Senate passes Bill of Rights and changes medical requirements

[up-into-the-air]

This is a significant reform and improves the medical process, reducing compliance costs and giving a better “Right-to-Fly” to:

 

American Pilots!!

 

This is reform #casa and this is the type of way forward, where the aviation community would work with the regulator rather than the current #avmed fiasco.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Wow, that's an enlightened step. Pilots actually have rights! (The name of the proposed legislation).

 

There are a few steps to go before it becomes law: I wonder if both houses of Congress will now pass it and whether President Obama will veto it?

 

“This legislation moves the responsibility for managing many health issues out of the FAA’s bureaucracy and puts it in the hands of pilots where it belongs,” said Baker. “The Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 frees pilots to work with their personal physicians to manage their own health, wellness, and fitness to fly.”

 

 

[poteroo]

Equitable, enlightened, progressive, responsible, and economically smart.

 

In the halls of Fort Fumble.......... heresy!

 

 

[DrZoos]

Wow, haw many decades till CASA sacks the entire avmed self built axe weilding empire and goes the same way...

 

 

[Vev]

Well that is a significant step forward for our US friends.

 

However, I feel compelled to argue why a private pilot requires a medical. My observation tell me that RAA pilots are not falling out of the sky through medical related causes owing to the lack of a GA style med.

 

I have to say that pilots are by far and away sensible about and manage their own health and do ground themselves when not well.

 

Our GA meds really only provide a snapshot in time of 4,2 or 1 year ... One still needs to manage ones fitness to fly between medicals.

 

I will suggest that the GA medicals add little for safety and think RAA got it right.

 

It would be far better to educate pilots to implement a personal health programme with their family doctor and own their own health issues in an open relationship without the need for big brother.

 

Vev

 

 

[dutchroll]

What stats and medical evidence do you have to suggest that GA medicals add little to safety?

 

Pilots are the single worst people on the whole planet at managing their own fitness to fly.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

What stats and medical evidence do you have to suggest that GA medicals add little to safety?Pilots are the single worst people on the whole planet at managing their own fitness to fly.

Who else apart from pilots manage their health to be fit to fly?

But seriously-

 

Without actually seeing the stats and just echo-ing the statements used in the senate hearings- the ones used to push the change that was voted in is:

 

LSA type licences in the states ( a type of licence we don't have here but closest similar is probably the RAAus certificate ) are valid without a formal aviation type medical - just have to have the car medical. Their incidence of medical based crashes is essentially zero.

 

The ppl licence there has (like here) a GA medical but they have class 1, 2 and 3. The grade 3 is the medical type that the vast majority of private pilots have.

 

Like the LSA licence the incidence of medical events causing crashes in the grade 3 medical carrying PPLs is essentially zero. ( as best any one can tell).

 

Pilots with class 2 & 1 licences who do have medical issues ( and pilots which all types who have been found to be cheating the system ie: have an illness and didn't report it to anyone ) STILL have an essentially zero incidence of medical catastrophe induced crashes.

 

So when you have multiple groups of people with different forms of medical requirements ( one almost nothing and zero cost - the other with hoops to jump through and high cost) and yet all of them have the same rate of ( or perhaps rather lack of rate of) crashes of medical origin or of showing any benefit from that medical then it's pretty hard to justify it.

 

Overall, in my case being a doctor and being an active member of a busy aeroclub where I am constantly being asked by pilots about health issues and medicals I can confidently state that pilots are no less likely to look after their health ( but I would agree no more likely either to ignore their health ) than any other group of similarly aged males in our society. There's nothing special about pilots over truck drivers, bus drivers or other people where health is an issue.

 

 

[jetjr]

I read some solid sounding data presented in US as evidence to get this proposal through. No idea where now.

 

Essentially said what Jaba just did

 

For commercial ops a full medical still required

 

 

[Yenn]

Are pilots similar to truck drivers and bus drivers? From what I see looking at truckies and pilots, it is the truckies who are most overweight and bus drivers even more so. Being overweight seems to be accepted as a health hazard, so as I see it pilots are healthier.

 

Just look at the general ,population and compare those pilots you know. Would you say pilots look less healthy.

