3rd class mdical re-visited

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
A pilot has their medical and passes in the first week of January, finds they have cancer in February, does the whole treatment, and is told they are cancer free in June.

the question is, can they self certify for the duration of their medical they got in January until they are due for the next medical exam?
 
No...

Cancer is disqualifying for a 3rd class medical and the medical the pilot holds is invalid. If cancer free, most likely they can get an SI, but have to follow the FAA process for the particular type of cancer they have.
 
Last edited:
And the regulatory support for the answer above is:

Sec. 61.53

Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.

(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation;...
Click to expand...
...with a diagnosis of cancer being such a condition. Yes, one can get a SI after having cancer, but that's only after going through the FAA's post-cancer protocol and receiving the SI from the FAA.
 
Ron Levy said:
And the regulatory support for the answer above is:

...with a diagnosis of cancer being such a condition. Yes, one can get a SI after having cancer, but that's only after going through the FAA's post-cancer protocol and receiving the SI from the FAA.
Click to expand...

When he has been told he is cancer free, he has no reason to know he's not in compliance with para #1
 
The FAR lists 15 disqualifying conditions.

Angina pectoris
Bipolar disease
Cardiac valve replacement
Coronary heart disease that has been treated or, if untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant
Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medications
Disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory explanation of cause
Epilepsy
Heart replacement
Myocardial infarction
Permanent cardiac pacemaker
Personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts
Psychosis
Substance abuse
Substance dependence
Transient loss of control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory explanation of cause.

Cancer is not one of them. Clearly the bureaucracy treats it like an unofficial 16th, but for whatever reason have chosen not to add it to the regs. I suppose that if "you read it on the internet" that is was a 16th disqualifying condition in the minds of the bureaucrats, 61.53 could apply. Nothing in the regs though.
 
I am sure that length of time in remission is also a consideration. I know a fellow pilot who had childhood cancer (30+ years ago), disclosed it, and the AME and the FAA did not even question it.
 
Read the back of your medical certificate that you're required to possess while performing pilot duties. The "Conditions of Issue" are pretty specific. You won't get far pleading ignorance.

Different cancers are treated differently by the FAA. Some are included in the CACI program, some are more problematic. The answer to the OP depends on the specifics, right? And any pilot in that position can search for FAA information about that specific cancer. There's no generic/fits all answer.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
When he has been told he is cancer free, he has no reason to know he's not in compliance with para #1
Click to expand...
The mere diagnosis of cancer is the issue. Being told after treatment that you're now cancer-free doesn't change the fact that you have been diagnosed with cancer at some previous point (note that this is one of those "have you ever...?" questions). And as noted above, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 
Since "ignorance of the law is no excuse" can you help me out here by quoting which REGULATION or law say cancer is a disqualifying condition? My copy of the regs only lists 15 (in post 5).

They could add it as a disqualifying condition to the reg if they wanted to (but have chosen not to). If your doctor says you're cured, well, you don't have it.

The bureaucracy will make you get an SI at your next medical, and I have seen procedures to get the SI but I've never seen a REGULATION saying it's disqualifying, though I "did read it on the internet" before.

Or should we just do what the bureaucrats "want us to do" even when they're willing to ignore the rulemaking process?
 
It doesn't list blindness either, but that omission doesn't allow you to fly 'blind'.
 
NavAir said:
It doesn't list blindness either, but that omission doesn't allow you to fly 'blind'.
Click to expand...

The eyesight requirements would preclude blindness.
 
jbarrass said:
Since "ignorance of the law is no excuse" can you help me out here by quoting which REGULATION or law say cancer is a disqualifying condition? My copy of the regs only lists 15 (in post 5).
Click to expand...
See 14 CFR 67.313(b):

(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.
Click to expand...
The list of those conditions is published in the publicly available AME Guide. Note in that publication that there are a few forms of cancer in which the AME can issue (and if you have one of those and meet the criteria for issuance, you do not have to self-ground), but all other forms require immediate grounding and Special Issuance to get flying again.
 
Bob Noel said:
The eyesight requirements would preclude blindness.
Click to expand...

But vision is only tested at the medical. I'm being (somewhat) facetious, but simply to illustrate that absence of a condition from the 'disqualified' list doesn't mean you aren't disqualified...

Steve
 
Ron Levy said:
The list of those conditions is published in the publicly available AME Guide.
Click to expand...

I don't recall that document being cited in any required training for private pilots (or any level of certification, to my knowledge).

Promulgation of regulation via a document not referenced in the regulations, and further called "AME Guide" not "A Pilot's Guide to Medical Certification" does not rise to the level of "ignorance of the regs".
 
Perfect example of why we need to get rid of the 3rd class medical. Most of us don't even know what must be reported right away/is grounding and what isn't. It's beyond a reasonable level of knowledge to expect a typical weekend warrior pilot to have.
 
Ron Levy said:
The mere diagnosis of cancer is the issue. Being told after treatment that you're now cancer-free doesn't change the fact that you have been diagnosed with cancer at some previous point (note that this is one of those "have you ever...?" questions). And as noted above, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
See 14 CFR 67.313(b):

The list of those conditions is published in the publicly available AME Guide. Note in that publication that there are a few forms of cancer in which the AME can issue (and if you have one of those and meet the criteria for issuance, you do not have to self-ground), but all other forms require immediate grounding and Special Issuance to get flying again.
Click to expand...

Jeff Oslick said:
I don't recall that document being cited in any required training for private pilots (or any level of certification, to my knowledge).

Promulgation of regulation via a document not referenced in the regulations, and further called "AME Guide" not "A Pilot's Guide to Medical Certification" does not rise to the level of "ignorance of the regs".
Click to expand...

You mean Private Pilots are not required to read every document they can google in the FAA database????:eek:

Is that "on point".....:rolleyes: :rofl:
 
Just to be a contrarian, if the FAA has taken the trouble to generate a list of disqualifying conditions. And if there is no cancer on that list. It isn't a disqualifying condition unless the pilot has self-grounded for such purposes. I'm sorry, but the unofficial/unwritten/unspoken 16th condition that is disqualifying just doesn't exist.

Add to that, there are about a kazillion types of cancer, many of which aren't even remotely catastrophic conditions, like melanoma for example. Suppose a guy finds a small strangely shaped mole on his cheek on Tuesday, and goes to the MD, who says 'well it looks like cancer cell, but we'll test and make sure'.

YMMV, don't try this at home, objects in mirror, and may cause anal leakage.

<edited for grammar>
 
Last edited:
Quote:
(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.

I see this airman as able to preform those duties and exercise this privileges.


and will not be required to disclose any thing until his next medical, then he will be required to check yes to the being in the hospital, and explain.
 
Tom-D said:
Quote:
(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.

I see this airman as able to preform those duties and exercise this privileges.


and will not be required to disclose any thing until his next medical, then he will be required to check yes to the being in the hospital, and explain.
Click to expand...

This theme is also in keeping with the general principal of a negative rights method of exercising state powers. That is, anything not defined explicit, therefore cannot be prohibited. (something we are rapidly moving away from in the US)
 
docmirror said:
This theme is also in keeping with the general principal of a negative rights method of exercising state powers. That is, anything not defined explicit, therefore cannot be prohibited. (something we are rapidly moving away from in the US)
Click to expand...

The point was made that there are so many different types of Cancer, the original question can not be answered until the type is known, A point I had not considered when I asked the question.

If all cancers were considered the same there would be a lot of pilots in violation. If the Dr burned a cancerous lesion off my a$$ would I be required to prove I could set?

Lots of cancer is treated as out patient care.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I don't recall that document being cited in any required training for private pilots (or any level of certification, to my knowledge).

Promulgation of regulation via a document not referenced in the regulations, and further called "AME Guide" not "A Pilot's Guide to Medical Certification" does not rise to the level of "ignorance of the regs".
Click to expand...
Good luck with that argument before the FAA and NTSB.
 
docmirror said:
Just to be a contrarian, if the FAA has taken the trouble to generate a list of disqualifying conditions. And if there is no cancer on that list. It isn't a disqualifying condition unless the pilot has self-grounded for such purposes.
Click to expand...
That simply is not true. Read the regulation I cited above -- the Federal Air Surgeon gets to make the call and it doesn't have to be specifically listed in the regulations.
 
Tom-D said:
Quote:
(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.

I see this airman as able to preform those duties and exercise this privileges.


and will not be required to disclose any thing until his next medical, then he will be required to check yes to the being in the hospital, and explain.
Click to expand...
The regulation clearly states that the Federal Air Surgeon is the one who decides which conditions are unacceptable, not the individual airman.
 
Ron Levy said:
See 14 CFR 67.313(b):

(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.
Click to expand...

So, If the airman is cured, and documented by "qualified medical judgement" you read this portion as saying the FAS has a mandatory default finding that his non-existence of cancer either:
(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.

and that the pilots are ignorant for not knowing about the unpublished 16th criteria?

That's just nonsense, there is no risk of sudden incapacitation due to cancer the person no longer has?

As an alumni of the cancer club, I'm pretty sure that if the FAA chooses not to list it as a disqualifying concern, and I'm cured of cancer, then I can comfortably certify my ability to fly withoutt risc of medical incapacitation from the disease I don't have.
 
Ron Levy said:
That simply is not true. Read the regulation I cited above -- the Federal Air Surgeon gets to make the call and it doesn't have to be specifically listed in the regulations.
Click to expand...

Really, I didn't read that.
 
jbarrass said:
So, If the airman is cured, and documented by "qualified medical judgement" you read this portion as saying the FAS has a mandatory default finding that his non-existence of cancer either:
(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.

and that the pilots are ignorant for not knowing about the unpublished 16th criteria?

That's just nonsense, there is no risk of sudden incapacitation due to cancer the person no longer has?
Click to expand...
I won't argue with you further. That's the rule, and you can choose to obey it or not, but if the FAA catches you disobeying it, they will take both your medical and pilot certificates. If you want to learn the post-cancer requirements for returning to flight status, or whether your form of cancer requires immediate grounding, ask your AME or Regional Flight Surgeon.
 
wonderful, double-secret rules for medical conditions making pilots unqualified.

That alone would be a reason to deep-six the 3rd class medical.
 
Pilots who are managing illnesses are rarely surprised by FAA aeromedical positions about those illnesses. Speaking from my own perspective my life was always More important than my flying and I was prepared to accept a future in LSA if that's what it came to. Pilots who are in a disease management position are more aware of the aeromedical rules and the consequences of a medical denial than those who have not been in that position. They are far less ignorant that some may think. I'd guess that applies to Tom's friend, too.

Some pilots are reluctant to seek medical care because it may interfere with their flight priveledges. THAT is the best reason I know to relax third class.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I won't argue with you further. That's the rule, and you can choose to obey it or not, but if the FAA catches you disobeying it, they will take both your medical and pilot certificates. If you want to learn the post-cancer requirements for returning to flight status, or whether your form of cancer requires immediate grounding, ask your AME or Regional Flight Surgeon.
Click to expand...

OK. When I was diagnosed with prostate cancer my AME, AOPA medical, and common sense concluded that the bureaucrats "wanted" to know but it was not clearly required.

I hate bureaucracy and simply ask that bureaucrats follow the rules too. If they want it to be a 16th disqualifying criteria they simply need to add it. They choose not to, there's a message there.

They won't because publishing a rule that portends to say something like prostate cancer offers an unacceptable risk to the general public due to sudden incapacitation of a pilot is silly and their adult minders don't want the embarrassment of trying to justify it. So the minions just go along and play their unpublished rule game. I don't want to play that game. At my own risk of course....;)
 
It's the old; 'I will decide what is right and wrong' crap from the 'crats notwithstanding the letter of the law. I landed an amphib in the little Colorado river west of Marble Falls about 9 years ago. There was no published seaplane base there. After tying up to the small dock, a deputy came driving up with flashing lights, and ran out of his car - "You can't land a plane here!!!". So I asked him to look up the law, rule, ordinance, regulation, etc prohibiting landing a small plane on a navigable state waterway. He started with the 'I don't have to....' and I told him he could arrest me for it(I've been arrested plenty of times, it doesn't scare me much), but he'll need a law to base the arrest on. After a while, he call a bunch of people, I think even tried to find someone from the FAA, and no luck.

Unwritten rules don't exist. I'd take flying with a melanoma to court every time, and if it's not in the FARs, you can kiss my rosy red upper thigh.
 
Yah, you and many others are theoretical renegades. That has little to do with reality and it sure isn't a sound strategy to affect change.
 
Ron Levy said:
Good luck with that argument before the FAA and NTSB.
Click to expand...


Pretty much the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" would be the FAA attempting to enforce a rule that is, at best, nebulously defined. The wording of 14 CFR 67.313(b) is so vague that it is not enforceable except by the AME at the time of reapplication for a medical certificate that is up for renewal. Show me an administrative action taken against a pilot who didn't have one of the "big 15" and got busted for not self-grounding and failure to report prior to renewal under this reg.
 
docmirror said:
Add to that, there are about a kazillion types of cancer, many of which aren't even remotely catastrophic conditions, like melanoma for example.
Click to expand...

Kind of off topic I know, but melanoma is in fact a catastrophic condition which if not caught and treated in a timely fashion will kill you in very short order.
 
TedR3 said:
Kind of off topic I know, but melanoma is in fact a catastrophic condition which if not caught and treated in a timely fashion will kill you in very short order.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but lets agree that in terms of preventing a catastrophic failure during flight, the melanoma is no more dangerous to the public than my having the five alarm chili before a flight. Likely a lot less dangerous than the chili. :yes:

So, worst case a melanoma starts the day after my AME exam. I am young, so I don't need another exam for 36 months, during which I choose not to treat my melanoma and it leads to other medical complications. As far as the OP, if I know I have a melanoma on day 2 after my AME exam, am I required to self-ground? What if I go to the doc and he says 'yup, you have a melanoma', it's now diagnosed - again, do I have to self ground? Most have used the rubric of some adjunct non-pilot reference to say yes. I say no. Unless, or until the AME finds my disclosure on the NEXT exam, it's up to me to decide based on what I know at the time. If it's not on the AME/FAA top 15 hits, I get to decide when/if to self-ground. That's all I'm saying. If you want cancer to be on the hit list, then add it. Or -- don't.
 
docmirror said:
Thanks, but lets agree that in terms of preventing a catastrophic failure during flight, the melanoma is no more dangerous to the public than my having the five alarm chili before a flight. Likely a lot less dangerous than the chili.
Click to expand...

The FAA's position on melanoma is that one of the places that it is likely to metastasize is your brain and that the first sign that it has spread to your brain is likely to be a seizure. This is why a (medically unnecessary, expensive) yearly MRI of the brain is part of the melanoma SI process. Whether the FAA's position is rational is certainly debatable.

What if you continue to fly and wait for your next medical to disclose the melanoma? Will you be fined? If so, will you win your fight with FAA? I don't (and didn't) know, so I just self-grounded and got my medical re-issued with the SI.

By not self-grounding, you're just delaying the inevitable SI process until your next medical.
 
So much tough talk here. Really sad to listen/read most of the crap put forth in here.

Say what you want about the regs, cancer is disqualifying (initially) with very few exceptions. The airman is expected to ground themselves until they are cancer free and approved by the AME, or in most cases the FAA.

You can emphatically say what you will do if this happens to you, and that's fine. You'll bear the consequences of that, but you knowingly did that. I worry that someone might follow the advice here, and get themselves permanently disqualified.

What I've been told directly from Dr. Bruce, is that non melanoma skin cancers and some types of prostate cancer are practically the only ones that don't fall under the guidance - If you have cancer, you need to self ground.

Here's something I found on the FAA website -

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...me/guide/app_process/exam_tech/item41/amd/nd/


This certainly doesn't "split hairs" on whether or not it's ok. In short,
if it's metastatic, you need to ground yourself until you're cancer free and
the faa has made a determination.

I like to fly, and want to do this as long as possible, so I followed this guidance and got an SI.

To those of you tough guys who think the rules don't apply to you, PM me
and I'll explain what COULD HAVE happened to me without an action plan
and some quality advice that I feel I barely paid for.
 
TedR3 said:
The FAA's position on melanoma is that one of the places that it is likely to metastasize is your brain and that the first sign that it has spread to your brain is likely to be a seizure. This is why a (medically unnecessary, expensive) yearly MRI of the brain is part of the melanoma SI process. Whether the FAA's position is rational is certainly debatable.

What if you continue to fly and wait for your next medical to disclose the melanoma? Will you be fined? If so, will you win your fight with FAA? I don't (and didn't) know, so I just self-grounded and got my medical re-issued with the SI.

By not self-grounding, you're just delaying the inevitable SI process until your next medical.
Click to expand...

You know quite a bit about this stuff, and I appreciate your input. But - we are actually discussing the aero-legal aspect of self-grounding, and not really the aero-medical aspects, which you mention in the second para.

We can make all the theoretical 'what-if' scenarios about the way things will work out we want, and some of them might have merit to real-life situations. If we just become the enforcers ourselves, what use do we have for making any decisions WRT flying our planes?

I see it time and time again - new pilots come on here wondering if they can do this or that, if they are breaking some reg, if they should call someone, ask someone, get permission from someone. Now, I may be going off track some because I do that, but really - how many mommas do you need?

Fly your plane, keep yourself healthy, get your melanoma checked out, and taken care of timely. For gosh sakes man the F up and quit sucking at the fed teat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top