ALPA and FAA publish misinformation
01-27-2023, 06:09 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by Thedude86
Second, I did watch the video from the email which is the same as the one you posted. Your video is correct but it was not made in 2018. My 10 year old nephew can upload a video to a 5 year old article in 10 seconds if he had his own website.
If it was really made in 2018 then why the need for the long AP article to explain why the changes were made this past October. Why wouldn’t the FAA just correct them, tell them these were already in place in 2018 and move along? Looks like ALPA got duped. The ALPA email isn’t a lie. They said an article was changed in 2018 but never said what the changes were. Something was changed in 2018, but it wasn’t the pr intervals. The video was uploaded in 2022. Copy and paste the title in YouTube… Posted 5 months ago but still says original article in 2018.
Why would the FAA make a short 60 second video in 2018 that contradicts their own official guides and every medical establishment and university. Then take 4 years to upload it while they continue to make revisions several times a year? It makes zero sense. There is nothing that shows this video was made in 2018 other than the article’s publish date. And the article itself doesn’t say .2 or .3. or anything. It gives no specifics.
Just like the 737Max program… just be vague and leave out specifics and cover your butt. Thankfully, the AP was able to clarify for us. Loosened in October. FAA agreed.
If it was really made in 2018 then why the need for the long AP article to explain why the changes were made this past October. Why wouldn’t the FAA just correct them, tell them these were already in place in 2018 and move along? Looks like ALPA got duped. The ALPA email isn’t a lie. They said an article was changed in 2018 but never said what the changes were. Something was changed in 2018, but it wasn’t the pr intervals. The video was uploaded in 2022. Copy and paste the title in YouTube… Posted 5 months ago but still says original article in 2018.
Why would the FAA make a short 60 second video in 2018 that contradicts their own official guides and every medical establishment and university. Then take 4 years to upload it while they continue to make revisions several times a year? It makes zero sense. There is nothing that shows this video was made in 2018 other than the article’s publish date. And the article itself doesn’t say .2 or .3. or anything. It gives no specifics.
Just like the 737Max program… just be vague and leave out specifics and cover your butt. Thankfully, the AP was able to clarify for us. Loosened in October. FAA agreed.
I will add that the information from video published in 2018 is also re-iterated in their job aid on the same subject. See page 3. It will take a minute to load. Here is what it looked like in in the internet archive on 10/10/19. This predates any inkling of COVID vaccines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191010...JobAid_508.pdf
01-27-2023, 12:47 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
I will add that the information from video published in 2018 is also re-iterated in their job aid on the same subject. See page 3. It will take a minute to load. Here is what it looked like in in the internet archive on 10/10/19. This predates any inkling of COVID vaccines.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191010...JobAid_508.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20191010...JobAid_508.pdf
First, it does take a minute to load. Tried it on my phone then iPad and nada. Had to go to my laptop but it still took awhile. I couldn’t find the page 3 on the archives, just the page 1. So I went back to the ALPA email and rewatched the video. The slides are actually correct even based on the guide from 2020 and 2021. It’s the audio that doesn’t match the slide nor the guides from that time. I remember being confused by the mismatch when I first watched the video when the email came out, but couldn’t figure it out. At the top of the slide, it says first degree AV block with pr interval .20>.21. This is consistent with the FAA guides at that time.
I think the confusion comes from the bottom of the slide where it says “ANY pr interval over .3 requires evaluation”. This does not contradict the .20>.21 at the top as that refers to only the FIRST degree pr interval. In other words, if any pr interval is over .3 which includes first, second, third, and high grade, then you need evaluation. In addition to that, if the first degree happens to be above .2 then you also need further evaluation. This makes the slides in the video correct with the guides at that time. The current guide since October 26, 2022 changed first degree from .2 to .3. The .3 for “any” at the bottom of the slide did not change. If the slide is the same as the text that you’re referring to then they are both still consistent with the guides before October.
The problem is the audio does not match the slides as the audio refers to first degree above .3. This contradicts the first degree .20>.21 on the slide. My guess is the reason why now the video shows as uploaded 5 months ago, is that they just kept the original video and just updated the audio. Simple to do and a lot faster than creating a whole new video. The FAA probably just hoped ALPA wouldn’t notice since the slide has a .3 on there and that part is actually correct now and was correct then. I’m sure the FAA has never tried to sneak or deceive anyone before. This is probably just a honest screw up and will never happen again.
01-28-2023, 05:38 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by Thedude86
I think I see the confusion. Myself included.
