Sending pilots to your own doc is fraught with legal peril because then if you med down a guy who had a disciplinary record, a record of fatigue or safety calls, or is a labor organizer then you've pretty much handed him the lawsuit win, unless the med condition is very clear cut.

That's why nobody does it anymore, except with new hires, or pilots who have a suspected medical issue that concerns the company... such as the guy who constantly falls asleep and gets complaints from other pilots.

Google that lady at DAL who got jerked around by the company and won a big lawsuit... in this century employers don't get to play in the medical sandbox.

An employer might get away with requiring in-house medicals at an arms-distance subcontractor, to ensure that FAA standards are applied thoroughly but isolated from undue company influence. That might insulate them from accusations of weaponizing the medical system. But then they'd have to pay travel, per diem, daily guarantee, and the cost of the exam. At most airlines you do it on your day off, and at many you pay for it yourself.

 

There’s some return to work language in several contracts that allows management to send you to their docs. Eye and back issues ect… it’s on the companies dime and the medical system agreed upon contractually. Mayo Clinic I believe is one jb has?

 

That's typically for more serious issues like cancer, cardiac, etc. But at that point you already have a very objective medical diagnosis.

What's dangerous is routine exams where the company doc can ground you, possibly on a very subjective basis. Pilots don't want that, and airlines no longer want the liability... if their doc is too strict, they get sued by pilots. Too lenient and they get sued by crash victims. If the doc is *perfect*, then the plaintiff's attorney will still spin the doc's performance in whichever direction suits his narrative. Can't win.

 

The back and eye specific language is to keep Ltd premium cost down. But yes we agree I don’t want company specific docs involved anywhere for the reasons you’ve outlined.

 

dude, you posted a statement as fact, and this is your defense?

 

Yep. That is correct.

 

some of your post have disappeared, so for those doing research I’ve reposted to keep for posterity.

 

The letters to the editor they published are quite harsh:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...pv4-story.html

 

If you're going to just cut and paste, kindly make it a link without those subscribe pop/blockups.

 

An airliner passes over Cicero Avenue as it lands at Midway Airport on June 13, 2023, in Chicago. (Antonio Perez/Chicago Tribune)
Regarding Capt. Jason Ambrosi’s op-ed “Raising the retirement age for pilots puts America’s aviation safety at risk” (July 25): Shame on Ambrosi for his misrepresentation of facts regarding the mandatory retirement age of airline pilots.

He is correct in that flying has never been safer than it is today, but what escapes him is that the unprecedented safety record he cites was achieved after 2007, when the maximum age for airline pilots was increased from 60 to 65 years, a change that the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) also opposed for identical reasons.

Ambrosi cites a 1979 crash in Chicago as supporting evidence, yet the National Transportation Safety Board attributed this tragedy to maintenance malpractice, not the experienced pilots onboard. Indeed, he chooses to ignore the seminal airline accident that precipitated a wholesale restructuring of pilot duty and rest limits: the 2009 crash of a commuter plane outside Buffalo, New York, in which the leading cause was a lack of competence by an inexperienced flight crew.

Yet, Ambrosi does not cite a single accident in the airline industry in which an increased pilot age was determined to be a factor — because there are none!

Likewise, he does not bring any meaningful statistical evidence that shows a pilot, fully qualified and competent to fly at age 64 and 11 months, should suddenly be incapable of doing so the following month. If he were to cite facts, he’d note that the overwhelming causes of pilot incapacitation events are foodborne illnesses and laser strikes. The rigorous training requirements and medical screenings that the ALPA helped create are working. What renders those requirements ineffective after age 65?

Finally, Ambrosi states that pilots older than 65 cannot fly outside of the U.S., yet other nations have raised the age or have plans to do so. But this is outside of ALPA’s purview. ALPA’s sole job is to represent its membership fairly and equally. In this instance, it is failing to do so.

I applaud ALPA’s stance on maintaining pilot training and experience requirements and a full crew complement on the flight deck at all times.

However, Ambrosi’s assertion that pilots older than 64 are inherently incompetent and dangerous is riddled with age-based prejudice and scant evidence. It does a disservice to the most experienced and distinguished pilots now serving in the industry — pilots the flying public needs today more than ever.

— William Shivell, San Diego, California

Industry’s pilot shortage
The recent op-ed by Jason Ambrosi makes no sense. Ambrosi cites no evidence in support of his proposition. Indeed, what Ambrosi cites contradicts his thesis: specifically, Federal Aviation Administration reviews of “accidents that were, in part, the result of pilot inexperience and inadequate training.” Yet older pilots by definition would seem to have greater experience and more training, not less.

As improving health care and demographics dictate that the population of the country is on average getting older, Americans today lead longer, healthier lives, with many of us working into our 70s, if not beyond. And with smaller younger generations coming up behind the baby boomers and the military, which has historically been a feeder source and training ground for pilots, shrinking in size over the past 50 years, the country’s constantly troubled airline industry is already experiencing pilot shortages. To continue to thrive, the country needs experienced, well-trained pilots to stay in the job longer, not bail out earlier.

As a union leader, Ambrosi understandably has a vested interest in seeing that his union’s members may retire with full benefits earlier, rather than later, in life. But let’s not confuse the financial self-interest of labor union members with the issue of public safety or service to the public.

— David L. Applegate, Huntley

Proposal for pilots a good idea
In his op-ed, Jason Ambrosi states he is against raising the retirement age of pilots. He cites no research on why he believes more experienced pilots 65 and older would be unsafe.

The American population is living longer and working longer. Why should pilots be different? Older pilots are responsible, experienced pilots.

More pilots, especially more experienced pilots, would help airlines improve on-time service. It doesn’t take scientific research to understand that.

Readers should urge politicians to vote for raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots.

— Dan Morton, Buffalo Grove