify and assure treatment for every airman with OSA" and that this policy needs to apply to *everybody* and be done in a way that it's manageable when applied to everybody or they will not reach that goal.

deny, deny deny.

Stick your head in some more sand.

Bruce, I have a great deal of respect for you, and this really disappoints me. Does it sound like I'm sticking my head in the sand? I'm asking for more data. I'm asking if there's a better way to do this. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I'm worried for the future of GA if we're all going to be subject to another $2000 out of pocket. I have 4 friends who have decided the expense of a medical certificate is no longer justifiable in the last year or two, and only one has switched to LSA and kept flying. No pilots, no GA. :(
 
If you have a negative monitored sleep study, you don't have sleep apnea (obstructive or central). Just like if you have a negative CT scan of the chest for 'cough', you dont have lung-cancer. You have a symptom of 'cough'.

Aren't there other disqualifying sleep issues besides sleep apnea? I'd be surprised if there weren't, since any sleep issue could cause the same bad fatigue issues as sleep apnea can.
 
Bruce,

If someone has an appointment listed on their medical app for sleep issues, they did a sleep study and got a negative apnea diagnosis, wouldn't it become an "undiagnosed sleep issue" with potential consequences?

You know the system. For those of us who don't know the system, it's very scary as it seems as if the only purpose is to take away our wings.
Your reaction it isn't becoming.

If you have a negative sleep study, then you don't have sleep apnea. Then it is not a certification issue. And that is all. What is so tough about that? The purpose is to make your wings safer. If you have SA, you get it treated and we issue you the special. If you don't, you are normal. The FAS is SCREENING high risk airmen. That's YOU.

I have no idea what kind of data you might need beside the correlation between BMI and Sleep Apnea, which the FAS cited and was posted early in this string. It usually appears in the NIH consenus reports- but this was so long ago that it's in every Sleep medicine textbook. It's so old it's not a hot topic anymore- we consider it old news.

It sounds like you are asking to reinvent the wheel, which exceeds my time, energy, and commitment to this board.

Statistics apply to YOU, Kent (and I). If you are physically anything like the last time we met, you are dead in the FAS' target. You have enough time to "get in shape" e.g, get your BMI down to 35, or you can sit and grouse about the FAS demanding that you either get fit or get treated (provided SA is there). If you have neither, then you have nothing and you can relax.

Buck up and deal with it like an airman. You will fly no matter what. If you have it, we'll get it treated, and you'll fly. If you don't have it, it's not an issue.
 
Last edited:
Aren't there other disqualifying sleep issues besides sleep apnea? I'd be surprised if there weren't, since any sleep issue could cause the same bad fatigue issues as sleep apnea can.

There is central sleep apnea and narcolepsy. Narcolepsy is a neurologic disorder and pretty rare. Central sleep apnea is also related to the wiring in your head and much less common than OSA.
 
There is central sleep apnea and narcolepsy. Narcolepsy is a neurologic disorder and pretty rare. Central sleep apnea is also related to the wiring in your head and much less common than OSA.
,,,and central sleep apnea cannot be certified. Most of narcolepsy goes away when the underlying sleeo disturbance is treated- though not all.
 
Bruce,

I understand there's a high correlation. But why are we looking at that, and not actual symptoms? What about those 30% with a normal BMI? Are we really going to sit back and allow aeromedical to kill the industry by requiring expensive tests of people who show no symptoms?

Data is my job, I would *love* to get my hands on the height/weight/apnea data (anyone know a source?) and come up with a measure that works even better. And the height factor will be cubed, as it should be. Right now, we're essentially measuring a ratio of our weight to our surface area, not our volume.

It's not going to kill anything histrionics aside. The test is what produces the evidence of symptoms.
 
I'm not asking for accident data, Bruce. Like I said, "height/weight/apnea data". Not BMI - Height and weight. And I mean raw data, so I can do some analysis on it myself - That's what I do.