First, it does take a minute to load. Tried it on my phone then iPad and nada. Had to go to my laptop but it still took awhile. I couldn’t find the page 3 on the archives, just the page 1. So I went back to the ALPA email and rewatched the video. The slides are actually correct even based on the guide from 2020 and 2021. It’s the audio that doesn’t match the slide nor the guides from that time. I remember being confused by the mismatch when I first watched the video when the email came out, but couldn’t figure it out. At the top of the slide, it says first degree AV block with pr interval .20>.21. This is consistent with the FAA guides at that time.
I think the confusion comes from the bottom of the slide where it says “ANY pr interval over .3 requires evaluation”. This does not contradict the .20>.21 at the top as that refers to only the FIRST degree pr interval. In other words, if any pr interval is over .3 which includes first, second, third, and high grade, then you need evaluation. In addition to that, if the first degree happens to be above .2 then you also need further evaluation. This makes the slides in the video correct with the guides at that time. The current guide since October 26, 2022 changed first degree from .2 to .3. The .3 for “any” at the bottom of the slide did not change. If the slide is the same as the text that you’re referring to then they are both still consistent with the guides before October.
The problem is the audio does not match the slides as the audio refers to first degree above .3. This contradicts the first degree .20>.21 on the slide. My guess is the reason why now the video shows as uploaded 5 months ago, is that they just kept the original video and just updated the audio. Simple to do and a lot faster than creating a whole new video. The FAA probably just hoped ALPA wouldn’t notice since the slide has a .3 on there and that part is actually correct now and was correct then. I’m sure the FAA has never tried to sneak or deceive anyone before. This is probably just a honest screw up and will never happen again.
First, it does take a minute to load. Tried it on my phone then iPad and nada. Had to go to my laptop but it still took awhile. I couldn’t find the page 3 on the archives, just the page 1. So I went back to the ALPA email and rewatched the video. The slides are actually correct even based on the guide from 2020 and 2021. It’s the audio that doesn’t match the slide nor the guides from that time. I remember being confused by the mismatch when I first watched the video when the email came out, but couldn’t figure it out. At the top of the slide, it says first degree AV block with pr interval .20>.21. This is consistent with the FAA guides at that time.
I think the confusion comes from the bottom of the slide where it says “ANY pr interval over .3 requires evaluation”. This does not contradict the .20>.21 at the top as that refers to only the FIRST degree pr interval. In other words, if any pr interval is over .3 which includes first, second, third, and high grade, then you need evaluation. In addition to that, if the first degree happens to be above .2 then you also need further evaluation. This makes the slides in the video correct with the guides at that time. The current guide since October 26, 2022 changed first degree from .2 to .3. The .3 for “any” at the bottom of the slide did not change. If the slide is the same as the text that you’re referring to then they are both still consistent with the guides before October.
The problem is the audio does not match the slides as the audio refers to first degree above .3. This contradicts the first degree .20>.21 on the slide. My guess is the reason why now the video shows as uploaded 5 months ago, is that they just kept the original video and just updated the audio. Simple to do and a lot faster than creating a whole new video. The FAA probably just hoped ALPA wouldn’t notice since the slide has a .3 on there and that part is actually correct now and was correct then. I’m sure the FAA has never tried to sneak or deceive anyone before. This is probably just a honest screw up and will never happen again.
There is no confusion. It's all talking about the same thing. Anything else is just trying to find the right conspiracy peg. The video matches the job aid. It was not from 5 months ago. It was from 4+ years ago. The FAA uploaded all of their AME minutes previously only on the FAA site to youtube in the last year which is why you see publishing dates in 2022 for every old video on youtube. It's not the case on the FAA site. Talk to an AME. This has been this way for years. Unless you think they (all of the AMEs) are in with big Pharma/lizard people.
01-28-2023, 11:56 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
There is no confusion. It's all talking about the same thing. Anything else is just trying to find the right conspiracy peg. The video matches the job aid. It was not from 5 months ago. It was from 4+ years ago. The FAA uploaded all of their AME minutes previously only on the FAA site to youtube in the last year which is why you see publishing dates in 2022 for every old video on youtube. It's not the case on the FAA site. Talk to an AME. This has been this way for years. Unless you think they (all of the AMEs) are in with big Pharma/lizard people.
The AME’s arent in on it. I never said they were. But I will say sasquatch is more likely to exist than the FAA never trying to mislead or coverup anything. Started long before Covid. Post a link to the actual text or screenshot you’re talking about. What you sent me only shows page 1. I can’t find page 3 on there. Even if you post page 3 I’m sure it’s the same as the ALPA video because you’ve said it’s been correct this whole time and I now agree with that point.
