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)

NASA515 09-10-2013 09:36 PM

[quote=BobTurner;806140]Doug,
I believe that once you have had a medical denied you may no longer self-certify for Sport pilot privleges.

Part of this sentiment:

It does seem at times that criminals get away with things while honest people pay for their honesty. /QUOTE]

I find this comment EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE, to put it VERY mildly.

Is the writer suggesting that those of us exercising the privileges of Sport Pilot are criminals? Dodging the consequences of "honest people" who go to the AME?

We all have this challenge facing us. I have a lot of pilot friends in their 80s, some in their 90s - one reached 100 and was still active - owning two airplanes. But most got the word from their AME's, or the dreaded letter from the FAA. Fact is, we're all - if we stay in this business long enough - are gonna get "that letter." The clock ticks - Tempus Fugit.

I've been flying for 49 years - J-3s to Big Iron. If I had my druthers, I'd probably go for a bigger, faster airplane. Heck - if I win the Lottery, I'd go for a Cessna Citation. But - I don't. Have my druthers, that is.

Knowing there was a "Letter" in my future some day, I elected not to play Russian Roulette and raise my anxiety level and blood pressure dreading that trip to the AME. So, I went Light Sport.

Thank Goodness that option is now available to us. I built and am flying an RV-12. And loving it. It's a fine airplane, and I use it for a lot of cross-country flying. It's way better than a powered parachute.

But - as we all know - you have to take that road BEFORE, and not AFTER, the inevitable bad news arrives at our doorstep. I have a lot of RV-12 friends, and they have all arrived at, and taken that path. We believe we are safe pilots.

We are not dodging or gaming the system. And WE ARE NOT CRIMINALS.....

Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G

rv7boy 09-10-2013 10:10 PM

You misunderstood the point he was making. I didn't take his post as saying older pilots who fly LSA are criminals. If you'll read the thread about the pilot who knows another pilot who has continued to fly after a heart attack, I think you'll have a different viewpoint.

DaAV8R 09-10-2013 10:31 PM

Take your time
 
Bob,

There are many here, including me, that have not met you. Regardless, know that we are wishing the very best for you. It was a long road getting to where you are now, don't make any quick decisions. Think it over and take your time. There isn't any hurry.

BobTurner 09-11-2013 12:38 AM

Bob B, I am sorry you misunderstood my post. It was a bit confusing because my comment to Doug, about LSA eligibilty, ended up four posts later because of submissions while I was typing. But I have to wonder if you read it all. Don H understood my intent. The OP could have hid his condition and continued to fly his RV-7, illegally, as others have (I gave an example of this behavior and called it criminal, which it is); and thus feels punished for his honesty. There is nothing illegal or criminal in flying without a medical under LSA rules. In point of fact, I hope that, based on LSA and glider statistics, the FAA will some day find the courage to stand up to the AMA and do away with all non commercial medicals.

Dgamble 09-11-2013 06:25 AM

Bob -

I followed your build for a number of years, rooting for you during each of the many setbacks you endured. I couldn't have been happier for you on the day of your first flight and the news of your grounding was like a punch in the gut.

You are, to put it succinctly, living my nightmare.

I know that there is only minimal equivalence in moving to something like a powered parachute, those being incapable of the long distance trips you had envisioned. "Flying is flying" is warm beer and cold comfort - the appeal of an RV is so much more than just flying. There is a huge social factor to be considered as well. And having to sell the airplane that you devoted so much to in terms of cost and time has got to be excruciating.

I join in those who feel terribly about this.

I'm hesitant to dilute the above message of empathy, but I have a quibble with this statement which strikes me as somewhat unfair:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 806184)
The FAA's job is to keep as many people out of the sky as they can.

I couldn't disagree more. I know it must feel that way to you right now and I can completely understand your frustration, but the FAA's concern is not for your personal health and well-being, it is for those who may fly with you or those on the ground that could be hurt if your abilities failed in flight. At least that has been my experience, anyway.

I hope that you can eventually find a way to work within the system and get re-approved just long enough to go LSA. An RV-12 is as close to your RV-7 as you can get and I think you would enjoy the build. It doesn't travel as fast as a 7, but it can travel.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-11-2013 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dgamble (Post 806325)
I couldn't disagree more. I know it must feel that way to you right now and I can completely understand your frustration, but the FAA's concern is not for your personal health and well-being, it is for those who may fly with you or those on the ground that could be hurt if your abilities failed in flight. At least that has been my experience, anyway.

I don't mean to question the integrity of the FAA; clearly theirs is a noble effort to protect other people.

When the FAA denies a medical. They cite a (b) and also a (c) in FAR 67.113, 67.213, and 67.313.

I would submit that item #2 under the (c) heading allows for much too broad an interpretation:

(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.

Because I had Meniere's Disease? Well, OK, but I had Meniere's Disease several years ago when the FAA investigated it and gave me the certificate anyway with the provision that if the symptoms reoccur, I don't fly. I think that's fair and, hence, that's what I did.

It was entirely predictable several years ago that those symptoms would reoccur because that's how Meniere's Disease works. There are various treatments, but there is no cure.

So I don't quite understand what's changed. Well, except for the fact there's another person in charge in OKC now and two guys have different definitions of what's "reasonable," and in our current world, we want to eliminate as many "possibilities" as possible by forcing people to the ground. I get that. And they clearly have the right and reason to apply it.

tkatc 09-11-2013 08:13 AM

Looks like you've slept on it and are ready to make an argument! I like that!:)







Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 806343)
I don't mean to question the integrity of the FAA; clearly theirs is a noble effort to protect other people.

When the FAA denies a medical. They cite a (b) and also a (c) in FAR 67.113, 67.213, and 67.313.

I would submit that item #2 under the (c) heading allows for much too broad an interpretation:

(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.

Because I had Meniere's Disease? Well, OK, but I had Meniere's Disease several years ago when the FAA investigated it and gave me the certificate anyway with the provision that if the symptoms reoccur, I don't fly. I think that's fair and, hence, that's what I did.

It was entirely predictable several years ago that those symptoms would reoccur because that's how Meniere's Disease works. There are various treatments, but there is no cure.

So I don't quite understand what's changed. Well, except for the fact there's another person in charge in OKC now and two guys have different definitions of what's "reasonable," and in our current world, we want to eliminate as many "possibilities" as possible by forcing people to the ground. I get that. And they clearly have the right and reason to apply it.


LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-11-2013 08:46 AM

Well, I don't think the realities of the situation are any different to me today than they were yesterday. I do have to give a shoutout to Tom Charpentier, the EAA Government Advocacy Specialist, who was kind enough to send me an email offering to help.

At this point, I don't know what the next step is because the FAA is so sly in giving specific reasoning.

I don't want to waste anyone's time but clause (c) still says to me, "don't waste your time."

But Tom, who was cc'ing EAA's med specialist makes some intriguing points:

Quote:

Bear in mind that a denial letter doesn’t necessarily mean that there will never be a chance of certification with a given condition. It means that given the information you provided at this point in time they determined that you are ineligible. Given the right circumstances you may be eligible for a special issuance, which is essentially a waiver for a condition that may otherwise be disqualifying.

I’m not really familiar with how the FAA handles Meniett devices, but that could well be the problem as you suggest. The fact that your symptoms were most recently manifested in June may also be a problem as that may not be enough time for the FAA to establish that your symptoms have an acceptably low chance of coming back (when you submitted the paperwork in August only 2 months had elapsed).
(add) So I don't want to suggest that I was wrongly removed from the flying population. For now, it just kind of is what it is. They probably made the correct decision.

Don 09-11-2013 08:53 AM

Last night I got to thinking about this and started to get angry. Not just angry for the OP but for everyone who can fly but has been disqualified by the FAA for some reason.

