3rd class mdical re-visited

[Palmpilot]

...The risk is higher than you acknowledge...

I don't believe I have expressed any opinion on what the level of risk is.

My observation has long been that the enforcement system is structured such that if the FAA wants to get you, they can. That doesn't mean that I am going to start obeying every "rule" that has been cooked up in the imagination of non FAA employees. I make a good faith effort to read and understand the regs. You're right that FAA enforcement actions are often not publicly known, but if this were going on routinely, it seems likely that someone would have appealed it by now, and appeals are on the record.

If I were dependent on aviation for my livelihood, maybe I would take a more conservative stance.

There is no reason to risk not following the AME protocol if the airman is cancer free and the cancer is dealt with under the FAA protocol. Even in my case where it isn't, I was able to prevail. Failure to disclose is stupid, senseless and sets the airman up for risk that is not necessary.

I was under the impression that the AME protocol dealt with applications for medical certificates. The OP's question was whether the pilot would be required to continue to self-ground after being declared cancer-free. Even in cases where there is a requirement to self-ground, there is no requirement to report the illness to the FAA unless and until the pilot applies for a new medical certificate. Even Cap'n Ron has made that point (in a thread on the AOPA board).

 

[retailguy]

Guess we all had better stop taking checkrides. (Did you put ANY thought into that comment? LOL!)




Bob Hoover was targeted by folks who wanted to make a name for themselves. Non sequitur.

Let me see if I've got this straight, you've defined the rules of discussion and then exempted yourself from them? Yep, that's what happened.

You seriously took my comment completely out of context to make your point, and then followed it up by telling me that a case of enforcement is a "non sequitur".

Ok, got it. (rolls eyes).

I suppose you're going to tell me next that the "lol", you typed after it was your feeble attempt at being the next Robin Williams, right?

 

[retailguy]

Wanna know what's stupid? Stupid is calling the Feds to ask a question about SELF certify situation. You, and I, and every person with a room temp or higher IQ knows better than to do something that dumb.

If you keep chanting this everywhere you go, eventually, someone might believe you.

I think it would also help if you clicked your ruby slippers together three times while chanting.

 

[docmirror]

If you keep chanting this everywhere you go, eventually, someone might believe you.

I think it would also help if you clicked your ruby slippers together three times while chanting.

Oh yeah,,, I'm the one with delusions. Riiiiiight. Why do you even bother getting out from under the covers every morning?

 

[retailguy]

I don't believe I have expressed any opinion on what the level of risk is.

Explicitly, no. But how can you make your point without some inference to the risk involved? If the risk is zero there is no point to the discussion. If the risk is 100%, no one in their right mind would try it.

Why is it unreasonable to conclude that my view of the risk is higher than yours considering each point we're making?

My observation has long been that the enforcement system is structured such that if the FAA wants to get you, they can. That doesn't mean that I am going to start obeying every "rule" that has been cooked up in the imagination of non FAA employees. I make a good faith effort to read and understand the regs. You're right that FAA enforcement actions are often not publicly known, but if this were going on routinely, it seems likely that someone would have appealed it by now, and appeals are on the record.

If I were dependent on aviation for my livelihood, maybe I would take a more conservative stance.

If that is your dividing line (dependent on aviation), great, do that. My point is that you're giving the FAA control of a decision that you don't have to do. My personal tolerance for that risk is lower for a couple of reasons. First, I waited about 30 years to learn to fly, and then 10 months later got a very rare form of cancer and almost lost the privilege. Next, I might only have a few years to partake of this hobby and it is very important to me to do it as long as I can. When you face the risk head on, you make decisions accordingly.

Regarding appeals and the whole enforcement discussion, Bruce talked about these types of things all the time. Just because the "single vision" crowd belittled and mocked him until he left, doesn't make what he said inaccurate.

I asked him point blank, after he told me initially that the FAA would never recertify my medical, what would have happened to me if I'd have kept flying and we had a 10 minute discussion about things that he had personally walked through with other people. Since I can't "find anything" on the internet, he must have made it all up, right?

I was under the impression that the AME protocol dealt with applications for medical certificates. The OP's question was whether the pilot would be required to continue to self-ground after being declared cancer-free. Even in cases where there is a requirement to self-ground, there is no requirement to report the illness to the FAA unless and until the pilot applies for a new medical certificate. Even Cap'n Ron has made that point (in a thread on the AOPA board).

Well, then, therefore it must be true. Meanwhile, that is contrary to advice that I was given from FOUR different AME's who don't know one another. Bruce, you know, obviously, and I met with a second hard case AME as well. Bruce was actually my second opinion. Oh, and I called AOPA medical, and talked directly with Gary Crump, and I solicited an opinion from Left Seat.com as well. You, know, the outfit where Warren Silberman is now earning his retirement income.

Next, I suppose you're going to tell me that all of them gave me bad advice independently because they were trying to get into my wallet. Clearly, I should have been a better judge of character, and gone with what "cowboy" and "Cap'n Ron" said on the internet... Ok, makes sense to me.

 

[retailguy]

Oh yeah,,, I'm the one with delusions. Riiiiiight. Why do you even bother getting out from under the covers every morning?

Wow. That was a GOOD one!

 

[mkosmo]

I want to get back under the covers this morning.

 

[retailguy]

I want to get back under the covers this morning.

Apparently, I should never get out of them... Do you think cowboy would let me fly, if I took my blankie?

 

[mkosmo]

Apparently, I should never get out of them... Do you think cowboy would let me fly, if I took my blankie?

Maybe... but do you have a matching binky?

 

[retailguy]

Maybe... but do you have a matching binky?

I suppose I'll have to get one. Maybe I'll just "self certify" and keep my mouth shut?

 

[N801BH]

 

[mkosmo]

I suppose I'll have to get one. Maybe I'll just "self certify" and keep my mouth shut?

!!! But there are unwritten but enforceable super seekrit rules about that! Just make sure your throttle hand thumb stays up in there tight. If you wind up dead, they'll just call it CFIT anyways

 

[retailguy]

!!! But there are unwritten but enforceable super seekrit rules about that! Just make sure your throttle hand thumb stays up in there tight. If you wind up dead, they'll just call it CFIT anyways

But if they aren't one of the "fabled 15", then they don't count. Because, of course, if the FAA wanted to make a point, they'd have done it by now. They have such a good track record with clarifying EXACTLY what they mean.

That RESOLVES it!!! No "binky's" required!

I'm going to go fly right into that forming thunderstorm now. I feel so much better.

 

[mkosmo]

But if they aren't one of the "fabled 15", then they don't count. Because, of course, if the FAA wanted to make a point, they'd have done it by now. They have such a good track record with clarifying EXACTLY what they mean.

That RESOLVES it!!! No "binky's" required!

I'm going to go fly right into that forming thunderstorm now. I feel so much better.

Damn this week is starting out great already!

 

[Dav8or]

Reading this thread pretty much convinces me that there will never be 3rd class medical reform and that the 3rd class is here to stay. In fact it will likely get more complicated.

When a bureaucracy wants so much control that they add a super catch all regulation like this one-

(b) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds—

(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
(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.

...you know they thrive on more control, not less. The only way you could get the FAA to give up this control would be to have the President of the US, half the Senate and half the House of Reps on your side and willing sign a bill that would knock back the FAA. That's never going to happen.

The FAA would rather lay off half their work force and close hundreds of offices than give up control of a rapidly shrinking population.

 

[Palmpilot]

Explicitly, no. But how can you make your point without some inference to the risk involved? If the risk is zero there is no point to the discussion. If the risk is 100%, no one in their right mind would try it.

Why is it unreasonable to conclude that my view of the risk is higher than yours considering each point we're making?

Take another look at what I wrote:

"I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I brought the question up again had nothing to do with deflecting the discussion. I asked because if I hear about such cases, then I would be more likely to self-ground if I were ever in a scenario like the OP posed. Until then, I will try to follow the regulations as I understand them, and not worry about aggressive interpretations posted by SGOTI." [emphasis added]​

Maybe I was being too subtle, but for me, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I asked because I don't know what the level of risk is, and hearing about actual consequences that actual people have encountered would help me find out.

The list of risks whose level is unknown is infinite, so I generally wait until I have a reason before elevating a risk whose level is unknown to "must resolve" status.

If that is your dividing line (dependent on aviation), great, do that. My point is that you're giving the FAA control of a decision that you don't have to do. My personal tolerance for that risk is lower for a couple of reasons. First, I waited about 30 years to learn to fly, and then 10 months later got a very rare form of cancer and almost lost the privilege. Next, I might only have a few years to partake of this hobby and it is very important to me to do it as long as I can. When you face the risk head on, you make decisions accordingly.

Depending on aviation for one's livelihood was just an example of a factor that one might consider in making decisions that are appropriate to one's own circumstances and priorities. I think we're in agreement that the latter is an appropriate thing to do.

Regarding appeals and the whole enforcement discussion, Bruce talked about these types of things all the time. Just because the "single vision" crowd belittled and mocked him until he left, doesn't make what he said inaccurate.

I asked him point blank, after he told me initially that the FAA would never recertify my medical, what would have happened to me if I'd have kept flying and we had a 10 minute discussion about things that he had personally walked through with other people. Since I can't "find anything" on the internet, he must have made it all up, right?

Can you be a little more specific about what he said? I consider him to be a reliable source, but I thought this thread was about resuming flying after being told that you're cancer free, which is a different subject than continuing to fly while you still have it. Did he say that he knew of cases where the FAA had taken enforcement action against pilots who had resumed flying on their own after being told that they no longer had the disease for which they had grounded themselves? Or did he say there were other negative consequences of doing so, and if so, what were they?

Well, then, therefore it must be true. Meanwhile, that is contrary to advice that I was given from FOUR different AME's who don't know one another. Bruce, you know, obviously, and I met with a second hard case AME as well. Bruce was actually my second opinion. Oh, and I called AOPA medical, and talked directly with Gary Crump, and I solicited an opinion from Left Seat.com as well. You, know, the outfit where Warren Silberman is now earning his retirement income.

In the thread I'm referring to, Bruce and Cap'n Ron were in agreement that when a pilot self-grounds, there is no requirement to report it to the FAA until the next time the pilot applies for a medical certificate. That's a different issue than the subject of this thread, which is what process a pilot should follow to resume flying after an illness, so I was trying to clarify things (apparently unsuccessfully).

Next, I suppose you're going to tell me that all of them gave me bad advice independently because they were trying to get into my wallet. Clearly, I should have been a better judge of character, and gone with what "cowboy" and "Cap'n Ron" said on the internet... Ok, makes sense to me.

It would be helpful if you would refrain from attributing opinions to me that I do not hold and have not expressed.

 

[poadeleted20]

Reading this thread pretty much convinces me that there will never be 3rd class medical reform and that the 3rd class is here to stay. In fact it will likely get more complicated.

Except that the FAA has already written the NPRM for medical reform, and it's a politician at the head of DoT who's holding it up, not anyone in the FAA. The reality is that the folks in FAA are overworked and understaffed, and anything which reduces their workload is welcome as long as safety is not compromised.

 

[retailguy]

Can you be a little more specific about what he said? I consider him to be a reliable source, but I thought this thread was about resuming flying after being told that you're cancer free, which is a different subject than continuing to fly while you still have it. Did he say that he knew of cases where the FAA had taken enforcement action against pilots who had resumed flying on their own after being told that they no longer had the disease for which they had grounded themselves? Or did he say there were other negative consequences of doing so, and if so, what were they?

