[World Tribune] Report: FAA quietly widened the EKG parameters for America’s pilots

[AggieMike88]

https://www.worldtribune.com/report-faa-quietly-widened-the-ekg-parameters-for-americas-pilots/

From the article…

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the October 2022 version of its Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners increased the EKG parameters required for pilots to be able to fly, a report said.

On Oct. 24, the FAA “quietly, without any announcement at all,” widened the EKG requirements, Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, noted in a Jan. 17 substack.com analysis.

“And they didn’t widen the range by a little. They widened it by a lot,” Kirsch noted.​

 

[flyingron]

You are going to take some antivaccine crusaders as unbiased experts as to the impact of standards changes? Ones that quote an article that quotes and other article that quotes Tucker Carlson? Especially, when the even get the parameter that they allege is the problem wrong.

You might view an alternative analysis:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-faa-pilots-heart-covid-373861551871

 

[AggieMike88]

Just providing for discussion. To wit your response helps. Thanks!

 

[IK04]

The way the terms "scientific evidence" and "misinformation" are thrown around, it is just about impossible to trust anything written regarding medical issues and the CDC.

 

[Daleandee]

From the article:

"Kirsch said the PA range (a measure of heart function) for pilots used to be in the range of .12 to .2. “It is now .12 to .3 and potentially even higher."

Is this true? If so, why was it done? I have no idea ...

IBTL

 

[Llewtrah381]

The way the terms "scientific evidence" and "misinformation" are thrown around, it is just about impossible to trust anything written regarding medical issues and the CDC.

And again:


“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Asimov "A Cult of Ignorance", Newsweek, Jan. 21, 1980

I strongly disagree with your premise. It is based on propaganda intended to undermine confidence in our American way of life - to do us harm - by falsely equating continual learning with “intentional misinformation”.

Science is what got us on the moon - 50+ years ago and a litany of other things. Good science knows it’s iterative and always updating what it held as “truths” in the past - both based on their best understanding of facts at their respective times.

Heaven forbid, when you or your family become ill or injured, would you rather be treated in any other country or by someone who doesn’t follow science, imperfect as it is? Not me…

 

[flyingron]

From the article:

"Kirsch said the PA range (a measure of heart function) for pilots used to be in the range of .12 to .2. “It is now .12 to .3 and potentially even higher."

Is this true? If so, why was it done? I have no idea ...

IBTL

It's not PA (the crackpot article got that wrong), it's PR and if you want to know why, read the AP link that I posted.

 

[Llewtrah381]

https://www.worldtribune.com/report-faa-quietly-widened-the-ekg-parameters-for-americas-pilots/

From the article…

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the October 2022 version of its Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners increased the EKG parameters required for pilots to be able to fly, a report said.

On Oct. 24, the FAA “quietly, without any announcement at all,” widened the EKG requirements, Steve Kirsch, founder of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, noted in a Jan. 17 substack.com analysis.

“And they didn’t widen the range by a little. They widened it by a lot,” Kirsch noted.​

Can you share what the medically appropriate number SHOULD be and provide a source?

And are we talking about PA interval or PR interval? What type of heart block are we taking about here - first degree without complications? Other? Please explain, including the risk created by the change. Thanks.

 

[hindsight2020]

Yeah this one is gonna get BVR Fox 3'd like a Saudi graper at the Flag. LOL

We have a couple such crusaders at work too, who promptly passed the aforementioned links around our internal whatsapp group chat, and they're off to the races. Since our side has the additional kerfuffle of working through some vax non-compliance related terminations that are now in the process of being reversed for many who refused the vaccine, this is another nail for the hammer-only crowd. I generally DME arc around them at work as there's nothing to gain and nobody's minds are being made up anyways. The same holds true on here. C ya!

 

[AggieMike88]

Can you share what the medically appropriate number SHOULD be and provide a source?

And are we talking about PA interval or PR interval? What type of heart block are we taking about here - first degree without complications? Other? Please explain, including the risk created by the change. Thanks.

Unfortunately just the messenger reposting an interesting article.

Not equipped to answer the queries you made. I’ll leave that up to our resident AME’s

 

[Palmpilot]

The way the terms "scientific evidence" and "misinformation" are thrown around, it is just about impossible to trust anything written regarding medical issues and the CDC.

There are ways to sort the wheat from the chaff. The best way, in my opinion, is to familiarize ourselves with the scientific method, and look for evidence of whether it is being properly applied by those who are making claims.

