TedR3
Pre-takeoff checklist
Whatever. I guess I'll just have to turn in my tin foil hat and Don't Tread On Me Flag.
3rd class mdical re-visited
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
Whatever. I guess I'll just have to turn in my tin foil hat and Don't Tread On Me Flag.
Stewartb
Final Approach
It's pretty easy to recognize those with skin in the game and those without.
Good luck beating it, Ted, and everyone else fighting similar battles.
Good luck beating it, Ted, and everyone else fighting similar battles.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
I guess I'll be right there with you Ted. I did it the "right" way and don't have to fear getting ramp checked or seeing the doctor.
In my case, it would have been difficult to explain the 24in scar down my chest at the next medical. I guess I could've told them I got in a bad knife fight after "I manned up".
Ridiculous.I just don't understand where there is a documented process to follow and you can establish that you meet that process, why you'd avoid it.
If that's not "manning up", then I guess I'm the dumbest guy in the room. And in my case, what I had would never "metastasize" to the brain, but it still fell under the protocol. I know because I checked. Multiple times.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
I wish you luck with that argument should you ever need it. I know exactly how far you'll get with that, and you should be planning an "after aviation" hobby.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
Well, let's just inject a little sarcasm into this. What you fail to understand is that you are arguing THEORY. While I might agree with the theory (or I might not), I'm not inclined to "take the risk" that you think is no big deal.
Administrative law doesn't work that way. If the FAA gets ****ed, they have plenty of "technicalities" to just revoke my medical. Then it's up to ME to argue that. And that process takes time. Lots of time. Just ask Bob Hoover. As I recall, it took a couple of years, during which time he flew in Australia. That's an option that I don't have.
What you fail to understand is that I might only have a couple years left to fly. Why on God's green earth would I spend it fighting with them because THEORETICALLY I might be right?
You can't see the forest through all them damm trees.... Being "right" ain't the deal. At least for me. But you do what you like.
Last edited:
Still waiting for someone to show me an enforcement action resulting from not immediately consulting with an AME for something not on the "big 15" list.
I'm not talking about operating with a obvious known "imminent" physical deficiency, I'm referring to the huge gray area created by a nebulous regulation.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Thanks - I guess. the list of things I fail to understand is amazingly long. The feds have taken over. Get in line, get your permission slip, do what we say, follow the rules, bend over, spread-em. What are you hiding? If you have nothing to hide, give us what we want. Person of interest. License plate readers. Cell phone trackers, meta-data tracking, wiretaps, a signature on a fed form to LEAVE the country by plane. Don't take more than $10,000 across the border, don't deposit $9000 into a bank account, Don't refuse medical treatment. ad infinitum, ad neauseum.
Not so sarcastic anymore - is it?
Not so sarcastic anymore - is it?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
The action would not be for "not immediately consulting with an AME for something not on the "big 15" list", since that isn't what the regulation ways. The action would be for violating 14 CFR 67.313 by flying with a condition which the FAS has found makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held, or may reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
There's no gray area at all -- either the condition has been found by the FAS to fall within the regulatory criteria cited above or the FAS has not made that finding. But by this regulation, it's the responsibility of the individual airman to determine whether any diagnosed condition that airman has is on that list or not. How that airman accomplishes that is up to the airman, but contacting an AME or the Regional Flight Surgeon is probably the surest, fastest, and easiest way to do that for any condition the status of which the airman doesn't know.
And it really isn't "double-secret probation" -- the information is posted on the internet for all to see, and they'll happily provide a prompt answer to a direct question if that AME guide is too complicated for you to understand. And the RFS contact information is both posted on the internet and available from your local FSDO.
Last edited:
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
IOWs he is cancer free and able, he's good to go.??
IOWs he is cancer free and able, he's good to go.??
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
Actually it is sarcastic and simplistic. Again, I might agree with your presumption that freedoms are disappearing, but you fail to understand that they are already gone.
It's the easiest thing in the world to sit on the sideline and say - "retailguy, you should do this".... When you tell me to do something on principle, you aren't looking at what MY cost will be if it doesn't happen as you theorize. There is no cost to you if it doesn't happen the way you think it should. That's the danger of this "medical guidance" you guys are spewing here.
Your ideas won't work, regardless of what you think, or what you believe SHOULD happen.
You can argue that the FAA should have been more explicit or they missed a pronoun or a verb and therefore it doesn't mean what they intended it to mean, but the fact is cancer is disqualifying whether you and the rest of the argument crowd believes it or not. Anyone who tests that, will undoubtedly lose in the beginning, and then faces a long battle to get back what they risked.
