Fly by the numbers.

[John Baker]

Nope, actually I am fine. When I first applied for a class 3 medical, I indicated on the application that I had mild pulmonary blockage. The FAA medical examiner listened to my lungs, gave me an oxometer test and said there is not enough wrong with my lungs to worry about it. In front of me, he scribbled out what I had put down on the application about it.

He then mailed that application to OKC. I think what happened is that someone at OKC did not approve of what had been scribbled out, and took the time to decipher it. I then received a curt letter instructing me to have a full pulmonary workup. They have requested several of these since I started flying.

I believe more of this is punitive than anything else. I am sure the FAA feels that I am the one who scribbled out the entry on the original application form.

I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. Calling the FAA and telling them this, would be accusing them of pettiness. Calling my medical examiner after all this time would not do me much good either, especially if I expected him to call the FAA and get all this straightened out.

Then what, even if he did? I would continue to have mild pulmonary blockage, and since I had brought all this attention to myself, I am sure the requirements for tests would intensify or could go so far as to deny my application completely.

I can still walk the three miles uphill to my home after work without any problems. I can take my bird up to 11,500' (it's service ceiling) without any problems. It matters little, I will have to continue with more tests than taking a leak into a plastic cup.

John

 

[gprellwitz]

Nope, actually I am fine. When I first applied for a class 3 medical, I indicated on the application that I had mild pulmonary blockage. The FAA medical examiner listened to my lungs, gave me an oxometer test and said there is not enough wrong with my lungs to worry about it. In front of me, he scribbled out what I had put down on the application about it.

He then mailed that application to OKC.

Oops! One of the AMEs can correct me, but my understanding is that is a major boo-boo on his part. They're not supposed to modify the form that you filled in and signed. Had you left it blank he could have checked you and told you which box to mark, but that's it. As you say, though. Too late to do anything about it now.

 

[poadeleted20]

Your still wrong, and as you would put it "End of story". Since you insist on picking and choosing which regulations you like and using only the ones that make your argument there is no sense in continuing this. You have a good grasp on Part 91 and Part 61 but outside of those you're clueless.

After further review, AFS-350 (the office responsible for FAA Order 8620.2A) referred the question to AFS-800, and the reply finally came back today. The requirement for a flight manual stated in the TCDS's under discussion (e.g., pre-1977 Pipers) is a certification and airworthiness requirement regardless of R&W's personal interpretation of FAA Order 8620.2A. Anyone with a question about that should contact Ray Stinchcomb in AFS-830 (General Aviation Operations Branch). Ray's exact words in his email:

Interesting issue, but 91.9 covers it. 91.9(a) "...or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority..." If a requirement in the TCDS is not "...as otherwise prescribed..." then I don't know what would be.
Comply with either 91.9(b)(1), or if 21.5 doesn't apply, then comply with 91.9(b)(2).
91.9(b)(2) is clear: "approved...Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof."

So, if you show up for a practical test or get ramp checked without the AFM required by the TCDS, even if the airplane predates the March 1, 1979 effective date of the 21.5 requirement, unless you run into an Inspector or examiner who doesn't know the official policy, expect to be sent home -- on foot.

 

[Fearless Tower]

After further review, AFS-350 (the office responsible for FAA Order 8620.2A) referred the question to AFS-800, and the reply finally came back today. The requirement for a flight manual stated in the TCDS's under discussion (e.g., pre-1977 Pipers) is a certification and airworthiness requirement regardless of R&W's personal interpretation of FAA Order 8620.2A. Anyone with a question about that should contact Ray Stinchcomb in AFS-830 (General Aviation Operations Branch). Ray's exact words in his email:
So, if you show up for a practical test or get ramp checked without the AFM required by the TCDS, even if the airplane predates the March 1, 1979 effective date of the 21.5 requirement, unless you run into an Inspector or examiner who doesn't know the official policy, expect to be sent home -- on foot.

My AFM (from 1948) is a one page (front and back) sheet of paper.

Life was so simple back then.....