Incapacitated southwest capt

[ahmad]

I'm sure everyone has heard about this incident by now. Capt is only 47 years old. Don't know exactly what happened to him but sounds like he fainted during flight. Can't imagine the scrutiny he'll face to be on the clear again by the FAA.

 

[hindsight2020]

According to the brain trust at work, swa ltd is no bueno.

 

[Piperonca]

That sucks.

 

[Zeldman]

Don't know exactly what happened to him

He had the fish dinner.??

 

[eman1200]

He had the fish dinner.??

“Jim never faints at home”

 

[hindsight2020]

It's also a sobering reminder that the whole notion of flexing about lifetime compensation on this career is presumptuous to a fault, especially in the context of lower paying occupations that aren't beholden to medical certification.

Elated to hear the system worked. This will continue to be support for two pilot operations in large pax carriage. For full disclosure, as a career flight instructor and sport of kings practitioner, i continue to support the legal protection of single pilot operations where deemed appropriate. Life ain't fair and a single standard of safety doesn't exist, good bad or indifferent.

 

[mandm]

So do they make the announcement on the PA, any pilots aboard? I guess I’m waiting for the day this happens and I get to fly the airplane, but someone else will probably trump my qualifications

 

[Palmpilot]

So do they make the announcement on the PA, any pilots aboard? I guess I’m waiting for the day this happens and I get to fly the airplane, but someone else will probably trump my qualifications

Based on news reports, the trend seems to be that the pilot-pax who gets called to the front works the radios.

 

[kayoh190]

Sheesh....47. There was a time not too long ago that I'd consider that age to be 'up there', but I'm getting to the point where it's gonna be upon me before I know it. Better LTD can't come soon enough (ours sucks too), but I figure a nice sized war chest is always a good play. You never know.

 

[texasclouds]

This is an excellent reminder to all of us that we have a duty as pilots to advise the crew whenever flying on an airliner.

 

[hindsight2020]

I got a guy at work on a heart ablation waiver, going through the SI process early on the civilian side; currently mil leave from said AAirline. 38 years old, been grounded for like 18 months going on two years. We got cancers all over the place, around late 40 to mid 50s. DoD just came out with a mealy-mouthed acknowledgement we are are a higher risk than the gen pop for all sorts of cancers. This is my shocked face.

Most have been able to get back with a fair amount of handwaving, paperpushing and a whole lot of waiting around. Others not so much (eye cancer, almost got him completely, lost medical and one eye, saved the other, good LTD (UA) made more sense for him, plus aversion to the cockpit given the carcinogenic environment of high altitude/duration airline work). Like clockwork, uncle sammy tried to suggest wasn't service connected. They were able to medical retire him and give him the VA payments he earned.

To say nothing of the laundry list of -ish and nit noid maladies we're straight up lying about until retirement because the system isn't built to take care of your family nor promote health transparency.

BL, I didn't need to enter my 40s to know this boomer rationalization of stiffing us social net payments with extended retirement ages for the late GenXers and beyond, and the whole you're gonna live to 100 and bang hot chicks at 70 with the lower back of a 20yo, was the utter ladder-pulling BS I always knew it to be. On queue, we're falling off the iceberg at the same predictable pace than our smoking, charred-steak eating, coal-rolling leaded gas sniffing, sailor-cursing ancestors. This stuff is all a sleigh of hand and enviro/genetic lottery, and I wasn't about to eff around like a Pollyanna and find out. I'm out of the cosmic/WOCL cancer box business by 55, retirement money or no money. Let my nurse wife pull the ox cart that is this household for a while, I believe I've earned it.

 

[texasclouds]

@hindsight2020 i want to subscribe to your mailer

 

[TCABM]

…. We got cancers all over the place, around late 40 to mid 50s.….
Most have been able to get back with a fair amount of handwaving, paperpushing and a whole lot of waiting around.…

When I had my melanoma, I was at Aviano; the flight doc asked USAFE if a waiver was needed and was told nope, could go back on flight status with path note of clear margins. After coming back CONUS, the first flight doc that saw me grounded me wanted to know why I had no waiver; I told him to call USAFE/SG and walked out facing a med board. Within a month, I got a waiver stating return to status, worldwide deployable.

When I went to renew my FAA class III, the FAA wanted the entire medical history of the event, to include all the notes from every follow up skin exam and path reports for every single benign biopsy. They got a little over two inches of military flip paper just for that, even though I was able to be issued in office according to their own policy. Something like six months later, I got a letter from OKC reminding me to continue the exams and report all findings at my next medical application.

I just laughed in BasicMed.

 

[hindsight2020]

I just laughed in BasicMed.

QFT cuz I can't like it twice. The wife thinks I'll just kick rocks for a while, "grow up", and join the rest of the in the carbon copy hordes to you know where. I just don't think my heart's on it anymore on the medical kabuki front. I'm tired of dancing and the what if game. I get sweat from aeromed one time and I'm done.

 

[Half Fast]

When I went to renew my FAA class III, the FAA wanted the entire medical history of the event, to include all the notes from every follow up skin exam and path reports for every single benign biopsy.