The FAA proposed regulations, based on data, that a valid drivers license and self-certification is enough to assure the same level of safety (or better) than we have with the current AME medical certification process. The FAA received a record number of public comments and the response was over-whelmingly favorable.

The only valid response by the FAA would be to move the regulations forward. Instead, the FAA said they're not a priority.

I have to ask, not a priority to who? They sure as all get out are a priority to the flying population, or the formerly flying population. They're apparently not a priority to the FAA.

Now I harken back to my school days - from elementary school all the way through undergraduate school. Every lesson I had in American Government included the notion that we are a government of the people. If that's true then the FAA needs to act because the people have spoken.

I think it's time we start a letter writing campaign to our senators and congressmen to light a fire under the FAA to move this process forward. Every letter should be copied to the FAA. I also think the EAA and the AOPA need to turn the heat up too. With a concerted effort, I believe we can make this happen because:

-Its supported by the people
-Its supported by data
-It reduces FAA costs (no more or at least fewer 3rd class medicals)
-and it embodies the American form of government.

There are probably more good reasons but these are what will go in my letter. I don't plan to stop writing and pushing until this new regulation is adopted. I encouraged everyone to write a letter, not just an email, but a letter you mail to your representative. And if you happen to know anyone in congress on a personal level, give them a call.

The FAA can be moved with a big enough lever.

RV7Guy 09-11-2013 08:54 AM

Keep fighting!!!!
 
Let these people work for you. Since you got a Cert once it will aid in the fight.

DO NOT SELL THE PLANE. Look at this as a temporary set back. You'll succeed.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-11-2013 08:57 AM

I have real questions about the self-certification thing. I'd like to see the FAA consider the entire anti-depressant thing, too. It's about much more than side effects; it's about thinking that everyone who's on an anti-depressant is suicidal, but that's another story.

I see the rationale behind self certification, but I just hear too many stories of people who simply are unfit to fly, flying under this sort of thing, and here on VAF we've seen the post by people not reporting heart problems so we know that people are going to abuse this thing and the question I have is by how much?

moll780 09-11-2013 09:01 AM

I owned and flew PPG's for a few years. very fun, easy to transport and cheap to fly.
Fresh breeze.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 806155)
You know, I've always thought the powered parachutes would be super fun to have. I will look into that. Ever see some of the great videos that the guy out of Rushford MN has put together?


NASA515 09-11-2013 09:44 AM

"I have real questions about the self-certification thing."

Without rehashing the whole Sport Pilot and Drivers License Medical thing, EVERYONE is under self-certification EVERY DAY.

Whether you're an ATP flying 747s with a First Class, or a Super Cub pilot with a Third Class, you are self-certifying yourself from the minute you walk out of your AME's office with a fresh ticket in hand, until the next time you walk out of his office (with - or without a new ticket.)

Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G

videobobk 09-11-2013 09:48 AM

Bob,

This whole thing saddens me, as it does about everyone of VAF. Since you are good at keeping your options open, I thought I'd throw out another one--Working with a group of kids and building an RV-12. You might just find this the most satisfying option out there. I won't try to describe all the "highs" you can get from this, but they are many. Let things settle out a bit. You have had plenty of practice at that...

Bob

Mike S 09-11-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 806343)
Because I had Meniere's Disease? Well, OK, but I had Meniere's Disease several years ago when the FAA investigated it and gave me the certificate anyway with the provision that if the symptoms reoccur, I don't fly.

It was entirely predictable several years ago that those symptoms would reoccur because that's how Meniere's Disease works.

So I don't quite understand what's changed. Well, except for the fact there's another person in charge in OKC now and two guys have different definitions of what's "reasonable,"

And the guy who was (probably) in charge when you got the cert the first time around is now working with AOPA, and working on our side.

Have you contacted AOPA medical???

gorbak 09-11-2013 01:23 PM

I will throw you an out of the box suggestion since several are suggesting the LSA/RV12 approach.
Sell the 7A and find a joint partnership in a RV10 with local folk. Four passenger plane, you can have a safety pilot, still fly to OH for BB games, to family out of state and spouse can go. Safety pilot can coordinate a flight home or go to a destination of his/her choice. Ideal partner would be retired of course. Then you can work towards your medical being renewed. Once renewed, you still have a fabulous magic carpet ride that the two of you can enjoy.
Best to you Bob. You are a special person.

Pat Garboden
Katy, TX
RV9A N942PT

FAA Certified. Planning first flight this weekend.

txaviator 09-11-2013 02:24 PM

AOPA / EAA Help???
 
An instructor of mine also has a law degree, and could make tons of money just by practicing law. He was a highly successful attorney, way back when. But he chose to be a full-time CFI instead, simply for the love of flying and teaching people to fly. He thought he was healthy as a horse, and waltzed in casually to take his medical recently. FAIL. He has some sort of diabetes that he was completely unaware of. He is grounded but says the AOPA is working their tails off for him, and he is hoping to have some sort of resolution in the quickest manner possible.

I know diabetes may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, Bob. I sure don't mean to imply that since I know next to nothing about ANY medical condition. But as someone asked above, have you reached out to the AOPA and/or the EAA? You may have already answered this in an earlier reply, and perhaps I missed it?

Keep on trying, Bob. You've worked too hard to fulfill your dream to just walk away.

Kevin Horton 09-11-2013 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 806079)
And that, as they say, is that.

Blast!! I'm very sad to read this Bob.

Don't give up. Given enough time and effort, you have a good chance of getting your medical back. Then sell the RV-7A and buy an RV-12 kit.

We're pulling for you. You'll get there.

Snowflake 09-11-2013 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don (Post 806366)
The FAA proposed regulations, based on data, that a valid drivers license and self-certification is enough to assure the same level of safety (or better) than we have with the current AME medical certification process. The FAA received a record number of public comments and the response was over-whelmingly favorable.

Thread creep continues, as this becomes more of a political issue. But as someone who watched the Recreational Pilot Permit development here in Canada and peripherally the LSA stuff in the US, I think it's safe to say that the purpose of both was to make it easier for young pilots to get into aviation, not for old pilots to stay in aviation.

I know a few pilots who have "tested the waters" with their AME and have been (unofficially) told that they should just let their medicals lapse, and self-declare for the lesser permit... Because once they're denied a proper medical, they're done, or at least they'll be on the same roller coaster Bob is on now. Personally, I find "sidestepping" the regs in that way to be offensive.

the_other_dougreeves 09-11-2013 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASA515 (Post 806381)
Without rehashing the whole Sport Pilot and Drivers License Medical thing, EVERYONE is under self-certification EVERY DAY.

Whether you're an ATP flying 747s with a First Class, or a Super Cub pilot with a Third Class, you are self-certifying yourself from the minute you walk out of your AME's office with a fresh ticket in hand, until the next time you walk out of his office (with - or without a new ticket.)

Correct. Self-certification and a medical are not mutually exclusive. You can hold a valid medical and not be fit to fly. You can be fit to fly and not be eligible for a medical. IMHO, the people who should make the judgement on you being fit to fly are you and your doctor.

In Bob's case, there is always glider and motorglider flying. If you're looking for a challenge, soaring is a good one. There are some good motorgliders out there that aren't all that different from LSAs.

The best potential outcome would probably be to get a special issuance, let it lapse, and fly an LSA. Or, in the alternate reality of my daydreams, the EAA/AOPA "drivers license medical" waiver gets approved, and keep flying your RV :)

TODR

n981ms 09-12-2013 06:17 AM

Very sorry to hear Bob. As has been said there are still some options to scratch the itch. Understandably not the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 806513)
I find "sidestepping" the regs in that way to be offensive.

