Congress Examines Pilot Medical Record Fraud

"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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote

Being that at least one airplane manufacturer (Diamond?) has a option to
get it configured for being flown by disabled pilots, is it not possible
that a person can be disabled "enough" to draw SS but not disabled enough
to not have a medical?

I would certainly think so, but I don't have anything but gut feeling to
back that up.

At some point, I will probably be drawing disability, for a wretched back.
I could certainly see a point where I could not stand being at work for
more than a couple hours at a time (without laying down flat), but if I
could stand 2 hours at work, I could fly for two hours.
--
Jim in NC


I flew with a vet who was medically disabled, and he had no problem
getting a 2nd class med, and going to work as a flight instructor. I think
his medical problem was his back.

Al G

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.

I had a look at a website that listed those items that would be
disqualifying for a medical certificate and really saw nothing that
was awful.

Some conditions, like loss of conciousness, seem fairly obvious. Many
things that would allow someone to collect disability (back problems
are an obvious example) are not reasons to lose one's medical.

I had really been looking to see if signing the medical certificate
also gave 'informed consent' for a waiver of privicy with respect to
medical records, but did not find that. You might remember whenever
you do have a medical condition that involves a third party payer you
sign away some rights so that the insurance company can get the
information they want.

If the FAA wants to 'send a message' all they need do is enforce this
a few hundred times.

"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."

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:58:12 -0000, Tina wrote
in . com:

I had really been looking to see if signing the medical certificate
also gave 'informed consent' for a waiver of privicy with respect to
medical records, but did not find that.

I didn't see that either:

http://www.leftseat.com/8500.htm
http://www.leftseat.com/pdffiles/8500-8new.pdf

20. APPLICANT'S DECLARATION - Two declarations are contained
under this heading. The first authorizes the National Driver Register
to release adverse driver history information, if any, about the
applicant to the FAA. The second certifies the completeness and
truthfulness of the applicant's responses on the medical application.
The declaration section must be signed and dated by the applicant
after the applicant has read it.

You are being manipulated!
There is no herd of pilots flying over your head while impaired...
There is no crises other than the cynically created media blitz...
The public is not in danger - other than from special interest groups
(anti gun, anti GA, etc.)...


There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
incident that will always pop up now and then...
If you want fraud, better look at drivers - no licenses, expired
licenses, mis-tagged cars, drunk, stoned, epileptics, nearly blind,
psychotic, road ragers, arrest warrants, and on, and on... Both the
absolute numbers and the percentages vastly exceed anything that
general aviation has to offer...


And being disabled under SSI criteria does not necessarily mean that
you cannot and should not fly... The FAA has provisions in the
regulations that allow for demonstration of ability, fer cripes sake..
There are paraplegics flying and they certainly meet the SSI criteria
for disability... There are one arm pilots... There are diabetics
flying... There are one eyed pilots flying... There are post heart
attack pilots flying... There are post stroke pilots flying... And all
of them have valid medical certificates...

You are being manipulated - time to wake up and pay attention to who
is manipulating you and why...

denny

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
The FAA said it would be too labor-intensive to cross-check and
verify every application, and the safety risk would not justify
the resources it would consume.

The answer to that problem is so obvious that it should hit you right
between the eyes...eliminate the third class medical and concentrate the FAA's
resources on what remains. But alas, that was apparently not even mentioned.

"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 04:31:14 -0700, Denny wrote
in . com:

There is no pilot medical record fraud other than the isolated
incident that will always pop up now and then...

This government document seems to contradict your subjective
assessment of the issue:


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

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.