Congress Examines Pilot Medical Record Fraud

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:38 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
where this came from.

Can you cite a source that corroborates that assertion? I've heard it
alleged before, but I've seen nothing to substantiate it.

Yeah, I can.. it came from following one of your links. Page one, last
paragraph.

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER:

http://transportation.house.gov/Medi...7/SSM71707.pdf


--
Dallas

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:36:27 GMT, Dallas
wrote in
:

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:41:38 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

I don't, but the cross-referencing between the SSA and FAA databases is
where this came from.

Can you cite a source that corroborates that assertion? I've heard it
alleged before, but I've seen nothing to substantiate it.

Yeah, I can.. it came from following one of your links. Page one, last
paragraph.

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER:

http://transportation.house.gov/Medi...7/SSM71707.pdf


That is an interesting document indeed.

Here's the relevant cite:

In July 2005, a Department of Transportation Inspector General
("IG") investigation uncovered "egregious cases" of airmen lying
about debilitating medical conditions on their applications for
Airmen Medical Certificates. In a sample of 40,000 airmen
certificate-holders, the Inspector General found more than 3,200
airmen holding current medical certificates while simultaneously
receiving Social Security benefits, including those for medically
disabling conditions. While the U.S. Attorney's Office ultimately
prosecuted more than 40 cases, the IG believes that hundreds more
could have been pursued if the U.S. Attorney's resources had not
been constrained. These cases involved pilots with a variety of
medical conditions including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
The extent of the problem of falsified Airmen Medical Certificate
applications is unknown beyond the initial IG investigation.

As a result of this investigation, the Inspector General
recommended that the FAA coordinate with the Social Security
Administration and other providers of medical disability to
identify individuals whose documented medical conditions are
inconsistent with sworn statements made to the FAA. The IG also
recommended that the application for an Airman Medical Certificate
be amended to ask applicants whether they are currently receiving
medical disability payments from any disability provider.

But that only addresses airmen receiving medical disability. Consider
those airman medical certificate applicants who are using
disqualifying drugs prescribed by a private physician who fail to
report it on their applications. The above sample of 40,000 airmen
revealed that 8% were receiving disability; the percentage would
doubtless be considerably larger if all "egregious cases" were
discovered.

Here's another quote from the document:

The FAA's own researchers have documented hundreds of fatal
accidents where pilots failed to disclose potentially
disqualifying medical conditions on their Airman Medical
Certificate applications. In a research study that analyzed the
post-mortem toxicology reports in every fatal accident (386)
during a ten-year period (1995-2005), the FAA research team found
toxicology evidence of serious medical conditions in nearly 10
percent of pilots. Fewer than 10 percent of these medical
conditions (or medications used to treat the conditions) were
disclosed to the FAA. Furthermore, of the 386 pilots included in
the FAA study, 38 percent (147) were rated for Air Transport or
Cargo operations. Fifty-seven percent (219) were private or
student pilots. Of the total number of pilots involved in fatal
accidents, one-third (127) held first or second class medical
certificates. These statistics imply that the falsification issue
is not limited to recreational general aviation pilots.

And that study was limited to only those airmen who were killed. The
implications are ominous.

It looks like the court sentence for failing to report disqualifying
medications on airman medical application is $1,000 and three years
probation. Ouch!

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:18:11 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

That is an interesting document indeed.

I don't know where to come down on this issue... On the one hand I think
the government has better things to do than fix a non-problem.

On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
Oxycontin?


--
Dallas

"Dallas" wrote in message
.. .

I don't know where to come down on this issue... On the one hand I think
the government has better things to do than fix a non-problem.

On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
Oxycontin?

It depends. Are there any demonstrated problems with pilots taking
oxycontin? (I kinda shudder at the thought, but, what if there are no
accidents involving oxycontin?)

The FAA has a pretty interesting system for random drug testing that rewards
the industry for lack of positive results. As long as the flying community
stays below the rate of failure threshold, the random testing rate is
halved.



-c

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:34 GMT, Dallas
wrote in
:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:18:11 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

That is an interesting document indeed.

I don't know where to come down on this issue...

It think the issue is pretty clear. Those who violate FAA regulations
are dishonest in addition to causing a hazard to themselves and
others.