Yep. I’ve had a few squamous cells and a bunch of benign biopsies over the years, and that required 170 pages of dermatology records to satisfy the FAA. I guess they’re responding to all those crashes caused by sudden-onset squamous cell carcinoma.

I just laughed in BasicMed.

Amen and amen! One and done, Basic Med from now on.

OKC is out of control and largely incompetent. If the OKC docs were brain surgeons they’d be doing brain surgery, instead of working as paper-pushing civil service bureaucrats who never actually see or treat a patient.

I will NEVER play FAA medical roulette again. If the time comes when I can’t renew Basic Med, I’ll buy an LSA if I want to keep flying.

 

[mandm]

Yeah but doesn’t the FAA also allow the basicMed option? So it is still playing their game but with easier rules with more restrictions?

 

[Half Fast]

Yeah but doesn’t the FAA also allow the basicMed option? So it is still playing their game but with easier rules with more restrictions?

Nope.

Basic Med is not an FAA medical; it’s a law enacted by Congress so the FAA cannot change it. It’s not “their game.” The FAA receives no medical information whatsoever and has no opportunity to review it or disapprove it or apply non-standard “standards” to it or demand more information or require unnecessary testing et cetera ad nauseum.

 

[Palmpilot]

Nope.

Basic Med is not an FAA medical; it’s a law enacted by Congress so the FAA cannot change it. It’s not “their game.” The FAA receives no medical information whatsoever and has no opportunity to review it or disapprove it or apply non-standard “standards” to it or demand more information or require unnecessary testing et cetera ad nauseum.

My understanding is that the FAA can make the BasicMed regulations less restrictive than what Congress passed, but not more restrictive. That's why they were able to adopt a regulation that allows BasicMed pilots to act as safety pilots without acting as pilot-in-command.

 

[Half Fast]

My understanding is that the FAA can make the BasicMed regulations less restrictive than what Congress passed, but not more restrictive. That's why they were able to adopt a regulation that allows BasicMed pilots to act as safety pilots without acting as pilot-in-command.

I'm not sure that's correct. I don't think they could drop the 1-time requirement for a 3rd class, for example. The safety pilot thing wasn't a change to Basic Med; it was a change to the regs for required flight crew members, IIRC.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm not sure that's correct. I don't think they could drop the 1-time requirement for a 3rd class, for example. The safety pilot thing wasn't a change to Basic Med; it was a change to the regs for required flight crew members, IIRC.

The legislation requires the FAA to allow certain things, provided certain requirements are met. It doesn't prohibit the FAA from allowing other things.

 

[Half Fast]

The legislation requires the FAA to allow certain things, provided certain requirements are met. It doesn't prohibit the FAA from allowing other things.

Sorta, but I don't believe the FAA can make Basic Med "less restrictive" as you said in post #18. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. The Basic Med legislation is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text . Scroll down to SEC. 2307. <<NOTE: 49 USC 44703 note.>> MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT PILOTS.

I don't see where the FAA can make Basic Med itself less restrictive without further legislation. I'm willing to learn, though, so please point it out if you see such a provision.

The FAA can, however, change other regs to allow Basic Med instead of, say, a Class 3 to do certain things. That's what they did for Safety Pilots. There was no restriction on that within Basic Med itself; the restriction came from the reg about required crew members, which the FAA is free to change on its own.

 

[Palmpilot]

Sorta, but I don't believe the FAA can make Basic Med "less restrictive" as you said in post #18. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. The Basic Med legislation is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text . Scroll down to SEC. 2307. <<NOTE: 49 USC 44703 note.>> MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT PILOTS.

I don't see where the FAA can make Basic Med itself less restrictive without further legislation. I'm willing to learn, though, so please point it out if you see such a provision.

The FAA can, however, change other regs to allow Basic Med instead of, say, a Class 3 to do certain things. That's what they did for Safety Pilots. There was no restriction on that within Basic Med itself; the restriction came from the reg about required crew members, which the FAA is free to change on its own.

It's in the first sentence of Section 2307(a):

SEC. 2307. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT
PILOTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise regulations to ensure that
an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
if—
[List of conditions]​

As I pointed out, it requires the FAA to allow certain things if the conditions are met. Notice that the list of conditions is NOT preceded by "if and only if." That is why I'm saying that if the FAA wanted to, they could, through the NPRM process, allow people to exercise privileges without requiring everything in the list of conditions.

@midlifeflyer and @Lindberg, am I interpreting this correctly?

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's in the first sentence of Section 2307(a):

SEC. 2307. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIRCRAFT
PILOTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall issue or revise regulations to ensure that
an individual may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
if—
[List of conditions]​

As I pointed out, it requires the FAA to allow certain things if the conditions are met. Notice that the list of conditions is NOT preceded by "if and only if." That is why I'm saying that if the FAA wanted to, they could, through the NPRM process, allow people to exercise privileges without requiring everything in the list of conditions.

@midlifeflyer and @Lindberg, am I interpreting this correctly?

