The medical issue and rogue pilots

Lots of ways to fly without a medical some legit some not so much. Me I will fly until I can't anymore one way or the other. Would prefer it be legit.
 
A medical cert doesn't make you worthy to fly. Not possessing a medical doesn't necessarily make you unworthy. Most pilots have self-grounded for illness or injury. What I'd find interesting is a review of self-grounding and how it might differ between pilots with medicals and those legally flying without. There's no good way to gather that information, though. Personally I doubt there's a significant difference. And that supports my attitude for dismissal of the third class medical.
 
mryan75 said:
No, but having your life insurance invalidated (or your aircraft insurance), you being sued, your estate being sued, etc. does change things.
Click to expand...

100% agree there. OTOH, if you have no next of kin, have at it.
 
Stewartb said:
A medical cert doesn't make you worthy to fly. Not possessing a medical doesn't necessarily make you unworthy. Most pilots have self-grounded for illness or injury. What I'd find interesting is a review of self-grounding and how it might differ between pilots with medicals and those legally flying without. There's no good way to gather that information, though. Personally I doubt there's a significant difference. And that supports my attitude for dismissal of the third class medical.
Click to expand...

So there's no good way to gather the data, but it supports your position for ending the class III? :D

I personally would guess (and it's just that) that there is a difference. A big one. Someone who has no problem knowingly and willfully breaking the law is less likely to stand down because they took OTC allergy meds in my opinion.
 
mryan75 said:
So there's no good way to gather the data, but it supports your position for ending the class III? :D

I personally would guess (and it's just that) that there is a difference. A big one. Someone who has no problem knowingly and willfully breaking the law is less likely to stand down because they took OTC allergy meds in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Having no way to validate the practice of medical issuance is good reason to eliminate it, yes. Duh.
 
Terry L in KY said:
I'd imagine your insurance company might have something to say should you try and file a claim without a current medical.
Click to expand...

Very possibly. I gave an opinion to an insurance carrier that there was no coverage for a loss because the plane was out of annual. They still paid.
 
mryan75 said:
Someone who has no problem knowingly and willfully breaking the law is less likely to stand down because they took OTC allergy meds in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Just a supposition on your part. Medical or not, I believe most sane pilots will self ground if they feel they aren't capable of being PIC.

Of course there will always be the drugged up (like your Doctor example) or those with a death wish (Germanwings), but having a valid medical didn't prevent those accidents.
 
Yeti Niner Five said:
It seems to me that the bigger risk is the threat of litigation following an accident. If someone gets hurt or suffers significant property damage, and the pilot is flying illegally, it could go very badly (very costly).
Click to expand...

Possibly. I had a case (a mid-air collision) in Cincinnati where one pilot's medical had lapsed. The fact that his medical expired may not have ever gotten to the jury, had it been tried. It's generally irrelevant to the cause of the accident, unless you have medical evidence that the condition affected the ability of the pilot. In the end, there wasn't enough insurance to go around, so it finally got settled after the widows finally tired of glaring at each other during all of the depositions and came to their senses and took the little bit of money that was available.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Just a supposition on your part. Medical or not, I believe most sane pilots will self ground if they feel they aren't capable of being PIC.
Click to expand...

Supposition on everyone's part, yes.

Bill Jennings said:
Of course there will always be the drugged up (like your Doctor example) or those with a death wish (Germanwings), but having a valid medical didn't prevent those accidents.
Click to expand...

Correct, having a valid medical did not prevent either accident/incident (it just occurred to me how odd it is that we refer to the Germanwings event as an accident). But again, there are different ways of looking at both the cause and the solution (and I can tell you what the German solution will be, and it's not less regulation). To say that a rule or regulation is ineffective because there is one failure (or 10, or 100, or 1,000) and should therefore be repealed doesn't hold water. Don't believe me? Take murder laws, for example.
 
