8 3

'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.'


BDair 8 Feb 10

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Maybe they changed the standards because of a better understanding of what is ok and what is not.


We need the pilots.... And, there is redundancy.....

Living with arrhythmia for 65 years.


Six years ago I quit flying by commercial air. Mostly, I just don't like being herded around like cattle and all the bullshit one has to go through. I'm retired and I have plenty of time. So ALL my trips since then were in my own vehicle.

I did exactly what you did. I hated the cattle car aspect of flying.


I can decide too. 🙂

You can say that again.
What have you decided on?

ICAN vs. HHS: Key Legal Win Recasts Vaccine Debate


Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,& Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.


@AnneWimsy Can you fact check the above links
for the members of the audience please.
Thank you so much.

@BDair So now we believe websites with names like icandecide and prepareforchange. How about wheredoyougetyourfacts?

You can inform yourself,
or you can remain ignorant.
You can decide.


People! Pay attention to the OP, a well-known "misinterpreter of facts" (to be kind0 amongst us!

Can you elaborate on what facts may have been misinterpreted?


Yet another example of how private industry has captured the govt. agency assigned to regulate them. Glad all commercial planes have two pilots, since we can no longer depend on the govt. to make sure the airlines provide us safe and healthy pilots, since that would get in the way of their max profits.

I heard they proposed having only one pilot in the cockpit,
due to the shortage of available fliers. That would be bad.

@BDair No shit, Sherlock. That would be openly admitting they really don't care if we die from a crash, unless, of course, our families sue them for wrongful death.


Someone has been leaning on them to change this and bribes would not be out of the question either.


I'm somewhat happy with my bike.

The best form of transportation ever devised.

Oh, yes! I can decide dot org. 🙂

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:708990
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.