VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   RV General Discussion/News (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   End of the line... NOT!!!! (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=104148)

Mike S 09-23-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 810051)
Heard back from the EAA medical consultant. I'm not seeing any inspiration to put up a fight in his response

I would look at the following info and see a lot of hope there. Better than 50 % chance of freedom from vertigo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 810051)
his chances for long term freedom from vertigo is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3. Since he has only been using the device for only a few months, it is hard to know if he will be free of vertigo over the long term.

Do you have any idea what they are thinking of as "long term"-----perhaps you could establish a year history of being asymptomatic and then revisit the issue???

Buggsy2 09-23-2013 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 807691)
There are a fair number of people on my field who are doing this [flying illegal without a medical]. As my wife reminded me, the main problem here is liability if something should happen and she's left to divest to satisfy a court judgment.

Yep, I just included it for completeness. Not advocating that route. The motor-glider sounds very interesting to me, and I sure wish Vans would offer one.

bobnoffs 09-23-2013 05:44 PM

i haven't read this whole thread but i would think about getting my medical back and while it is valid transition to light sport.

Sam Buchanan 09-23-2013 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobnoffs (Post 810151)
i haven't read this whole thread but i would think about getting my medical back and while it is valid transition to light sport.

You need to read the whole thread to understand the original poster's situation. :)

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-24-2013 07:22 AM

Of interesting note here is the penalty I seem to be paying for aggressive attempts at prevention.

The surgery I had years ago was done when I wasn't symptomatic. But I thought it would satisfy the FAA. And here is an example of having that surgery ended up being used against my situation because symptoms came back after I had it.

Same thing with the "diuretic therapy" and the Meniett Device. Both are aimed at prevention, but the FAA consultant sees it as an acknowledgement of a problem rather than a progressive action to avoid symptoms.

As I've said before, I don't think the FAA made a particular bad call here in denying the medical AT THIS TIME. But as you can see I'm now facing answering for aggressively tackling a situation on a preventive basis.

That was a bad mistake on my part.

meloosifah 09-24-2013 11:22 AM

We just went through this a few years ago with my dad. He had an INJURY- induced stroke and is no more likely than I am to have another...but the FAA does not seem to see it the same way. However, knowing the battle we faced, he opted to not renew his medical and fly LSA - thus I became the proud owner of a J3 Cub. And he pays for the use of it by teaching me all his bush-flying Cub secrets from the great Northern Frontier. Although he always had flaps and 180 HP to work with. I have 1/3 of that...

With a disease that can ultimately have only one outcome in the eyes of the FAA (and eventually in your ability to safely operate) I do wonder why you didn't let your medical lapse and move to a -12 or similar...? Even if you win this one, every single renewal will be a battle...that's the same line of reasoning that led me to buy the Cub.

...And on what fiery comet in the far reaches of the galaxy have you been living on if you thought for even a second that the FAA is remotely interested in your plight? The FAA has as its mission statement to foster safety throughout the entire range of aviation while simultaneously doing NOTHING that could, in any way, make them look bad, in even the tiniest degree. They will not even consider allowing you a medical until such time as you are a virtually-zero threat, not to yourself or your passenger, but to bad publicity to the FAA. Consider that if you had simply let the medical expire they would have no dispute with you flying - because their name is not on it!

Don't get me wrong, the FAA does a LOT of good, but it is primarily DESPITE the FAA Overlords, not because of them. Just consider 337s and field approvals if you want another perfect example of this.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-24-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meloosifah (Post 810411)
I do wonder why you didn't let your medical lapse and move to a -12 or similar...?

Well, I tell you -- and I think I have earlier in the thread -- when you spend 11 year building an airplane and you've only flown it for 80 hours and you have a condition the FAA knows about and has issued a certificate for in the past, you gamble that you can get through one more time.

As I've said earlier, if I hadn't indicated on the medical form that I was taking a non-banned, no-side-effect medication, I'd be flying.

But the real point of failure was the night I was lying in bed, the room was spinning, I thought I might die and I spent time debating whether to call an ambulance, knowing that if I did, I'd probably have to quit flying.

Eventually I did.

I shouldn't have.

Snowflake 09-24-2013 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 810447)
I spent time debating whether to call an ambulance, knowing that if I did, I'd probably have to quit flying.

Eventually I did.

I shouldn't have.

And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the FAA's (and I suspect Transport Canada's, as well) medical system. When someone is making medical decisions based not on whether or not they're having a medical emergency, but on whether or not there's a possibility that it might be something serious that will ground them.

Death will ground you faster.

There are two bad things that can happen to a pilot, and it's a guarantee that one of them will:
1. You will walk out to your airplane knowing it's the last time you will fly.
2. You will walk out to your airplane NOT knowing it's the last time you will fly.

It's hard to say which is worse.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-25-2013 07:10 AM

The system is very much what was contributing to pilots with alcohol problems flying commercial airplanes. Eventually, airlines and the FAA realized that the key was not to punish a pilot for acknowledging a problem and losing a career (here's an interview I did with one of the NWA crew who flew drunk in one of the more famous incidents).

It's worth noting that the FAA was clear when issuing my last medical that IF symptoms returned or IF medication was changed, I was not to fly.

When my medication was changed (to add this non-banned diuretic), I grounded myself accordingly and then told the AME that I had grounded myself accordingly.

I want to believe that most pilots follow the rules, but I do believe the system is generally designed based on the assumption that they don't or won't.

I don't have a solution for that; I obviously don't have any control over those people.

But if I never get a medical back, I can at least take comfort that I was safety conscious and professional while I had one.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-25-2013 08:27 AM

I don't know whether this thread will help anyone in the future or not so I apologize for continuing to update it but I figured what the heck.

I talked to the AOPA specialist today, who stresses that she's not a doctor, who says that contrary to the suggestion of the EAA "consultant," the FAA does not have a policy that if the diagnosis of Meniere's is correct, recertification is unlikely.

She also said that the paragraph in the letter of denial that offered the option of reconsidering in six months is "significant," that is not just boilerplate copy on all denials.

On the issue of using a medical device and approved medication to PREVENT future occurrences, she seemed to stress that that is not really something that gives the FAA any comfort, so there is a penalty to be paid by aggressively moving to prevent that which the FAA is concerned about in the first place.

"They are so conservative there," she said, "that they would probably feel much better if you got off the device and medication and remained symptom free for six months."

She acknowledged that all of the experts out there who are in the business of trying to tell you what the FAA is thinking on medical issues have one thing in common: They don't really know for certain what the FAA is thinking. "Nobody does," she said.

In related news, I looked up Bruce Chien's website yesterday that paying $100 up front and $50 per every 15 minutes of work thereafter is not an expense at this time which has a tremendous upside.

More as it happens, but probably not for six months.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 AM.