Pilot Medicals Revisited Again

[facthunter]

This Subject.

 

I would like to think that we can speak freely as a principle., But why do we have to have this gut-wrenching discussion on this topic every time someone does some kind of medical assessment and wants to impose it on the rest of us?

 

Please read the previous posts on this matter. They are thoughtfull and factual. We cannot keep exposing our entrails to the world on this forum without considering that "someone" may write it up elsewhere to our ultimate detriment.

 

BLA 82, your attitude does pose a threat to a lot of our membership who are happy with the system the way it is, and have not caused a safety issue that I am aware of.

 

It is a strange thing that the 2 pilots I am most concerned with as to their medical fitness to fly, are both class 2 .. CASA at the moment are considering a "recreational standard medical. to a relaxed standard.

 

The RAA requires that where pilots have certain conditions, that a doctor's statement has to be provided annually.

 

Where I am coming from is 30 years of meeting class 1. and some considerable time at both ends with class 2. The passing of the highest medical standard does not in any way guarantee that you will not have a heart attack next day, or a stroke., or a brain haemmorage and there are quite a number of examples out there of that happening. Nev.

 

 

[youngmic]

BLA82,

 

Well done you for taking such a professional approach to your flying, it bodes well for your future attitude toward aviation.

 

However,...please be aware that factually you have almost no evidence to support your inference that the difference between a class 2 and the RAA fit to fly requirements improves or has improved flight safety to any significant degree.

 

Compare in flight incapitaion of class 2 (or even class 1) to that of the GFA (Gliding Federation of Australia) and you will see little statistical difference. GFA have had no more requirement than a drivers license for as long as I can remember. Most would agree the physical demands on a glider pilot even in a non competive flight are notably higher than for typical RAA flights.

 

The DAME administered process is not a perfect panasia by any stretch, I recently flew with a class 1 pilot (in commercial ops) who was legally deaf!! Go figure!

 

I sense a degree of heightened enthusiasim for your new past time and perhaps that clouds your objectiveness.

 

I think the old standard of if you are fit to drive a car you are fit to fly just doesn't cut it as the two are nothing alike.

Yep your sure right there, a road train or even a B double, hell even a 7 seater Landcruiser has vastly more potential to wreak havoc on the general populous than 300 kg 2 seat low speed aircraft. It may well be the case that B double drivers have a higher standard of medical fitness requirement, but it only needs an incapicitated car driver coming the other way to trip the whole show off.

 

As I said at the start well done you for taking the intiative, but lets not make it mandatory, please!

 

 

[Guest airsick]

...please be aware that factually you have almost no evidence to support your inference that the difference between a class 2 and the RAA fit to fly requirements improves or has improved flight safety to any significant degree.

I am not going to enter into the debate as it generally becomes a bit like a religious topic, no one can win. That said, do we have any evidence to the contrary? That is, do we have evidence to say that medicals in GA have NOT reduced the accident rate? And when I say evidence I don't mean the one anecdotal story of the pilot who got his medical and dropped dead a week later.

 

We all know there are obese people who live to a ripe old age despite their weight, we all know there are smokers who die when they are 100 of non-smoking related causes. But statistically speaking we can say that people who are not obese and people who don't smoke are likely to live longer due to their good health - obese people place themselves at higher risk of coronary disease, smokers at higher risk of lung cancer. We all seem to accept this pretty much without question. We can also say people who show signs of heart problems are at higher risk of a heart attack in the air but when we say that people who exhibit no health issues when they present themselves for an aviation medical are less likely to show any ill symptoms while flying we seem to question it. Why? It is a statistical game and there will always be exceptions but in general most people will fit the rule. I can't answer the why, I am a bit baffled.

 

There are also a number of other things going on that warrant further discussion in my view. The type of flying that ultralight pilots traditionally did was low level and is today still limited to less than 5000 feet with a few exceptions. As these rules are relaxed and the endurance of our aircraft increases we will spend longer stretches 'behind the wheel' at altitudes where significant physiological changes can take place in our bodies (think about human performance and limitations training here). Will these changes in the way we fly begin to have an impact?