Bruce, I have a great deal of respect for you, and this really disappoints me. Does it sound like I'm sticking my head in the sand? I'm asking for more data. I'm asking if there's a better way to do this. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I'm worried for the future of GA if we're all going to be subject to another $2000 out of pocket. I have 4 friends who have decided the expense of a medical certificate is no longer justifiable in the last year or two, and only one has switched to LSA and kept flying. No pilots, no GA. :(

This generally requires a masters in public health, or an MD degree, Kent, You cannot possibly know what all the confounding problems are in designing a proper null hypothesis trial for something like this. I am barely qualified to define and build something like this, and the data collection would have to be prospective. To assume that you could just hit a data bank and find it is.......INCREDIBLY ARROGANT, or INCREDIBLY NAIEVE: "I will find something better than al the scholars" which has been overlooked. Whereas you might be the one in 100,000 who can do that, I seriously doubt that you are. I'd be blessed if you surprise me.

There are privacy issues getting to records, coding issues, non-understanding of the underlying process issues, Institutional Review Boards, etc..... Yeah, I'll just browse a database and find something better......" :mad2: Look up my name in the index medicus. the referreed review of the Iowa Crohn's series took me two years, and I jumped through all those hoops to just get the records.

By the time you work yourself to death on this, you could have screened, been negative or treated, and be done with it.

Think, Blown tires in DA40. To do that study we would have to equip you with tiny feet, which is all well and good, but isn't going to happen.....
 
Last edited:
This generally requires a masters in public health, or an MD degree, Kent, You cannot possibly know what all the confounding problems are in designing a proper null hypothesis trial for something like this.

I don't want to design a trial - I just want to look at some data. I know nothing about medicine - I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and work full-time in Business Intelligence, which is all about data.

I am barely qualified to define and build something like this, and the data collection would have to be prospective. To assume that you could just hit a data bank and find it is.......INCREDIBLY ARROGANT, or INCREDIBLY NAIEVE: "I will find something better than al the scholars" which has been overlooked. Whereas you might be the one in 100,000 who can do that, I seriously doubt that you are. I'd be blessed if you surprise me.

I'm not saying I'm gonna find the next indicator for OSA - That would require MUCH more in-depth data than just height, weight, and presence of OSA. I'm more interested in how much the correlation between OSA and BMI varies with height, and what the prevalence is at all the various BMI's... And if changing the exponent on the weight really makes that much difference. :dunno:

There are privacy issues getting to records, coding issues, non-understanding of the underlying process issues, Institutional Review Boards, etc..... Yeah, I'll just browse a database and find something better......" :mad2:

I don't want *records* - just data. No names, addresses, SSN's, or any other identifying information.

By the time you work yourself to death on this, you could have screened, been negative or treated, and be done with it.

I don't need the screening, yet - My BMI is 36.5, and even at my fattest I was never at a 40 BMI. I'm not technically due for a medical for two more years, but I'm gonna go in the spring for one last pre-age-40 screening.

But, by the time my next medical is due in 2019, I'm guessing the standard will have shifted down from 40. Currently, I have absolutely no symptoms consistent with OSA... I'm not tired during the day, I don't snore, yadda yadda yadda. But it sounds like I might end up having to sleep somewhere else with a bunch of crap hooked up to me for a couple thousand dollars.

But, let me just say this again:

flyingcheesehead said:
I'm worried for the future of GA if we're all going to be subject to another $2000 out of pocket. I have 4 friends who have decided the expense of a medical certificate is no longer justifiable in the last year or two, and only one has switched to LSA and kept flying. No pilots, no GA.

Am I the only one who's worried about this?
 