 

You have to be healthy to fly some aircraft, due to lack of cockpit room and the need to be able to push the planes around. Of course this doesn't apply to the heavy metal pilots.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Are pilots similar to truck drivers and bus drivers? From what I see looking at truckies and pilots, it is the truckies who are most overweight and bus drivers even more so. Being overweight seems to be accepted as a health hazard, so as I see it pilots are healthier.Just look at the general ,population and compare those pilots you know. Would you say pilots look less healthy.

You have to be healthy to fly some aircraft, due to lack of cockpit room and the need to be able to push the planes around. Of course this doesn't apply to the heavy metal pilots.

I wasn't meaning to compare pilots health status with those groups rather compare their attitudes to their health. These groups all rely on some degree of medical examinations to retain their licences.

 

 

[RickH]

I know a few RAA pilots that make me wonder how their machines can carry them. and I know of one particular CFI who due to his weight I would not allow to even consider getting in my machine with me.

 

 

[dutchroll]

So when you have multiple groups of people with different forms of medical requirements ( one almost nothing and zero cost - the other with hoops to jump through and high cost) and yet all of them have the same rate of ( or perhaps rather lack of rate of) crashes of medical origin or of showing any benefit from that medical then it's pretty hard to justify it.Overall, in my case being a doctor and being an active member of a busy aeroclub where I am constantly being asked by pilots about health issues and medicals I can confidently state that pilots are no less likely to look after their health ( but I would agree no more likely either to ignore their health ) than any other group of similarly aged males in our society. There's nothing special about pilots over truck drivers, bus drivers or other people where health is an issue.

Ok, so by that logic having onerous medicals for airline pilots is rather pointless, would you agree? Commercial airline pilots should have the same medical requirements as RAAus? You're going to argue that case? Maybe one every 10 years for Airline Transport Pilots and doesn't need to be reported to CASA?

When there is little data showing accidents with medical causal factors, how do you know that's not a consequence of the system working as it is designed? What about the enormous difference in flying hours between a commercial pilot flying 900 hours a year and an RAA pilot flying 40 hours a year? How do you factor that into the data to make it meaningful?

 

I know of numerous pilots temporarily losing their medical status and being grounded. Did that prevent an accident? We'll never know, will we? And that's the idea. The fact is that they were deemed to have a condition which increased their risk, and so they were grounded. The medical authorities could've rolled the dice to see what happened, but they don't believe in rolling dice with planes which are carrying innocent people in them.

 

I don't really have a problem with reduced medical requirements for people who fly solo. But I have a big problem with reduced medical requirements for people carrying passengers.

 

My wife's a doctor and was a DAME in the Air Force. She has some interesting things to say on this topic.

 

There's nothing special about pilots over truck drivers, bus drivers or other people where health is an issue.

Yeah there is. They can't pull over to the side of the road and call 000 when they have chest pain.

 

 

[Vev]

G'day Dutchroll,

 

My argument isn't about Commercial Pilots meds, but private pilots. Never the less, I still think there is merit in challenging the notion of the process for commercial pilots too. Whilst you have modified your post and had used an example of some bad behaviour, it didn't cause an accident as the multi-crew in the cockpit provided safety redundancy. We all work in an environment that require us to follow rules around safety, that become sackable offences and some even have criminal repercussions when not followed. When a commercial pilot knowingly gets into a cockpit and they are not well, you have to question the culture of the company and his fellow pilots and if the rules and training are being followed.

 

Having a class 1 CASA medical will not identify you developing a medical issue between check ups .... in fact that how it goes, one year your fine the next your not.

 

Back to the private pilot issue, which we directionally seem to agree .... I did raise the topic with RAA about 18 months ago and asked about the stats re accidents owing to medical issue. At the time the response was given as being very small in the context of more than a decade of history. As I said, I'm not aware of RAA planes falling out of the sky owing to medical reasons, notwithstanding there will be some.

 

I'm not convinced that CASA's approach to PPL & RPL medicals is of value, I wonder if it is causing pilots to avoid being open with their Dr and their medical conditions. I think the RAA approach allows pilots to develop a good work arrangement with the Dr to access proper treatments and management without fear of big brother stepping in and grounding pilots with an over reaction in the name of safety.

 

Food for thought?

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[dutchroll]

It is true that you can develop a problem between checkups.