 

And think about this. There are not many GA pilots (relative to the total flying population) who have had heart attacks while flying but there are probably quite a few that have been grounded due to heart related issues. What would the statistics look like had these pilots not been grounded? I can't answer this but I would hazard a guess that had they continued to fly they would be placing themselves at higher risk of heart attack or some related event and thus, the statistics would certainly not be better than they are. If they move into the RAA world the stresses on their bodies are potentially less because of shorter flight times and lower altitudes. What will the statistics look like after they begin to resume their old flying habits - longer and higher - and begin placing themselves at higher risk again? Are we, as ultralight pilots, willing to chance our name being dragged through the mud even more so than it is already as more pilots drop from the skies?

 

I have and will maintain my medical. I feel I owe it to my passengers and those on the ground who might suffer if it goes pear shaped. What you do is up to you and I don't believe my views should be forced on you (hence my choosing to stimulate discussion wit ha few questions rather than enter a lengthy debate - although it is ironic that I write a reasonably lengthy reply ) but is having a medical at a cost of (as I pointed out above) roughly $35 a year really that much of a big deal? Even at twice the cost this works out at less than the cost of 1 hours flying in most cases, still not a big deal really.

 

What concerns me is that there are many who refuse to get a medical. The cost is not prohibitive, certainly not to the extent many would have you believe. This makes me wonder the true motivation behind refusing a medical. If you truly think you are fit to fly then what's the problem?

 

Note: I have used heart issues as an example but the theory can be applied to other health issues and still be equally valid.

 

 

[Yenn]

Why should we have medicals. There is no evidence to show that medicals lower the rate of accidents in GA flying.

 

Several years ago a good friend of mine dropped dead with a heart attack. He had passed the medical for his commercial licence only a few days before his death. When I mentioned this to the DAME as i did my medical all he said was that they could not pick up a heart attack victim with any certainty.

 

My friend was overweight, had had hepatitis which curtailed his heavy drinking and was not generally in the best of health. So that is no advert for medicals.

 

The comment about not putting Zebra crossings outside schools may not be so far off the mark. I would like to know how many kids get get hit on the crossing, compared with other places.

 

If we are considered healthy enough to drive a car, that should be good enough, considering the danger involved. My trip to the airstrip can be far more dangerous from the point of other drivers doing the wrong thing, than my flying.

 

The costs of a medical are not as low as some of you would think. there is the direct cost of the doctors visit, plus a not inconsiderable fee to CASA to rubber stamp it, I am not game to even try for a medical at 72 years old, I guess that I would have to undergo all sorts of tests at great expense. Plus I am almost certainly fitter than the doctor. At least I was the last time I had a medical.

 

 

[ahlocks]

What concerns me is that there are many who refuse to get a medical. The cost is not prohibitive, certainly not to the extent many would have you believe. This makes me wonder the true motivation behind refusing a medical. If you truly think you are fit to fly then what's the problem?

.

There is no problem. I don't have to get a medical, so I dont.

 

 

[jcruffle]

My recent Class 1 medical cost me in excess of $330 including the donation to CASA to review it (and they are the ones who insist I have one). You can claim back nothing on Medicare. When the paranoid head medico in Canberra deems that your ECG is not perfect, you are up for specialist fees, stress tests, ultra-sounds etc.

 

It is a VERY expensive exercise.

 

John

 

 

[youngmic]

Certainly a once a year general medical for the over 40s is not a bad idea regardless of whether you fly or not and not overly expensive.

 

But try a class 1 and it's a different story.

 

Doctors fee $230.00

 

CASA $75.00

 

Pathology ~ $100.00

 

ECG ~ $100.00

 

Audio ~ $? can't remember.

 

And look out if there's a glitch then you'll really start paying.

 

 

[Guest bigblockford545]

My initial class 1 broke down something like this:

 

Dame = $300

 

Ophthalmologist = $240

 

Pathologist = $85

 

Casa Processing fee = $75

 

Subtotal = way too much:crying:

 

Simon

 

 

[motzartmerv]

And how much can you earn without it?? (flying)

 

 

[Matt]

As with a few others I'm not going to offer an opinion one way or the other...other than to agree that a regular health check - regardless of age or flying status - is a positive thing to do...it may cost you a few bucks but I reckon every cent is worth it. How many of you know someone with or who has had cancer or some other significant illness or disease - was it picked up early as part of a regular health check or late once it had already taken hold and symptoms have shown? Prevention and early detection via regular checkups is so much better than the alternative.