I don't want to design a trial - I just want to look at some data. I know nothing about medicine - I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, and work full-time in Business Intelligence, which is all about data.
Wow, Im impressed.
I'm not saying I'm gonna find the next indicator for OSA - That would require MUCH more in-depth data than just height, weight, and presence of OSA. I'm more interested in how much the correlation between OSA and BMI varies with height, and what the prevalence is at all the various BMI's... And if changing the exponent on the weight really makes that much difference. :dunno:
r=.89 IIRC which is about as good as it gets in biology.
I don't want *records* - just data. No names, addresses, SSN's, or any other identifying information.
There you go again. It doesn't all exist in a huge computer database for your picking. Just the diagnoses other identifying information.[/QUOTE]There you go again. It doesn't all and billing codes, nothing else. No a lot of variables for a multivariate regression. Like I said, incredible naieve. You think you can just browse a database......sigh. I say again.....NAIEVE.
I don't need the screening, yet - My BMI is 36.5, and even at my fattest I was never at a 40 BMI. I'm not technically due for a medical for two more years, but I'm gonna go in the spring for one last pre-age-40 screening.

But, by the time my next medical is due in 2019, I'm guessing the standard will have shifted down from 40. Currently, I have absolutely no symptoms consistent with OSA... I'm not tired during the day, I don't snore, yadda yadda yadda. But it sounds like I might end up having to sleep somewhere else with a bunch of crap hooked up to me for a couple thousand dollars.
Not a bunch of cr_p, Kent. Did you read the strings from any of the ones who got treatment? You should probalby be screend for that anyway....
But, let me just say this again:



Am I the only one who's worried about this?
No, I'm worried about the "hell no I'm just fine" attitude form an airman who repeatedly blows DA40 tires and no insight into why that happens, when it's pretty clear to us at my base....from examination of the tubes. At BMI 36, the odds are about 50-50 that you are NOT 'Just fine". LRPV- you do get what that is......

We call this LACK OF INSIGHT.
 
Dead Horse, Doc… Some folks are just resistant to change despite clear, convincing and overwhelming evidence….. and in my case, personal and anecdotal evidence to boot. I want to thank you for the specific guidance you gave to me on this issue a couple years ago. When I DO decide to start flying again, I've got my ducks in a row already.

I pick up on undiagnosed sleep apnea in my patients a couple times a month. Its pervasive, and as the evidence bears out, overwhelmingly positive in certain body types
 
Well, it does have a code for 'being hit by a spacecraft' with subdivision into being hit while being on earth and in orbit.

278.01 is a ICD9-CM code. Then again, 'running away from your master' and homosexuality were considered diseases at one point or another.
There is a lot of controversy about what constitutes disease. Here is some interesting reading on the subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299105/?report=classic
I know one thing. There are a lot of really fat people but not nearly as many old fat people. I doubt that it is due to everybody finally getting around to loosing weight when they retire, more likely dying early.

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering,
I got one of those too. The DA40 must be the prefered choice of EEs.
 
I know one thing. There are a lot of really fat people but not nearly as many old fat people. I doubt that it is due to everybody finally getting around to loosing weight when they retire, more likely dying early.

Once you get up there in age, being overweight seems to correlate with longevity.
I believe that that is a statistical fluke as a couple of the things that kill you go along with loosing weight involuntarily (end stage lung disease, cancer etc.).

I have said it before. We dont see many skinny people thorugh the ER.
 
Can someone please explain what blown DA40 tires have to do with this thread?

Thanks in advance.
 
Once you get up there in age, being overweight seems to correlate with longevity.
I believe that that is a statistical fluke as a couple of the things that kill you go along with loosing weight involuntarily (end stage lung disease, cancer etc.).

I have said it before. We dont see many skinny people thorugh the ER.
Being slightly overweight (BMI 27-28 or thereabouts) may confer a survival advantage. Those which severe chronic illness (cancer, end stage COPD) are often underweight. I'm still convinced the morbidly obese die much younger.
 
Why don't people just get in shape?

You filthy fatshamer you.:wink2: They would get in shape but they have the self control of drug addicts and other bad decision making low life types.:rolleyes2: No self control is no self control, fat pilots are more prone to get home itis, and impulsive buzz jobs. Ground everyone over bmi 30. Better for them, better for GA.
 
This entire thread reminds me of a very old joke...if I may...

