Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mike Borgelt]

I'd settle for the Brit option for aircraft under 
2000Kg and the American for more than that but it is all nonsense anyway.


I'm not sure that any of the aviation regulation 
beyond the relatively simple rules of air on who 
gives way, how to approach and depart aerodromes 
etc does any good. The insurance costs will 
prssure commercial aviation into behaving, 
besides it is bad for business if you kill 
passengers. Having said that, with all the 
regulation we have stupid things like flying over 
an active warzone which are done routinely 
(MH17). Oh yes it was OK above 32000 feet. So 
what if you have an engine failure or a decompression event?


For private aviation, imagine if YOU couldn't 
hide behind compliance with regulations and were 
totally responsible for the safety of the 
aircraft? It would probably get inspected and 
checked more often than the regulatory minimum 
and if not, Mr Darwin's Awards are waiting.


Here's the link to the Avweb article 
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAA-Issues-New-GA-Medical-Rule-228312-1.html?ET=avweb:e3568:249942a:&st=email


The comments are interesting.



Mike




At 07:00 PM 1/11/2017, you wrote:
On 11 Jan 2017, at 3:22 PM, Mike Borgelt 
 wrote: > > > 
Everyone should download the CASA discussion 
paper and put in a submission. I'll publish some 
more links later. You have until end of March. 
Note that the CASA discussion paper presents six 
regulatory model options and asks you to comment 
on them. The obvious 7th option, one which says, 
“Do what the Americans are doing, you bunch of 
flaming incandescently incompetent 
arseclowns!” is conspicuous by its absence. 
Maybe write that one in.   - mark 
___ 
Aus-soaring mailing list 
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mike Borgelt]

And top down, centralised command and control 
worked so well for the Soviet Union didn't it?

Mike




At 06:59 PM 1/11/2017, you wrote:
On 11 Jan 2017, at 7:01 PM, Mike Borgelt 
 wrote: > > The 
medical for private pilots is mere CYA and 
virtue signalling by bureaucrats and vested 
interests. > Ha-ha-ha, it’s stupider than 
that. After the earliest days of aviation, when 
passenger carrying was starting to pick up steam 
and governments worked out they wanted to 
regulate it, they looked around to find the 
easiest, simplest, least-effort system of 
regulation they could find: Armed services. Most 
of the new influx of pilots were ex-military 
anyway, so lining up civil aviation regs with 
the services meant they had pilots, instructors, 
and brass already trained. Sideways shift from 
military to civilian life at every level in the 
hierarchy. Along the way, they worked out that 
every serviceman had a medical (“turn your 
head and cough”), so civilian pilots needed 
medicals too. From that harmonious observation, 
bureaucracies flourished all around the world, 
adding tests, procedures and complexity on an 
almost completely arbitrary basis. We now know 
it was arbitrary from the statistical analyses 
that have been done in various parts of the 
world regarding medical incapacitation among 
pilots with and without medicals. (kinda similar 
to the way GFA was loosely modelled on military 
structures: GFA’s CTOs, RTOs, CFIs, 
Instructors, Duty Pilots form a chain of 
command. The training system and the way that 
responsibility for operations was carried by 
“superiors” draws from that model, in the 
same way that the General is responsible for the 
war crimes carried out by his Privates. 
There’s never really been any justification 
for pilot medicals, and even the people who 
practice and administer avmed can’t honestly 
describe why they do it, with safety cases and 
measurable statistics. It’s mostly just one of 
those “we’ve always done it that way” 
things that grew from the fact that the military 
had always done it too, coupled with a goodly 
dose of superstition and make-believe. The 
sooner it’s flushed away, the better. There 
are some people who want to fly, and who are 
genuinely unhealthy and shouldn’t be doing it. 
Currently, some of these people get class-2 
medicals. Those people should be removed from 
the pilot population, but the global avmed 
bureaucracy empirically isn’t the best way to 
do it.   - mark 
___ 
Aus-soaring mailing list 
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au 
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of 
quality soaring instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 8:00 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> Or text while driving like the idiot I followed for a while coming back from 
> the airfield this afternoon (at a safe distance).
> 
> The US limitations are up to 6000 pounds, can be IFR and up to 18,000 feet 
> below 250 knots.

Note that 18,000’ is the US’s transition altitude (i.e., FL170 doesn’t exist, 
they have 17,000' instead).

The rough analog here (and, obviously, in the UK) would be 10,000’.

I don’t think CASA is currently considering private IFR without a medical. That 
seems like a defect to me, given that the FAA has already decided that IFR 
private pilots don’t need them.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mike Borgelt]

Or text while driving like the idiot I followed for a while coming 
back from the airfield this afternoon (at a safe distance).


