Of Medicals and Mathematics.
“And thus, by combining the uncertainty of chance with the force of mathematical proof and by the reconciliation of two apparent opposites, she derives her name from both of them and rightfully assumes the wonderful name of Mathematics of Chance!”
And that exactly sums up Avmed's conundrum – no matter which way the flipped coin lands. The proposition that a weight limitation on the aircraft operated by those who hold an exemption against a mandatory medical check will reduce the risk matrix is mathematically flawed. The AVMED base tenet is that should the pilot of a 2000 Kg aircraft be incapacitated, and collide with an inhabited area the carnage would be less than if a 2100-- 2500 – 3000 – 5700 kg aircraft in the same scenario.
There is a certainly logic in that notion; a PA 31 (Chieftain) with 9 passengers landing out of control in an urban area is potentially catastrophic – remember the Canely Vale event. So size does matter; fair enough. However; and this is where it becomes debatable; is why select an arbitrary weight limit which precludes a fairly substantial range of popular light aircraft. A 'risk' matrix would not be too difficult to build, one which would allow the private citizen some latitude.
“A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility. The story should never be made up of improbable incidents; there should be nothing of the sort in it.”
For example – Charlie owns a 'war-bird' – drags it out once a fortnight, dusts it off and ambles off for an hour or so of aero's and a few circuits. Percentage chances of incapacitation during that 90 minutes; or, even the percentage chance of that occurring over a 'critical' area – slim to anorexic.
For example – Peter owns a Bonanza – half a dozen times a year he and some friends depart a city aerodrome for a weekend 'in the bush'. Couple of hours each way – four airborne hours in total. The time 'city' environs are at risk from wheels up to clear the area – what – six, eight minutes. Percentage chances of a catastrophic medical event – somewhere over the far mathematical horizon.
In both cases the percentage chances of either pilot becoming totally incapacitated during the airborne time are mighty slim; and, given that 99.9% of pilots are sensible folk who are very aware of their own personal 'health' condition; and risks, realise that it it most unwise to fly with even a head cold – then the setting of an arbitrary weight limit seems a little pointless. There other alternative solutions which make good sense, based on sound logic and the laws of probability.
“I know that two and two make four - and should be glad to prove it too if I could - though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert 2 and 2 into five it would give me much greater pleasure.”
I doubt anyone would object to an annual check up from their GP; nor taking any of the tests their Doctor requested or required; nor complying with advised restrictions or medication directions. So, why not simply make it a rule that an annual check up, from the local GP is mandatory for those who own and fly their own aircraft, no matter the MTOW. For those who choose to hire an aircraft the receipt from the GP showing the date of the medical exam (copied and filed) should be sufficient 'legal' currency to allow the use of an aircraft. Routine care and maintenance for the non professional cohort.
“In these matters, the only certainty is that nothing is certain”
The 'mathematics' and probability analysis beggar the Avmed argument that 2000 kg MTOW is a 'safe' bet, it ain't; its a nonsense. Analysis shows clearly that the Avmed argument is lazy, emotive and logically flawed. A simple one page analysis of the UK and USA data makes Avmed and panel look like a bunch of amateurs desperately trying to cover their nether regions with Teflon coated stainless steel.
“Positive, adj.: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.”
That adjective may be liberally applied to both Morgan and Avmed; sensible parents would bang their silly heads together and send 'em off to bed with out TV or supper.
Steam off – but seriously -
“Common sense is seeing things as they are; and doing things as they ought to be.”
Toot – toot....
“And thus, by combining the uncertainty of chance with the force of mathematical proof and by the reconciliation of two apparent opposites, she derives her name from both of them and rightfully assumes the wonderful name of Mathematics of Chance!”
And that exactly sums up Avmed's conundrum – no matter which way the flipped coin lands. The proposition that a weight limitation on the aircraft operated by those who hold an exemption against a mandatory medical check will reduce the risk matrix is mathematically flawed. The AVMED base tenet is that should the pilot of a 2000 Kg aircraft be incapacitated, and collide with an inhabited area the carnage would be less than if a 2100-- 2500 – 3000 – 5700 kg aircraft in the same scenario.
There is a certainly logic in that notion; a PA 31 (Chieftain) with 9 passengers landing out of control in an urban area is potentially catastrophic – remember the Canely Vale event. So size does matter; fair enough. However; and this is where it becomes debatable; is why select an arbitrary weight limit which precludes a fairly substantial range of popular light aircraft. A 'risk' matrix would not be too difficult to build, one which would allow the private citizen some latitude.
“A likely impossibility is always preferable to an unconvincing possibility. The story should never be made up of improbable incidents; there should be nothing of the sort in it.”
For example – Charlie owns a 'war-bird' – drags it out once a fortnight, dusts it off and ambles off for an hour or so of aero's and a few circuits. Percentage chances of incapacitation during that 90 minutes; or, even the percentage chance of that occurring over a 'critical' area – slim to anorexic.
For example – Peter owns a Bonanza – half a dozen times a year he and some friends depart a city aerodrome for a weekend 'in the bush'. Couple of hours each way – four airborne hours in total. The time 'city' environs are at risk from wheels up to clear the area – what – six, eight minutes. Percentage chances of a catastrophic medical event – somewhere over the far mathematical horizon.
In both cases the percentage chances of either pilot becoming totally incapacitated during the airborne time are mighty slim; and, given that 99.9% of pilots are sensible folk who are very aware of their own personal 'health' condition; and risks, realise that it it most unwise to fly with even a head cold – then the setting of an arbitrary weight limit seems a little pointless. There other alternative solutions which make good sense, based on sound logic and the laws of probability.
“I know that two and two make four - and should be glad to prove it too if I could - though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert 2 and 2 into five it would give me much greater pleasure.”
I doubt anyone would object to an annual check up from their GP; nor taking any of the tests their Doctor requested or required; nor complying with advised restrictions or medication directions. So, why not simply make it a rule that an annual check up, from the local GP is mandatory for those who own and fly their own aircraft, no matter the MTOW. For those who choose to hire an aircraft the receipt from the GP showing the date of the medical exam (copied and filed) should be sufficient 'legal' currency to allow the use of an aircraft. Routine care and maintenance for the non professional cohort.
“In these matters, the only certainty is that nothing is certain”
The 'mathematics' and probability analysis beggar the Avmed argument that 2000 kg MTOW is a 'safe' bet, it ain't; its a nonsense. Analysis shows clearly that the Avmed argument is lazy, emotive and logically flawed. A simple one page analysis of the UK and USA data makes Avmed and panel look like a bunch of amateurs desperately trying to cover their nether regions with Teflon coated stainless steel.
“Positive, adj.: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.”
That adjective may be liberally applied to both Morgan and Avmed; sensible parents would bang their silly heads together and send 'em off to bed with out TV or supper.
Steam off – but seriously -
“Common sense is seeing things as they are; and doing things as they ought to be.”
Toot – toot....