----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
advice in this forum.]---- 
I've changed the subject header because it isn't about age, and
I refuse to make it about age. (Although I've suggested that age
might be a factor, as, like it or not, it IS to our health). It's a about 
the physical health of pilots and whether ALL pilots can be trusted 
to self-certify and if, failing that, the DMV is as good as an AME.

At 10:11 AM 7/20/02 -0600, Weston Webb wrote:


 Itwas Sept.2001 before the FAA let me have a medical.  They insist that
I'm going to have a heart attack on final approach.  Had to have a stress
test before they would allow me to have a medical.  I came through it with
flying colors.  


So this argument goes 'the medical process is bolloxed up, so eliminate it

entirely in favor of self-certification.' This is a
baby-with-the-bathwater argument.
I maintain that there is a REASON to have an AME take a look at pilots
every 
year or two, just to provide a 3rd-party check-point. If there are issues
with that
process, then let's FIX THE PROCESS but let's not get rid of it.

There is a reason why it exists.

On our airplanes, we have an annual inspection. Why are we saying the
pilot, who
is half of the airplane/pilot system shouldn't have a bi-annual
inspection? We do
biennial flight reviews. All our pilot skills are no good if our bodies
are failing us
to the extent that they may fail to keep up their end of the bargain.

We've gone a ways towards fixing the process in the last few months. Our
friends
at the AOPA have gotten a streamlined waiver process in place, that
doesn't require
so much hassle in OKC. More and more pilots are being returned to flight
status
with conditions like corrected coronary artery disease and diet-controlled
diabetes, 
that used to be permanently disqualifying. 



On a scale of 1 to 10, I was a 9.  The funny thing about the whole story
is that I don't have a heart problem, and had my FAA Doctor andVA Doctor
both write a letter to the FAA stating so, but they wouldn't buy it.
Still have to get a stress test every year. (next tues)   Well, anyway,
I'm flying, and feel in great health.  I have a class A CDL license and
drive charter bus.  I'll go up against any younger person on any endurance
test and come out in good shape. (Might not win, but will give a good
showing)


See, this is strange. It is the people who don't (or don't think they)
have a problem who
keep arguing against the requirement for an FAA medical. Why should we who
are 
healthy enough to fly an Ercoupe object to having that fact verified in
order to weed out
those who SAY they are, but really aren't? Do we want to be in the pattern
with them?
Do we want them taxiing out on the runway while we're on short final?

I also hear people saying, well, 'it's just one or two people on board.'

Right. I don't think the public is willing to put up with that. After all,
it was over the
July 4th holiday that a light aircraft crashed into a family picnic in
California, killing
two children.  Maybe an Ercoupe would only have killed one? Yes, it was a
mechanical
failure. But don't people over whose houses and schoolyards I'm flying
(even if limited
to one passenger) have a right to ask that I nominally prove that I'm not
likely to check 
out when I'm over their children? 

Or when I'm flying their children as Young Eagles?

I think that we have enough problems with GA public relations right now
without 
lowering the medical bar. And without setting us up for a news story that
says:
'FAA Allows Pilots to Fly Without Medical Examinations.' 

A subset of the public, those who may be on the fence about the airport in
their
neighborhood may read that story and say 'enough is enough.  Close them
down.'
Maybe they'll be wrong, but the airport will be that much closer to
closure 
nonetheless.

And I hear others saying 'but we don't have significant problems with
pilots becoming
disabled now!' No, we don't. But we also have a system designed to keep
that from
happening. Maybe, just maybe, it's actually working. Maybe it errs on the
side of 
caution, but maybe it's working. We *do* see drivers have coronaries on
the highway,
and we DO see them killing themselves and other people when they do so.
And some
of those drivers have been advised by doctors not to drive. We also see
people on 
the road feeling bad, pulling over immediately, and dying where they
parked. HOW
DO THEY DO THAT IN AN AIRPLANE OVER A CITY?

Maybe the answer is to provide a form that any personal physician can
sign, that 
certifies to the FAA that the person is at least in good enough health to
drive a car,
and is unlikely to suffer any ill effects from altitudes up to, say 8500
feet, nor to 
become abruptly disabled. Perhaps that could take the place of the AME.
(Though 
I think the result might be that a  lot MORE pilots have trouble getting
this medical!)

As a group, pilots need to be on their best behavior just now. Part of
being on our best 
behavior is, I think, to continue to submit willingly to a minimal process
of health
screening by a health professional. Even if that means that we may not get
to do
just what we want to do when we want to do it.

Greg

================================================================== TO
UNSUBSCRIBE go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm 

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to