The US limitations are up to 6000 pounds, can be IFR and up to 18,000 
feet below 250 knots.
The Brits 2000Kg AFAIK and 1 feet probably isn't any kind of 
serious limitation in the UK.
Who knows what goes on in the minds of government bureaucrats besides 
"how do I keep my pay, perks, position, pension  and power to make 
them keep happening"?
The limits are pretty arbitrary and probably don't have any rational 
reasoning behind them.
The Australian "Driver's licence medical" is actually a Heavy vehicle 
Drivers medical and the standards are exactly the same as for a Class 
2(PPL) medical only done by your GP instead of a DAME. It is nonsense 
to impose any restrictions. How the number of engines has anything to 
do with anything, I don't know.


Don't forget the BGA had a self declaration thing before the EU 
nonsense took hold. They never could find any reason for aviation 
medicals as the majority of the accidents with a medical component 
were by people with aviation medicals or were serving military 
officers who had medicals at least as or more rigorous than aviation medicals.


The real issue here is whether the State has any business restricting 
the activities of individuals when there is no evidence that such 
activities cause third party risk anywhere near as high as the risks 
we all accept everyday.


Mike








At 06:17 PM 1/11/2017, you wrote:

Thanks Mike,

I was playing devil's advocate.

>You might also like to contemplate that in the case of sudden 
incapacitation when driving a car you are far more likely to damage 
property and innocent third parties than in an aircraft. Aircraft 
crash all the time for all sorts of reasons (98 vs 160,000) and how 
often is anything significant on the ground damaged? Cars seem to 
end up in houses with monotonous regularity.


True.

But what is sadder that many choose to become medically 
incapacitated by driving whilst intoxicated, damaging/killing third parties.


Interesting though the limitations on the new medical declarations 
(ie single engine only, below 10,000', a/c below a certain weight 
and numbers of Pax), does anyone know how they were decided?


By your arguments, why should there be a Medical for any pilot?
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 3:22 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> 
> Everyone should download the CASA discussion paper and put in a submission. 
> I'll publish some more links later. You have until end of March. 

Note that the CASA discussion paper presents six regulatory model options and 
asks you to comment on them.

The obvious 7th option, one which says, “Do what the Americans are doing, you 
bunch of flaming incandescently incompetent arseclowns!” is conspicuous by its 
absence.

Maybe write that one in.

  - mark


___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mark Newton]

On 11 Jan 2017, at 7:01 PM, Mike Borgelt  
wrote:
> 
> The medical for private pilots is mere CYA and virtue signalling by 
> bureaucrats and vested interests.
> 

Ha-ha-ha, it’s stupider than that.

After the earliest days of aviation, when passenger carrying was starting to 
pick up steam and governments worked out they wanted to regulate it, they 
looked around to find the easiest, simplest, least-effort system of regulation 
they could find: Armed services.

Most of the new influx of pilots were ex-military anyway, so lining up civil 
aviation regs with the services meant they had pilots, instructors, and brass 
already trained. Sideways shift from military to civilian life at every level 
in the hierarchy.

Along the way, they worked out that every serviceman had a medical (“turn your 
head and cough”), so civilian pilots needed medicals too. 

From that harmonious observation, bureaucracies flourished all around the 
world, adding tests, procedures and complexity on an almost completely 
arbitrary basis. We now know it was arbitrary from the statistical analyses 
that have been done in various parts of the world regarding medical 
incapacitation among pilots with and without medicals.

(kinda similar to the way GFA was loosely modelled on military structures: 
GFA’s CTOs, RTOs, CFIs, Instructors, Duty Pilots form a chain of command. The 
training system and the way that responsibility for operations was carried by 
“superiors” draws from that model, in the same way that the General is 
responsible for the war crimes carried out by his Privates.

There’s never really been any justification for pilot medicals, and even the 
people who practice and administer avmed can’t honestly describe why they do 
it, with safety cases and measurable statistics. It’s mostly just one of those 
“we’ve always done it that way” things that grew from the fact that the 
military had always done it too, coupled with a goodly dose of superstition and 
make-believe.

The sooner it’s flushed away, the better.

There are some people who want to fly, and who are genuinely unhealthy and 
shouldn’t be doing it. Currently, some of these people get class-2 medicals. 
Those people should be removed from the pilot population, but the global avmed 
bureaucracy empirically isn’t the best way to do it.

  - mark



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Texler, Michael]

Thanks Mike,

I was playing devil's advocate.

>You might also like to contemplate that in the case of sudden incapacitation 
>when driving a car you are far more likely to damage property and innocent 
>third parties than in an aircraft. Aircraft crash all the time for all sorts 
>of reasons (98 vs 160,000) and how often is anything significant on the ground 
>damaged? Cars seem to end up in houses with monotonous regularity.

True.

But what is sadder that many choose to become medically incapacitated by 
driving whilst intoxicated, damaging/killing third parties.

Interesting though the limitations on the new medical declarations (ie single 
engine only, below 10,000', a/c below a certain weight and numbers of Pax), 
does anyone know how they were decided?

