I'm sure I don't only speak for myself when I say, thank God for the system we have.
Seeking medical cert help!!
- Thread starter znorth53
- Start date
JohnWF
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 194
- Display Name
Display name:
John at Salida
I cannot help but reflect on all the ADHD and other mental/emotional problems folks have. As I recall my grade school days ( I am now 89-years old) the old nuns had a solution for all these things: A good whack with a ruler. If that didn't work, their next step was several more whacks, but this time harder. Worked almost all the time !!
ProjectInfinity1
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2016
- Messages
- 107
- Display Name
Display name:
Pags
Sure is easy dismiss and judge others, when you have your medical, not being denied for something totally out of the applicant’s control from birth. Yet seemingly able enough to drive, work in firearms, and have the FBI at the door, and deemed not a threat.
I’m glad you don’t make the rules, for I can imagine a situation of “Rights for me, But not for Thee.”
ProjectInfinity1
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2016
- Messages
- 107
- Display Name
Display name:
Pags
89? Wow bless you sir, my grandfather is 85 and I always say to him that I expect 100 years from him
Slightly off topic, but when did you get into aviation if I may ask?
So, no room for improvement?
Sure there is, but if it's keeping people with multiple major mental disorders out of the cockpit we are starting off on the right food. I don't bear any ill will to folks like the person I responded to, but they shouldn't be flying.
If I had several major mental illnesses I would have the exact same position that I have now. And none of us have any choices about how we are born.
Kenny Phillips
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2018
- Messages
- 5,636
- Display Name
Display name:
Kenny Phillips
And yet, in reality, it worked approximately never.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Remember, the agency can get your diagnosis, pharmacy and procedure codes...and anyone with a psych issue will be flagged to produce the entire record.....
But that was my point, Bruce. If someone has not already been diagnosed, it’s extremely unlikely that the aviation medical exam will detect mental illness.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
I’m sure I’ve failed to ring the bell on many , but I have correctly rung the bell on a handful....
There are always the super-obvious handful.
Given the number of POA members you’ve gotten approved, I’d speculate your miss rate is pretty high....
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
I suppose a psychologist could make a pretty good argument that the desire to fly in itself indicates some degree of mental instability. The same could be said for riding motorcycles, climbing mountains, skydiving, and other hazardous activities that require great investments of time and/or money and which yield only personal enjoyment and satisfaction in return. Investing time and incurring expenses for the sole purpose of placing one's life in danger for the sheer joy of it is hard to objectively explain in any way that doesn't hint of what most shrinks would label "mental illness."
So I guess it comes down to being in that part of the continuum wherein one is crazy enough to want to do it, but not so crazy that they can't do it.
Rich
Stan Cooper
Pattern Altitude
Sheer joy, personal enjoyment and satisfaction are only part of the reason many fly; there are also practical reasons like getting from point A to point B in half or a third of the time it takes to drive while avoiding the aggravation of bumper-to-bumper traffic on the trip.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
A lot of reasons people like to fly and a good point about risk-benefit tradeoffs.
In general there is of course no way to objectively say what is more valuable or “worth it” for someone else. Values are personal.
What one can try to do is decide is when someone’s actions have or imminently will endanger others. I have argued at length here that our current aeromedical regulations fail to improve the safety of flight, or more precisely, that there is no good evidence that they do so.
And I would argue that without clear evidence that they do so, we shouldn’t try and prevent others from pursuing their passions, whatever those might be.
Last edited:
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,038
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
Ok... just read this whole thread. I have a headache. I am in favor of regulations that prevent individuals from doing harm to other people. My enthusiasm for regulations that prevent individuals from potentially harming only themselves is considerably less. With aviation, there are so many variables that finding the appropriate tightrope to walk between the two is difficult to say the least. Should a person be able to fly whatever he/she wants to, whenever he/she wants to, as long as it's over and around unpopulated areas and they are alone... and are financially responsible for any public resources encumbered in cleaning up any possible mess aftewards? I'd argue yes, they should, but that's an almost impossible scenario anyway. Should someone who's a high stroke risk, alcoholic with multiple DWI convictions, and a history of suicide attempts be able to fly over a town with a couple passengers? I'd say no, and I doubt there'd be a need to argue for that stance. Sooo... where's the appropriate middle?
