There seems to be some support for routine medical
examinations for glider pilots rather than the current system of
self-declaration for solo pilots and medical exams for charter pilots in
Appendices 1 and 2 of the GFA Opregs.
For what its worth, here are my
thoughts:
Under the current system, if people suffer from
epilepsy, fits, severe head injury, recurrent fainting, giddiness, blackouts,
abnormally high blood pressure, previous heart disease, a deficiency in vision
or take insulin for the control of diabetes, they require a medical
examination before flying solo. So, in effect, people are proposing to make
people who dont suffer from any of these conditions take a routine medical
examination before flying solo. Can this be justified on safety
grounds?
To counter the argument that some people have failed
airline (Class 1) medicals and then turned to gliding, I would say it depends
on what grounds they failed the Class 1 medical. I hope everybody agrees that
a gliding medical should be less stringent than a Class 1 medical, so I can
see a case for an ex-airline pilot failing a medical and self-declaring to fly
solo in a glider as long as he doesnt suffer from one of the conditions
listed above. If he has any of these conditions, he cant fly solo without a
medical exam from a GP or DAME. If he has one of these conditions and falsely
self-declares, I would argue that making everybody take a routine medical just
to catch those dishonest people is unreasonably burdening the honest pilots.
Somebody else just made the point that having an
incapacitating medical event could be just as fatal while driving a car as
flying a glider. Anecdotally you hear of fatal car accidents caused by drivers
suffering heart attacks etc but I dont see the public or regulators
clamouring to impose routine medical examinations for all drivers. Why?
Because it isnt justified on a risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis that
applies just as well to gliding.
What would be the cost of imposing a routine GP
medical exam on all glider pilots? Assume 50% of the 2,600 GFA members already
have a Students Pilot License or greater and can use their existing medical.
1,300 x $80 doctors fee (This is a guess since I havent visited a doctor for
many years) = $104,000 every two years (assuming the pilots are over
40).
What is the potential benefit? Apart from the possible
pilot incapacitation example that Macca quoted, how many gliders do we lose
each year to pilot incapacitation? If we lose less than one glider every few
years, I would say that routine medicals arent warranted on a risk vs reward
basis alone. Furthermore, not all medical examinations would pick up every
ticking time-bomb. Even some airline pilots with current Class 1 medicals
die suddenly, fortunately they do it outside the cockpit or they have a
co-pilot to recover the aircraft. I realise that Im being a bit callous and
simplistic in my analysis by ignoring the cost of the pilots themselves but
Im assuming that they would have probably had the same fatal accident driving
their car or sitting in their armchair.
You could argue that there would be an additional cost
if the pilot dies at the controls while conducting an AEF or TIF with a
non-pilot passenger who subsequently crashes the glider and gets injured. Many
years ago, a glider pilot had to have a medical exam to get a passenger rating
but I dont know when this changed. I would be prepared to concede this point
only.
Most people on this list favour less gliding
regulation and less expense so it seems anomalous that people are proposing to
increase regulation and cost for (IMHO) questionable reward.
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to
all.
Regards,
Patrick Barfield
(Somebody arguing vociferously against medicals but
with nothing to hide since I have a Class 2 medical)
