- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: EKGs of pilots are no longer normal. We should be concerned. Very concerned.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 4:17 am to Chazreinhold
Posted on 1/20/23 at 4:17 am to Chazreinhold
quote:Kirsch's claim looks to be bogus.
After the vaccine rolled out, the FAA secretly widened the EKG parameter range for pilots so they wouldn't be grounded.
In the October 2022 version of the FAA Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, the FAA quietly widened the EKG parameters beyond the normal range (from a PR max of .2 to unlimited).
Changing EKG clearance criterion to an "unlimited" PR interval made no sense at all.
So I checked.
I found was there was indeed a change in 2022....
The clearance criterion appear to have been tightened, not loosened.
The issue at hand is the speed of electrical conduction between the heart's atria and ventricles. It's termed the PR interval. Conduction which is either too fast or too slow can lead to dysrhythmias (not a good thing for pilots).
A PR interval of 120-200msec is normal. PRI >200msec is considered 1° AV Block. But the chance for dysrhythmia (which is the FAA's concern) escalates significantly at a PRI >300msec.
Previously, clearance of any 1°AVB was at the physician's discretion. A pilot with a marked (>300msec) 1°AVB could be cleared without FAA notification if the MD saw no evidence of an associated issue. The FAA changed that. Now all cases of marked 1°AVB require deferral and FAA notification.
As far as I can discern, THAT was the 2022 change.
Here are the 2017 recs, followed by the ones Kirsch referenced.
quote:
FAA EKG Standards - June 2017
FAA EKG Standards - Oct 24, 2022
quote:
3
Posted on 1/20/23 at 4:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
So will you be getting lots and lots of more boosters because the government said it is in your best interest?
Posted on 1/20/23 at 4:48 am to TomBuchanan
Pure and proud here even suffered the backlash at work from being a pure blood.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 4:52 am to TomBuchanan
quote:No. You probably haven't followed my posts on the vax, boosters, shots for kids, etc., which is fine.
So will you be getting lots and lots of more boosters because the government said it is in your best interest?
But I'm just keeping things factual.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 5:03 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No. You probably haven't followed my posts on the vax, boosters, shots for kids, etc., which is fine.
But I'm just keeping things factual.
Was hoping that was the case
Posted on 1/20/23 at 5:17 am to Speckhunter2012
quote:
They need to know that we know they are liars and profiteers and possibly genocidal.
Dude, they know their game plan. Pointing out to a thief that he is a thief isn't going to reform him.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 5:27 am to Chazreinhold
My dad (a pilot for Delta) retired 9 months early (he was approaching 65 anyway) because he wouldn't get the jab. All his pilot buddies got it and they all regret it.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 5:37 am to LSUAngelHere1
I had to get the shot to keep my job (military) so I could provide for my family and “protect” my pregnant wife and soon to be infant son. My second shot was April 30 2021.
I wonder when/if I will ever be in the clear.
I wonder when/if I will ever be in the clear.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 5:38 am to NC_Tigah
NC thanks for that info.!
But can you clarify for me. It appears to my untrained eye that the ability to clear someone with AV Block 1 could be done then and now by a physician. But was the threshold to require medical clearance changed from 200 ms to 300 ms?
So, to clarify. Before the change if you tested at say 250 ms (anything above 200) delay you were required to be cleared by a doctor or you couldn't fly. Whereas after the change. You only need to get special doctor permission if you were above 300 ms.
The above two paragraphs are a question, not a belief or accusation of the facts. An inquiry.
But can you clarify for me. It appears to my untrained eye that the ability to clear someone with AV Block 1 could be done then and now by a physician. But was the threshold to require medical clearance changed from 200 ms to 300 ms?
So, to clarify. Before the change if you tested at say 250 ms (anything above 200) delay you were required to be cleared by a doctor or you couldn't fly. Whereas after the change. You only need to get special doctor permission if you were above 300 ms.
The above two paragraphs are a question, not a belief or accusation of the facts. An inquiry.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 6:07 am to omegaman66
quote:I expected that to be the case, but it wasn't. At least not that I can find. I checked several old archived versions. Prior to the 300msec rule, clearance criteria did not require FAA clearance for any 1°AVB unless the MD requested it.
But was the threshold to require medical clearance changed from 200 ms to 300 ms?
To clarify, in cases of AVCD from 200msec to 300msec nothing changed. The rules are identical then and now. It's just the >300msec group that was modified.
quote:Yes. The same was the case for a 310msec interval. The doc could finish a w/u and clear you on his own. Now if PRI is >300msec, he completes his w/u, establishes conclusions and recommendations, but must defer clearance to the FAA. At least that's my reading of it.
Before the change if you tested at say 250 ms (anything above 200) delay you were required to be cleared by a doctor or you couldn't fly.
This post was edited on 1/20/23 at 6:19 am
Posted on 1/20/23 at 6:25 am to Dex Morgan
quote:
Of course the First Officer is solid or he/she wouldn't be there. You do realize that the First Officer flies the plane just as often as the captain, right? They alternate legs. One pilot will be 'Pilot Flying' and the other will be 'Pilot Monitoring'.
Why is this post being downvoted? You people are extremely ignorant of airline operations and crew resource management (CRM).
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:05 am to Chazreinhold
So you think both pilots suffering heart failure during the same flight is a likely occurrence? Or, are you just saying that this is evidence of a wider problem?
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:05 am to Bayou Brat
quote:
But employers that forced it upon their workforce...can be sued, right?
I’ve wondered about this, as well as Big Tech that censored cautionary news and cheerleader the vaxx. Seems like there should be some culpability for them, too. There had to have been millions that believed in the absolute necessity/risk-free nature of the vaxx for the same reasons the vast majority of retards/Biden voters believed Hunter’s laptop was planted by Putin.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:08 am to Penrod
quote:
So you think both pilots suffering heart failure during the same flight is a likely occurrence? Or, are you just saying that this is evidence of a wider problem?
Yes, seems like every week something bad comes of this damn Shot.
Last week it was that it may lead to Strokes.
This post was edited on 1/20/23 at 7:09 am
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:08 am to Penrod
quote:He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's posting fake news from some bullshite artist.
Or, are you just saying that this is evidence of a wider problem?
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:12 am to Chazreinhold
quote:
Yes, seems like every week something bad comes of this damn Shot.
People make things up or take advantage of people who don't know better, and suddenly you get this 'accumulation of evidence,' none of which is well-supported. It's just a pile of nonsense.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:17 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
It's just a pile of nonsense.
Perhaps if the "experts" had been honest during the Pandemic and encouraged debate instead of destroying the lives of those who dare ask simple questions, this "pile of nonsense" wouldn't have an audience.
I mean, people who have been outted as liars are asking us to ignore people with an opposing view point based on nothing but "believe us this time, we're really, really telling you the truth, THEY are the bad guys".
"Trust me" is not very convincing coming from the mouths of verified liars and con artists.
Remember, thanks to the Govt, Pfizer and millions of willing baddies in the Medical Industry, the argument is no longer about KNOWLEDGE it's about truth and integrity.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:25 am to Chazreinhold
quote:I'd say nice deflection from your incorrect original post and all of the hysterical excitement it caused.
So what do you say about this Jake?
I'd also say that it should be investigated as the story mentions. But I suspect your mind is made up about it despite ot being a lone signal at this point.
quote:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said on Friday that a CDC vaccine database had uncovered a possible safety issue in which people 65 and older were more likely to have an ischemic stroke 21 days after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech bivalent shot, compared with days 22-44
quote:
The FDA and CDC said that other large studies, the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, other countries' databases and Pfizer-BioNTech's databases had not flagged this safety issue, adding that it requires more investigation.
Posted on 1/20/23 at 7:27 am to oogabooga68
quote:Basically, because they weren't, you're okay with constantly going off half-cocked like an emotional basket case.
Perhaps if the "experts" had been honest during the Pandemic and encouraged debate instead of destroying the lives of those who dare ask simple questions, this "pile of nonsense" wouldn't have an audience
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News