On making it difficult for everyone else

On May 4, 12:12 pm, Dan G wrote:
An ASN database query gives:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/....php?Event=FCI


Should say that list is for "flight crew incapacitation", which
includes a range of occurences. However a notable absence from that
list is the 1972 Trident crash near Staines, just outside of London.
The captain had an acute heart condition during a cockpit emergency
that no doubt compounded the problem.


Dan

There was another case where an airline captain who
had passed a full CAA Class 1 ATP medical only a few
days previously had a heart attack and died during
a commercial flight with many passengers on board.
The co-pilot completed the flight without further incident.

State regulation does not guarantee flight safety,
but just costs pilots lots of money!

Derek Copeland


At 11:24 04 May 2007, Dan G wrote:
On May 4, 12:12 pm, Dan G wrote:
An ASN database query gives:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/....php?Event=FCI


Should say that list is for 'flight crew incapacitation',
which
includes a range of occurences. However a notable absence
from that
list is the 1972 Trident crash near Staines, just outside
of London.
The captain had an acute heart condition during a cockpit
emergency
that no doubt compounded the problem.


Dan

On 5/4/07 5:23 AM, in article
, "Dan G"
wrote:

On May 4, 12:12 pm, Dan G wrote:
An ASN database query gives:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/....php?Event=FCI


Should say that list is for "flight crew incapacitation", which
includes a range of occurences. However a notable absence from that
list is the 1972 Trident crash near Staines, just outside of London.
The captain had an acute heart condition during a cockpit emergency
that no doubt compounded the problem.


Dan

Medical examinations are really useless in determining who is safe to fly.
Very few pilots are grounded due to objective medical findings. Listening to
the heart and lungs, looking in eyes and ears, reviewing EKG's and lab
results: those items have a very low yield in detecting medical problems.

The only portion of the exam with significant relevance to determining
health or lack thereof is the history: what the individual says they are
experiencing. This requires honest reporting, and we all know that there is
a tremendous incentive to report that all is well, and to ignore those pesky
heart palpitations, or the migraines that come on with visual disturbances,
or those chest pains that get worse with exercise, etc.

That's how folks continue flying with disqualifying medical conditions: they
lie about them on their medicals.

JMHO,
Bullwinkle

IMHO, there is an ethical distinction that needs to be made here. Pilot
incapacitation in a single seat glider is indeed not likely to hurt anyone
but the pilot. Except, in Frank's case, where it may lead to additional
regulatory burden on others. (Though one might imagine additional
scenarios.)

Where it REALLY crosses the line is when a medically unfit pilot assumes PIC
responsibilities in a two-seater with a non-pilot on board. This would
include an instructor who flies with a pre-solo student. The passenger and
student are totally reliant on the rated pilot for their safety and have
every reason to expect that their pilot meets high medical standards.

Unfortunately, I know of several instructors who have lost their medicals
for very serious conditions yet continue to fly (Legally in the US) with
pre-solo students. It would seem to me that clubs who have authorized these
instructors to instruct in club aircraft incur some liability here.

Bill Daniels


"Mike the Strike" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


To the best of my knowledge, pilot incapacitation through ill health
has not resulted in any serious injuries to anyone other than the
pilot of a single-seat glider.

Certainly it's against the regulations in most countries to fly when
your health is in question, but I doubt there are few who would
censure a solo glider pilot for ignoring this regulation.

I, like most pilots, break a few regs from time to time.

Mike

Alistair Wright wrote:
"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


There is really no correlation between medical status and certification as
far as I can see. It is well documented that very few accidents have been
attributed to a pre-existing medical condition.

snip

Presumably most people who lose their medical certificate stop flying.
Sort of the point of a medical, isn't it?


