Are some crew members unfit for duty?

[Cocitus23]

About a month ago I flew with AA from LAX to ORD. I was surprised to see a female flight attendant whom I estimated to be mid-70s in age. (Now before you all start shouting at me that I have a prejudice against women in their 70s, allow me to tell you that I am married to one, and that I love her dearly.) A couple of years ago I started a thread on this discussion board about an obese AA pilot, whom I estimated to weigh 175kg. I questioned the man’s fitness for duty. I thought this was a reasonable subject for discussion, but all I got for my trouble was a load of abuse for being an exaggerating liar and for being prejudiced against the corpulent. (I would claim that I was neither of these.) Then, before there was any substantial discussion of the safety issues involved, the moderators closed down the thread (inappropriately, in my opinion) because the subject matter was offensive to some over-weight members.

While I was in USA, I had dinner one night with an international flight captain with DL. I shared with him these two observations, of the obese pilot and the elderly flight attendant. He expressed not the least surprise at either instance. In fact, he astounded me by saying that there were numerous older flight attendants in USA, and that Delta actually had a male flight attendant aged 87 years, who regularly crewed on the long haul from MSP to NRT. I found this difficult to believe, but a quick Google search will quickly reveal both the man's name and photo, and verify his age. According to my informant, this gentleman was not popular with other crew members because he simply could not shoulder his share of the work. My informant told me that while initial testing for fitness for duty in USA was comprehensive, ongoing tests were perfunctory at best, and only checked a limited selection of tasks which some people of doubtful fitness could pass. He said that the airlines were too afraid of litigation based on discrimination to dismiss people, even fairly obvious cases.

It seems to me that this situation is not satisfactory to the flying public, who are entrusting their lives to crew in emergency situations. I’m not sure what can be done about it, except maybe pressure from code share partners or ICAO. Pressure from customers seems fairly useless; certainly my letter to AA about the obese pilot went unanswered. I would be interested in the views and/or experiences of other members.

By way of disclosure, may I confess to being in my 70s and moderately over-weight. Although I am still mentally and physically able, I think it would be ridiculous for an airline to continue to employ me as a crew member at this stage of my life, no matter how much experience I might have.

 

[ChasingDaylight]

Interesting thread - I for one agree. Should an emergency or disaster situation present, being unable to move sprightly / act decisively could have detrimental effects on ones own life or others.

Just under a decade ago, I worked on a ferry with a very large lady. She was deemed medically unfit for service as she was no longer able to fit in the emergency passageways of the ship and should she be forced to use one in an emergency, she would have got stuck. One would have thought that safety and health standards would exist that cover things like this.

 

[ftm]

Isn't there something going around from the Captain of the 747 that was on the taxiway in SFO when the Asiana aircraft crashed? He defends strongly any criticism of 'old' cabin crew and describes how his crew looked after their pax who had just witnessed the accident and come so close to being caught up in it themselves.

Takes all sorts of skills to be cabin crew. And not always the obvious ones.

 

[kimjongun]

LMFAO - my fathers 86 years old as fit as a fiddle. I think you need to get a grip on life and enjoy it before lights out mate and let others get on with their life without your interjections....

 

[medhead]

As per the large pilot, the same answer applies - they do medicals and can't work if they don't pass.

 

[Cocitus23]

Thanks to the responders. Here are my reactions.

To ChasingDayLight: Thanks for your support. We see it the same way. Your story about the large lady being unable to fit through the emergency hatch was exactly the scenario I described in my earlier thread.

To ftm Thanks. I haven't read the report from the 747 captain at SFO. Your point about it needing all sorts of skills, and not necessarily the obvious ones, is a good one.

To kimjungun: I'm not sure what you find so amusing. I thought I was raising a serious issue. I'm pleased that your 86 year-old father is so sprightly, but I suspect that in an emergency I would prefer younger crew members ahead of him. I can do without your gratuitous advice about how I should live my life before I die. There are certain norms of polite behaviour on this forum, and you, as a newcomer, would do well to learn them.