The slide in the ALPA video matches all the guides before October but does not match the guides since then. The audio DOES NOT match the slide. If you’re correct then explain why the slide in the ALPA video is different than the guidelines. Your argument earlier is that the video was correct then and is correct now… and they just changed the guide to catch up with the paperwork. If you’re correct, then explain why the slide that you say has always been correct now and 2 years ago… does not match the current guide?
The only way your argument makes sense is that two things that contradict each other are both correct. Your slide argument is now different than when this thread started.
01-28-2023, 12:24 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Your argument is that they changed the guide to match the video. Took some digging, but now we see that the video slide is correct for 2018 but now is the opposite of your argument.
Here is the 2021 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi.../avs/guide.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 244. This matches the ALPA video slide and your claim that the video was made 4 years ago is most likely a true statement that I now agree with.
Here is the current 2023 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/AME_GUIDE.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 322. This no longer matches the slide on the ALPA video. Again, your argument earlier was that it didn’t match before, but now it does to catch up with the paperwork.
Soooo… they changed a guide that already matched it to now it no longer matches it? That’s backwards of your argument. That doesn’t make sense.
The .3 you’re referring to is a general for all PR intervals. The .2 to .3 change is specifically for first degree only that had a stricter threshold than the general requirement for all degrees.
Disclaimer: No AME was abducted and brainwashed with Russian disinformation by Qanon aliens.
Here is the 2021 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi.../avs/guide.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 244. This matches the ALPA video slide and your claim that the video was made 4 years ago is most likely a true statement that I now agree with.
Here is the current 2023 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/AME_GUIDE.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 322. This no longer matches the slide on the ALPA video. Again, your argument earlier was that it didn’t match before, but now it does to catch up with the paperwork.
Soooo… they changed a guide that already matched it to now it no longer matches it? That’s backwards of your argument. That doesn’t make sense.
The .3 you’re referring to is a general for all PR intervals. The .2 to .3 change is specifically for first degree only that had a stricter threshold than the general requirement for all degrees.
Disclaimer: No AME was abducted and brainwashed with Russian disinformation by Qanon aliens.
01-30-2023, 10:21 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by Thedude86
Your argument is that they changed the guide to match the video. Took some digging, but now we see that the video slide is correct for 2018 but now is the opposite of your argument.
Here is the 2021 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi.../avs/guide.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 244. This matches the ALPA video slide and your claim that the video was made 4 years ago is most likely a true statement that I now agree with.
Here is the current 2023 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/AME_GUIDE.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 322. This no longer matches the slide on the ALPA video. Again, your argument earlier was that it didn’t match before, but now it does to catch up with the paperwork.
Soooo… they changed a guide that already matched it to now it no longer matches it? That’s backwards of your argument. That doesn’t make sense.
The .3 you’re referring to is a general for all PR intervals. The .2 to .3 change is specifically for first degree only that had a stricter threshold than the general requirement for all degrees.
Disclaimer: No AME was abducted and brainwashed with Russian disinformation by Qanon aliens.
Here is the 2021 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/fi.../avs/guide.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 244. This matches the ALPA video slide and your claim that the video was made 4 years ago is most likely a true statement that I now agree with.
Here is the current 2023 guide…
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/media/AME_GUIDE.pdf
Item 58.II.D.normal variants on page 322. This no longer matches the slide on the ALPA video. Again, your argument earlier was that it didn’t match before, but now it does to catch up with the paperwork.
Soooo… they changed a guide that already matched it to now it no longer matches it? That’s backwards of your argument. That doesn’t make sense.
The .3 you’re referring to is a general for all PR intervals. The .2 to .3 change is specifically for first degree only that had a stricter threshold than the general requirement for all degrees.
Disclaimer: No AME was abducted and brainwashed with Russian disinformation by Qanon aliens.
01-30-2023, 10:32 AM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by Thedude86
You left out Bigfoot, Elvis is still alive, the Loch Ness monster and that the aliens built the pyramids.
The AME’s arent in on it. I never said they were. But I will say sasquatch is more likely to exist than the FAA never trying to mislead or coverup anything. Started long before Covid. Post a link to the actual text or screenshot you’re talking about. What you sent me only shows page 1. I can’t find page 3 on there. Even if you post page 3 I’m sure it’s the same as the ALPA video because you’ve said it’s been correct this whole time and I now agree with that point.