For most of my life, I drove on average probably 100 miles a day, usually with at least one passenger, and shared the small physical space that is our highways every day with hundreds of other motorists also driving vehicles that weighed at least one ton, and usually far more. On two-way roads, with vehicles bound in opposite directions both going 60mph, a head on collision would have been calamitous, and that possibility was there every few seconds. For the right to do this extremely dangerous activity, we had to take a 20-questions multiple choice test, prove we could see the first couple lines of letters on a wall, and take a short practical driver's test. That's it. The opportunity to harm others on the road is FAR greater than it is in the air (speaking of part 91, not airline or commercial ops).
I know the contrasting opinion to that has been stated before, and I can agree with and understand the reasoning behind the argument that cars themselves and car accidents in general are "safer" and more survivable than aircraft accidents; every landing (forced, accidental, or intended) is a contact between a stationary, massive object (the ground) and something moving at a relatively high rate of speed (the aircraft), so the potential for mishap is greater than when parking a car, obviously. That is a fair point.
We already have minimum training standards in place, far beyond those necessary to be allowed to drive a car. We already have examinations and practical tests in place, far beyond those necessary to be allowed to drive a car. If you are healthy enough to posess a driver's license, and mentally and physically capable of completing the training and certification necessary to obtain a PPL, then that should be enough for part 91. To be honest, I'd rather see the minimum standards raised for obtaining and keeping a driver's license.. that would make the roads AND the skies safer.
I am in favor of regulations that prevent individuals from doing harm to other people. My enthusiasm for regulations that prevent individuals from potentially harming only themselves is considerably less. With aviation, there are so many variables that finding the appropriate tightrope to walk between the two is difficult to say the least. Should a person be able to fly whatever he/she wants to, whenever he/she wants to, as long as it's over and around unpopulated areas and they are alone... and are financially responsible for any public resources encumbered in cleaning up any possible mess aftewards? I'd argue yes, they should, but that's an almost impossible scenario anyway. Should someone who's a high stroke risk, alcoholic with multiple DWI convictions, and a history of suicide attempts be able to fly over a town with a couple passengers? I'd say no, and I doubt there'd be a need to argue for that stance. Sooo... where's the appropriate middle?For most of my life, I drove on average probably 100 miles a day, usually with at least one passenger, and shared the small physical space that is our highways every day with hundreds of other motorists also driving vehicles that weighed at least one ton, and usually far more. On two-way roads, with vehicles bound in opposite directions both going 60mph, a head on collision would have been calamitous, and that possibility was there every few seconds. For the right to do this extremely dangerous activity, we had to take a 20-questions multiple choice test, prove we could see the first couple lines of letters on a wall, and take a short practical driver's test. That's it. The opportunity to harm others on the road is FAR greater than it is in the air (speaking of part 91, not airline or commercial ops).
I know the contrasting opinion to that has been stated before, and I can agree with and understand the reasoning behind the argument that cars themselves and car accidents in general are "safer" and more survivable than aircraft accidents; every landing (forced, accidental, or intended) is a contact between a stationary, massive object (the ground) and something moving at a relatively high rate of speed (the aircraft), so the potential for mishap is greater than when parking a car, obviously. That is a fair point.
We already have minimum training standards in place, far beyond those necessary to be allowed to drive a car. We already have examinations and practical tests in place, far beyond those necessary to be allowed to drive a car. If you are healthy enough to posess a driver's license, and mentally and physically capable of completing the training and certification necessary to obtain a PPL, then that should be enough for part 91. To be honest, I'd rather see the minimum standards raised for obtaining and keeping a driver's license.. that would make the roads AND the skies safer.