Reading all this stuff you guys are posting reminds me of one thing. I compare this to the famous Bill Clinton line - "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is..." I'm sure you're thrilled to be compared to old Bill, but if the shoe fits?......
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
No, he's not. Unless it is one of the few minor conditions that doesn't fall under the protocol. If he has any type of metastatic cancer he needs to self ground and cannot fly again until an AME or the FAA says he can.
If he does anything else and something happens he's up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Maybe, maybe not. You have to go through the protocol in the AME guide to decide.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Oh man, my head hurts with so much I fail to understand.
This isn't about the FAA missing some grammar along the way. They are barely speaking the same language as the flying public.
As far as your situation, while I can appreciate the individual perspective, really - things are bigger than one person. We discuss policy. Making policy based on one case, or one POV usually makes bad law.
Also, I don't disagree that from the FAA POV, cancer is a disqualifying condition, even if it's found by the pilot, and diagnosed by an MD whom is not the AME during an aeromed exam. I don't discount, and have never said that the FAA fails to think that way. I'm sure Ron, and all the other finger-waggers
out there will ascribe all kinds of unwritten, and undocumented powers to the feds. It's just the way things are in modern US. I try most of the time, and maybe sometimes I fail, to look at the big picture of where we are, and where we should be going. The third class medical is headed for even greater scrutiny of airmen. I consider this to be the wrong direction, and defining all/any cancer as a disqualifying condition once it's diagnosed is another step in the wrong direction. Just as the Apnea is the wrong direction. The Sport Pilot trial balloon has been a real eye-opener if only the FAA would look at the actual historical data since it's inception.
Has a SP ever crashed, or caused a loss of sep, or another problem as a direct or indirect result of a medical condition? I don't know the answer, but if it's 1, or 2 we have to ask; 'why does the 3rd class still exist?'. We also have data from Canada to look at, and at what point does the FAA justify it's draconian process for people to fly their own planes in the NAS?
As far as our liberties being gone, oh - trust me on this, I'm well aware. Maybe more-so than many other here. I rail against it every chance I get, and most of what I get from the peanut gallery is 'oh well, I didn't really need to _____________ anyway, so I don't care if it's gone'. The bell is tolling, and it's been ringing out for quite a while now. Seems like I'm one of the few here who want to reverse the tide. Imagine a life without the 3rd class medical. Imagine a life without prohibition, without drug laws, without the DHS(I recall that fondly), and without a lot of other 3 letter agencies. Believe me, I very clearly understand.
Now, someone come along and tell me what else I fail at. Punching Judy, open for business.
I just don't understand where there is a documented process to follow and you can establish that you meet that process, why you'd avoid it.
I have 3 reasons.
Money. The unnecessary tests cost a lot and insurance companies will fight, an uneeded MRI buys a lot of 100LL
Time. The tests take time that can't be recovered.
Health. Some of the unnecessary tests are harmful. In my case a doctor on the Internet insisted they "wanted" an MRI, when I went to my dr for a prescription he went ballistic and wouldn't do it. According to the doctor that actually treated me, excess radiation is NOT a good idea for someone with a cancer history. Sorry, but that made sense to me.
All for a guy that had been cured......me.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
IMNSHO, You missed the big one. Control. They can make you dance like a ballerina and there's a lot of 'crats out there that care not a whit about safety. They care a great deal about their control of the process of doing what you want. It's the antithesis of a permissive society, and it's wrecking us one cut at a time.
I'll shut up now.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
But MRIs don't use radiation. Are you sure you aren't referring to a CAT scan?
Says someone who has had a number of MRIs...
But as far as your reasons go, if in fact you need the tests to renew your medical, you would need to get them at some point anyway since your medical doesn't last forever. It seems like the original scenario was a person diagnosed with cancer who hopefully self-grounded while getting treatment. The question was what they should do when they are declared cancer-free. I will agree with the contingent which says that it's not exactly clear since cancer is not one of the conditions listed and if you are declared cancer-free by a doctor that presumably means you no longer have it. But you're going to need to report it on your next medical anyway so you're only postponing the inevitable.
Last edited:
Yes, CAT scan.
The thing is I just chose to go in with a letter from my doc and the path report and not the rest. I got my SI a few weeks later anyways. YMMV.
At the end of the second year I sent in the letter from the doc saying I was still cured and my own letter saying the SI didn't make sense. They agreed and released me to the pool. Again, YMMV, they seem to make this stuff up on the fly frequently.