Two guys simultaneous enter the toilet at their 25th class reunion and belly up to a urinal adjacent to each other.

Bob glances over at Tom and is amazed at how much weight he'd gained since high school....heck, Tom was the tall/lean wide receiver.

Bob can't help himself and asks: "Tom, dude, how much weight have you gained since high school?"

Tom: "I don't know, Bob, quite a bit I guess."

Bob: "So, how long has it been since you could see your pecker?"

Tom: "I don't know, Bob, quite a while I guess."

Bob: "So why don't you diet?"

Tom: "I don't know, Bob, what color is it now?"

A VERY old joke. :goofy:
 
Why don't people just get in shape?

H'm.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking arguing against this edict passed down from the FAA On High is the same as wanting to continue being fat.

If you're a morbidly obese pilot, lose weight. Period. End of story. It's a good idea whether or not the FAA thinks so. No one is arguing—or should be arguing—against that.

That said, let's not be sidestepped into thinking this is an unalloyed great thing the FAA is mandating here. It goes beyond merely requiring a lower BMI for pilots; it goes beyond whether Tilton is acting within his rights.

The many problems we face with American government is that the far-reaching consequences of laws are seldom ever properly studied before they're enacted. ObamaCare anyone?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
H'm.

Let's not make the mistake of thinking arguing against this edict passed down from the FAA On High is the same as wanting to continue being fat.

If you're a morbidly obese pilot, lose weight. Period. End of story. It's a good idea whether or not the FAA thinks so. No one is arguing—or should be arguing—against that.

That said, let's not be sidestepped into thinking this is an unalloyed great thing the FAA is mandating here. It goes beyond merely requiring a lower BMI for pilots; it goes beyond whether Tilton is acting within his rights.

The many problems we face with American government is that the far-reaching consequences of laws are seldom ever properly studied before they're enacted. ObamaCare anyone?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This!!!
 
Can someone please explain what blown DA40 tires have to do with this thread?

Bruce is making it personal, that's all. I don't know why, as I'm not insulting him personally or doctors in general.

Last time I visited Bruce in Peoria, I was flying a DA40 and blew a tire after landing.
 
Bruce,

Let me start by emphasizing once again - I am not trying to be a pain or incite you in any way, I am trying to learn. Thank you for your patience and continued discussion, as I feel like I'm finally getting somewhere.

Wow, Im impressed.

I'm just trying to give you some background as to why I would like to see data. Data is my thing.

r=.89 IIRC which is about as good as it gets in biology.

Good to know - That's something I didn't know, and is the whole reason I'm still trying to have this conversation.

There you go again. It doesn't all and billing codes, nothing else. No a lot of variables for a multivariate regression. Like I said, incredible naieve. You think you can just browse a database......sigh. I say again.....NAIEVE.

Bruce, there is a TON of publicly available data on many things - You'd be surprised. It's not "incredibly naive" (spelling corrected) to think one could get their hands on some of it, because I do it all the time. And I don't see the need to make this personal. I'm not attacking you.

Not a bunch of cr_p, Kent.

Well, what DO they hook up to you in a sleep study then? I'm assuming at least pulse ox, ECG, EEG, and something to measure breathing.

Did you read the strings from any of the ones who got treatment? You should probalby be screend for that anyway....

I'm actually genuinely interested in the results... I've considered setting up a video camera (need to find a low-light one) and putting my pulse oximeter on overnight just to see.

I believe when I was at my heaviest, I might have had mild OSA. I snored, and I occasionally woke myself back up to full consciousness if I fell asleep on my back.

It's also been quite a while since you've seen me. Two summers ago, I lost 60 pounds. I've gained some of it back, but I'm still in much better shape than I was. It's made a noticeable difference - I do not snore any more, I do not have any of those "re-wakeup" incidents, etc. I also am not tired during the day (at least if I got a good 6+ hours of sleep), and don't ever feel like napping during the day or anything like that. That's why I believe that I no longer suffer from any sort of OSA.