To medhead: Yes, there are checks done, but the point I am making is that in USA at least there is some evidence to suggest that these tests are not adequate. May I share with you a local story from Melbourne to illustrate? I have an 85 year old sister, who is mentally as alert as ever. Physically, however, she is a wreck. Not only is she heavily overweight, but she suffers from diabetes and lymphoma, and she can barely walk. She still drives, but has the greatest difficulty to get in and out of the driver's seat. On her 85th birthday she was sent a notice from VicRoads saying that she would have to take a driving test. She failed the first two times she did the test, not on her driving but on trumped-up technicalities. Frankly, the testers must have taken one look at her, decided that there was no way they could pass her, so they found a way to fail her. Looking on, I considered that the outcome was correct, even if the process was not. She was enraged, and tried a third time. This time she passed with a perfect score, so she is back driving on Melbourne's roads. Although she drives just fine in normal conditions, her mind-to-limb reaction time is so slow that she would be a disaster in an emergency situation. All family members agree that she should not be driving, but she points to the test which she just passed with flying colours. Crucially, her reaction time in an emergency was not tested. The point is that tests need to be designed to test for possible areas of weakness.

 

[medhead]

Did vicroads send your sister for a medical test? Diabetes should automatically make her medically unfit. Plenty of examples of people getting run over by a hypo driver.

 

[docjames]

Did vicroads send your sister for a medical test? Diabetes should automatically make her medically unfit. Plenty of examples of people getting run over by a hypo driver.

Diabetes does not (and should not) make you automatically unfit.

Recurrent hypoglycaemic episodes, without warning, causing altered conscious state does. That would apply to a minority of diabetics.

Wanted to clarify what I'm sure was the intent of your post (but was so broad as to be waaaaay incorrect).

 

[medhead]

Diabetes does not (and should not) make you automatically unfit.

Recurrent hypoglycaemic episodes, without warning, causing altered conscious state does. That would apply to a minority of diabetics.

Wanted to clarify what I'm sure was the intent of your post (but was so broad as to be waaaaay incorrect).

Thanks for the clarity. I know my grandad stopped driving after an older diabetic gent had a turn and ran over a heap of school kids in Brisbane (or something like that). A surprisingly responsible action on his part since he never bothered eating properly and managing his condition.

So by that description would you medically pass the sister to driver? Hypothetically? Acknowledging that you would need to actually see the sister to make a proper decision.

 

[Cocitus23]

Thanks, docjames, for your correction of medhead. I thought he was incorrect, but wasn't sure. To answer medhead's specific question, no, she was not sent for a medical test. But hey, I don't want this thread to digress into a discussion of my sister's case, or of VicRoads. I would prefer to keep it on air crews and proof of thier fitness for duty.

 

[medhead]

That gets to my point, crew have medical tests. Your sister didn't. Being able to pass a driving test no more than 30% of the time does not make her fit (medically) to drive. I'm sure a crew member who was medically unfit could on occasion pass a practical test for duty.

So the example of your sister is interesting and disturbing. But it does not change my point that crew have to pass a medical assessment not just a practical assessment.

 

[anat0l]

As per the large pilot, the same answer applies - they do medicals and can't work if they don't pass.

I'm fairly sure I might've had a comment on the previous iteration of this thread.

I'm sure there are regular medicals, but I wonder to what degree is it all self-regulated by the airline industry, i.e. there are not say standard, government run tests - there are guidelines and what not, but the standard and actual carrying out of the medical is thus set by the airlines themselves?

If it is a self-regulated environment, then the unions can have a lot more pressure than if it were merely government run testing. And the unions have magnificent sway in the USA it's almost uncanny and unsafe. It's the main reason why, unless they have been convicted of certain crimes, there are several TSA officers who still have a job when they hardly deserve one due to their multiple transgressions.

Ever read of a "horror" story of a FA on a US airline who has performed a most horrid job or done a most unacceptable act (but not criminal)? Ever thought they'd be reprimanded or dismissed? Sometimes you read it so. They weren't dismissed - the union gives them a lot of protection. Don't ask me how the union can be that powerful to cover up member transgressions.

That is not to say that the unions are participating in exposing the public to unacceptable risk, but the mention of unions is rightly frightening to anyone, including airline exec. And airlines in the USA right now are running on a frail financial thread - more lawsuits, especially entangling the workforce, is not what they need, but unions will obviously pursue that instrument if and when they want to (and yes they are completely unfazed by the fact that doing so may be actively compromising their jobs).