When(ever) you show up for your medical, they play by whatever rules they want. They choose not to use the rule making process and that's wrong IMHO. I choose to follow the rules, not the bureaucratic musings.
Back to the OP, the regulations are clear, the unrules not so much.
The thing is I just chose to go in with a letter from my doc and the path report and not the rest. I got my SI a few weeks later anyways. YMMV.
At the end of the second year I sent in the letter from the doc saying I was still cured and my own letter saying the SI didn't make sense. They agreed and released me to the pool. Again, YMMV, they seem to make this stuff up on the fly frequently.
When(ever) you show up for your medical, they play by whatever rules they want. They choose not to use the rule making process and that's wrong IMHO. I choose to follow the rules, not the bureaucratic musings.
Back to the OP, the regulations are clear, the unrules not so much.
Hank S
En-Route
And here I thought that as PIC, I must judge if I am capable of making each and every flight, or if I'm too sick, tired, fatigued or hungry to go now.
Please post the FAS's 24-hour contact number, so I can discuss my slight cough before deciding if I'm healthy enough to fly or not.
No? How sick do I need to be to call him? What conditions do I need to have? How do I know, with no published regulatory guidance other than that written for AMEs, if a condition that I have or am developing requires submission to the FAS for review prior to my next medical? Surely my GP won't tell me? He knows less about it than I do, that's why I visit an AME every 24 months.
This may sound sarcastic (thanks, you faceless, expressionless, inflectionless internet), but I'm serious. How am I supposed to know what conditions other than the listed 15 require self grounding and between-the-medical review and SI? I know when I'm tired, I know when my head hurts and nose runs, but then I just self ground until I feel better. Don't recall doing anything FAA Medical wise when I had the flu, I just didn't fly, drive or work for several days.
And no, I do not "just know," and no, it was not covered in training beyond the very simple basics of feeling sick or tired and waiting to feel better. And as this thread proves, it is certainly not "obvious."
My guess is Tom's "friend" is actually Tom himself.....
If it is you, I hope the best for ya....
Stewartb
Final Approach
If it was Tom? The same answer applies. I'm pretty sure he already knows the answer.
I've had SI medicals for as long as I can remember. Initially it was for a petty issue that isn't even an SI issue any longer but these days I have a condition that's on the DQ list. Then and now the rules have been very clearly written and compliance with the Aeromedical requirements has been very easy to maintain. My physicians don't do tests because the FAA requires it. They do tests because the tests are standard practice for treatment of the condition and the FAA requirements are that I share the results. The day I hesitate to share those results because I fear I can't meet the SI requirements? I'll walk away from the medical certification process and will look to LSA or whatever no-medical flight priveldges are available to me at that time. The notion that the FAA is heavy-handed and controlling is a big pile of Internet crap spread by guys with no actual experience with what they criticize. My attending physician understands what the FAA requires and provides me with the worksheets and condition statements every year without me incurring special visits, tests, procedures, or imaging. It's just an extra piece of paper or two. So when guys say the FAA requires tests and exams that an average SI pilot wouldn't have already had? I say BS. Managing my SI medical is very simple. The RFS office is very helpful and offers really good customer service. Their rules are published and they don't get to bend them. Give them precisely what they require and not a morsel more. Compliance is the only requirement.
I've had SI medicals for as long as I can remember. Initially it was for a petty issue that isn't even an SI issue any longer but these days I have a condition that's on the DQ list. Then and now the rules have been very clearly written and compliance with the Aeromedical requirements has been very easy to maintain. My physicians don't do tests because the FAA requires it. They do tests because the tests are standard practice for treatment of the condition and the FAA requirements are that I share the results. The day I hesitate to share those results because I fear I can't meet the SI requirements? I'll walk away from the medical certification process and will look to LSA or whatever no-medical flight priveldges are available to me at that time. The notion that the FAA is heavy-handed and controlling is a big pile of Internet crap spread by guys with no actual experience with what they criticize. My attending physician understands what the FAA requires and provides me with the worksheets and condition statements every year without me incurring special visits, tests, procedures, or imaging. It's just an extra piece of paper or two. So when guys say the FAA requires tests and exams that an average SI pilot wouldn't have already had? I say BS. Managing my SI medical is very simple. The RFS office is very helpful and offers really good customer service. Their rules are published and they don't get to bend them. Give them precisely what they require and not a morsel more. Compliance is the only requirement.
Last edited:
scottfromboston
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2010
- Messages
- 356
- Display Name
Display name:
Scott
The point of unnecessary diagnostic procedures is a good one, even an MRI.