 

It is equally true that, as I stated, I know of many pilots grounded as a consequence of problems found during a medical checkup. This applies to private pilots too, btw. Which layer of medical assessment do you want to dispense with and to what extent? It's not like car and bus drivers. You can't pull over when something happens, and in accordance with basic risk assessment principles, that makes the consequences of a medical problem potentially severe, irrespective of whether your risk of developing it in the first place is low.

 

As my DAME mentioned to me just the other day, you'd be amazed at what medical conditions you can be allowed to fly with. But by default, a lot of these conditions lead to an "as or with copilot" licence condition to mitigate any safety risk. The private pilot, who is no more or less immune to these conditions, would not have this option. Is it wise, therefore, to reduce the professional medical supervision of private pilots (and it's already a lot lower than commercial ones) further? I just put that question out there......

 

Due to the average number of hours the typical RAA pilot flies, I concede the risk is already very low. Low too for some private pilots but not so much for others. However what concerns me is not so much the RAAus medical policies, but the typical American style attitude as per the link in the original opening post here, of enshrining ever-increasing "you can't touch me" principles in law based on the concept that pilots know their own health better than someone who has years of professional training to specifically understand what particular health signs really mean.

 

This is generally untrue and gets repeatedly born out in the real world when doctors see patients. If we were truly any good at figuring out how healthy we were and what our employment risks were, relative to signs and symptoms we experience, most doctors would be out of a job! "What? Oh ok, it never occurred to me that those dizzy spells 2 years ago were a result of a brain tumour!"

 

 

[facthunter]

There are really no sure ways of predicting many things that would make you unable to fly or perhaps die in flight.. Food poisoning is one, ( worth looking into, so there's quite a few things you should be wary of eating prior to flying particularly at roadside servo's etc) Sudden heart failure happens to the young and very fit at times. Cerebral hemhorage sp? Attrial fibrillation. Overstressing your heart can bring on a failure. The "authority" has to adopd a fair process to carry out it's duty of care to passengers etc but there are two qualified crew either one of whom is supposed to be able to safely land the aircraft.

 

Our aircraft are of the type that could land on a variety of surfaces other than a regular aerodrome, in an emergency and reasonably expect to get away with it. You should never reach the levels of fatigue and stress some truckies and pilot's do. You choose when and where to fly. They don't. If you can be allowed to drive a car where you may cause a bus to catch fire, if you go through a red light and impact it in rain at night, I can't see the big deal about flying a small bug smasher (with a maximum of one other equally enthusiastic passenger with you,) that you can land in a paddock or a road.

 

We aren't airlines, we aren't commercial charter flying a schedule, or pax for reward. Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

The situation does not apply to commercial pilots so we should stop muddying the water with references to commercial pilot medicals.

 

The absolute fact is that in the US where these arguments have been put before the senate they have the evidence that private pilots, no matter how much doomsayers want to bleat about the dangers, the fact is there is no evidence able to be gleaned from the history of pilots and crashes that medical issues are a problem.

 

That's it. You can't persist with arguments on about how risky it is for them, that they can't pull over or that they can't do this or that. The evidence is that is makes no difference.

 

When ever we do a risk analysis on anything we plan to do in our lives we have to compare the perceived risks against the perceived benefits. And it is fair enough and sensible that perception is brought into the equation at that stage.

 

But once you have been doing the said task for a suitable period of time and numbers you have to stop and reassess the risks and benefits in the light of the REAL evidence you have. You cannot continue to hold purely perceptions and ignore the real statistics you glean from real activity.

 

And this applies in both directions. If you perceive something is going to be safe but after some period the evidence shows its not we should modify our behaviour to limit that real increase risk.

 

But if that evidence suggests the risk was never as bad as the perception then it is reasonable, in fact sensible, to downgrade the perception of risk to suit the actual evidence you have acquired by real world activity.

 

That's where we they are in the US with this legislation.

 

They are acting on REAL risk not perceived but wrong risk.

 

 

[biggles]

What stats and medical evidence do you have to suggest that GA medicals add little to safety?Pilots are the single worst people on the whole planet at managing their own fitness to fly.

It is well known that males in general are reluctant to have regular check-ups , tending to seek medical attention only when the condition deteriorates . Many of the conditions we develop as we age , blood pressure , diabetes , high cholesterol to name a few , are often asymptomatic . A build up of plaque in the coronary arteries due to a poor diet and other lifestyle factors, may lead to an unexpected heart attack, even in relatively young people . The vast majority of pilots are males , many of them mature age .... Bob

 

 

[facthunter]

So.. What are you suggesting?