The slide in the ALPA video matches all the guides before October but does not match the guides since then. The audio DOES NOT match the slide. If you’re correct then explain why the slide in the ALPA video is different than the guidelines. Your argument earlier is that the video was correct then and is correct now… and they just changed the guide to catch up with the paperwork. If you’re correct, then explain why the slide that you say has always been correct now and 2 years ago… does not match the current guide?
The only way your argument makes sense is that two things that contradict each other are both correct. Your slide argument is now different than when this thread started.
The AME’s arent in on it. I never said they were. But I will say sasquatch is more likely to exist than the FAA never trying to mislead or coverup anything. Started long before Covid. Post a link to the actual text or screenshot you’re talking about. What you sent me only shows page 1. I can’t find page 3 on there. Even if you post page 3 I’m sure it’s the same as the ALPA video because you’ve said it’s been correct this whole time and I now agree with that point.
The slide in the ALPA video matches all the guides before October but does not match the guides since then. The audio DOES NOT match the slide. If you’re correct then explain why the slide in the ALPA video is different than the guidelines. Your argument earlier is that the video was correct then and is correct now… and they just changed the guide to catch up with the paperwork. If you’re correct, then explain why the slide that you say has always been correct now and 2 years ago… does not match the current guide?
The only way your argument makes sense is that two things that contradict each other are both correct. Your slide argument is now different than when this thread started.
01-31-2023, 02:12 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
I’ve posted several internet archives of the same thing several times. A 0.3 PR internal was not deferred prior to the change unless you were symptomatic since at least 2018. Unless you think the conspiracy extends to internet archives as well.
you’re correct for the GENERAL PR interval. It was .3 in 2018 and .3 now. I don’t think you’re reading my comments. The ALPA video I now agree is correct.
Im referring to FIRST DEGREE ONLY. The ALPA video even shows first degree upper limit as .20>.21. Again. Your .3 is correct but is only a general requirement for ALL degrees. Show me something from 2018 that shows FIRST DEGREE as .3. The first degree has a stricter requirement… Or did at least.
Go to the ALPA video that WE BOTH AGREE is correct. Mute the audio. Go to the 0:25 mark. Then tell me what it says for ANY pr interval and then tell me what it says for FIRST DEGREE. That’s the same slide as the text you’re trying to show me. Now unmute the audio and tell me how the audio makes sense to the slide.
Before you respond… look up the difference between ANY pr interval and FIRST DEGREE only. You’re correct that the .3 for any was not changed. You’re referring to the general ANY PR interval… I’m referring to FIRST DEGREE only.
01-31-2023, 04:19 PM
#49
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,490
It’s about Baye’s theorem …
…of conditional probability, OK?
Most medical testing and medical standards are originally defined on SICK PEOPLE. People who get tested because they are having some sort of a problem. Applying these standards to people who ARE NOT SICK does not give you the expected result it would with sick people and AMEs are generally NOT doing physicals on sick people, they are probably the only physicians in the world who routinely do physicals every six months on WELL people.
Medical personnel have long known that healthy people can often exceed the commonly accepted limits for certain criteria.
From
So, healthy people can exceed traditional standards for sick people. This isn’t new information.
Old war story I heard from a squadron flight surgeon:
Sometime in the 1970s or 1980s (I don’t remember which) a Wing Commander flying an F-4 at Ramstein Germany landed his aircraft uneventfully but was unresponsive by the time the aircraft was approaching the end of the runway. The WSO got the aircraft off into the arm/dearm area, declared an emergency, and shut down the aircraft. By the time anybody could extract the Wing Commander, he could not be resuscitated from a massive heart attack. He’d had a flight physical two weeks earlier with a perfectly normal ECG.
it was decided by the higher ups that an ECG wasn’t enough, that every pilot over 35 would henceforth have an exercise stress test and if that was abnormal a further evaluation up to and including a heart catheterization. In the ensuing year, that generated nearly 700 additional work ups, sending the guy off to be evaluated in Texas, and about 30 heart catheterizations without finding much in the way of actual cardiac disease and almost all returned to flying duties.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7082255/
An excerpt:
The Navy did a similar study over an eight year period with similar results
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7283898/
This is something the epidemiologists call the healthy worker effect:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5763838/
So why don’t all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just give it a rest about ECG standards? Surely there must be better things to be paranoid about than p-r intervals in healthy pilots, isn’t there?