I was prescribed a contrast MRI by our local medical branch to rule out further problems from something stress-related that had occurred just once, 3+ years before. Took a stand on principle (and to save the hassle and ~1000$) and won, but it took some bitching (and a favor from an opthomologist friend).
I'm 2nd class medical but hopefully we get this.
I was prescribed a contrast MRI by our local medical branch to rule out further problems from something stress-related that had occurred just once, 3+ years before. Took a stand on principle (and to save the hassle and ~1000$) and won, but it took some bitching (and a favor from an opthomologist friend).
I'm 2nd class medical but hopefully we get this.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
Oh man, my head hurts with so much I fail to understand.
This isn't about the FAA missing some grammar along the way. They are barely speaking the same language as the flying public.
As far as your situation, while I can appreciate the individual perspective, really - things are bigger than one person. We discuss policy. Making policy based on one case, or one POV usually makes bad law.
Also, I don't disagree that from the FAA POV, cancer is a disqualifying condition, even if it's found by the pilot, and diagnosed by an MD whom is not the AME during an aeromed exam. I don't discount, and have never said that the FAA fails to think that way. I'm sure Ron, and all the other finger-waggers
I try most of the time, and maybe sometimes I fail, to look at the big picture of where we are, and where we should be going. The third class medical is headed for even greater scrutiny of airmen. I consider this to be the wrong direction, and defining all/any cancer as a disqualifying condition once it's diagnosed is another step in the wrong direction. Just as the Apnea is the wrong direction. The Sport Pilot trial balloon has been a real eye-opener if only the FAA would look at the actual historical data since it's inception.
Has a SP ever crashed, or caused a loss of sep, or another problem as a direct or indirect result of a medical condition? I don't know the answer, but if it's 1, or 2 we have to ask; 'why does the 3rd class still exist?'. We also have data from Canada to look at, and at what point does the FAA justify it's draconian process for people to fly their own planes in the NAS?
As far as our liberties being gone, oh - trust me on this, I'm well aware. Maybe more-so than many other here. I rail against it every chance I get, and most of what I get from the peanut gallery is 'oh well, I didn't really need to _____________ anyway, so I don't care if it's gone'. The bell is tolling, and it's been ringing out for quite a while now. Seems like I'm one of the few here who want to reverse the tide. Imagine a life without the 3rd class medical. Imagine a life without prohibition, without drug laws, without the DHS(I recall that fondly), and without a lot of other 3 letter agencies. Believe me, I very clearly understand.
Now, someone come along and tell me what else I fail at. Punching Judy, open for business.
So if I sum up all the sarcasm I arrive at the following conclusion - You're trying to "reverse" the bureaucratic overreach by telling others with disqualifying medical conditions to ignore the rules and refuse to follow it because of government over reach.
I go back to what I said earlier - there is no consequence for you if the advice in this thread doesn't work. There is for me.
Philosophically we agree. How we implement that is 180 degrees out.
Sometimes you just have to follow the rules and play the game. When you have skin in the game to lose if you don't, THEN you'll understand it.
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
The part you quoted and responded to with this was meant in a broader sense. Cancer is not "terminal" to most flying careers, if you can get rid of it. The advice given in this thread that an airman can "self certify" to fly after cancer is just wrong and will get someone following it in a heap of trouble.
Regarding your response, I largely agree and to a smaller extent so does the FAA. That's why some of the items on the protocol are certifiable by the AME, and others are only SI for a few years.
Not so in my case. It's not on the protocol and I'll be watched as long as I can fly.
So those of you who want to "change the rules", how about you PM me, I'll explain what I've got and you can advocate for change there? Maybe that'll work better than all of us becoming vigilantes and storming the castle? Nah, that'll never work because that requires some effort, and probably rejoining the evil empire (AOPA)... It's much more fulfilling to come here and say "how it ought to be"...
Have a great day.
Hmmmm..
Now I am confused.... You preach that everyone should follow the FAA's rules to the Tee,,,, And in the next sentence you say if you can't meet SI requirements , you will go the LSA route......
So,,, you know you will fail a 3rd class but have no problem "self certifying " altho you have a disqualifying condition...
Last edited:
Stewartb
Final Approach
There's no ambiguity in my statement. I don't care what other guys do but I do object to their incorrect statements about the SI process, which apparently come from lack of hands-on experience with it. As for LSA? A potential denial does not mean I'm unable to fly under the rules.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
No it's not me, it was a hypothetical question, And No I don't know the answer. I'm not a Dr or a Lawyer.
