Originally Posted by anjowa
The mortality data suggests a USA 50 year old male has about 1 chance in 200 dying in a year, whereas the data for a guy who had bypass surgery is about a chance in 50.
Although flying is increased stress (7000 foot cabin pressure is a factor) the chances while flying are still pretty low, but -- big but -- the chances of a death of a guy who had not have the operation is about 4 times less.
Please remember this golden rule when talking about statistics:
Correlation does not equal causation. I might be able to show that bad weather in China means it's more likely for a plane crash to happen in North America. Does that mean a thunderstorm with hail in Shanghai should have you changing your tickets... most people would probably think not... but the causative relationship you just suggested is similar to that. In fact, which factor affect which is a whole nother field study in statistics that get above my level of math in a hurry. Google Dickey-Fuller test and you will see what I mean.
Originally Posted by slowjet
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.
I think this boils down to the everyday
practical safety versus ultimate safety trade offs. Could we save thousands of auto fatalities just by halving the speed limit? Probably, yes....
Is it practical? No...most of us would be strongly against this.
Can you ground every pilot that show any medical indication and possibly save some lives? It might help... (but even that is somewhat arguable since personal health related double incapacitation hasn't happened in recent history). BUT, what are the practical implications? Much shorter career lengths and higher labor costs from that... etc, etc.
Not much gain, but at a very high cost.