Sorry, you're too fat to be a pilot. Love, FAA

[dewi8095]

I am very careful what I wish for these days. In this case, the federal formal rule making process requires publishing a proposal in the Federal Register, a comment period where all stakeholders (like us) submit their views, the department that proposed the rule must respond to all inputs, and only then can a final rule be published. This process, which applies to other federal rule making, provides a valuable check and balance and prevents surprises like the one that we have just experienced. Time to apply this standard federal process to the aeromedical branch. I will note that the FDA, that regulates all stuff medical outside aviation, must use this process. And of course the rest of the FAA must follow this process. It is supposed to be hard to create new rules. This allows the really good ideas to move forward and the not so good ideas to die.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

The rule making procedure is the only check I know of that those outside government have on federal agencies. The FAA and other agencies are staffed by non-elected people who do not, and do not have to respond to the criticisms of those they supposedly serve. Congress still has some oversight of agencies because of its budgetary and appointive powers, but that leverage is cumbersome and slow. Federal agencies are beyond the reach of concerned citizens and don't need to respond to them. We, as pilots, need the help of the alphabet groups whenever issues like this arise.

Don

[annken100]

I think the data indicates most OSA is undiagnosed. So pilots are NOT seeking treatment - they don't even know they are affected. The FAS has identified a safety issue (no need for fatalities) and solved it by adjusting the medical standards It will be in effect in < 2 yrs despite rumblings from alphabet groups.

Marty, where is the evidence that undiagnosed sleep apnea is actually a safety issue? What data correlates undiagnosed sleep apnea with airplanes falling out of the sky and unleashing the apocalypse on unsuspecting people on the ground? Why should anyone have to go through the process to prove they don't have sleep apnea, or anything for that matter, if they are not experiencing any symptoms? Why couldn't the AME's just screen for sleep apnea during a medical and then take appropriate action if necessary? This is too dangerous a precedent to simply roll over and accept it. Every pilot, air controller, and aviation group should rumble loudly about this. This may not affect you now, or even when those with BMI's of 30 or more are "dealt with", but eventually it will catch up to you in some way and it'll be too late to do anything about it. Think about it, is it too far fetched that eventually medicals will be denied because you don't exercise enough or at all? Exercise can lower risk factors like high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol, which in turn reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is well known that people don't exercise enough, should we then assume those who don't exercise actually have high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high cholesterol? Should we then make it mandatory to test for all those things even if symptoms are not present? Will it be ok if the FAA mandates a gym membership and an exercise log to qualify for a medical? How ridiculous is that? The sleep apnea issue is just as ludicrous. -Ken

[WeaverJ3Cub]

The rule making procedure is the only check I know of that those outside government have on federal agencies. The FAA and other agencies are staffed by non-elected people who do not, and do not have to respond to the criticisms of those they supposedly serve.

Cue the music people...truer words were never spoken. This is why agencies and bureaucracies are so bad and I'd rather be ruled by an elected body like Congress, no matter how dysfunctional.

[davidwillems]

I would assume it is not too much to ask for the FAA/NTSB to perform the following 3 actions in relation to this 'Sleep APNEA' scare. #1 is to determine the average body weight or even the BMI of all of the pilots who crash. #2 is to determine same numbers but for all pilots. #3 is rather obviously to compare the two findings. Perhaps the findings would be charted over time, etc. To get to the point, if you try to size someone up (not just flying related) as to whether they are a risk taker when you first meet them nearly the first thing you do is see if they are fat. If they are fat then they probably are not a risk taker. Why 'can' the safe pilots?

[Mayhemxpc]

I would note that the change requiring the (EAA and others) to pay for the cost of tower and approach operations was NOT subject to the rule making procedure. So apparently, there are exceptions for other than emergency rules.

[WLIU]

We should not confuse operations with rules. Charging for a service is operations not a rule. I believe that FAA has operating precedent for charging for staff for non-aviation events that have aviation support activities. I believe that EAA has historically been the beneficiary of some folks in the FAA believing that supporting Airventure and Sun-N-Fun helped fulfill the "promote aviation" part of the FAA charter. FAA HQ has fewer and fewer staff that hold real aviation credentials like pilots certificates. The wind direction is changing and not in a good way.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[martymayes]

Marty, where is the evidence that undiagnosed sleep apnea is actually a safety issue?

Google JAMA + OSA. Awareness has been ramped up with motor carriers because of the number of crashes where drivers are falling asleep. There is no evidence only if one is living under a very large rock.

The good news about OSA is it's not a permanently disqualifying condition for airmen because I work with other airline pilots that have OSA and they hold a first class medical.

What will eventually happen with the rulemaking process is the medical standard for OSA will be applied to EVERYONE, not just those with a 90% chance of having it. It will be a routine part of getting a medical certificate, just like they test EVERYONE for color blindness, sugar and protein in urine, blood pressure (no assumptions required), etc. And I'll give you one guess who will pay for it - ain't obamacare.

[1600vw]

Maybe they should do this for those operating trains....

[Tom Charpentier]

All,

A bill that would stay this measure and make it first subject to rulemaking (which among other things would allow for public comment and a formal cost-benefit analysis) has just cleared committee. As you may have seen, we worked hard to get this bill introduced within days of the policy announcement. Please ask your representative to co-sponsor the bill, either by phone, email, or using our "Rally Congress" form (http://govt.eaa.org/12706/support-hr-3578/). The bill is H.R. 3578, and it has already gotten bipartisan support. A similar bill concerning the trucking industry passed unanimously in October.

The simple fact is that this is not good aeromedical policy, and we have a panel of senior AMEs who work with us who have told us the same thing. Thanks for your help!

Best,

Tom

[Infidel]

I didn't catch it if this has already been mentioned. I know quite a few people, family member included, that went for the sleep study and every single one of them was prescribed the CPAP machine. In other words; I've never heard of one incident where the patient was fine and didn't need the machine after succumbing to the sleep study.

Think about it. We live in a society now where every single thing has a medical label/name and prescription.