All in all, my view simply is that a pilot of great size (girth, if you will) and age is no automatic disqualification that they should be a pilot, and that they cannot be a safe and competent pilot. I would like to think that people can realise their own failings and have the decency to submit to tests, change habits or resign if they know they cannot perform their jobs adequately for the public good, but in the US I do not even start to think that most people will have any such decency or honour. So yes, there are physicals, and if someone can pass these physicals and yet be proven to be an unacceptable risk to the flying public, then there is a serious flaw in the system which is intended to mitigate those risks.

 

[Cocitus23]

Thanks, medhead. I am presuming that you have inadvertently dropped a "not" in that last sentence. I am not sure what tests are done in USA. I can only report on the converstion I had with the Delta captain that they are sufficiently perfunctory to allow some candidates to to pass inappropriately. And his assertion would appear to explain my casual observations that some crew members give the appearance of being doubtful.

 

[medhead]

Thanks, medhead. I am presuming that you have inadvertently dropped a "not" in that last sentence. I am not sure what tests are done in USA. I can only report on the converstion I had with the Delta captain that they are sufficiently perfunctory to allow some candidates to to pass inappropriately. And his assertion would appear to explain my casual observations that some crew members give the appearance of being doubtful.

Probably why I edited my post 2 minutes before you posted this.

I'm fairly sure I might've had a comment on the previous iteration of this thread.

I'm sure there are regular medicals, but I wonder to what degree is it all self-regulated by the airline industry, i.e. there are not say standard, government run tests - there are guidelines and what not, but the standard and actual carrying out of the medical is thus set by the airlines themselves?

If it is a self-regulated environment, then the unions can have a lot more pressure than if it were merely government run testing. And the unions have magnificent sway in the USA it's almost uncanny and unsafe. It's the main reason why, unless they have been convicted of certain crimes, there are several TSA officers who still have a job when they hardly deserve one due to their multiple transgressions.

Ever read of a "horror" story of a FA on a US airline who has performed a most horrid job or done a most unacceptable act (but not criminal)? Ever thought they'd be reprimanded or dismissed? Sometimes you read it so. They weren't dismissed - the union gives them a lot of protection. Don't ask me how the union can be that powerful to cover up member transgressions.

That is not to say that the unions are participating in exposing the public to unacceptable risk, but the mention of unions is rightly frightening to anyone, including airline exec. And airlines in the USA right now are running on a frail financial thread - more lawsuits, especially entangling the workforce, is not what they need, but unions will obviously pursue that instrument if and when they want to (and yes they are completely unfazed by the fact that doing so may be actively compromising their jobs).

All in all, my view simply is that a pilot of great size (girth, if you will) and age is no automatic disqualification that they should be a pilot, and that they cannot be a safe and competent pilot. I would like to think that people can realise their own failings and have the decency to submit to tests, change habits or resign if they know they cannot perform their jobs adequately for the public good, but in the US I do not even start to think that most people will have any such decency or honour. So yes, there are physicals, and if someone can pass these physicals and yet be proven to be an unacceptable risk to the flying public, then there is a serious flaw in the system which is intended to mitigate those risks.

I can't really follow your post. You seem to be expressing opposite ideas. Perhaps your have negative issues as well? :?:

I can only note that one of the biggest and strong unions going involves medical doctors. Rather than unions and companies, I'd suggest that medical associations will set standards using standard professional practice. The government guidelines also set what is required. So if a doctor passes someone who does not met minimum standards it represents a failure of the individual not the system. As someone involved in safety stuff, i thought you'd understand the principles of setting up a system to minimise risk.

 

[anat0l]

I can't really follow your post. You seem to be expressing opposite ideas. Perhaps your have negative issues as well? :?:

I can only note that one of the biggest and strong unions going involves medical doctors. Rather than unions and companies, I'd suggest that medical associations will set standards using standard professional practice. The government guidelines also set what is required. So if a doctor passes someone who does not met minimum standards it represents a failure of the individual not the system. As someone involved in safety stuff, i thought you'd understand the principles of setting up a system to minimise risk.