RJM62
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 13,157
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Display Name
Display name:
Geek on the Hill
Sheer joy, personal enjoyment and satisfaction are only part of the reason many fly; there are also practical reasons like getting from point A to point B in half or a third of the time it takes to drive while avoiding the aggravation of bumper-to-bumper traffic on the trip.
I projected a lot of myself into that post, Stan.
I was a XC solo and a checkride away from getting my ticket when the old lady and I split up, and I decided to move before she changed her mind. That's only partly a joke, by the way: I was born in the city but always wanted to live in the country. Jeannette, on the other hand, hated the country. As she had been the only reason I still lived in the city, I decided to carpe that diem and get gone.
I fully intended to finish once I settled down. But then I met a guy who had a few ultralights, but ten thumbs when it came to maintaining them. Eventually we made a barter deal: I could fly his birds all I wanted if I also maintained them. I quickly fell in love with trikes (weight-shift control), and have basically lost all desire to fly anything else. Other than takeoffs, landing, and old-school DR navigation, flying conventional airplanes just isn't as much fun for me as it used to be.
I sometimes toy with buying a Cub and finishing up, and I sometimes toy with the idea of starting all over again toward SP-WSC. That would at least allow me to take a passenger. But I doubt anyone I know would be interested in flying with me, anyway (nor am I at all sure that I'd want to take anyone I actually liked up with me); and I can fly UL trikes solo without the ticket.
Which, getting back to my post, probably makes me exceptionally crazy because trikes are among the most-dangerous and least practically-useful aircraft in the sky. They're slow, have limited range (especially 103-compliant ones), expose the pilot to the elements (you freeze your nads off in the winter), can kill you if it happens to rain, and majorly **** off raptors (especially during mating season) who can kill or maim you in multiple ways in retaliation.
They're a lot of fun, though. But is that fun worth the risk? I can't think of any rational argument that ends in "yes."
That's also how I used to feel about motorcyclists. Having seen more motorcycle accidents than anyone ever should, I long ago decided that bikers were crazy. But if they're crazy, then I'm even more so. At least motorcycles have a practical purpose.
Rich
You hit the nail on the head for the subtext of my comment. Once we get past things which are obvious to the layperson, we get into the same area as the rampant misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder and ADHD, and ultimately, if you don't conform, there must is something wrong with you.
azure
Final Approach
And this paragraph articulates very well the philosophy and motivation behind Basic Med, which, while not a perfect realization of that philosophy, still brings us much closer to that reality than we were 3 years ago. Yes, it does require that a physician examine you and determine that you are safe to fly, so there is a slightly higher standard being applied than for driving, but I don't think it is higher by a huge margin. In the spirit of your last sentence, I would say that anyone who cannot get a Basic Med signoff probably isn't healthy enough to be driving a car on the highway, either.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,038
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
Either that, or they have a doctor with a lot of misconceptions, misgivings, and unfounded fears about aviation and BasicMed. I agree with your opinion completely.
azure
Final Approach
Which is why I wrote "cannot get"... because of course they might have a misinformed doctor. But if they really can't get the signoff from anyone, then they likely have something that would interfere with their ability to safely drive a car, not just fly an airplane.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Or if given the opportunity and requirement, same doc wouldn’t sign off on them driving, either. LOL.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Of course there is the bigger initial hurdle which is a large variance from that philosophy - the requirement for the initial 3rd class. Which then brings up all the “have you ever in your life” questions.
And then the fact that if you fill out the medical app and are denied you can’t fly LSA whereas if you didn’t do so, so still can snafu.
Agreed it is a big improvement, hopefully more improvements can still be made.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
I think Dr. Chien actually had made a fairly good case that signing off on BasicMed is really outside the scope of most physician’s practice and will leave them open to substantial liability. Lucky for pilots most Drs don’t see it that way but there may be a case on it some day.