I'm a member of a morning aviators coffee club, and some of the gezzers ask questions, That's all there is to most of these questions.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
To me, the most logical course of action would be to, first, get an opinion from you own doctor, then consult with an AME without it being a real exam. I won't comment on whether or not you would or would not get in trouble if you neglected to report and they found out a year or two later on your next exam because I have no idea.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
To take this question a step farther, The pilot has now gone the 18 months cancer free and has been self certifying and flying, He now goes in for his 3rd class medical. He answers all the questions on the form truthfully.
whats going to happen next?
Let's say he has had a non life threatening tumor removed.
whats going to happen next?
Let's say he has had a non life threatening tumor removed.
He can answer any of the questions truthfully, including showing whatever number of PIC hours since the last medical, and he'll be fine 99.9999% of the time. Except in the extremely unlikely event that someone is going to dig into his logbook to see whether or not he was flying with an instructor or other qualified pilot while logging PIC, but *might* have been medically DQ'd, nothing will ever come of it.
I strongly suspect that except in some really blatant case, if caught/questioned, a pilot violating this provision that showed enough contrition (whether genuine or not) would get off with a warning letter. Key - Don't lie on the medical application, that is where you'd get burned badly.
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
You are, but no matter what you think, the FAA guidance and regulations I've noted limit your options to say you're OK to fly when you have a condition the FAA says is grounding. The FAA simply does not permit you to substitute your own judgment for theirs regarding those conditions they feel are incompatible with safe flight.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Can't say. The answer could range from "ho-hum" and a new medical certificate to denial of the new application, revocation of the previous medical, and an enforcement action for violation of 14 CFR 61.53. You'd have to know exactly what form of cancer he had, as well as all information on its progress, treatment, and current status, and then compare that to the FAA guidance and protocols.
Insufficient data. Please read the AME guide section on cancer -- it really does provide a great deal of reliable information.
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,944
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
I seem to recall that this question came up several years ago when Bruce was still participating on this board. IIRC, his answer was that it depended on whether or not the person in question was a CFI. The reason being that a CFI is expected to have read the medical section of the FARs and a private pilot is not expected to have read that section. Thus, a private pilot could plead ignorance and go fly, where a CFI could not. At least, that's what my memory is telling me. Anyone else remember that thread?
Now, when I had prostate cancer back in 2008 I grounded myself because of what I had read from Bruce on this board. I got the SI and resumed flying. And about the time I was ready to petition for ending the SI the FAA did it for me. They've come to realize the prostate cancer is common and not the sort of thing to cause sudden incapacitation. All they said to me was to let them know if my PSA level ever starts to rise again. It hasn't to date.
Now, when I had prostate cancer back in 2008 I grounded myself because of what I had read from Bruce on this board. I got the SI and resumed flying. And about the time I was ready to petition for ending the SI the FAA did it for me. They've come to realize the prostate cancer is common and not the sort of thing to cause sudden incapacitation. All they said to me was to let them know if my PSA level ever starts to rise again. It hasn't to date.
azure
Final Approach
Yes. Bruce has said that several times. Not just a CFI per se, but any rating where you would have been tested on Part 67, such as ATP. Seemed like an odd bit of advice for someone like Bruce to give, but yes... I definitely recall that.
As to those who say that maintaining an SI is not a big deal, I also recall several posters who had either given up flying, gone light sport, or were thinking of doing same, not because they couldn't get certified, but because the trouble and expense of maintaining an SI was just too much. Having been through the mill myself, I would put my experience closer to the "no big deal" side than the other extreme, but I'd very much hesitate to generalize from my own experience. And now that I work for a private university with truly ****ty insurance choices, I suspect that the tests I had to get done back then would not be covered by my insurance plan today. Things are changing, health care is getting a lot more expensive for the average consumer, and it all depends on the specifics of the SI.
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Pretty presumptuous thinking I don't have skin in the game. You don't know a thing about me. Which is the way I want it, but you are way, way, off base is all I will say.
I understand the principals of go along to get along. It's just the obsequiousness makes me kind of ill WRT extreme cratocrisy(yes, I just made that up).
retailguy
Line Up and Wait
Stuns me that you'd give out the advice you do if you're in the situation you allude to. But, you're right, don't know much about you, and not sure I want to know anything else. Thanks for clarifying.
Which pretty much cuts the legs out from under any argument that the pilot "has reason to know" that the condition is disqualifying.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Not when the FAS puts all that information where it is available to the public. In any event, even if it weren't there, it's still the pilot's responsibility to find out by asking an AME or RFS.
The FAA Web site has a huge amount of information on it. If they want to hold pilots responsible for knowing what's on a specific page, they should at least mention it in the AIM, including where to find it.