No, I'm worried about the "hell no I'm just fine" attitude form an airman who repeatedly blows DA40 tires and no insight into why that happens, when it's pretty clear to us at my base....from examination of the tubes.

I do not repeatedly blow DA40 tires - The one I blew at your home base is the only DA40 tire I've ever blown. It was my fourth total airplane tire blown.

After you suggested that maybe this was due to me riding the brakes, I thought about it a lot and honestly considered it. I finally discounted it for two reasons:

1) I normally do not use brakes on landing at the home base because our shortest runway there is 5800 feet... And I'll easily roll 4000 feet on landing, which wouldn't happen if I was riding the brakes.

2) The nature of the incidents (below). If your "us at my home base" could provide some insight as to what you saw on the tube that you didn't tell me about, I'd be interested. But, be aware that there were dozens of other flights before my flight to Peoria that were flown by other pilots, so there may well have been pre-existing damage.

My four tire incidents:

1) C172 at MSN, right main, while I was a student pilot. CFI didn't even know what was wrong when I aborted the go, it'd been a good landing. I was told later that the shop said it was a defective inner tube. Both CFI and flight school manager/DPE complimented me on my handling of it.

2) C182 at MSN, left main. First landing on a brand new tire. It was incorrectly installed, and the shop at SBM that had just installed it actually paid for the shop at MSN to replace it - Do you think they'd have done that if they weren't at fault?

3) Citabria at IA40. This one was a tailwheel, so you can't blame it on my feet.

4) DA40 at 3MY. Already discussed.

At BMI 36, the odds are about 50-50 that you are NOT 'Just fine". LRPV- you do get what that is......

I Googled it and came up with "Long Range Patrol Vehicle." Clearly not what you're trying to say. So, what's LRPV?

Also, thanks for providing the odds at 36, that's one of the reasons I was interested in seeing more detailed data. As you say, the odds are 50-50 that I'm not "just fine" - But that also means that the odds are 50-50 that I *am* just fine. If I had any symptoms at all, I'd head in for a sleep study ASAP.

Is there any reason I should pay $$$$ for a sleep study when there is no other indication? :dunno:

Also... And the main reason the policy itself concerns me - Isn't there a cheaper and easier way than a full sleep study to determine whether OSA is present in a particular person? I believe you or someone else mentioned something earlier in the thread somewhere. That's what we should be pushing for... Otherwise, we'll kill off GA entirely and this whole argument will be moot.
 
...I'm still leaning toward thinking that FAA medical is doing this to answer to its government overlords and that FAA medical doesn't really want to do this.

AOPA says that in response to its letter the FAA is gonna have to 'splain to congress how they get to make rule changes without going through the rule change process.
 
AOPA says that in response to its letter the FAA is gonna have to 'splain to congress how they get to make rule changes without going through the rule change process.

There is no 'rule change process' for the medical standards. The FAS decides to change a rule (e.g. allowing pilots who are depressed but stable on treatment to fly), he changes the rule.

Yes, congress can force the FAA to go through the rulemaking process including an NPRM and comment period. The result will be a regulation published in the CFRs and the only way to get that regulation changed again will be another round of rulemaking.
 
There is no 'rule change process' for the medical standards. The FAS decides to change a rule (e.g. allowing pilots who are depressed but stable on treatment to fly), he changes the rule.

Yes, congress can force the FAA to go through the rulemaking process including an NPRM and comment period. The result will be a regulation published in the CFRs and the only way to get that regulation changed again will be another round of rulemaking.

That's the risk - allowing the FAS some lattitude or making it a regulation with no wiggle room.
 
So, what's LRPV?

Linear (or logistic) Regression probability value. The P value (probability value) associated with the linear (or logistic) regression line that defines your data sample. This probability value is used by researchers to define the likelihood that your sample's results are examples of normal variation within the population at large, as opposed to statistically significant deviation from the population measures.

