Medical fails may climb

[bri5150]

Yes. Closest was 1 of the 3 on duty heart attacks CAL had in 2007. The one that landed in McAllen, TX. That happened to be the same year we went to age 65. I'm pretty sure we're only talking about sleep apnea as a result of age 65.

Nevermind

 

[Dan Roman]

Look, here's the deal......

wow, that's weird, I just fell asleep while I was typing...now I can't remember what I was going to say.

 

[densoo]

Perfect timing with the new FAR 117 rest rules.

Suspicion of being fatigued is being put right up there with suspicion of alcohol use. No more yawning in uniform. If you're holding a cup of coffee you must be fatigued. If you're irritable ("got up on wrong side of the bed") you must be fatigued.

"FATIGUE EDUCATION AND AWARENESS TRAINING must be provided annually to all employees with the responsibility of administering this rule, including flightcrew members, dispatchers, crew schedulers, and individuals involved in operational control or direct management oversight. 117.9(a)"

117.3.6.f. "Reporting Fatigued Flightcrew. Flightcrew members and other employees should be cognizant of the appearance and behavior of fellow flightcrew members displaying signs of fatigue. If a flightcrew member (or any other employee) believes another flightcrew member may be too tired to fly, the FAA encourages each flightcrew member and other employees to voluntarily inform their employer when they observe a fatigued flightcrew member.

117.3.5.d. "Symptoms of Fatigue. Common symptoms of fatigue include: Measurable reduction in speed and accuracy of performance, Lapses of attention and vigilance, Delayed reactions, Impaired logical reasoning and decisionmaking, including a reduced ability to assess risk or appreciate consequences of actions, Reduced situational awareness, and Low motivation."

That last one cuts a wide swath. Removed from trip, FSAP report, wait for FRC to determine pay, and meet with FAA about proving why you weren't lying when you signed in stating you weren't fatigued.

 

[densoo]

Suspicion of being fatigued is being put right up there with suspicion of alcohol use. No more yawning in uniform. If you're holding a cup of coffee you must be fatigued. If you're irritable ("got up on wrong side of the bed") you must be fatigued.

"FATIGUE EDUCATION AND AWARENESS TRAINING must be provided annually to all employees with the responsibility of administering this rule, including flightcrew members, dispatchers, crew schedulers, and individuals involved in operational control or direct management oversight. 117.9(a)"

117.3.6.f. "Reporting Fatigued Flightcrew. Flightcrew members and other employees should be cognizant of the appearance and behavior of fellow flightcrew members displaying signs of fatigue. If a flightcrew member (or any other employee) believes another flightcrew member may be too tired to fly, the FAA encourages each flightcrew member and other employees to voluntarily inform their employer when they observe a fatigued flightcrew member.

117.3.5.d. "Symptoms of Fatigue. Common symptoms of fatigue include: Measurable reduction in speed and accuracy of performance, Lapses of attention and vigilance, Delayed reactions, Impaired logical reasoning and decisionmaking, including a reduced ability to assess risk or appreciate consequences of actions, Reduced situational awareness, and Low motivation."

That last one cuts a wide swath. Removed from trip, FSAP report, wait for FRC to determine pay, and meet with FAA about proving why you weren't lying when you signed in stating you weren't fatigued.

Is paranoia a sign of fatigue?

 

[CesnaCaptn]

Has a plane ever crashed in the United States because one of the pilots died/medicaled out in flight? Has it ever even been close?

Well, 40 people almost went swimming...

NTSB reports on pilots falling asleep

WASHINGTON
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY

Two airline pilots fell asleep while cruising over Hawaii last February, flying past their destination toward open ocean for 18 minutes before waking up and returning for a safe landing, federal accident investigators revealed Tuesday.

That incident and an accident in Traverse City, Mich., last year highlight the need for more comprehensive rules to stem the growing list of crashes attributed to the lengthy hours that pilots routinely work, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said. Crashes linked to fatigue have killed 249 people since 1997, according to NTSB records.

"It's an insidious issue," NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker said. "Many times the pilots themselves don't recognize that they are fatigued when they get into that cockpit."

The NTSB voted to recommend that federal aviation regulators and airlines use fatigue studies to rewrite the rules for how long pilots can legally fly. Currently, federal law allows pilots to work up to 16 hours a day, including up to eight hours behind the controls, and loopholes allow longer days in some situations.

Air-traffic controllers frantically radioed Go Airlines Flight 1002 from Honolulu to Hilo, Hawaii, for 18 minutes on Feb. 13, but got no response from the pilots, said NTSB investigator Jana Price.
In the safety board's first disclosure of details from the investigation, Price said both pilots "unintentionally fell asleep" as the Bombardier CRJ-200 jet flew at 21,000 feet. The jet carried 40 passengers.

The two pilots had been flying together for three arduous days "that involved early start times" and a "demanding" sequence of short flights, Price said. Since the incident, the captain had been diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea, she said. Apnea causes people to repeatedly wake up during the night and has been linked to poor work performance and accidents.