What I'd like to know is this: Have physicians been getting sued for BasicMed signoffs yet, and if so, what percentage of the suits have been successful?
I realize that it may be too soon to tell. Perhaps a better question would be whether physicians doing BasicMed exams have insurance coverage for it, and if so, how much of a premium increase are they seeing above their coverage for treating patients.
I realize that it may be too soon to tell. Perhaps a better question would be whether physicians doing BasicMed exams have insurance coverage for it, and if so, how much of a premium increase are they seeing above their coverage for treating patients.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
If that were the case, they wouldn’t be signing off on workplace physicals, drug testing, or the kiddies to play sports.
Is the liability really any higher than signing off a kid to play football who drops dead of a heart condition on the field?
Other than the “ooh scary airplanes!” part, that is?
Concur. Liability concerns seem to me to be much ado about nothing. Physicians already have such high liability, and pay such a fortune for insurance, that signing a Basic Med form for a couple of pilots would seem to be a drop in the ocean.
Lots of physicians will approve DOT physicals that allow a person to drive a tanker truck filled with gasoline, or to haul all other sorts of hazardous chemicals. The risk of a semi flattening a busload of school kids seems much greater than a crashing 172.
I used a walk-in clinic for my Basic Med because of the wait to get an appt with my PCP, but my PCP said he would have no problem signing it. He already wrote a letter regarding my fitness to fly when I was getting my 3rd class, so I can't imagine he wouldn't do Basic Med for me.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
My understanding is there has been no case yet.
Would presumably require a BasicMed pilot to have a significant accident with a large loss that was arguably due to medical incapacitation.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
I suspect the Docs who won’t do it are concerned about two things. Their liability insurance only covers things within their scope of practice. Secondly the airline business is much more litigious with larger potential awards than a high school sports physical.
MuseChaser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
- Messages
- 2,038
- Display Name
Display name:
MuseChaser
First... shaddup and quit scaring potential BasicMed-signing doctors...
Second...I doubt very many airline pilots are flying on BasicMed...
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Second...I doubt very many airline pilots are flying on BasicMed...
You’re right. Of course I meant aviation business.
denverpilot
Tied Down
You’re not flying for an airline on BasicMed. Was that a typo?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Not even really flying on business for the most part.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Right. I just meant anything to do with aviation generally has greater potential liability than a high school sports physical. More expensive equipment, more possible damage to others, etc. Accidents involving aviation often involve a lot of expensive lawsuits.
Now compare the potential liability to that for operating a large semi truck in traffic.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Not really. Seen any light GA accidents hit any school busses full of children and nuns? It’s an OWT.
This.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
But who does the physicals for the truck drivers? And is doing so explicitly in their scope of practice? Or is it somehow mentioned explicitly in their insurance? I don’t know the answers but my understanding is that that will be the functional question for insurance liability.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Well considering there’s an RV parked at a local truck stop that says “DOT physicals” I’m going to take a guess they aren’t buying high end liability coverage. LOL.
PeterNSteinmetz
Ejection Handle Pulled
Probably not. The question here is, are the doctors providing those exposed to liability for accidents in the trucks arguably caused by their failure to correctly perform them?
There are several ways they might be shielded from that.
1. By statute. The laws requiring these physicals may explicitly shield the physicians from liability.
2. Scope of practice. Providing DOT physicals may be explicitly listed in the scope of practice which the practitioners are licensed for and consequently their normal malpractice insurance may cover it.
3. Explicit insurance. The malpractice insurance carried by the practitioners may explicitly list DOT physicals as one of the items covered.
I don’t know if any of these apply for DOT physicals. However, my understanding is that the problem with the Basic Med exams is that none of the above mechanisms of shielding liability applies to those exams.
It is possible I suppose that none apply either to the DOT physicals and people just don’t worry about it in that case but some doctors do in the case of aviation due to prejudice, unfamiliarity, etc, but that is not what I have heard from thoughtful people.