PPC1052 said:
Possibly. I had a case (a mid-air collision) in Cincinnati where one pilot's medical had lapsed. The fact that his medical expired may not have ever gotten to the jury, had it been tried. It's generally irrelevant to the cause of the accident, unless you have medical evidence that the condition affected the ability of the pilot. In the end, there wasn't enough insurance to go around, so it finally got settled after the widows finally tired of glaring at each other during all of the depositions and came to their senses and took the little bit of money that was available.
Click to expand...

I realize you did qualify your statement with "may not have", but I bet opposing counsel would have a different opinion. :D
 
mryan75 said:
I realize you did qualify your statement with "may not have", but I bet opposing counsel would have a different opinion. :D
Click to expand...

Very possibly.

In many states, if a driver of a vehicle is in an accident, and has no drivers license, that fact is excluded from the jury. Same issue.
 
PPC1052 said:
Very possibly.

In many states, if a driver of a vehicle is in an accident, and has no drivers license, that fact is excluded from the jury. Same issue.
Click to expand...

That's bizarre. How can that not be considered extremely relevant?
 
I have a vision problem that manifests itself occasionally, that I know would prevent me from passing my medical. I talked to the ME who gives me my flight physical about it before I even went in to get my physical, and he told me that I could probably still get a my medical, but that there would have to be tests and documentation, to the tune of $2800, and that even then, it would only be good until the next physical. So I don't fly anymore. Flying is expensive enough, without paying to get around a problem that could kill me and anybody flying with me. Because I know. But I find it interesting how many pilots tell me that I can still fly light sport, as I have not really been denied a medical. According to them anyway. I've also had pilots advise me to just not tell the ME. Even though I've been treated for it. Honestly, I do not know why anyone in their right mind would do something like that. I know that with the condition that I have, I sure don't want to be flying. And, at least in my mind, killing myself in a Light Sport wouldn't be any more difficult than killing myself in a bigger airplane, so I don't see much benefit in flying a littler one. But I know pilots who would, and know pilots who are flying both GA and Light Sport who have conditions that could be serious. I've found that pilots with conditions, like to talk about getting around them, to other pilots with conditions. I've sat in pilot's lounge, drinking coffee, and listened to pilots compare notes on how to get around it.
 
Last edited:
There are three kinds of "conditions" that affect pilots' ability to fly:

1. Conditions that are actually disabling, or impairing, or potentially causative of sudden incapacitation (e.g. vertigo, vasovagal syncope, dementia, unstable angina)

2. Conditions that the FAA considers disqualifying because there is even a remote chance of progression to something potentially incapacitating (e.g. basal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, irritable bowel syndrome)

3. Conditions from the first two categories that the airman doesn't actually have but carries a diagnosis anyway as a result of medical incompetence or creative coding. Sometimes category 3 diagnoses can be disproved, but not always.

If you're talking about pilots with category 1 conditions talking about how to get around the FAA's regulations, then yeah that strikes me as negligent and maybe a little suicidal. But there are a lot of pilots who fall into categories 2 and 3, and frankly, I don't see anything remotely irresponsible about trying to find (legal) ways around the regs on those conditions. I wouldn't even consider ratting on someone who was doing it illegally either. I see it as all part of the overreach of the FAA's medical bureaucracy and reasons why we need 3rd class reform.
 
Last edited:
Bill Jennings said:
So, as some of us wait for some kind of supposed medical reform, I wonder what percentage of spamcan pilots are rogue pilots, i.e., flying without a valid medical. Anyone want to hazard a guess?
Click to expand...

10-20% no medical, no annual, would be my guess.
 
I love my family and would never do anything to harm them, like flying them when I know I could keel over and kill us all. I would also be wary of flying illegally because of the liability, again, hurting my family. Having said that, I am at an age and with enough "ouch, that hurts" kind of things, to know that I could be denied. I always do a consultation first and when my AME finally tells me that it aint gonna happen, I wont try and as long as I feel that I can safely fly, I will under LSA rules.
 
Katamarino said:
I fail to see the relevance of those to the seemingly pointless third class medical.
Click to expand...