Googling "the scientific method" turns up many articles on the subject. Here are a couple of examples that appear to be consistent with my training on the subject:

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/scientific-method

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-the-scientific-method

 

[Llewtrah381]

Unfortunately just the messenger reposting an interesting article.

Not equipped to answer the queries you made. I’ll leave that up to our resident AME’s

I’m afraid to click on too many links in some of these for fear of getting cooties, so I’ll admit up-front to not having any specifics.

That said, I SUSPECT what’s going on is very different than what’s being implied here. First-degree AVB is largely insignificant, especially on its own and I suspect the FAA now has data to support safely allowing pilots with a larger PR interval (“more pronounced 1° AVB”) to be considered at reasonable risk.

I may be totally off the mark but I suspect a science-based decision by the FAA to loosen a long-standing conservative standard for PR intervals and allow more pilots to fly without restriction is being misrepresented by conspiracy theorists.

 

[Llewtrah381]

We have a couple such crusaders at work too, who promptly passed the aforementioned links around our internal whatsapp group chat, and they're off to the races.

LOL - lemme guess: no small number of the more senior members of this group have attended Professional Military Education or NCO Academies to learn scientific methods to fight our wars?

 

[bbchien]

I'll comment on this only when I see it in the AME guide, @ month's end.

 

[Kelvin]

I'll comment on this only when I see it in the AME guide, @ month's end.

I saw this a week or so ago and simply didn't post it...I figured it would surface soon enough.

I await your reply Dr. Chien.

 

[AggieMike88]

I'll comment on this only when I see it in the AME guide, @ month's end.

I too await your comments. I’m always ready to be properly informed from the best.

 

[texasclouds]

I saw an article stating us pure blood pilots are in demand and can make extra $$$$$. I guess I need to pickup some dock shoes for when my ship comes in…

 

[Lindberg]

It's not PA (the crackpot article got that wrong), it's PR and if you want to know why, read the AP link that I posted.

I missed the why in the AP article. It's quite emphatic that COVID is not the why, and also that this is a perfectly reasonable change. I couldn't find where it explains why the previous requirement was what it was or why the FAA decided to change it.

 

[FancyG]

I saw an article stating us pure blood pilots are in demand and can make extra $$$$$. I guess I need to pickup some dock shoes for when my ship comes in…

What, this didn't convince you?

 

[RyanShort1]

Well, I can't see this as being a totally bad thing for pilots in general if the statistics back a widened allowable range being safe.

Are we gonna complain about the FAA widening standards that allow us to fly?

And again:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Asimov "A Cult of Ignorance", Newsweek, Jan. 21, 1980

Just be careful who you apply that to. There's a difference between ignorance and reasonable skepticism, and curiosity and even healthy skepticism is important for good scientific research.

I strongly disagree with your premise. It is based on propaganda intended to undermine confidence in our American way of life - to do us harm - by falsely equating continual learning with “intentional misinformation”.

IKO4 could I'm sure provide you with actual data showing that's not just propaganda. I can think of a number of instances where he'd be correct.

Science is what got us on the moon - 50+ years ago and a litany of other things. Good science knows it’s iterative and always updating what it held as “truths” in the past - both based on their best understanding of facts at their respective times.

The term science itself has gone through some change in definitions, as evidenced by older dictionaries, so technically both of y'all discussing the term science might be correct depending on what definition you are using. "Trust the science" as a phrase, has definitely been over-used in the past decade.

 

[RyanShort1]

You are going to take some antivaccine crusaders as unbiased experts as to the impact of standards changes? Ones that quote an article that quotes and other article that quotes Tucker Carlson? Especially, when the even get the parameter that they allege is the problem wrong.

You might view an alternative analysis:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-faa-pilots-heart-covid-373861551871

I actually generally agree that this probably was not done for "Covid" reasons, and we all know the FAA moves slowly, so it would seem likely that this was done on pre-Covid data, but it would wouldn't be the first time that something is done for reasons other than stated, either. None of us has ever lied about "why" we did something, right?

