Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-88-059
Details
Synopsis: ON AUGUST 3, 1986, AT 12:35 P.M., A BELL 206B HELICOPTER, N49606, OWNED AND OPERATED BY JOE FOSTER EXCAVATING, INC., DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA, CRASHED IN A WOODED AREA IN ALAMO, CALIFORNIA, WHILE CIRCLING A RESIDENCE. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED AT THE TIME. THE PILOT AND PASSENGER, THE OWNER OF THE HELICOPTER, SUSTAINED FATAL INJURIES; THE HELICOPTER WAS DESTROYED.
Recommendation: THE NTSB RECOMMENDS THAT THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: REQUIRE THAT PERSONS APPLYING FOR SPECIAL-ISSUANCE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 67.19 PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT ANY REQUESTED CARDIOVASCULAR EVALUATIONS WERE PERFORMED BY A PHYSICIAN CERTIFIED BY THE AMERICAN BOARD OF CARDIOLOGY AND THAT A RECOGNIZED STANDARD PROTOCOL WAS USED IN ANY RELATED STRESS ELECTROCARDIOGRAM EXAMINATION.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Unacceptable Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: ALAMO, CA, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: LAX86MA311
Accident Reports: Joe Foster Excavating, Inc., Bell 206B, N49606
Report #: AAR-88-04
Accident Date: 8/3/1986
Issue Date: 6/6/1988
Date Closed: 1/4/1990
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Closed - Unacceptable Action)
Keyword(s):

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 1/4/1990
Response: By letter dated May 22, 1989, we classified the FAA's earlier response to these safety recommendations as "Open--Unacceptable Action" and provided further justification for their adoption. Since the FAA does not agree with these safety recommendations, and is of the view that its current policies and procedures are satisfactory, both Safety Recommendations A-88-59 and -60 are now classified as "Closed--Unacceptable Action."

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 11/3/1989
Response: The FAA has reviewed its position and does not agree with this safety recommendation. The FAA is afforded standardized medical information to evaluate the airman's medical condition in consideration of the special issuance of medical certification. When further medical information is required, the request for such information is made to the airman specifically delineating the information desired and, when appropriate, the required medical specialty of the physician performing the evaluation. This information is solicited for interpretation by the FAA of the status of the medical condition and its importance relative to aviation safety. A detailed objective medical report of good quality is of greater value to the FAA's determination of eligibility for special issuance of a medical certificate than a recommendation from the examining physician that the subject is fit to perform airman duties. There are many physicians other than those certified by the American Board of Cardiology who are well qualified to perform cardiac evaluations on airmen. There are several standard protocols for stress electrocardiogram examinations. The FAA's cardiology consultants interpret the electrocardiograms consistently as long as the specific parameters of the test are specified. Data Source: NTSB Recommendations to FAA and FAA Responses The FAA believes that its current system for obtaining additional medical information for consideration in special issuance of medical certificates and subsequent review of that information by staff and consultant specialists in appropriate medical disciplines is sound. I plan no further action on this safety recommendation.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 5/22/1989
Response: While compliance with Safety Recommendation A-88-59 may prove a hardship for some persons living in remote areas, we believe that such hardship, when viewed in the context of safety, is minimal. We also believe that any person suffering from a heart condition would probably be under the care of a cardiologist or internist certified by the American Board of Cardiology (Board). The intent of this recommendation is not to take away the Federal Air Surgeon's (FAS) final authority, but rather to assure that the FAS is afforded standardized medical information to evaluate the airman's medical condition. We agree that any recommendations pertinent to an airman's medical status must be consistent with "current accepted medical thought." In this regard, the Safety Board believes that only a Board certified cardiologist or internist can provide a consistently reliable detailed risk evaluation of the airman. The Safety Board believes that unless these recommended procedures are instituted, a situation similar to that at Alamo, California, could recur. We request your reconsideration of the above recommendations which will be held in an "Open-- Unacceptable Action" status pending further response.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 8/26/1988
Response: THE FAA DOES NOT AGREE THAT PERSONS APPLYING FOR SPECIAL ISSUANCE OF A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 14 CFR 67.19 SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT ANY REQUESTED CARDIOVASCULAR EVALUATIONS WERE PERFORMED BY A PHYSICIAN CERTIFIED BY THE AMERICAN BOARD OF CARDIOLOGY. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION WOULD LIMIT FREE CHOICE OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATION ACTION. IN LESS POPULATED AREAS OF THE U.S., PHYSICIANS CERTIFIED IN CARDIOLOGY MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE TO AIRMEN WHO ARE BEING FOLLOWED BY INTERNISTS OR FAMILY PRACTITIONERS.