FAA EKG Changes

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: Safe and Effective For Professional Pilots?

#1 Post by barkingmad » Sat Jan 21, 2023 10:12 pm

Ooooh dear yet again, this does not look good, but heyho, who am I to question the official line on the Vak Scenes?
As previously mentioned by me elsewhere in this forum but as usual, ignored as "conspiracy theory" or the ramblings of the resident nutter, this aspect of the 'plague' precautions has so far cleverly been swept under the carpet of discarded face nappies and other plandemic detritus but alas no more;

"The FAA broke it's own recommended best practice/rules by allowing - forcing - pilots to take the shot. From their own website, Pharmaceuticals (Therapeutic Medications)

Do Not Issue - Do Not Fly, directed at Aviation Medical Examiners (AME's): "For any medication, the AME should ascertain for what condition the medication is being used, how long, frequency, and any side effects of the medication. The safety impact of the underlying condition should also be considered...FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved less than 12 months ago. The FAA generally requires at least one-year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes. This observation period allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse effects to manifest themselves..."

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/he ... m/dni_dnf/"

If that's not enough for the narrative slaves here in this supposedly professional-aviation forum, here's a better explanation from one of the better monitors of official garbage out there in the big wide world of "the science";

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the- ... email=true

Nothing to see here, move along, there's a good chap/chappess..... :-w

prospector
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1151
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:37 am
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 84

Re: Coronabollocks..

#2 Post by prospector » Fri Feb 10, 2023 9:36 pm

Are these events connected???

Last month, ICAN, through its attorneys, sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) demanding an explanation for its inexplicable decision to broaden the heart health parameters for pilots.
The new parameters accept PR interval echocardiogram readings that had previously been considered indicative of a “first degree heart block.” PR intervals measure electrical activity of the heart.
In order to be certified to fly in the United States, pilots must obtain a medical certification. One of the certification requirements is demonstrating “an absence of myocardial infarction and other clinically significant abnormality on electrocardiographic examination.” This makes sense as the government wants to ensure that pilots have healthy hearts –– that is, until recently.
In January, news broke that the FAA had amended its “Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners,” which sets forth the parameters of the medical testing. Until then, and since at least 2014, the Guide indicated that, for airmen under 51, a “normal” PR interval was less than 0.21.
On October 26, 2022, however, the Guide was amended to expand the “normal” PR interval to under 0.3. This is immensely significant since PR intervals relate to electrical transmission of the heart and a PR interval of over 0.2 is generally accepted as indicative of “first degree heart block,” and a delay in the electrical transmission in the heart.
The FAA’s decision to relax cardiology requirements is all the more astonishing in light of FAA Federal Air Surgeon Susan Northrup’s recent acknowledgement that between April 2013 and March 2016, one of the “the most common medical issues,” that was “either causal or contributory” to fatal aviation accidents was cardiovascular disease and strokes.
Even more stunning, Dr. Northrup acknowledged that cardiac disease “is the most common cause of death in the adult population.” Why then would FAA let pilots with known indications of cardiac disease be medically certified?
ICAN’s letter therefore demanded an explanation for FAA’s unilateral decision to medically certify pilots with PR intervals that were previously and universally deemed abnormal.
In the absence of an explanation by the FAA, ICAN has threatened legal action for this arbitrary and capricious decision that jeopardizes the safety of the American public. As ICAN’s letter explains, the FAA’s own Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners acknowledges the grave risks of improperly certifying pilots:
“The consequences of a negligent or wrongful certification, which would permit an unqualified person to take the controls of an aircraft, can be serious for the public, for the Government, and for the AME [(the Aviation Medical Examiner)].”
ICAN will continue to monitor the situation and share any important updates.
To share this legal update, please use this link: https://icandecide.org/press-release/ic ... arameters/
***

Employment Opportunity: A law firm that regularly represents ICAN has an opening for (i) an attorney with litigation and/or civil rights experience; and (ii) an attorney with class action experience. If interested, please send a resume, a short cover letter, and 2-4 writing samples to jenna@icandecide.org.


.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17367
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Coronabollocks..

#3 Post by Boac » Sat Feb 11, 2023 8:32 am

in #6082 I wrote:It will be very interesting to see how the 'DNI' directive and the detail of

"FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved less than 12 months ago.
The FAA generally requires at least one-year of post-marketing experience with a new drug before consideration for aeromedical certification purposes. This observation period allows time for uncommon, but aeromedically significant, adverse effects to manifest themselves. Contact either your Regional Flight Surgeon or AMCD for guidance on specific applicants or to request consideration for a particular medication."


will apply to the 'Emergency use authorisation' for vaccines. I assume the '12 months' has expired, or will there be a mass of failed FAA medicals as new Covid variant vaccines appears? What is the CAA position?
Bearing in mind that the British Heart Foundation has been 'questioned' on its 'independence' recently, but we still have no explanation for the 1 in 8 heart 'events' in unvaccinated post Covid folk. If this figure is correct, this could be the trigger for the change and Covid may have permanently changed the scenery. Indeed the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the pilot workforce (seen between April 2013 and March 2016 - pre-Covid/vaccination) referred to by Prospector may have some bearing on this change.

I have no update on the application of the 12 month 'pause' by the FAA or CAA or whether it has 'passed' or will be re-applied to any new 'mass' vaccination programme - anyone? Definitely lots more to be discovered/uncovered.

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: Citation Down in SW Virginia

#4 Post by barkingmad » Thu Jun 08, 2023 7:08 am

I could swear I saw an elephant in the back room, but someone noticed me looking in that direction and quickly slammed the door!

So I went looking and rediscovered the discreet change to the EKG regulations “FAA Relaxes EKG Requirements For Pilots & Provides No Explanation!”

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the- ... ly-tacitly

So here is another possible cause but as it doesn’t meet the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ and the BBC ‘Verify’ criteria then discussion time will likely match the aforementioned times of useful consciousness due to hypoxia or explosive decompression... :-\

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: Citation Down in SW Virginia

#5 Post by barkingmad » Thu Jun 08, 2023 8:17 am

Ex-Ascot wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2023 7:29 am
If the pilot had a heart attack I would think that someone from the cabin would have gone onto the flight deck when they did a 180. If not then when they had fighters on their wing tips. Probably not able to fly the thing but at least make a radio call.
From this passenger list, who would you select as being competent and calm enough to attempt such a task?

“John Rumpel’s daughter, a 2-year-old granddaughter and her nanny were onboard the plane,”

That is assuming they were aware of the possible incapacitation, and if so how to operate the radio, bearing in mind the selected frequency was likely one no longer applicable to the area in which the Citation was flying?

Are you dismissing this strange pandemic of heart conditions as a possible cause and if so, with what evidence?

I very much doubt, from the accounts of the impact and wreckage scene, that there would be enough remains from which to perform a proper post-mortem examination and analysis.

Phew! Thank goodness that’s sorted, nothing to see here, move along and breath a sigh of relief the FAA medics are off the hook!

That’s gotten rid of that damned elephant, now can we go back to discussing causes with which we are more comfortable?! ~X(

User avatar
admin2
Capt
Capt
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:13 pm
Location:

Re: Citation Down in SW Virginia

#6 Post by admin2 » Thu Jun 08, 2023 9:17 am

barkingmad wrote:Are you dismissing this strange pandemic of heart conditions as a possible cause and if so, with what evidence?
from which obscure corner of your universe do you deduce that question?

A totally irrelevant couple of posts and yet another mad woman's diarrhoea spread from you. In return I ask
Are you suggesting this accident was caused by the strange pandemic of heart conditions, and if so, with what evidence?
I give you 48 hours to provide such evidence or your post will be sent to the barkingmad's internet skip of hyper-ventilation. Alternatively, I'm happy to start a new topic for you on the 'FAA EKG changes' if you wish and we can move all your stuff about that there? I will chuck in here this https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N34J2M0 and place that link there for you.