 

[DesertNomad]

Heaven forbid, when you or your family become ill or injured, would you rather be treated in any other country or by someone who doesn’t follow science, imperfect as it is? Not me…

I lived overseas for 12 years and the health care I received in the Czech Republic was as good as any I have received here in the US, and it cost a tiny fraction (about 4%) of the US price. My wife was in an ER in Yemen and received great treatment too. (6 hours in the ER of a modern hospital in Sana’a for $35)

 

[Palmpilot]

I actually generally agree that this probably was not done for "Covid" reasons, and we all know the FAA moves slowly, so it would seem likely that this was done on pre-Covid data, but it would wouldn't be the first time that something is done for reasons other than stated, either. None of us has ever lied about "why" we did something, right?

It seems unlikely that the FAA would have a hidden agenda behind this particular change.

 

[samiamPA]

OP - I love your input from a CFI perspective but please get a new source for your news. When the article is so poorly researched it doesn't even quote the parameter correctly ("PR" not "PA") it leaves little doubt that the quality of the journalism is poor.

I would think that pilots would be celebrating looser guidelines that are in line with medical recommendations, not looking for conspiracy theories behind them.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

a-

 

[RyanShort1]

It seems unlikely that the FAA would have a hidden agenda behind this particular change.

Well, I basically said I believed as much in my post you quoted.

OP - I love your input from a CFI perspective but please get a new source for your news. When the article is so poorly researched it doesn't even quote the parameter correctly ("PR" not "PA") it leaves little doubt that the quality of the journalism is poor.

ALL journalism is a bit suspect from a quality perspective these days, so that doesn't change people's minds as much as you'd hope it would. Look at "real news" sources with regards to aviation before you judge what may have been just a typo. The major media can't tell the difference between a Cessna and a Piper. Prove me wrong.

And for the record, at least these people are digging and looking for stuff, as opposed to simply making it up. Their conclusion as to why the FAA changed the parameters may be 100% wrong, but the parameters DID change and you can't say they aren't digging and looking for evidence of their theories.

 

[Llewtrah381]

at least these people are digging and looking for stuff, as opposed to simply making it up.

Exactly. There’s a radical difference between looking for what one wants to find, to support their preconceptions, and researching to learn the best current knowledge, even if the facts don’t align with preconceptions.

One can take a magazine with a well-documented article about a topic and cut-and-paste the words into whatever they want to say.

 

[RyanShort1]

Exactly. There’s a radical difference between looking for what one wants to find, to support their preconceptions, and researching to learn the best current knowledge, even if the facts don’t align with preconceptions.

One can take a magazine with a well-documented article about a topic and cut-and-paste the words into whatever they want to say.

Ironically, you just did exactly that with my post.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well, I basically said I believed as much in my post you quoted.

ALL journalism is a bit suspect from a quality perspective these days, so that doesn't change people's minds as much as you'd hope it would. Look at "real news" sources with regards to aviation before you judge what may have been just a typo. The major media can't tell the difference between a Cessna and a Piper. Prove me wrong.

And for the record, at least these people are digging and looking for stuff, as opposed to simply making it up. Their conclusion as to why the FAA changed the parameters may be 100% wrong, but the parameters DID change and you can't say they aren't digging and looking for evidence of their theories.

The best science journalism is that which cites their sources in a manner that makes it possible to look them up and evaluate the methodology.

 

[Warmi]

I lived overseas for 12 years and the health care I received in the Czech Republic was as good as any I have received here in the US, and it cost a tiny fraction (about 4%) of the US price. My wife was in an ER in Yemen and received great treatment too. (6 hours in the ER of a modern hospital in Sana’a for $35)

No it is not as good , not by a long shot if you are looking at serious disease outcomes ( it is a well known fact that people with money still opt for private health care over there ) but yeah, the US does have really messed up system in terms of having often “worst of both worlds” as far as cost structure is concerned.

 

[samiamPA]

Well, I basically said I believed as much in my post you quoted.

ALL journalism is a bit suspect from a quality perspective these days, so that doesn't change people's minds as much as you'd hope it would. Look at "real news" sources with regards to aviation before you judge what may have been just a typo. The major media can't tell the difference between a Cessna and a Piper. Prove me wrong.

And for the record, at least these people are digging and looking for stuff, as opposed to simply making it up. Their conclusion as to why the FAA changed the parameters may be 100% wrong, but the parameters DID change and you can't say they aren't digging and looking for evidence of their theories.

I'm telling you from the perspective of a physician and AME, the article was trash journalism. It's based on the testimony of the founder of an antivaccine foundation, with poor application of science galore. But if it confirms what people want to believe, hey, it's just digging for truth, right?