Simple, the connection is insurability. In order to issue premiums that lead to profits, insurance actuaries need to be able to have valid base assumptions. Our training for licenses, medicals, and aircraft certification and inspection; all that is to provide the baseline assumptions of qualifications and conditions so they can figure your premium.

You can't just throw open overnight the "No 3rd Class Required rule." You have to give the insurance industry time to recalculate and catch up. That's where you'll find the hard numbers on how many accidents involved people with no medicals, and what the rate of causality to the casualty there was. It's the insurance industry that's the repository for this data. What will tell the answer is what happens to premiums for those who continue to operate without a medical when/if the change comes. SP/LSA has been a window into developing the statistics for this.
 
mryan75 said:
That's bizarre. How can that not be considered extremely relevant?
Click to expand...

Because the issue is whether the driver did something wrong to caused the accident, not whether the state registered him as a driver. Your thinking is exactly why courts would exclude it. If a guy with no license is T-boned by a drunk driver who ran a red light, what does the lack of a license have to do with anything?
 
Henning said:
10-20% no medical, no annual, would be my guess.
Click to expand...
Then no-medical pilots must be 10 to 20 times better than pilots with valid medicals based on how often they show up in the NTSB data base.



The available data does not appear to support the assumption that there are a lot of "them" out there (or that eliminating the third class medical will have a significant effect on accident rates).
 
mikeinbama said:
I love my family and would never do anything to harm them, like flying them when I know I could keel over and kill us all. I would also be wary of flying illegally because of the liability, again, hurting my family. Having said that, I am at an age and with enough "ouch, that hurts" kind of things, to know that I could be denied. I always do a consultation first and when my AME finally tells me that it aint gonna happen, I wont try and as long as I feel that I can safely fly, I will under LSA rules.
Click to expand...

I have never seen "ouch that hurts" issues be a problem on medicals, I have plenty and can still pull a First Class.:lol:
 
Yeti Niner Five said:
It seems to me that the bigger risk is the threat of litigation following an accident.
Click to expand...

The threat of litigation has absolutely nothing to do with a medical or even being licensed.

Ah, I see someone already addressed that point.
 
Last edited:
mryan75 said:
That's bizarre. How can that not be considered extremely relevant?
Click to expand...

Because a piece of government-issued paper or plastic has no magical qualities. It doesn't change the facts about the manner in which the driver(s) or pilot(s) controlled their respective machines.

Rich
 
"Rule books are paper - They will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal." - Ernest K. Gann, Fate is the Hunter
 
PPC1052 said:
Because the issue is whether the driver did something wrong to caused the accident, not whether the state registered him as a driver. Your thinking is exactly why courts would exclude it. If a guy with no license is T-boned by a drunk driver who ran a red light, what does the lack of a license have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Well first of all that's a completely unique scenario, I thought we were discussing an accident where which driver was at fault was in question. But in any scenario, I fail to see how doing something illegal is not relevant.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Then no-medical pilots must be 10 to 20 times better than pilots with valid medicals based on how often they show up in the NTSB data base.

The available data does not appear to support the assumption that there are a lot of "them" out there (or that eliminating the third class medical will have a significant effect on accident rates).
Click to expand...

The issue of no-medical pilots isn't the complete story. There are puh-lenty of pilots who show up in accident reports who obtained their medical through lying, i.e. had they been honest on their application they would have been denied (which they knew, hence the dishonesty). They count for the "no-medical" stats in my opinion.
 
garyb said:
The threat of litigation has absolutely nothing to do with a medical or even being licensed.

Ah, I see someone already addressed that point.
Click to expand...

So says the defense attorney. Any decent lawyer can argue both sides of any case.
 
RJM62 said:
Because a piece of government-issued paper or plastic has no magical qualities. It doesn't change the facts about the manner in which the driver(s) or pilot(s) controlled their respective machines.

Rich
Click to expand...

I think that depends entirely on the scenario.
 
mryan75 said:
But in any scenario, I fail to see how doing something illegal is not relevant.
Click to expand...