Linear is straight linen on a linear table, logistic is a curved line on a linear table or a straight line on a log table. Sci guys like really really low probability values, so as to give power to their conclusions.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, what DO they hook up to you in a sleep study then? I'm assuming at least pulse ox, ECG, EEG, and something to measure breathing.

The above and a few additional items. Leg movement, snore monitor, eye movement. And the room is video monitored to catch any sleepwalking or excessive tossing and turning.

End result is to not only figure out OSA, but also measure quality/quantity of sleep.

Isn't there a cheaper and easier way than a full sleep study to determine whether OSA is present in a particular person?
There is. Interview anyone who has recently shared a bed or bedroom with the airman in question. If they report bad snoring and periods where breathing ceases and then there is a big catch up inhalation, there is a very good chance the airman has OSA.

But that would be more anecdotal and won't quantify the condition (light moderate or severe)
 
Last edited:
Linear (or logistic) Regression probability value. The P value (probability value) associated with the linear (or logistic) regression line that defines your data sample. This probability value is used by researchers to define the likelihood that your sample's results are examples of normal variation within the population at large, as opposed to statistically significant deviation from the population measures.

Linear is straight linen on a linear table, logistic is a curved line on a linear table or a straight line on a log table. Sci guys like really really low probability values, so as to give power to their conclusions.

Is it possible that you mean "logarithmic"?
 
AOPA says that in response to its letter the FAA is gonna have to 'splain to congress how they get to make rule changes without going through the rule change process.
Mike go read 67.313. That's how. Like ive said before, forcing it throug rule making will only enable faa to extort from congrss $$s to screen everyone down To bmi 36 because that is what the data show.

Morons...they are sealing the fate of making faa larger.
 
The above and a few additional items. Leg movement, snore monitor, eye movement. And the room is video monitored to catch any sleepwalking or excessive tossing and turning.

End result is to not only figure out OSA, but also measure quality/quantity of sleep.

There is. Interview anyone who has recently shared a bed or bedroom with the airman in question. If they report bad snoring and periods where breathing ceases and then there is a big catch up inhalation, there is a very good chance the airman has OSA.

But that would be more anecdotal and won't quantify the condition (light moderate or severe)

If I was on CPAP for OSA, I'd go ahead and O2 enrich. Maybe NOx lol.
 
Last edited:
Its very possible. I would have used that term. The googled instances I encountered did not, however.

I notice that my DUAT briefings include "location notams." I suspect that someone incorrectly interpreted "loc notams" or something of the sort.

Edit: My assumption is that in this case, what they are really referring to is "local notams."
 
Last edited:
Looks like the engineer on the recent train wreck may have fallen asleep. Wonder if he has a BMI over 40 and possibly a 17" neck. Hmmmmmm


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/0...at-more-than-80-mph-at-time-fatal-crash-ntsb/

william-rockefeller.jpg
 
Looks like the engineer on the recent train wreck may have fallen asleep. Wonder if he has a BMI over 40 and possibly a 17" neck. Hmmmmmm

That or texting.

When I saw them lugging him out of the debris field that was about the second thought that crossed my mind. The cutoff for best sensitivity specificity on BMI as a criterion for OSA screening is 33, just eyeballing him I would say he is just north of 35.
 
Bruce,

.....That's why I believe that I no longer suffer from any sort of OSA.

I do not repeatedly blow DA40 tires - The one I blew at your home base is the only DA40 tire I've ever blown. It was my fourth total airplane tire blown.

After you suggested that maybe this was due to me riding the brakes, I thought about it a lot and honestly considered it. I finally discounted it for two reasons:

1) I normally do not use brakes on landing at the home base because our shortest runway there is 5800 feet... And I'll easily roll 4000 feet on landing, which wouldn't happen if I was riding the brakes.

2) The nature of the incidents (below). If your "us at my home base" could provide some insight as to what you saw on the tube that you didn't tell me about, I'd be interested. But, be aware that there were dozens of other flights before my flight to Peoria that were flown by other pilots, so there may well have been pre-existing damage.