Yes. The BasicMed statute sets a minimum. It does not prevent the FAA from liberalizing it or creating something different so long as it does not impose additional restrictions. That type of legislation is common. The one most familiar to people is in the banking arena. Federal consumer protection laws do not prevent states from providing addition protections.

Funny, I've heard @Half Fast's view before. It was in a discussion a few years ago about the safety pilot anomaly. They insisted that the FAA couldn't fix it because it went against the legislation which only covered PIC. Cant expand it to safety pilots who were not acting as PIC. You know, the anomaly the FAA fixed this past year?

 

[Half Fast]

Yes. The BasicMed statute sets a minimum. It does not prevent the FAA from liberalizing it or creating something different so long as it does not impose additional restrictions. That type of legislation is common. The one most familiar to people is in the banking arena. Federal consumer protection laws do not prevent states from providing addition protections.

Funny, I've heard @Half Fast's view before. It was in a discussion a few years ago about the safety pilot anomaly. They insisted that the FAA couldn't fix it because it went against the legislation which only covered PIC. Cant expand it to safety pilots who were not acting as PIC. You know, the anomaly the FAA fixed this past year?

The safety pilot limitation was not imposed by Basic Med in the first place.

Basic Med has an altitude limit of 18kft. Are you saying the FAA could raise it to 25kft without Congress changing the law?

 

[jbarrass]

The easiest thing would be to eliminate the 3rd class all together. The have now formally admitted that there is no difference in accidents between Basicmed pilots than those with 3rd class. And of course the no medical types of flight (SP, Glider, etc).

...not to mention the benefit to 1st and 2nd class with the reduction in workload and presumably faster SI process.

 

[Half Fast]

The easiest thing would be to eliminate the 3rd class all together. The have now formally admitted that there is no difference in accidents between Basicmed pilots than those with 3rd class. And of course the no medical types of flight (SP, Glider, etc).

...not to mention the benefit to 1st and 2nd class with the reduction in workload and presumably faster SI process.

Agreed.

But I don’t expect OKC to give up any small bit of authority willingly. It will be very difficult to get them to say (in effect), “We’re adding no value so we should bow out.” Entrenched bureaucracies tend to dig deeper trenches, not slither out of them.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The safety pilot limitation was not imposed by Basic Med in the first place.

Really? The BasicMed legislation only applied to private pilots acting as PIC. Now it applies to private pilots who are not acting as PIC. You don't see expanding it to cover a different pilot operation as an expansion of the statutory mandate? I sure do.

Basic Med has an altitude limit of 18kft. Are you saying the FAA could raise it to 25kft without Congress changing the law?

Absolutely. They never had to mimic the legislation to begin with. The FAA could have done what the alphabet organizations were pushing for - wipie out the third class medical for private pilot operations entirely.

Can they change the statute itself? Of course not. But there is absolutely nothing in Section 2307 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 that prevents the FAA from creating medical rules for pilots, so long as they are not more restrictive of private pilots acting as PIC of certain airplanes.

 

[Daleandee]

Well ... you just wait until the MOSAIC for Light Sport comes out this year *cough* ...

"The FAA had previously indicated that they were working on a congressionally mandated deadline of September 30, 2023, for the MOSAIC package. However, this mandate specifically applied to new uncrewed aerial systems (UAS, or “drone”) regulations. With FAA Acting Administrator Billy Nolen saying during his address that he wanted to narrow the scope of MOSAIC, the 2023 mandate cannot be relied upon to deliver LSA and sport pilot reform. The fact that the FAA went on record as having an August 2023 deadline for an NPRM in relation to the EAA community’s priorities is a very positive development."

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...aviation-news/news/meet-the-faa-administrator

 

[hindsight2020]

told ya.

 

[Dana]

So, one more "we'll announce something at Oshkosh this year", until Oshkosh comes and goes again with no news.

 

[bflynn]

Well ... you just wait until the MOSAIC for Light Sport comes out this year *cough* ...

"The FAA had previously indicated that they were working on a congressionally mandated deadline of September 30, 2023, for the MOSAIC package. However, this mandate specifically applied to new uncrewed aerial systems (UAS, or “drone”) regulations. With FAA Acting Administrator Billy Nolen saying during his address that he wanted to narrow the scope of MOSAIC, the 2023 mandate cannot be relied upon to deliver LSA and sport pilot reform. The fact that the FAA went on record as having an August 2023 deadline for an NPRM in relation to the EAA community’s priorities is a very positive development."

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...aviation-news/news/meet-the-faa-administrator

That's weird. As I understood it, the sticking point was UAS.

Drawing a performance based line could be simple. Start with the basicmed standard of 6000 lbs, 5 passengers or less. Modify that to exclude aircraft that require add ons and endorsements like ifr, complex, and high power which don't don't already apply to sport today. Now sport pilots can fly more sturdy and reliable aircraft vfr during the day and sport can become a stepping stone to private for those who want to do more. Easy, so I predict they won't do it.

Hey President Biden, can I be Administrator?