 

Anyone with an instructor job does a class 2 regularly, Already.

 

Should that be extended. I hope not.. Regulation adjusted to the actual situation. People don't go for check ups generally. The men might be worse than women. Farmers are notorious for working till they drop. People in rock bands don't look after themselves. Rural people don't live as long. Dark skinned people have Vitamin D problems in high latitudes. You could write pages of such stats. Do we have an epidemic of people dying in the air for these reasons? I can only think of one and it was an ATPL holder landing at Brisbane, 60 years ago.. There may be others. but I can't recall them in australia and if you put it into the probability computations it would be a small %. Nev

 

 

[Vev]

Here's an interesting report with 3 decades of data .... I would suggest this indicates that CASA's approch to managing GA medical conditions adds little value in the context of what really causes a medical related incident.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/29965/b20060170.pdf

 

Cheers

 

Vev

 

 

[Ron5335]

From the ATSB Report: (Who knows how much this document would have cost)

 

 

• The majority (21 per cent) of in-flight medical and incapacitation events in Australian civil pilots for the study period were due to acute gastrointestinal illness (usually food poisoning),
   
   
  

 

 

 

Will this mean that #casa can now move to ban pilots from eating 4 hours prior to and during flights, then claim it will improve air safety by 21% by eliminating the Green Apple Splatters.

 

If in response to Alcohol, we can up with 8 hours from the bottle to the throttle.

 

&

 

Clear Prop & Clear mind is suppose to lead to safer flying.

 

Who want's to try with this one?

 

Eg:

 

• If you just put something in your tummy
   
   
  
• You need to wait 4 hours
   
   
  
• To see that it doesn't come out runny
   
   
  

 

 

 

 

Don't vote... it only encourages them !!!!!!

 

 

[Jaba-who]

What is annoying is how they have included things that are basically accidents (bird strikes, prop injuries) but because the pilots were hurt they become medical issues. This then bolsters the figures for anyone suggesting medical issues are a problem and thus medicals would make a difference.

 

What I would have liked to have seen was a comment and a breakdown on the number of medical incidents which would never have been picked up or changed by having a medical (gastrointestinal events eg.) and then that figure actually stated somewhere in the results and inclusions.

 

What would also have been useful to the debate was the overall cost of having medicals in that period of time for all those pilots.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Interestingly the study leading to this found absolutely no distinguishable difference in the medical issues caused number of accidents between GA pilots who required mandatory medicals and LSA pilots not requiring a medical in a full decade...

 

Now its time for CASA to follow suit for RPL and GA...

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't hold your breath on that one. It's been known by those who care to look, for a while, that the effort doesn't produce effective outcomes. BMI was the big thing once . If you fall off sleeping in front of the TELE that was the big issue a year or two ago. Next month it will be something else. Can I suggest if you are concerned about passing your next medical you must be oversensitive to anxiety? FAIL.... We don't want anxious people. We even had one character there in avmed who if you disagreed with any thing he decreed he would put you down as mentally unstable, on your file. (Just the sort of thing a pilot needs). Ask to see your medical file . After I got knowledge of what some doctor/specialist had capriciously written on mine I asked for mine. Got a few innocuous pieces and then "We can't find your file" ???? What a surprise! Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

The biggest cause of accidents was gastro intestinal problems and medicals won't predict that.

 

The big cause of deaths in single pilot operations was heart attack. The medical will not predict that. A friend of mine died from a heart attack within a month of having his medical, and when I queried the Dr. about it he told me they cannot predict a heart attack.

 

I would assume that a medical may pick up Fits, hypoglycaemia or vascular disease, but that would be about all.

 

My opinion is that it is just another expense to try to reduce the number of people flying.

 

Rather similar to CASA making those of us with maintenance approvals do the training every 2 years. Useless but a good way to discourage pilots.

 

 

[facthunter]

How do those who check the training approvals get their renewals done. If everyone's qualifications time expire after two years, we suddenly have no experts? Does everyone"s mind just go blank.? All Doctors back to school . Requalify or die. School teachers too. If the principle is valid there are no exemptions. Nev