By your arguments, why should there be a Medical for any pilot?
___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mike Borgelt]

Um, no. Fortunately we have a control group. When glider and balloon 
pilots were looked at in the US they had about the same rate of 
medical incapacitation accidents as pilots with aviation medicals. 
One study actually came out a little lower but probably not significant.


Australia has around 11,000 pilots (RAAus and GFA) who don't for the 
most part have aviation medicals. There has been no suggestion that 
this is a problem. The ATSB report medical incapacitation 
accidents/incidents that were actually such weren't picked up by the medicals.


Yep, nice way of transferring money from pilots to doctors but that 
is about it. The main significant opposition in the US to reform was 
the aviation medical examiners. As they couldn't produce any good 
evidence that they were doing any good they lost.


Now we have the two countries whose aviation heritage Australia's 
came from having reformed the private flying medical. There is a 
suggestion that something like this has also happened in New Zealand 
but I don't have the details yet.


The medical for private pilots is mere CYA and virtue signalling by 
bureaucrats and vested interests.


Private aviation is dying and this is one of the reasons why.

You might also like to contemplate that in the case of sudden 
incapacitation when driving a car you are far more likely to damage 
property and innocent third parties than in an aircraft. Aircraft 
crash all the time for all sorts of reasons (98 vs 160,000) and how 
often is anything significant on the ground damaged? Cars seem to end 
up in houses with monotonous regularity.



Mike

 At 04:55 PM 1/11/2017, you wrote:

Hi Mike,

>CASA has a discussion paper up on medicals, released just before 
Christmas,  but as usual is making a mountain out of a molehill 
despite there being an ATSB report showing that medical 
incapacitation from 1975 to 2006 was 98 incidents/accidents out of 
160,000 and some of the 98 are intestinal distress(food poisoning), 
hypoxia/carbon monoxide poisoning (maintenance/operational causes), 
breaking F/O's collarbone during emergency evac of a 747, getting 
hit by prop or rotor blade on ground etc. Doesn't actually leave 
much particularly when you realise that most of the remaining 
actually had a Class 2 or Class 1 aviation medical.


Only 98 medical incidents out of 160,000. Must mean that the medical 
health screening had been working between 1975 to 2006!!!


If most of these are from gastro, perhaps pilots need food safety training!!

(Runs and hide...Again...)

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Texler, Michael]

Hi Mike,

>CASA has a discussion paper up on medicals, released just before Christmas,  
>but as usual is making a mountain out of a molehill despite there being an 
>ATSB report showing that medical incapacitation from 1975 to 2006 was 98 
>incidents/accidents out of 160,000 and some of the 98 are intestinal 
>distress(food poisoning), hypoxia/carbon monoxide poisoning 
>(maintenance/operational causes), breaking F/O's collarbone during emergency 
>evac of a 747, getting hit by prop or rotor blade on ground etc. Doesn't 
>actually leave much particularly when you realise that most of the remaining 
>actually had a Class 2 or Class 1 aviation medical.

Only 98 medical incidents out of 160,000. Must mean that the medical health 
screening had been working between 1975 to 2006!!!

If most of these are from gastro, perhaps pilots need food safety training!!

(Runs and hide...Again...)

___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring

Re: [Aus-soaring] FAA Issues General Aviation Medical Rule

[Mike Borgelt]

Jim and others,

The Brits already have for aircraft under 2000Kg. Just need ability 
no to be medically disqualified from driving a normal private car. 
Once only up to age 70, every 3 years after that.


CASA has a discussion paper up on medicals, released just before 
Christmas,  but as usual is making a mountain out of a molehill 
despite there being an ATSB report showing that medical 
incapacitation from 1975 to 2006 was 98 incidents/accidents out of 
160,000 and some of the 98 are intestinal distress(food poisoning), 
hypoxia/carbon monoxide poisoning (maintenance/operational causes), 
breaking F/O's collarbone during emergency evac of a 747, getting hit 
by prop or rotor blade on ground etc. Doesn't actually leave much 
particularly when you realise that most of the remaining actually had 
a Class 2 or Class 1 aviation medical.


Everyone should download the CASA discussion paper and put in a 
submission. I'll publish some more links later. You have until end of March.


Just because you fly gliders don't think  this doesn't matter. One of 
the CASA options is extending the RAMPC (driver's licence medical - 
actually heavy vehicle medical and the same as a PPL medical) to ALL 
sport and recreational aviation including gliding. The GFA might just 
roll over on that as they have on everything else in recent years. 
The other issue is if you want a tug pilot to launch you in 5 years 
time. Even if fit to the standard the expense of the medical is 
causing some people to quit. I know of a least one tug pilot lost at 
a local club as a result.


Mike



At 10:24 AM 1/11/2017, you wrote:

We've been waiting for it...
The third class medical requirement for private and recreational 
pilots will no longer be necessary starting on the first of May.

Lets hope other authorities do the same!
Jim

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=87125



___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring


Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring 
instrumentation since 1978

www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel:   07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784:  int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia  ___
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring