![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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. |