The medical issue and rogue pilots

bnt83 said:
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
Click to expand...

I read that article from 2005, however, I cant find any follow up to see how many, if any were convicted.
 
bnt83 said:
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
Click to expand...

So how many of those were involved in accidents? That is what I was asking.

Also, the article is poorly written. For instance the following paragraph:
Of the 46 pilots that Mr. Lee said were charged, 7 held commercial pilot certificates that would have allowed them to fly as well as carry cargo; another 4 pilots held air transportation pilot certificates which would let them transport passengers.
Click to expand...
makes it sound like commercial pilots just carry cargo, not pax and that ATP just carries people but not cargo.

Then there is this statement:
The remaining pilots had licenses that had either lapsed or were missing current information, which would not prevent them from flying a private plane.
Click to expand...
Not quite right either.

Besides, do we know for certain that they lied to get their medical or that they lied to get social security benefits? Both are illegal of course but the effect is different. A lot of people lie and fake things to get SS.
 
Well, you don't necessarily have to lie to either anyway. You can quite easily be disabled to the point of getting a disability check, and still be able to pass a FAA medical. They are not by definition mutually exclusive. I could legitimately be collecting a disability check due to my back injuries. None of my back injuries prevent me from holding a Class I medical.
 
RJM62 said:
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
Click to expand...

I see and respect your point.
 
Henning said:
Well, you don't necessarily have to lie to either anyway. You can quite easily be disabled to the point of getting a disability check, and still be able to pass a FAA medical. They are not by definition mutually exclusive. I could legitimately be collecting a disability check due to my back injuries. None of my back injuries prevent me from holding a Class I medical.
Click to expand...

True enough.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I've personally investigated 3.



Maybe, maybe not. Kinda goes along the line "Do you feel lucky?"
Click to expand...

According to you, the consequences of getting caught are no different than obeying the rules. If you go rogue, you're gauranteed to get to fly, at least for a while. If you obey the rules, or if you get caught flying rogue, it's the same outcome. You're grounded. I think I'd go rogue and hope for the best.
 
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...

Counting them in the 'no-medical' stats would artificially inflate the relative effectiveness of the medical certificate requirement.
 
OkieFlyer said:
According to you, the consequences of getting caught are no different than obeying the rules. If you go rogue, you're gauranteed to get to fly, at least for a while. If you obey the rules, or if you get caught flying rogue, it's the same outcome. You're grounded. I think I'd go rogue and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

The difference is the period of insurability.
 
OkieFlyer said:
According to you, the consequences of getting caught are no different than obeying the rules. If you go rogue, you're gauranteed to get to fly, at least for a while. If you obey the rules, or if you get caught flying rogue, it's the same outcome. You're grounded. I think I'd go rogue and hope for the best.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
 
mryan75 said:
So says the defense attorney. Any decent lawyer can argue both sides of any case.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that the answer to legal questions is arbitrary, and it doesn't mean that it's wise to ignore what a lawyer tells us about how things are likely to go in court. Decent lawyers can argue either side of a case because it's part of their job qualification to be able to do that. That doesn't necessarily mean that both of them think they're likely to win the case. Considering how expensive the legal process is, having a realistic assessment of your chances is very valuable, IMO.
 
bnt83 said:
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
Click to expand...

FYI, 46 charged out of 40,000 reviewed is about one tenth of one percent. That doesn't fit my definition of "puh-lenty."
 
Palmpilot said:
That doesn't mean that the answer to legal questions is arbitrary, and it doesn't mean that it's wise to ignore what a lawyer tells us about how things are likely to go in court. Decent lawyers can argue either side of a case because it's part of their job qualification to be able to do that. That doesn't necessarily mean that both of them think they're likely to win the case. Considering how expensive the legal process is, having a realistic assessment of your chances is very valuable, IMO.
Click to expand...

50% of all lawyers argue a losing case.
 
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...

At least 1.
 
Palmpilot said:
FYI, 46 charged out of 40,000 reviewed is about one tenth of one percent. That doesn't fit my definition of "puh-lenty."
Click to expand...

Nor does a charge Equate to guilt. It is entirely possible to have a disability, especially service related, yet still qualify to fly, even setting LSA aside.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You said it! Ok if you don't own anything and live in a tree, other wise too much to lose in case of an accident! My favorite is the airline captain, near retirement, caught by paperwork found to have only a student ticket. I think he was given his retirement as it was very near the time for him to go. Eastern? Anyone?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
You said it! Ok if you don't own anything and live in a tree, other wise too much to lose in case of an accident! My favorite is the airline captain, near retirement, caught by paperwork found to have only a student ticket. I think he was given his retirement as it was very near the time for him to go. Eastern? Anyone?
Click to expand...


Well, I was thinking along the lines of being an old timer, retired, with everything paid fer. If I was still working, raising a family, and had a lot to lose, I wouldn't do it. Most old timers I know are in a pretty good position to take the risk, and usually quite happy to tell anyone to F off as long as they're not going to get thrown in the pokey.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Well, I was thinking along the lines of being an old timer, retired, with everything paid fer. If I was still working, raising a family, and had a lot to lose, I wouldn't do it. Most old timers I know are in a pretty good position to take the risk, and usually quite happy to tell anyone to F off as long as they're not going to get thrown in the pokey.
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged....:redface:.......;)....:D
 
N801BH said:
Guilty as charged....:redface:.......;)....:D
Click to expand...

Good for you. I dig it.

You're the kind of guy I was referring to. If you lose your medical, and are in good enough health to fly, according to R&W, the worst that's going to happen is your license gets suspended. Big whoop! If you obey like a good boy, you can't fly anyway. You just bought yourself some more flying time before big brother made you give it up. Giver 'er hell, and see what happens.

I'm not really a "stick it to the man" kind of guy, but I'm cool with letting old farts slide a little. I figure they earned it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top