 

[Dry Creek]

Egads, standards being lowered?

Before it's all said-and-done, I bet an ATP will only need Basic Med! Wouldn't that be a hoot!

OK, not gonna' happen, I know, I know.

 

[RyanShort1]

I'm telling you from the perspective of a physician and AME, the article was trash journalism. It's based on the testimony of the founder of an antivaccine foundation, with poor application of science galore. But if it confirms what people want to believe, hey, it's just digging for truth, right?

You should do better than just appeal to authority, you should use a scientific approach to point-by-point prove that opinion, with quotes of the article.

 

[E.W.]

All things considered, it seems clear the FAA is making this change due to the effects of vaccines.

I read that AP News damage control article linked in the second post. It makes the insistent claim that the FAA is not doing it because of vaccine damage, but then actually offers no real alternative explanation. The article boils down to: "A PR between .2 and .3 really isn't that unhealthy, therefore the FAA allowing these people to be pilots is reasonable and therefore they didn't do it because of vaccine damage". Faulty logic.
Since when does the FAA jump out of it's chair to make it easier to be a pilot just because it's a reasonable thing to do? Since never, that's when.

The timing here is the smoking gun. So why didn't the FAA make this change last year or 5 years ago or 10 years ago? Why did they even make the rule so restrictive in the first place if it's so reasonable to allow these people to be pilots? The only plausible explanation for this unprecedented show of action and uncanny timing coincidence is vaccine damage.

 

[Palmpilot]

The timing here is the smoking gun.

Sounds like the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[bbchien]

First degree AV block has NEVER Been an FAA “issue”. If that is what this is all about, it is really about codifying that which already was…..

 

[Palmpilot]

I just looked at the Substack "analysis" linked in Post #1. Again, there's reliance on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. In addition, the speculation about the motives of others is NOT scientific evidence, and veers into the realm of circular reasoning, also known as confirmation bias.

I also notice that one of the studies being relied on states this:

"Although cardiovascular events have been reported with the COVID-19 vaccine, causality has yet to be established, because such cardiovascular adverse events are also common among the general public who do not receive the intervention."
​

I'm not an expert on medical research, but I'm pretty sure that a control group is necessary before drawing conclusions about causality.

 

[Daleandee]

I'm certain that the insinuations on both sides of this are unnecessary as calling folks "antivaccine crusaders" and attacking an article as totally unfit & "crackpot" because of what may be nothing more than a misprint (PA vs PR) or the other side saying that AP is doing "damage control" isn't helping. People have the right to their opinions so can we be civil and stop with the name calling and innuendo?

From what little I can ascertain the FAA has not given any explanation as to why this was done although many have offered their own reasons. As we know some say it's because of the vaccines. There is some credible information showing there are cardiac risks involved using vaccines. The percentage can be argued but the fact is there.

Others are saying this was done by the FAA to help alleviate the pilot shortage. This sounds plausible to me as most of the older more experienced pilots may have higher numbers and opening this up would allow more of them to continue to fly. Does this move improve safety? Any reasonable person would have to say that it does not. One article claims that not only the US (until this change) but most of the world uses .12 to .2 as the acceptable PR range for pilots.

The timing is suspect regardless of what anyone wants to say. Does that prove anything? No it don't. That it was done in secret is also suspicious but again that doesn't prove anything.

It is being reported that in a few days the research & methods used by the FAA before making this change will be made known. Was there a research group? Did they have a controlled study over time? How was this determined to be a safe & effective change?

If this is such a great idea why wasn't it made known and why didn't some of the big letter agencies get out in front of this and let everyone know what great things our Federal Government was doing to increase the safety of the airline industry?

I'm curious to see what the real answer is ...

 

[Palmpilot]

...From what little I can ascertain the FAA has not given any explanation as to why this was done...

The FAA did give an explanation. It was in an email to Associated Press, quoted in the article linked in post #2:

“Our cardiology consultants provided information that anything under 300ms requires no additional testing and is not a risk for sudden or subtle incapacitation.”​

 

[Llewtrah381]

Here’s the test: it seems unlikely but plausible the FAA did this because of Covid. If the evidence ultimately shows that, I’m willing to acknowledge it.

Is there any level of evidence from any source that would change my view? If the answer is no, my view is most likely based on what I want to believe - regardless of reality. And that’s often someone else’s lie.