My four tire incidents:

1) C172 at MSN, right main, while I was a student pilot. CFI didn't even know what was wrong when I aborted the go, it'd been a good landing. I was told later that the shop said it was a defective inner tube. Both CFI and flight school manager/DPE complimented me on my handling of it.

2) C182 at MSN, left main. First landing on a brand new tire. It was incorrectly installed, and the shop at SBM that had just installed it actually paid for the shop at MSN to replace it - Do you think they'd have done that if they weren't at fault?

3) Citabria at IA40. This one was a tailwheel, so you can't blame it on my feet.

4) DA40 at 3MY. Already discussed.



I Googled it and came up with "Long Range Patrol Vehicle." Clearly not what you're trying to say. So, what's LRPV?

Also, thanks for providing the odds at 36, that's one of the reasons I was interested in seeing more detailed data. As you say, the odds are 50-50 that I'm not "just fine" - But that also means that the odds are 50-50 that I *am* just fine. If I had any symptoms at all, I'd head in for a sleep study ASAP.

Is there any reason I should pay $$$$ for a sleep study when there is no other indication? :dunno:

Also... And the main reason the policy itself concerns me - Isn't there a cheaper and easier way than a full sleep study to determine whether OSA is present in a particular person? I believe you or someone else mentioned something earlier in the thread somewhere. That's what we should be pushing for... Otherwise, we'll kill off GA entirely and this whole argument will be moot.

What I am trying to point out, the Kent refuses, is that you don't know what you don't know.

Everyone is so up in arms about sleep apnea- EXCEPT all the guys who are treated and have recovered effective sleep and "Zip".

I am trying to point out that repeatedly blowing tires is something about which you don't know why.....until someone else, with insight points it out- like our local mechanic, as in, Mike's dry observation: "uh, the valve stems are sheared. That doesn't happen unless your feet are resting on the tops of the pedals". It's always, "someone else's fault. x4". Possible- but unlikely.

So the mystery of the sting of blown tires is similar insofar as "you don't know what you don't know".

If I can't get through to Kent even using that anecdote, I give up. Line up when Dr. Tilton tells you to get screened. No, he's not going to kill GA. If you are not having effective sleep, you are at ETOH = 0.080 and our collective stats will get better as 90% of accidents are "pilot error". There are now index cases (NWA overflight, Reagan National ATC asleep) and it cannot be ignored when pilot error is 90%.

BTW LRPV stands for logistic regression of variables. Standard statistical tool. You're googling for a statistical concept essential in data analysis. So you plainly don't have that tool in your quiver.

And no, this data isn't on the internet. Epidemiology data comes from.....hospital records.
 
Last edited:
What I am trying to point out, the Kent refuses, is that you don't know what you don't know.

Everyone is so up in arms about sleep apnea- EXCEPT all the guys who are treated and have recovered effective sleep and "Zip".

I am trying to point out that repeatedly blowing tires is something about which you don't know why.....until someone else, with insight points it out- like our local mechanic, as in, Mike's dry observation: "uh, the valve stems are sheared. That doesn't happen unless your feet are resting on the tops of the pedals". It's always, "someone else's fault. x4". Possible- but unlikely.

So the mystery of the sting of blown tires is similar insofar as "you don't know what you don't know".

If I can't get through to Kent even using that anecdote, I give up. Line up when Dr. Tilton tells you to get screened. No, he's not going to kill GA. If you are not having effective sleep, you are at ETOH = 0.080 and our collective stats will get better as 90% of accidents are "pilot error". There are now index cases (NWA overflight, Reagan National ATC asleep) and it cannot be ignored when pilot error is 90%.

BTW LRPV stands for logistic regression of variables. Standard statistical tool. You're googling for a statistical concept essential in data analysis.

Well, not Zip, they basically say "dude, get over yourself, if this works on you, it's a game changer in improving your quality of life.
 
I can't get upload to work tonight. Everyone look up AAR 09/07 and read section 2.6. This dead pilot had his hands full.

NTSB thinks SA was contributory, even though not "highlined".
 
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