Let me try and tl;dr this.

One key thing: how and who carries out the medicals? (In a sense, this underpins a lot of whether the OP's base argument bears much credence at all)

The government may offer guidelines as to what is expected of competent and apt pilots. Unless they specify that they must pass all of certain tests, then it may be just up to the airlines and relying on them to conform with whatever guidelines set. And even then, to ensure uniformity, the government agencies should run the medicals themselves.

The more removed from the government of the process of testing and certifying pilots (or any air crew for that matter) for service, the more influence the unions have. And in the USA, that is a non-trivial influence which has had some noted negative consequences for passengers. (Hopefully, not too many safety related ones to follow).

In principle, I have nothing against anyone who can pass a medical (and other associated tests, e.g. knowledge) becoming air crew. They are, at least to the best of our knowledge, competent and able. Doesn't matter how big, small, fat, thin, eye colour, old, middle aged, young, etc..

A doctor may pass someone only because they adhere to a certain process, but they may also be subject to other pressures. There are ethical issues here too, but it is not just a failure of the individual - it also points to a failure in the system.

Finally, since when has government regulation truly been set up to minimise risk in and of itself? The actual risk mitigation is always in the implementation.


Well, that tl;dr process didn't work...

 

[medhead]

Every medical assessment I've had to do for work has been carried out by a medical doctor.

Ethical considerations around doctors are within scope of the medical registration authority. Responsibility of ethical considerations are deferred to that authority. A government regulator who decides that medical fitness is a requirement should not create a medical/ethical assessment system when there is already an established, widely accepted standard.

Your last question really depends on which regulation you're talking about. Generally regulation is about a number of elements some of which include safety. As such regulation will generally not be about safety alone, but safety will be an element of the regulations. In this case, being fit to be a pilot/crew member is a safety concern.

Having said that there is some regulation that is about safety. Again generally the broad principle of all government regulation is safety of the citizens.

 

[Meggsy]

In Australia, pilots are required to undergo medicals that are set by CASA and based upon input from CASAs own doctors. These medicals are undertaken by CASA approved Aviation Medical Examiners. They are not run in house or by companies with vested interests and are very thorough and independent. I'm not sure about the USA but would be gobsmacked if the FAA did not have a similar program.

 

[Cocitus23]

Thanks medhead and anat01 for your discussion, which I have foillowed with interest. Thanks, too, to TonyHancock for his humour, which I appreciated.

Meggsy, you say, "I'm not sure about the USA but would be gobsmacked if the FAA did not have a similar program." Well, certainly, I too would be gobsmacked, and gobsmacked indeed I was when a Delta captain suggested to me that the US testing program was not comprehensive. And his advice would seem to explain to me why one still sees a 175kg pilot in the coughpit and an 87 year old flight attendant in the cabin. Despite what any of you say about prejudices, I would still maintain that there is a good prima facie case that such individuals are NOT fit for duty, and that if they wish to continue they should be required to demonstrate that they are indeed fit by passing a comprehensive test, designed with their particular possible weaknesses in mind and executed thoroughly and impartially.

Have any other AFF members come across crew members in USA or elsewhere who caused you to wonder about their fitness for duty, for whatever reason?

 

[Boris spatsky]

In Australia, pilots are required to undergo medicals that are set by CASA and based upon input from CASAs own doctors. These medicals are undertaken by CASA approved Aviation Medical Examiners. They are not run in house or by companies with vested interests and are very thorough and independent. I'm not sure about the USA but would be gobsmacked if the FAA did not have a similar program.

FAA has very similar medical requirements to CASA (which are all based on ICAO standards).

 

[RooFlyer]

To return to one of the OPs specific issues, I thank him for raising it.

It appears that the US system 'passes' FAs in their 70s and more as OK for their duty, and its not uncommon to find these 'sprightly' folk on the planes there. OK, that's the legals dealt with.

But it defies common sense that the sprightlies could perform the physical tasks of dealing with an emergency and even to have the authority to control belligerent pax compared to some-one, say in their 30s or 40s who was also passed fit for duty.

Those fine with rather 'senior' FAs I guess would also fine with an entire cabin crew of octogenarians and would be confident of their performance in the case of, say the recent Asiana crash.