In a separate investigation, the NTSB concluded that a regional airline crash last year in Traverse City was probably triggered by fatigue. Pinnacle Airlines Flight 4712 skidded off the end of a snowy runway on April 12, 2007, after landing in the early hours of the morning. None of the 49 passengers, two pilots and a flight attendant were injured.
The NTSB found that the pilots of the Bombardier CRJ-200 should never have attempted the landing.

The runway was too slick to land under the airline's rules, but the pilots failed to perform a basic landing calculation and missed other warning signs that the weather was deteriorating.

The accident happened after the pilots had worked 14 hours. The cockpit recorder overheard the pilots yawning and the captain made repeated references to being tired, the NTSB found.

The NTSB has been calling for reform of pilot work rules for decades. Several attempts to rewrite pilot work rules have failed in the face of opposition from airlines and pilot groups.

 

[Freebrd]

What about those two NWA pilots who overflew MSP while asleep, oh wait, it was the new scheduling system they were discussing and distracted them wasn't it, my bad

 

[Bringupthebird]

Since the incident, the captain had been diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea, she said. Apnea causes people to repeatedly wake up during the night and has been linked to poor work performance and accidents.

Of course he was. It was either that or get his license yanked and possible fines for Careless and Reckless. The same untrustworthy docs that certify the unfit can be paid off to diagnose you with a catch-all condition like sleep apnea.

How about a reg that prohibits commuting more than 2 hours from your base. That ought to wake folks up, eh?

If you sign in stating you are not fatigued, then the cause of the fatigue really doesn't matter does it?

Are you ready for annual psych exams? How about adding nicotine to the drugs that are randomly screened for?

The cheerleaders for astronaut physicals will eventually howl when their particular problem is focused on but by then it will be too late. All those perfect specimen Chinese folks will be in the cockpits of American airliners.

Then you'll have things the way they should be, right?

 

[Turtle21]

Wrong assumption. I won't be in the first couple of groups, but eventually I will have to put my medical on the line for nothing. So what's next? Where should it stop? I don't think it's a crime for someone to be obese. It's not even a valid criteria by which to judge someone.

And Andy, you still haven't answered my question: What is behind your enthusiasm for unnecessarily jeopardizing someone's livelihood?

If you have no answer, or are just looking for some group to pick on, then at least be honest about it.

Sleep disorders are most common among people who live in extremely hot locales and unfortunately once developed, these disorders last for at least five years after relocating to a more temperate climate.

 

[Turtle21]

Of course he was. It was either that or get his license yanked and possible fines for Careless and Reckless. The same untrustworthy docs that certify the unfit can be paid off to diagnose you with a catch-all condition like sleep apnea.

How about a reg that prohibits commuting more than 2 hours from your base. That ought to wake folks up, eh?

If you sign in stating you are not fatigued, then the cause of the fatigue really doesn't matter does it?

Are you ready for annual psych exams? How about adding nicotine to the drugs that are randomly screened for?

The cheerleaders for astronaut physicals will eventually howl when their particular problem is focused on but by then it will be too late. All those perfect specimen Chinese folks will be in the cockpits of American airliners.

Then you'll have things the way they should be, right?

If I lived in PHX I would be afraid of all those things.

 

[Andy]

Bringupthebird, here are some of your previous posts:

Hmm? Age 60 is supposedly all about safety but no one wants tougher medical standards across the board. Even those on Capitol Hill can see through that hypocrisy.

You go get 'em BBB.

The point of my post was that the pro-Age 60 defenders cite safety as their rationale. When they cry foul at higher medical standards across the board (which could add some marginal degree of safety albeit at a very high cost) their safety argument becomes quite specious.

Any safety issue regarding age must be viewed as a health issue. If these Age 60 proponents champion the cause of safety (actually, " the world would be safer if I was captain") then they must also advocate stricter medical standards for all pilots. Why stop with just kicking out the old guys? Why not fat guys with high cholesterol? Why not disallow all special issuance medicals and waivers? Why not bring back 20/20 vision?

The answer is simple. They cannot hide behind the safety straw man. They use the defense when it suits them and abandon it when it doesn't. The sixty-year-old of today in no way resembles the sixty-year-old of 1958. In fact to gain an actuarial equivalent you would have a retirement age of 71, so 65 is no great stretch.

We can't pretend that advances in health and medicine haven't been made since 1958. And it is proper that the retirement age will be raised over and over, or simply replaced with a medical and skills-based testing to reflect these advances while insuring public safety. Raising the retirement age to 65 doesn't solve everything, but it is a small, very small step in the right direction.

Sometimes change needs to be incremental and 60-65 is just that. Incrementalism does not make change illegitimate, it makes it digestible.

Whatever medical standards are in place it is the responsibility of each pilot to meet them. Those that can should not be penalized by those that can't. Who would argue with that?