There was no way that this episode could have been predicted or prevented as
in those days only instructors had to hold a medical certificate which was
annually renewed. My own doctor just used to look at me and sign, as it was
the only time I ever visited his surgery. As it happens I am going to do a
bit of gliding this summer, and as I am now 74 not un-naturally the club
concerned has asked for a medical certificate in case I get to fly solo. My
doctor on this occasion did in fact do a fairly detailed check of my vital
functions but as he was basically doing only the same tests as those
required for renewal of a driving licence after an illness I don't really
feel that it tells us very much about my medical state.


This is interesting to me. The way I see it: If "The Rules" (law,
club, etc.) say you don't need a medical to fly a glider (as in the US),
some group coming along saying "Your too old. We need to see a medical
from you", should be told "Hook up to tow rope, then F--- Off!" ;-)


Shawn

On May 4, 1:54 pm, Bullwinkle wrote:
Medical examinations are really useless in determining who is safe to fly.
Very few pilots are grounded due to objective medical findings. Listening to
the heart and lungs, looking in eyes and ears, reviewing EKG's and lab
results: those items have a very low yield in detecting medical problems.

ECGs and cholesterol levels - both tested in medicals - are good
indicators of cardiac health. I expect pilots normally pass this part
of the medical because they keep themselves healthy in order to do so.

Cardiac disease is the second biggest killer in the 44-65 age group -
behind cancer - and the fact so few pilots collapse at the controls
suggests that these tests do work.

In this case the results of the tests meant the crash pilot knew that
sudden collapse was a stronger-than-normal possibility for him. The
problem is that he knowingly put other people at risk too by
continuing to tow and his club's procedures were not good enough to
find him out. (And while afaik it's never happened it's conceivable
that an out-of-control single seater could harm people on the ground.
Such an event would be quite bad for gliding I think.)

I think the point the accident report was making is that *everyone*
needs to be properly checked that they meet requirements, and
procedures should be put in place in Ireland to make sure that
happens. I don't think that's harmful to gliding.


Dan

"Shawn" wrote in message
. ..
This is interesting to me. The way I see it: If "The Rules" (law, club,
etc.) say you don't need a medical to fly a glider (as in the US), some
group coming along saying "You're too old. We need to see a medical from
you", should be told "Hook up to tow rope, then F--- Off!" ;-)


Well let me tell you that the UK BGA have introduced rules about old pilots
flying solo. When I get to 76, which will occur in about 18 months, I will
no longer be allowed to fly without a safety pilot. I officially retired
from instructing in 1978 and have not flown gliders since. However I do have
500 hrs P1 and 2100 sorties in my book. All of this cuts no ice with the
BGA, or indeed the club I am going to fly with this summer. I have to
produce a full medical certificate or I will not fly solo, assuming that I
can cope with these new fangled glass ships. So I have had the medical. The
fact that I am fitter than people twenty years my junior has nothing to do
with it either. However I do not mind any of this in the least, as it was
very re-assuring to be advised by my medical man that I was in better shape
than some 50 year olds on his books. I still maintain my view that all this
medical examining has little to do with the possibility of an accident or
incident taking place due to some problem hitherto undiscovered.

Alistair Wright
Old wooden pilot

Regrettably all a current medical certificate is useful for is knowing
that the recipient WAS fit to fly at the time that they took the
medical. Half an hour later, who knows.

It's actually a little better than that. Since you must report all
medications you are taking, the medical examiner can assess if one, or a
combination of several medications, might impair your coordination
and/or judgment which could affect your ability to act as PIC (or to
drive a car for that matter).

On the other hand, the AOPA is fond of (correctly) reporting that there
is no statistical correlation between a pilot having a medical
certificate and accidents due to medical causes.

Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

Actually, even a solo pilot is putting someone else at risk: the guy
flying the tug.

If you want to fly while medically unfit, take a winch launch.

At 04:18 05 May 2007, wrote:
Actually, even a solo pilot is putting someone else
at risk: the guy
flying the tug.

If you want to fly while medically unfit, take a winch
launch.

No; take a co-pilot.