Derfred ; Gosh. I was not aware that the reason for carrying TWO pilots was because one may die. Er, couldn't they BOTH die ? I always thought that the development from single to multi crew ops was because ONE pilot was unable to reach all of the controls from his/her seat. I do not have any issue with the SYSTEM that has just been demonstrated to work. My disappointment is that a dear colleague with a history of heart problems is finally deemed fit to fly public transport aircraft but then suffers a fatal attack. Gosh !
As for the AME with a disclaimer on his website ! Cripes, you couldn't make this stuff up. Lawyer yuckspeak for making all events of no direct guilt. I was once offered an aircraft that was in "general" good health but had a history of fluid leak onto the APU lines causing oily smells in the cabin (no, honestly). The APU was declared unserviceable. I walked away. Heard that the aircraft, later, diverted with strong undetectable oily smells in the cabin. I managed a wry smile from the safety of my pub.
Time for the Medics to take a hard review of the SYSTEM. The system I refer to is one where pilots, with long history of above average health monitoring and required to demonstrate above average levels of medical fitness get through the screening process only to the suffer fatality.
My ageing motor is due for MOT. Long history of age related problems. I bet it passes the MOT. Will I be surprised if the wheels fall off ? Not really. But it will have ticked all the boxes and the Mechanic has every right to smugly assert that he did his job, all requirements met and.....................oooops, sorry, the odd one slips through the net .
Some very muddled thinking going on, mainly from those with a corner to defend.