 

Ironically (and I've said this before in one of the many other threads on the topic) there are folks more than happy to part with money to maintain their aircraft/car/boat but balk at spending time or money maintaining themselves...the most complex component of a flying machine is after all the human at the controls.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Thanks Mick and Yenn, you said it all correctly. The fact remains that there are just not a lot of aircraft accidents caused by physical incapacitation whilst flying, either GA or RAA, period. The one's that I witnessed over the years were certainly not caused by pilot incapacitation, in fact just the opposite was generally the case. The causes are well known, and physical incapacitation whilst flying is just not big on the list.

 

 

[Mick]

I would like to add to my post above that the condition that I have which causes Casa to deem me unfit to fly dictates that I visit the doctor much more often than any medical would.

 

Most of these visits are only to get prescriptions for medication but my GP rightly will not give me prescriptions without giving me a check over.

 

These regular check outs could mean that my health is more closely monitored than some of you who seem to get some comfort from your less frequent aviation medicals.

 

Mick

 

 

[youngmic]

Motzartmerv

 

And how much can you earn without it?? (flying)

None of course!

 

Didn't you know that.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I've got to say that I'm glad the Star Chamber no longer exists - there are some on this thread who have the required zealotry.

 

Medicine is no more foolproof than any other qualitative assessment of something.

 

The number of cases of pilots having a heart attack in the few days/weeks after a medical are legion. Indeed the medical profession are the first to admit that they cannot predict. A recent paper suggests that a stress ECG is LESS accurate than a well taken history. The history is not necessarily that accurate.

 

On the other hand the number of cases of air crashes taking out by standers is miniscule as is the number of cases of pilots crashing through medical incapacitation. Interestingly the highest proportion of cases of high capacity RPT pilots being incapacitated seems to come from two sources: the food the airline feeds them causing gastro and having a little mental episode. I'm not joking by the way. Medicals will fix neither of those things.

 

If it makes you feel warm and cuddly to have a medical then by all means go and do it.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Youngmick.. Yes i did know that... that was sort of the point of the post..:hittinghead:

 

 

[youngmic]

BLA82,

 

If, and only if it could be kept to a basic level with a renewal based on an age basis and can be claimed on Medicare. Then perhaps strong encouragement from the RAA to undertake a form of medical might be a good thing.

 

But probably as much for the merit of getting blokes to get a check up once in awhile and promotion of a professional public image.

 

But consider the fact that once upon a time a CASA medical was a relatively straight forward low cost (ish) exercise. Now look at!!!

 

Trust the bureaucrats as much as a black snake in a dark room.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

It's a sad reality of life that as things move on and as each new generation of policy makers come along they feel the need to 'improve ' the portfolios that they have been charged with. of course this means that the only option is to increase the level of compliance without any real benifit to the situation only proportionate rises in cost and time for study ect.

 

Having said that with the impending introduction of LSA and the increased workload to fly these aircraft in the conditions/airspace that everyone wants to fly them and the responsibility of carrying one or more passengers, along with the increasing average age of pilots that can afford them.( cashed up retired boomers). Then there will be a need to consider a medical similar or the same as a GA private medical. After all these are "proper" aircraft that will be operated under conditions that will be very close to existing GA aircraft by pliots that can suffer the same medical problems as current GA jockies, if not more these days due to our modern lifestyle habits.

 

As for the lower end, self assesment has worked fine so far and as we have not been found in great numbers to become incapacited as the cause of accidents then leave it alone and spend the time and energy on areas that would really make a difference to the annual carnage report.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[turboplanner]

BLA82, the RAA regulations as they stand have resulted in an exceptional safety record, which has not been matched by many other activity sectors in the community.

 

The unfounded speculation and preaching you started is now on the public record for any lawyer or journalist to use should an unfortunate case ever come up, and remember this type of incident is almost non existant in flying.

 

Just get on to Google and search for "Pilot Incapacitation" and this tread comes up at No6 with its lurid but medically and statistically unsupported themes that RAA is riddled with refugees from the GA system who can't obtain medicals etc.

 

We have an excellent Administration at which level statistics can be analysed to see where the biggest risks are, and management action can be taken after obtaining professional advice, and that's the more appropriate forum for this subject.

 

With around 10,000 RAA members and the safety statistics we have, our regulations appear very sound, and it's wrong to compare them with other forms of aviation where different performance requirements occur.