Ever been to Area 51 to see the Roswell saucer? Fly Janet Airlines and get the tour…
Most medical testing and medical standards are originally defined on SICK PEOPLE. People who get tested because they are having some sort of a problem. Applying these standards to people who ARE NOT SICK does not give you the expected result it would with sick people and AMEs are generally NOT doing physicals on sick people, they are probably the only physicians in the world who routinely do physicals every six months on WELL people.
Medical personnel have long known that healthy people can often exceed the commonly accepted limits for certain criteria.
From
Electrocardiographic findings in athletes
ESC Council for Cardiology Practice
Vol. 4, N° 31 - 26 Apr 2006
Atrioventricular conduction disturbances are frequent in sport practioners’ ECGs. First-degree AV block is the most common finding, followed by Mobitz type-I second-degree AV block. The prevalence of first-degree AV block in a baseline ECG is approximately 7-10% [4;5]. However, when a 24-hour Holter is performed, it can be observed in up to 27.5-40% of patients, while type-I second degree block can be present in 15-22% of patients [1;2;7]. Both are secondary to parasympathetic hypertony, and are especially common among high aerobic resistance athletes. Both are benign conditions, and must disappear during exercise or hyperventilation (Fig. 3).
More severe AV conduction disturbances are rare.
More severe AV conduction disturbances are rare.
Old war story I heard from a squadron flight surgeon:
Sometime in the 1970s or 1980s (I don’t remember which) a Wing Commander flying an F-4 at Ramstein Germany landed his aircraft uneventfully but was unresponsive by the time the aircraft was approaching the end of the runway. The WSO got the aircraft off into the arm/dearm area, declared an emergency, and shut down the aircraft. By the time anybody could extract the Wing Commander, he could not be resuscitated from a massive heart attack. He’d had a flight physical two weeks earlier with a perfectly normal ECG.
it was decided by the higher ups that an ECG wasn’t enough, that every pilot over 35 would henceforth have an exercise stress test and if that was abnormal a further evaluation up to and including a heart catheterization. In the ensuing year, that generated nearly 700 additional work ups, sending the guy off to be evaluated in Texas, and about 30 heart catheterizations without finding much in the way of actual cardiac disease and almost all returned to flying duties.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7082255/
An excerpt:
The Navy did a similar study over an eight year period with similar results
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7283898/
This is something the epidemiologists call the healthy worker effect:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5763838/
So why don’t all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just give it a rest about ECG standards? Surely there must be better things to be paranoid about than p-r intervals in healthy pilots, isn’t there?
Ever been to Area 51 to see the Roswell saucer? Fly Janet Airlines and get the tour…
02-04-2023, 06:12 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by Thedude86
ive mentioned 2 or 3 times now…
you’re correct for the GENERAL PR interval. It was .3 in 2018 and .3 now. I don’t think you’re reading my comments. The ALPA video I now agree is correct.
Im referring to FIRST DEGREE ONLY. The ALPA video even shows first degree upper limit as .20>.21. Again. Your .3 is correct but is only a general requirement for ALL degrees. Show me something from 2018 that shows FIRST DEGREE as .3. The first degree has a stricter requirement… Or did at least.
Go to the ALPA video that WE BOTH AGREE is correct. Mute the audio. Go to the 0:25 mark. Then tell me what it says for ANY pr interval and then tell me what it says for FIRST DEGREE. That’s the same slide as the text you’re trying to show me. Now unmute the audio and tell me how the audio makes sense to the slide.
Before you respond… look up the difference between ANY pr interval and FIRST DEGREE only. You’re correct that the .3 for any was not changed. You’re referring to the general ANY PR interval… I’m referring to FIRST DEGREE only.
you’re correct for the GENERAL PR interval. It was .3 in 2018 and .3 now. I don’t think you’re reading my comments. The ALPA video I now agree is correct.
Im referring to FIRST DEGREE ONLY. The ALPA video even shows first degree upper limit as .20>.21. Again. Your .3 is correct but is only a general requirement for ALL degrees. Show me something from 2018 that shows FIRST DEGREE as .3. The first degree has a stricter requirement… Or did at least.
Go to the ALPA video that WE BOTH AGREE is correct. Mute the audio. Go to the 0:25 mark. Then tell me what it says for ANY pr interval and then tell me what it says for FIRST DEGREE. That’s the same slide as the text you’re trying to show me. Now unmute the audio and tell me how the audio makes sense to the slide.
Before you respond… look up the difference between ANY pr interval and FIRST DEGREE only. You’re correct that the .3 for any was not changed. You’re referring to the general ANY PR interval… I’m referring to FIRST DEGREE only.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
