Aviation Medical "Fraud"

Steve Foley wrote:

I have no idea what they can/will do for lying on the medical.

If I remember correctly, it is spelled out on the form itself; always
read the fine prints! (including the ones that say that you are under
no obligation to provide the FAA with a SSN but I digress)

--Sylvain

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:33:05 -0700, "Danny Deger"
wrote in
:

Anybody know what penalties these guys are facing?



On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:48:00 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Per FAR 67.403, "Falsification of the airman medical application
form 8500-8 may result in adverse action including fines up to
$250,000, imprisonment up to 5 years and revocation of medical and
all pilot certificates."

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
What would be more relevant is any correlation between these
individuals and accidents.

And if you read the longer version I posted in response to Larry's
post you will see that there is.

I read it and saw only inuendo and implications unsupported by correlated
data.

Neil

Recently, Jim Logajan posted:

Larry Dighera wrote:
How is it that airmen are able to hide their medical conditions from
the licensed medical doctor examining them, but not from Congress?

Obviously they can't. The airmen were either:

1) Committing fraud against the Social Security Administration,
2) Committing fraud against the Federal Aviation Administration,
3) Neither of the above.

There are too many problems with the committee's report[1] that it is
difficult to know where to start. Here's an attempt:

(rest of this excellent analysis snipped for brevity)

It constantly amazes me how a committee charged with oversight can deliver
published reports with such elementary errors, numerous misstatements and
erroneous conclusions. And then I recall the notion that "people usually
get the government they deserve" and find it a really depressing
situation.

Neil

I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
public record; interesting.

Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
federal agencies from comparing databases, as
long as they don't disclose the information in
the databases to the public.

I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
but just the same, the government has a long
history of doing them.

Just curious: Why would you be *against* the gummint comparing notes?

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change. The fact that We the
People are paying monthly "diability" stipends to physically-fit
pilots is a scandal that should rock the Social Security
administration -- not the FAA.

Unfortunately we pilots are the easier target to hit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change. The fact that We the
People are paying monthly "diability" stipends to physically-fit
pilots is a scandal that should rock the Social Security
administration -- not the FAA.

Unfortunately we pilots are the easier target to hit.

Correct Jay. And that should be the point hammered home by AOPA and every
aviation supporter addressing this issue. The majority of these cases are
probably completely physically fit individuals who are scamming SSA not the
FAA.

Howard

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wasn't aware that medical disability information was a matter of
public record; interesting.

Who said it was? There's nothing to stop two
federal agencies from comparing databases, as
long as they don't disclose the information in
the databases to the public.

I'm *not* in favor of such fishing expeditions,
but just the same, the government has a long
history of doing them.

Just curious: Why would you be *against* the gummint comparing notes?

The present example comes to mind as plenty of reason to be very wary. The
usual dictum is "garbage in, garbage out." We seldom mention the
transformation process in between. It's true that you can't make good
information out of bad (GIGO). It's equally true that you can take perfectly
good information and produce pure garbage, as they did in this case. 40 in
40000 hardly qualifies as "widespread abuse."

I, for one, am amazed and thrilled that the bureacrats actually
bothered to check something, for a change.

Oversight is good. Weeding out abuse is good. Promulgating it into law and
yet more layers of bureaucracy is not good. We don't need more laws. We
don't need more bureaucrats. In fact, bureacrats == abuse from my point of
view.