Let's stick with facts.

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: Citation Down in SW Virginia

#7 Post by barkingmad » Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:44 am

Admin2 answers my question with another question:---"from which obscure corner of your universe do you deduce that question?"

Try this mature, sober and sobering discussion on the topic and then please come back to me with your evidence that (presumably you are asserting) there have been NO flight safety risk adverse events attributable to ANY commercial pilot following the imposition of unapproved pharmaceutical products forced on commercial pilots and others, BEFORE one year had elapsed from the issuance of such products, in direct contravention of the FAA medics' own regulations;

https://rumble.com/v26qvxy-danger-in-th ... and-u.html

Re: "Alternatively, I'm happy to start a new topic for you on the 'FAA EKG changes' if you wish and we can move all your stuff about that there? I will chuck in here this https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N34J2M0 and place that link there for you.
Let's stick with facts."

Please do move it all to your proposed new thread, I will be delighted if you start the thread with my posting name so's I can take the credit or the resulting crap, whichever...

For a glowing reference for the reuters organisation, especially in the context of the 'plague' and it's continuing collateral damage, here is an article which may illuminate the topic for other members here, who might otherwise rely on that source of gospel truth;

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... mic-forum/

Byeee, see you all across in the new "FAA EKG changes" thread when it emerges, under my name of course! :-h

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: FAA EKG Changes

#8 Post by barkingmad » Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:18 am

A remarkable stunned silence pervades on this thread as a forum full of former aviation-related professionals mulls over whether they dare post any comment but withhold in case they come under fire from the usual bunch of trolls.

Interestingly the video I posted in the previous post, sourced from rumble, is still up on Youtruebe, but again one must question 'for how long'?

It comes under the title: "DailyClout / US Freedom Flyers: “Myocarditis: Once Rare Now Common”, but will probably be supplanted by the deadly black rectangle so often seen in the pages of O-N

Many of us here will recall the fatal accident to BEA Trident G-ARPI in 1972 and after the captain's heart condition was proven by post-mortem the resultant earthquake in the UK aviation medical process which that accident stimulated, ECGs at 6-monthly intervals for the over 40s and so on.

Now the FAA and the CAA and the other xAAs are noticeable by their absence from any open discussion on this topic of relaxed heart criteria thresholds for a pilot's licence medical certificate.

We can only guess as to why the FAA subtly changed the EKG requirements, it might have been the "strong safety signals' as mentioned by Josh Yoder or it might have been when the FAA noticed this little gem from the infamous Pfizer documents which were of course intended for burial in inaccessible vaults for 75 years

It appears under the sub-heading of "3.1.3. Review of Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESIs)" and contains this little gem which might have triggered the PR interval change;

"Cardiovascular AESIs
Search criteria: PTs Acute myocardial infarction; Arrhythmia; Cardiac failure; Cardiac failure acute; Cardiogenic shock; Coronary artery disease; Myocardial infarction; Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; Stress cardiomyopathy; Tachycardia".

So these AESIs were originally identified by the manufacturer, BEFORE the 'stabs' were rolled out and made compulsory for some aircrew as a condition of further employment.

I can supply the URL for the obviously peer-reviewed factchecked reference from Pfizer, so's the sceptics here may relax before they waste their time chasing up what Reuters, Snopes and the other truth factories are saying to counter the words of BigHarma.

But you'll have to politely request the same from me as the original source domain has mysteriously come up for sale?!?!?!? :-?

Sleep softly, your industry regulators are taking good care of you... i-)

OneHungLow
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2140
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:28 pm
Location: Johannesburg
Gender:

Re: FAA EKG Changes

#9 Post by OneHungLow » Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:14 pm

barkingmad wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:18 am
A remarkable stunned silence pervades on this thread as a forum full of former aviation-related professionals mulls over whether they dare post any comment but withhold in case they come under fire from the usual bunch of trolls.
Who trolls the trolls?

qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

;)))
The observer of fools in military south and north...

