JohnBurke - you always provide very well thought out and informative answers. Are/were you an AME at one point?

 

TLDR. The “system” is what is the FAA class I medical. It’s a cash-preferred racket paid to the people who are least likely to inquire as to your actual health. It’s the best case against age 67.

 

Bull

Regs are one thing. Enforcement another. Everybody got an angle. You any different?

 

There's no good case against age 67, least of all a medical one.

Medical scrutiny increases as one ages, under the FAA. The interval for the EKG, for example, or even the requirement for the EKG.

Age 60 as a retirement age for airline operations was never based on medical guidlines that showed it as a limiting factor. It was political.

Age 65 set a higher age limit, but also was not based on medical data showing it as a science-based limiting metric. It was a political increase, not limited to 65 because valid data showed that older would be harmful or would post a greater hazard, but to stay within international convention.

The quest to expand slightly to age 67 represents a broadening of the political limit, but likewise does not represent the ceiling of an acceptable health range; there is no valid reason to exclude age 65 and age 66 pilots from working.

Age 60 pilots are subject to medical screening requirements, as are age 65 pilots, as will be age 67 pilots.

It's interesting that while the first class medical is as low-key and non-invasive as it can be, and presents as little jeopardy to one's career as possible, individuals would whine that it's not invasive enough, or doesn't present enough jeopardy. Why pay so much for such a short exam? We need longer exams. Why pay so much for an examp that only asks questions about one's medical history, does an EKG, does a vision test, checks blood pressure, listens to the chest, looks at hearing and vision, and then let's one go? Perhaps if you're healthy, that's all it takes.

Ask anyone who has any kind of an issue on their medical, just how mch of a "joke" it is. When the medical is a quick process every six months, one ought not whine that it's not harder, takes longer, or is in some way more of a jeopardy-event. If it turns out you're not healthy, or have a medical wrinkle, then medical certification can turn into a nightmare, depending on the degree by which one is impaired or unable to meet the standard.

The more recent article cited (Washington Post) includes a statement by an attorney, who speculates, without evidence, at the percentage of pilot applicants who fraudulently apply. Other than an attorney's opinion, there's nothing to back up that wild assertion. If one were to suggest that the medical applicaiton is a "joke" because a large percentage of applicants get away with supplying false information, and one could back that up with actual data, one might have a leg to stand on. Therefore, back it up.

After extensive practice, I gained some skill at opening and applying a bandaid, and eventually came to master applying just the right dab of neosporin. That I can do so at altitude is purely coincidental. Does that count?

 

lol probably more qualified than some of the quacks out there

 

If I understand you correctly, that is exactly my point.

 

You made my point. The only way to scrutinize people to a degree that doesn't count on their truthful admission of health conditions that are not currently subject to discovery on the Class I, would to make the exam more thorough. Even then you're probably not going to catch everything, but probably more than they do today.

 

Responsibility for accurate reporting belongs to: a) airman medical applicant b) airman medical examiner c) FAA aeromedical branch d) all of the above

e) Mr. Magoo Best case against 67 or whatever they’re up to here, just too friggin long in the tooth. The job demands marathon endurance. Performance to the limit of younger crews. 80 plus hours worth. Over & over & over

 

Or just get rid of HIPPA. All this beating around the bush for who? No more depending on application integrity. No more discussion about an AME’s subjectivity. No more discourse on the need for a more stringent exam. And no more expecting a soon to be 66 year old from fully disclosure when they have nothing to lose (loss of license? give me a break) and 500k to gain from concealment.

At least in this case, the cats out of the bag and half the airline industry would be grounded. And the TRUTH, that the FAA can’t administratively do it’s job and make “decisions” on all the required deferrals they claim are needed.

 

You can do a more thorough exam, but to what end?

Two obvious concerns, cog/coordination decline and sudden incapacitation.

I tend to think that recurrent sim should catch the former, although if you really wanted to you could use a PC based video game to test basic attitude instrument flying with some other multi-tasking activities thrown in. Of course somebody would make a very close facsimile of the FAA software and everybody would practice before their medical. Such a test could be dialed in to be fairly easy for any normal pilot, and tuned only to flag somebody with real clinical decline. In theory. In practice it might disqualify 5-10% of the pilot workforce, and make another 30% really sweat their medical. Devil is in the details.

For sudden incap, it's a bit easier. Determine the likely causes of sudden incap (should already be well documented), perhaps tweak that to be aviation specific if you have aviation specific data... that would be useful because obviously the current system isn't good at catching it. Most of the news report about pilot incap seem to involve cardiac issues, frequently between age 40-60. I'd guess a lot of sudden incap in the general population is due to diabetics losing control of their blood sugar... we do get tested for that, unless your AME is committing outright fraud.

Then determine what additional tests can practically screen for whatever your top statistical incap risks are. If I had to guess, I'd say a treadmill stress test and maybe cholesterol test. A stress test would actually be good IMO because it would tend to force some folks who really need to into regular exercise. That's good for cog health in addition to cardio, blood sugar, etc, etc.

121 aviation generally is certified with a 10^-9 safety factor... they should probably start with that and work backwards from there. That's how they certify airplanes and operating procedures.