Wait a second, what about the perfectly healthy 64 year-old. Why should he be penalized? Are you concerned about him? Do you think he poses a safety risk? Why not focus the attention on medical qualification instead of age? And I'm certain that the bulk of the accidents in the futuer, as in the past will still be the result of pilot error, not pilot incapacitation, regardless of age.

That would turn a bad rule into an unworkable solution. What about the mid-level or junior F/O's who stagnate as Capt.'s come back to take the top slots? And the point is that the 60+ PIC is fully qualified to continue in his current position. Why penalize him for turning one day older?

The one-pilot-under-60 rule is a stopgap and everyone knows that. It will allow a controlled environment where it can be proven that pilots are fully capable of flying beyond 60. Once the data is in, I see an end to forced retirement, but somewhat more stringent oversight of medical issuance.

If the opponents of change argue the safety aspect - they lose based on statistics. If they argue on the basis of entitlement to promotion - they lose based on a lack of public sympathy. Any way you cut it, opposing the change to Age 60 is a losing proposition. The world has had to adapt to new realities and the piloting profession is not immune.

So now doctor shopping is now the problem? Why not deal with that issue? You could apply for your medical online and FAA Aeromedical randomly spits out who you are to see based on location. Focus on the problem at hand, and don't wast your time inventing phantom problems. If the problems of 60-year old incapacitation are real and documented, then address them, but don't use an arbitrary age limit to avoid dealing with the problem.


This rule change has been gathering momentum for 10 years and has been embraced by ICAO. Folks should have been planning for it. And do you suppose ICAO flagrantly disregards safety?

The opponents to change are the cake and eat it crowd who have an Ozzie and Harriet view of retirement at 60 from the left seat and maybe a little military pension and VA health care to boot. They aren't about to let the reality of the carnage of the past 6 years upset their fantasy retirement. And if it takes tossing those who have had the least amount of time to prepare under the bus to do it, that's life!

Everyone assumes that the ones fighting hardest for this are greedy top-scalers. In fact most of the work is being done by average pilots who have experienced the pain, firsthand or by association, of starting over again at the bottom, through no fault of their own. They face retirement as mid-level F/O's at 60 with no retireee health insurance, no A-plan, and little likelihood of landing a job because of the stigma the FAA puts on the number 60.



Ok, that's relatively easy. What do you expect to make during your final year? Multiply that by 5. Given the apparent zeal for leaving aviation at 60 (at least that's what people say) why would you expect more than 30% of those eligible to take advantage of age 65? And of those that do, their assumed decrepit health should prevent them from continuing to hold a medical, so take another 50% out there. Now you're down to 15%. As we enter a growth cycle, this 15% could delay the average upgrade time by a few months, but it could mean the world to those who need the opportunity to continue earning and rebuilding a shattered career.



The B-scale pilots could have chosen not to come to work at an airline that had a B-scale. No can choose not to turn 60.

You gotta stop flip flopping on this issue. Either the retirement age is subjective and related directly to safety or it's objective and related to making vacancies for F/O's.

And you can feign a lack of understanding, but you know full well that the connection to elderly drivers and pilots would be the lack of any legal limit on age should the age limit be abolished. There are maybe 50,000 total airline pilots in the country while there are 10 million or more drivers over age 65, so the total potential for loss of life is on the side of the drivers who have no legal limit on the age. The difference seems to lie with the pilot being part of a seniority system which limits the upward mobility of its members to 1)attrition and 2)growth.

No, if you want to enhance safety, you need to raise the standards for ALL pilots in the areas of performance and medical standards and accept that the results may not necessarily come without unintended consequences.

My needs? I can retire prior to 65 whenever I choose.

Age 60 was defended on the basis of safety, which has been proven to be a farce. It was indefensible featherbedding, and the slight change to 65 brought it a little closer to the reality of the rest of the world.

And no, I don't think I owe the younger generation a thing, especially retaining something like Age 60. I don't support an elimination of the the retirement age unless is comes with a wholesale overhaul to the medical standards for pilots, which is a safety concern. The same advances in medicine that have made the average 65 year old just as medically fit as the 60 year old of days gone by, have also brought us additional medical screening for other potentially debilitating illnesses. Add those to the repetoire of the AME and you may see a few vacancies in the left seat, but quite likely just as many in the right.

Why not abandon your fruitless attacks on age and seniority and focus on right and wrong. You'll likely get more support and you won't appear nearly as weak.

Your words unedited. When you were pushing for age 65. Feel free to click on your posts and reread your words.

Dr Jon Jordan, the previous Federal Air Surgeon, vehemently opposed age 65. Dr Fred Tilton, the current Federal Air Surgeon, removed that roadblock. Now Dr Tilton has decided to tighten medical standards. You didn't have a problem with Dr Tilton advocating age 65 and your posts, above, indicate that you didn't oppose changes in medical standards as long as they were applied across the board. Now you're pouting like a kindergartener because Dr Tilton's decided to start tightening medical standards for all pilots. :bawling: