Amaurosis Fugax

[John Doe Pilot]

I have had a couple of episodes of one eye blurring and recently it went totally dark for a minute or so. Totally blew off the first couple as some type of eye strain or something but the last time worried me. Doctor says I should have gone to emergency room and is working on blood pressure and carotid ultrasound (results good). Going back to see what the next steps will be. Grounding myself but would like to know how the FAA views this.

Flying under basic med and am retired. Am I right to assume it would be treated as a brain TIA?
If so is that probably it for my flying?

I’m sure I’ll be seeing some specialists in the near future.

Thanks, I do understand my health comes first.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Probably not an Ocular Migraine? Have known several with this.
Whatever it turns out to be, wishing you well.

 

[Lindberg]

How the FAA reacts will depend on the diagnosis and treatment. Certainly don't go for a medical until whatever it is gets resolved. I hope you make a full recovery.

 

[Eldorado]

Neurological defect, it is not a migraine but a vascular etiology. Needs a complete vascular workup for sure. Yes treated like a brain TIA.

 

[bbchien]

...sigh. Down for two years. Then neurologist, full Cardiovascular eval, and original admisson record....
The only thing we scientifically know is that once you have had one, another is more common for the next two years.

 

[Half Fast]

Bruce, for us non-MDs, which of the Basic Med required SI conditions does this fall under? Just wondering how he knows whether he needs to jump through the FAA hoops again, since he’s already using Basic.

 

[John Doe Pilot]

Thanks Bruce, that’s what I was expecting to hear. I guess it’s probably time to sell the plane and find another passion to pursue. I’m not terribly old but can still go with friends and maybe jump through the hoops yet. Kind of accepting this even though I feel fine. It’s been fun while it lasted.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce, for us non-MDs, which of the Basic Med required SI conditions does this fall under? Just wondering how he knows whether he needs to jump through the FAA hoops again, since he’s already using Basic.

"unexplained loss of neurological control"

 

[Lindberg]

"unexplained loss of neurological control"

Is there an FAA source that interprets this as broadly as you seem to? The OP's report seems to not be a neurological condition and may or may not ultimately be unexplained.

 

[bbchien]

The title of the string is “Amarosis fugax”,and he describes it perfectly. Amarosis is a Transient Ischemic Attack of the retina, sadly.

Don’t be tempted to be a”Deny-er”.

 

[kmacht]

"unexplained loss of neurological control"

Is there clarity somewhere on what unexplained means? Does that mean you can have neurological control issues as long as it can be explained why they happened? im not asking about the posters particular issue or diagnosis. Say "someone" has something like Multiple Sclerosis or another condition where neurological control issues come and go with warning (not suddenly) and the conditions can be traced back to specific or active lesions? Would that negate the unexplaned requirement? Are they able to fly under LSA or basic med (with a class 3 issued prior to MS diagnosis) if bring treated by a non disqualifying med and are stable with regular MRIs?

 

[Eldorado]

Amarosis fugax is a symptom that has life threatening consequences(temporal arthritis, carotid artery atherosclerosis, cardiac emboli, even brain tumor, etc,) The last thing I would be worried about is my medical until a definitive diagnosis is made.

 

[Palmpilot]

Is there clarity somewhere on what unexplained means? Does that mean you can have neurological control issues as long as it can be explained why they happened? im not asking about the posters particular issue or diagnosis. Say "someone" has something like Multiple Sclerosis or another condition where neurological control issues come and go with warning (not suddenly) and the conditions can be traced back to specific or active lesions? Would that negate the unexplaned requirement? Are they able to fly under LSA or basic med (with a class 3 issued prior to MS diagnosis) if bring treated by a non disqualifying med and are stable with regular MRIs?

I'm neither a legal nor medical expert, but 14 CFR 68.9(a)(2)(iii) requires a "satisfactory medical explanation of the cause." I haven't seen any definition of what constitutes "satisfactory" in either Part 68 or the underlying statute, but 68.9(d) seems to leave it up to "the individual's State-licensed medical specialist" unless the individual's driver's license is revoked due to the condition.