On the one hand I think the government has better things to do than fix a non-problem.

What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
medical regulations is a "non-problem?" As I recall, one study showed
10% of fatal accidents had a pilot aboard who violated FAA medical
regulations.

On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
Oxycontin?

Not only that, but I don't want her commanding my airline flight nor
over-flying my home, nor person, nor those of those I love.

If you believe the rigor of FAA medical regulations should be
reformed, that's another issue.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

On the one hand I think the government has better things to do than fix a
non-problem.

What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
medical regulations is a "non-problem?" As I recall, one study showed
10% of fatal accidents had a pilot aboard who violated FAA medical
regulations.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just throwing out thoughts. Here's one:
If the study showed that 10% of fatal accidents had a pilot onboard who had
violated regs, might that indicate:

1) It was a direct cause of the accident, or
2) It demonstrates that 10% of pilots are in violation of FAA medical
regulations

I wonder how much the medical conditon of that 10% actually had anything to
do with the accidents.

On the other hand, do you really want to share the sky with a pilot taking
Oxycontin?

Not only that, but I don't want her commanding my airline flight nor
over-flying my home, nor person, nor those of those I love.

Again, I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but, so what? Does it matter
what we want if we're not passengers? FWIW, I live under the approach for
both Portland International and Portland Troutdale; I've got jets and props
thundering overhead so often it doesn't even wake our baby. I don't
particularly want some methed-out pilot either, but, on the other hand, as
long as the airline flies -over- my home and not through it, in the absence
of statistics what right do I have to demand anything in the matter except
as a taxpayer?

If you believe the rigor of FAA medical regulations should be reformed,
that's another issue.

Well.... I hear they're a little more, eh, detailed once you hit 40 and, not
being there just yet, I'd REALLY not mind it at all of they relaxed certain
procedures in the exam. *cough* : My .02!

-c

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:08:16 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
medical regulations is a "non-problem?"

I'm using ole Uncle Phil:

"Boyer said that only 0.25 percent of all general aviation accidents were
caused by medical incapacitation, and only nine accidents in nine years
were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying with a fraudulent
medical certificate."

Everybody is playing fuzzy math games.


--
Dallas

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:12:49 GMT, Dallas
wrote in
:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:08:16 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
medical regulations is a "non-problem?"

I'm using ole Uncle Phil:

"Boyer said that only 0.25 percent of all general aviation accidents were
caused by medical incapacitation, and only nine accidents in nine years
were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying with a fraudulent
medical certificate."

Well, if the DOT IG's intent in pursuing this issue is to reduce GA
accidents, and AOPA's information is correct, than its not going to be
very fruitful. If, on the other hand, the DOT IG's intent is to
collect fines, or reduce other medical incapacitation fatalities,
s/he's probably on the right track. I would guess, it's more likely
the SSA looking to expose fraudulent claims that precipitated this
issue.

In any event, the airman who fraudulently fails to accurately complete
his Airmans Medical Certificate application, so that s/he can continue
flying, despite the hazard it may cause to the public and himself, not
to mention his friends and family, is probably criminally negligent at
least. The PIC is expected to place the wellbeing of his passengers
above his own selfinterest, IMHO.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:38:34 GMT, Dallas
What criteria did you use to come to the conclusion that violating FAA
medical regulations is a "non-problem?" As I recall, one study showed
10% of fatal accidents had a pilot aboard who violated FAA medical
regulations.


This demonstrates how one can lie with statistics.

Most of those accidents had nothing to do with the medical condition.
According to statistics that were presented at the hearing, only 0.25 percent of
all general aviation accidents were caused by medical incapacitation, and only
nine accidents in nine years were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying
with a fraudulent medical certificate.

This is a non-problem! The best way to virtually eliminate the
"non-problem" is to eliminate the third-class medical certificate.

Vaughn

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:59:10 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:

According to statistics that were presented at the hearing, only 0.25 percent of
all general aviation accidents were caused by medical incapacitation, and only
nine accidents in nine years were caused by the incapacitation of a pilot flying
with a fraudulent medical certificate.

I haven't seen a transcript of the hearing. Are you able to provide a
link to it?