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: FAA EKG Changes

#10 Post by barkingmad » Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:16 pm

OneHungLow wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 12:14 pm
barkingmad wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:18 am
A remarkable stunned silence pervades on this thread as a forum full of former aviation-related professionals mulls over whether they dare post any comment but withhold in case they come under fire from the usual bunch of trolls.
Who trolls the trolls?

qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

;)))
I would posit that they all know who they are, unlike us ordinary line dogs who are not party to the inner workings and likely don’t care either.

Except when they become an obvious nuisance... :-?

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: FAA EKG Changes, just in case there's an accident...

#11 Post by barkingmad » Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:59 pm

Is it possible that the noise of incidents, even remotely attributable to the illegal mandated administration of a pharmaceutical intervention in direct contravention to the various Aviation Authorities' own rules, has scared the FAA into opening up the PR interval for aviation medical certification?

This video has been out for some time but certainly has never featured in any MSM news items and you must wonder why;

https://www.bitchute.com/video/d70i6EUMh9eY/

Dana, Yoder et al seem to have managed to unearth rather too many recent incapacitation incidents for continued reassurance of the travelling public and aircrew.

All of these incidents must have attracted an Air Safety Report with the consequent investigation(s), ^#(^ but the results of these, if performed, are unknown.

It is not just the possible cardiac events which might affect any pilot who has taken the treatment, here is the full list from Pfizer and please note the date of the document?!

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... rience.pdf

And you no longer need to politely request a copy, here it is for free but it makes sobering reading.

This means that someone in high authority knew about the potential for a wide range of potentially serious adverse effects but still forced the gloop onto the population of the World, some of whom have the lives of hundreds of people in their hands at critical stages of flight.

I have to presume that those currently receiving these treatments have been presented with such information, evident in this document, for their judgement in accordance with the principles of informed consent. X(

User avatar
barkingmad
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
Location: Another Planet
Gender:
Age: 75

Re: FAA EKG Changes

#12 Post by barkingmad » Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:28 pm

Bearing in mind the US military were at the forefront of the 'stabs', just like other military forces, these figures are disturbing and must call into question the administration of a revolutionary untested mRNA pharmaceutical product to those working in safety critical industries.

In the case of airline pilots the program of the rollout of these treatments, their mandating for many of that profession and the contravention of the FAA's own regs concerning drugs which have NOT been under significant and valid trials seems at odds with the oft-quoted mantra "Safety is our number one priority".

Well, take a long hard look at this armed forces data and rejoice that the CCP has managed to harm so many western military without firing a single shot, apart from the 'stab' of course;

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/recen ... rmy-lt-col

When viewed against the latest VAERS data from the US, does nobody else here feel uncomfortable at seeing this evidence?

https://openvaers.com/covid-data

And might the unfolding picture explain the sudden unexplained change in EKG requirements by the FAA?

LT. Col. Long's statement at the end of the article summarises the current impasse, so Dr. Susan Northrup, senior flight surgeon for the FAA, is presumably in the frame should the pending legal actions against the 'perps' ever take off?

:---"Since she first came forward, she has also given testimony to the Idaho Legislature and at the Alaska Medical Freedom Symposium. Appearing recently on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, she spoke about the FAA’s change in health requirements that significantly broaden the electrocardiogram range for pilots and allows those with cardiac injury damage to fly.

'In the light of emerging and overwhelming data showing cardiac damage from COVID and COVID vaccines on cardiac muscle, I can’t imagine why they would make this move'---:"

But with an allegedly corrupt and bankrolled judiciary in the modern 'western democracies' we may see the next Ice Age before the truth and the 'cuffs come out... X(

Post Reply