That people share your thinking is exactly why it's excluded-- unduly prejudicial, and has no probative value. A basic rule of evidence is that you can't use evidence of unrelated negligence to prove that a person was negligent with respect to the facts in issue. Here, the piece of paper makes no difference as to which driver is at fault.

How about if both drivers claim they had the green light. One doesn't have a license. Does that mean that that driver is not telling the truth?
 
Last edited:
mryan75 said:
I think that depends entirely on the scenario.
Click to expand...

I would agree, which is why I excluded from my statement above any accidents in which there is evidence that the medical issue was causally related to the accident.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Actually it's not. At least I don't think it is. At least not if your implying that it's representative of how many rogue pilots are out there.

The reason being...

Almost all rogue pilots I knew flew locally only, at most a 100nm trip to a fly-in, and only on nice VFR days. These aren't the type of trips that generate accident reports.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that rogue pilots typically engage in excellent risk management and mitigation techniques and therefore are less likely to have an accident than a non-rogue pilot.

You may have something there.
 
SkyDog58 said:
So what you are saying is that rogue pilots typically engage in excellent risk management and mitigation techniques and therefore are less likely to have an accident than a non-rogue pilot.

You may have something there.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think there is a lot of truth to it.
 
PPC1052 said:
I would agree, which is why I excluded from my statement above any accidents in which there is evidence that the medical issue was causally related to the accident.
Click to expand...

The paper is still irrelevant. The knowledge of the medical condition may be relevant, but the paper isn't. The paper doesn't make the pilot fit, nor does the lack of the paper make the pilot unfit.

Rich
 
mryan75 said:
The issue of no-medical pilots isn't the complete story. There are puh-lenty of pilots who show up in accident reports who obtained their medical through lying, i.e. had they been honest on their application they would have been denied (which they knew, hence the dishonesty). They count for the "no-medical" stats in my opinion.
Click to expand...

First you need to define what you mean by "puh-lenty", I am not familiar with that term. I am assuming it references a certain quantity or percentage of a given group. Next, please provide evidence to your assertion that there is some proof that this defined quantity of pilots involved in accidents lied on their medicals.
 
SkyDog58 said:
First you need to define what you mean by "puh-lenty", I am not familiar with that term. I am assuming it references a certain quantity or percentage of a given group. Next, please provide evidence to your assertion that there is some proof that this defined quantity of pilots involved in accidents lied on their medicals.
Click to expand...

There's an Aerostar crash in Colorado that is an excellent read on this topic. You can probably find a link in the forum archives.
 
SkyDog58 said:
First you need to define what you mean by "puh-lenty", I am not familiar with that term. I am assuming it references a certain quantity or percentage of a given group. Next, please provide evidence to your assertion that there is some proof that this defined quantity of pilots involved in accidents lied on their medicals.
Click to expand...

SAN FRANCISCO, July 19 - Prosecutors in Northern California have charged 46 pilots with lying to federal authorities to obtain airplane licenses, in most cases not disclosing debilitating illnesses that should have kept them grounded.
The pilots, who were indicted this week by grand juries in the eastern and northern federal districts of California, were identified during an 18-month criminal air traffic safety investigation by the Department of Transportation and the Social Security Administration that looked into licensed pilots who were also receiving disability benefits and payments from the government.
The investigation, initiated in July 2003, included a review of more than 40,000 pilot licenses issued in Northern California to determine whether there had been any misuse or abuse of Social Security numbers. The authorities reviewed licenses held by both commercial and private pilots and found that some license applicants claimed to be medically fit to fly an airplane yet were simultaneously receiving disability benefits.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/us/us-says-46-pilots-lied-to-obtain-their-licenses.html?_r=0
 
mryan75 said:
I think that depends entirely on the scenario.
Click to expand...

I don't. I haven't yet encountered a machine that responded differently to human control input based on whether or not the human possessed a slip of paper bearing a bureaucracy's logo.

You have much, much more faith in the efficacy of government-issued scraps of paper than I ever will.

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top