Sure, I'll do that. In the next post, perhaps in the AM. I just got home after a very long day and I'm bushed. We talked about three cases that in Bruce's opinion showed how bad relationships can get with FAA. 2 never got their medical back. While I know that they didn't have the type of cancer I had, I don't remember (or never knew) exactly what they had.

Regarding your second point about flying while you still have it - depending on the type of cancer you have, the FAA will watch you closely for quite a while, and in my case, probably forever.

So, looking at Tom's friend, I believe the timeframe given was 18 months. Long enough for an SI, but short enough (depending on the type), that the FAA still considers him to be at significant risk for cancer.

Tom might think he's "cancer free", but the FAA might not agree with that definition, though depending on the paperwork received from his Doctor he might get an SI and then get watched very carefully.

It would be helpful if you would refrain from attributing opinions to me that I do not hold and have not expressed.

Perhaps you might have missed where I used the word "suppose". Suppose is a verb which implies my opinion of where I'm thinking you'll likely go next. In short, my guess.

It doesn't attribute anything to you. If I wanted to attribute those statements to you, I'd have stated it as a fact that you believed. I didn't do that.

 

[retailguy]

Ok, spent a little more time thinking about this. You're asking me to remember conversations that happened in late 2012. Here's the gist.

My question to Bruce was two-fold, do I have to ground now, and, what do I have to do after I beat this thing?

The first question was geared towards answering the question of am I safe to fly even with cancer? My cancer was/is not blood borne; even if it kills me there will never be a case where it will spread to the brain, there is zero risk of incapacitation. So, I felt then, and still do today, that I could have continued flying for the three months that I waited for surgery. Needless to say, all four opinions that I solicited disagreed with my assumption, and I did not fly as PIC during those three months.

That necessitated the first story. This pilot had come to Bruce late in the process, after he had been denied a medical. As it was told to me, this guy did everything wrong. He didn't self ground, he didn't timely notify the FAA, he didn't submit the right paperwork, and, then argued with them regarding what they needed/didn't need. Bruce promptly fired him when he argued with Bruce. Never got his medical back.

Next, he explained the process of how we would get my medical back after I recovered. He explained that we would "take control" of this process from the FAA and proactively do everything necessary to ensure that the only function the FAA had was to rubber stamp what we already knew. Early on, it's important to note that Bruce didn't believe I'd get my medical back, and this process would show me that. Gladly, it didn't work out that way, and we put forth a process for others to use if they contract this type of cancer. I did mention that I talked with AOPA, and in 19 years of providing these services, there has been ONE other case of this, and it was way more mild than what I had. There was no roadmap for us, or the FAA, for that matter, to follow.

That lead to story number 2, how the pilot did not do this plan, and waited until the next renewal. That pilot did essentially what the advice recommends here. I can't remember what happened, but was always left with the feeling that he didn't get his medical back either, on some technicality. I am seeing Bruce in early June, flying to Peoria (God willing), if the tests come back well, so I'll ask him and follow up.

I do however, remember the third story, because that's what I did, and will continue to do until the day I can no longer fly.

I self grounded during the 3 months I waited for surgery. I then spent a month at one of the foremost cancer centers in this country (having and recovering from surgery), followed by 3 months completely off work, and another 3 months working limited part-time. During this time, I would not have wanted, much less been able to safely fly an airplane. The next 3 months after that were the most difficult.

I was mostly "recovered" and scans showed no evidence of anything, but my Doctor wanted a little more time to pass before giving the paperwork needed for the FAA. Once I got that, we went a step further. I retained an independent Oncology expert to render an opinion of my file BEFORE the FAA saw it and even knew that I had cancer. We asked him if I was safe to return to flying. He also happened to be the FAA expert that they refer outside cases to. When he agreed I was ready, my paperwork was submitted and I was approved within 48 hours. Why? Because we left the FAA no role in the process other than to rubber stamp what everyone already knew.

To me, THAT is how you deal with a bureaucracy. Not by refusing to participate, but rather, by showing them that there is only one possible decision. You can talk to me all day long about how our "rights and privileges" are being taken away. The bad news? They are already gone. We lost them years ago, while all these "experts" were ignoring them.

Richard, you said yourself that they could take away your medical for any reason at all. I agree with you. Just so you know, the "crowd" thinks that argument is a "non sequitur". Whatever. It's still true, and it happens.

I didn't leave them that option, and I left myself the option of sport pilot. I KNEW what was going to happen before I applied, because I took that process (that the 'crowd' claims I don't need to know about), and jammed it down their collective throats and made their decision easy, and risk free (the risk free is the important part for a bureaucrat).

Guidance from Bruce was/is CRITCAL to me and I'll never approach the FAA unrepresented again. All the bravado and bluster in this thread is just that. It is the ranting of the uninformed who think they know so much that they can no longer be taught anything at all.

These other paths "might" have worked, but there was always uncertainty and follow up questions. It put sport pilot privileges at risk, also (why do that unnecessarily?). I had one follow up question from the FAA - "did you operate as PIC after your diagnosis until your medical expired"? I answered NO and never heard another word about it. I have no idea what, if anything, would have happened, and quite frankly don't care.

That's the best summary I can give, and way more info about me than I really want, but none of this makes sense without appropriate context.

 

[Palmpilot]

Thanks for that write-up. It provides valuable perspective, IMO.

By the way, I wasn't just talking about medical certificates when I said "if they want to get you, they can." I was talking about enforcement actions of all types. I don't regard it as true in every case, because there are the (few) cases that are overturned on appeal. But it seems to be true much of the time. My conclusion when I first realized this was that it's best to avoid ****ing anyone off unless it's really necessary.

 

[retailguy]

Thanks for that write-up. It provides valuable perspective, IMO.

By the way, I wasn't just talking about medical certificates when I said "if they want to get you, they can." I was talking about enforcement actions of all types. I don't regard it as true in every case, because there are the (few) cases that are overturned on appeal. But it seems to be true much of the time. My conclusion when I first realized this was that it's best to avoid ****ing anyone off unless it's really necessary.

Thanks for the kind words and I agree with you on the FAA.

 

[denverpilot]

Let me see if I've got this straight, you've defined the rules of discussion and then exempted yourself from them? Yep, that's what happened.

You seriously took my comment completely out of context to make your point, and then followed it up by telling me that a case of enforcement is a "non sequitur".

Ok, got it. (rolls eyes).

I suppose you're going to tell me next that the "lol", you typed after it was your feeble attempt at being the next Robin Williams, right?

Nope. I told you the facts. People wanted to go after Bob, and it was proven. His case is not a particularly compelling story in regards to this particular topic, unless your point is that FAA can figure out how to ground whoever they'd like. I doubt seriously that anyone here debates that.

The "LOL" was quite literal. I was laughing at the pathetic attempt to utilize Bob's personal attack by two inspectors as an example of what a typical enforcement action looks like. Nobody at FAA has it in for any poor dude who just went back to flying after their oncologist said they were healthy.

Whether reported immediately or reported at the next medical application, once reported, the protocol is the same. Trying to make it out to be some "Hoover-esque" type of attack, is just silly.

L.O.L. AGAIN.

 

[denverpilot]

Ok, spent a little more time thinking about this. You're asking me to remember conversations that happened in late 2012. Here's the gist.

My question to Bruce was two-fold, do I have to ground now, and, what do I have to do after I beat this thing?

The first question was geared towards answering the question of am I safe to fly even with cancer? My cancer was/is not blood borne; even if it kills me there will never be a case where it will spread to the brain, there is zero risk of incapacitation. So, I felt then, and still do today, that I could have continued flying for the three months that I waited for surgery. Needless to say, all four opinions that I solicited disagreed with my assumption, and I did not fly as PIC during those three months.

That necessitated the first story. This pilot had come to Bruce late in the process, after he had been denied a medical. As it was told to me, this guy did everything wrong. He didn't self ground, he didn't timely notify the FAA, he didn't submit the right paperwork, and, then argued with them regarding what they needed/didn't need. Bruce promptly fired him when he argued with Bruce. Never got his medical back.

Next, he explained the process of how we would get my medical back after I recovered. He explained that we would "take control" of this process from the FAA and proactively do everything necessary to ensure that the only function the FAA had was to rubber stamp what we already knew. Early on, it's important to note that Bruce didn't believe I'd get my medical back, and this process would show me that. Gladly, it didn't work out that way, and we put forth a process for others to use if they contract this type of cancer. I did mention that I talked with AOPA, and in 19 years of providing these services, there has been ONE other case of this, and it was way more mild than what I had. There was no roadmap for us, or the FAA, for that matter, to follow.

That lead to story number 2, how the pilot did not do this plan, and waited until the next renewal. That pilot did essentially what the advice recommends here. I can't remember what happened, but was always left with the feeling that he didn't get his medical back either, on some technicality. I am seeing Bruce in early June, flying to Peoria (God willing), if the tests come back well, so I'll ask him and follow up.

I do however, remember the third story, because that's what I did, and will continue to do until the day I can no longer fly.

I self grounded during the 3 months I waited for surgery. I then spent a month at one of the foremost cancer centers in this country (having and recovering from surgery), followed by 3 months completely off work, and another 3 months working limited part-time. During this time, I would not have wanted, much less been able to safely fly an airplane. The next 3 months after that were the most difficult.

I was mostly "recovered" and scans showed no evidence of anything, but my Doctor wanted a little more time to pass before giving the paperwork needed for the FAA. Once I got that, we went a step further. I retained an independent Oncology expert to render an opinion of my file BEFORE the FAA saw it and even knew that I had cancer. We asked him if I was safe to return to flying. He also happened to be the FAA expert that they refer outside cases to. When he agreed I was ready, my paperwork was submitted and I was approved within 48 hours. Why? Because we left the FAA no role in the process other than to rubber stamp what everyone already knew.

To me, THAT is how you deal with a bureaucracy. Not by refusing to participate, but rather, by showing them that there is only one possible decision. You can talk to me all day long about how our "rights and privileges" are being taken away. The bad news? They are already gone. We lost them years ago, while all these "experts" were ignoring them.

Richard, you said yourself that they could take away your medical for any reason at all. I agree with you. Just so you know, the "crowd" thinks that argument is a "non sequitur". Whatever. It's still true, and it happens.

I didn't leave them that option, and I left myself the option of sport pilot. I KNEW what was going to happen before I applied, because I took that process (that the 'crowd' claims I don't need to know about), and jammed it down their collective throats and made their decision easy, and risk free (the risk free is the important part for a bureaucrat).

Guidance from Bruce was/is CRITCAL to me and I'll never approach the FAA unrepresented again. All the bravado and bluster in this thread is just that. It is the ranting of the uninformed who think they know so much that they can no longer be taught anything at all.

These other paths "might" have worked, but there was always uncertainty and follow up questions. It put sport pilot privileges at risk, also (why do that unnecessarily?). I had one follow up question from the FAA - "did you operate as PIC after your diagnosis until your medical expired"? I answered NO and never heard another word about it. I have no idea what, if anything, would have happened, and quite frankly don't care.

That's the best summary I can give, and way more info about me than I really want, but none of this makes sense without appropriate context.

And THIS is why MOST of us here would immediately contact Bruce. Having a plan is always better than none.

And I've never contended that I personally would do otherwise.

I've simply stated that they don't have their **** together when it comes to the regulations, which is honestly a broken record that could be repeated about any number of simple things to fix that they have no motivation to.

And I'm sure SOME people read the regs, follow them, and have no plan. I also seriously doubt FAA is refusing them medical certificates if they truly are cured.

The positive road (using a plan) is, of course, better than not. The official list still shows a significant level of ineptitude. Which is not particularly, in any way, surprising.