I personally don't and here is why. Given that whateveritis is something that we can agree could be self certified.

Case 1: Pilot with PPL and however much other experience lets say 10,000 hours in all manner of aircraft. New diagnosis of whateveritis. Fails medical.

Case 2: Fresh LSA pilot with whateveritis.

I personally would rather fly with Case 1.

I am not sure I agree with the young people argument either. In general they don't have many medical problems so all you really save most of them is the cost of the medical which is peanuts compared to the overall cost of flying. And someday they will be old pilots anyway.

I believe the government/FAA (us too) just do not want to someday read a headline including "FAA knew pilot had medical problem, allowed to fly under new LSA law and crashes". With our law they can just say well we didn't know about that medical problem.

Don 09-12-2013 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n981ms (Post 806604)
I believe the government/FAA (us too) just do not want to someday read a headline including "FAA knew pilot had medical problem, allowed to fly under new LSA law and crashes". With our law they can just say well we didn't know about that medical problem.

I agree. That's precisely the argument that a lawyer would use to reach into the deep pockets of the government and the FAA's attorney's know it.

Common sense isn't allowed to reign. Instead the lawyers violate our Constitution Right to pursue our own happiness (through flight) in order to limit government liability. Some might argue that flight, like driving isn't a guaranteed right. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but it sure seems to me we are guaranteed freedom from government interference in our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness and for me flying is certainly a big chunk of my life, liberty, and happiness.

A logical argument would be, there exists several levels of medical certification based on risk and complexity of aircraft. Airline pilots carry hundreds of passengers in complex aircraft and they're required to have a Class I medical. This process continues through Class II and III certificates and for pilots of LSA, simple VFR aircraft that carry a max of two people, no special medical is required, only a drivers license. Disqualification for a higher certificate does no affect lower certificates.

Oddly, I would say there's lots of precedent that disqualification for a Class I medical certificate doesn't disqualify you for a Class II or III certificate. The only time you run into this conundrum is when you can't get a Class III, then the FAA disqualifies you for the LSA. It would be interesting to try and get this fixed...not sure I've got the energy left but I believe it could be done.

And if the Driver's License medical, that was proposed and was so well supported by the people ever was to pass, Bob would be self certifying now.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-12-2013 07:32 AM

Just for the record, and I'm probably stating this again, this was not a new diagnosis and was not unknown to the FAA. It had previously issued a medical with the requirement that IF the symptoms reappeared or IF the medication for it changed, I was not to exercise airman privileges.

The FAA doesn't make clear if that means during the time the symptoms present themselves or for ever and ever, amen.

My medical was up at the end of May. The symptoms presented themselves in February. I grounded myself.

The system worked fine. The pilot in question is a really good pilot in all facets of safety. The pilot has no interest in endangering himself, his passengers, or anyone on the ground.

As a result, the pilot wasn't endangered, the passengers weren't endangered, and no one on the ground was endangered.

The system is STILL working fine, so long as the FAA doesn't just say, "oh, you have Meniere's, you can't fly anymore, ever.," and says instead, "oh, you have Meniere's, have it be stable for six months, or a year, and then we'll talk." Presently, I'm trying to ascertain what they're actually saying. I've had some good contacts with people inside the FAA so far and the answers have been so far: "Don't bother, you're done; come back in six months; and come back in a year."

Meniere's symptoms have warning signs, often days in advance.

Yes, I think it's possible that if you give pilots the opportunity to do something stupid -- like flying when they know they shouldn't -- they'll probably do something stupid.

But a lot of healthy pilots are doing stupid things out there (and I'm not seeing a bunch of LSAs fallingout of the sky for medical reasons, while I am seeing fully certificated pilots falling out of the sky for non-medical ones) and the question isn't really one of keeping people on the ground so they won't do something stupid. The question is there a way to provide education to lessen the chance they'll do something stupid.

Self certification isn't about flying when you shouldn't. Yes, that would be offensive. Self certification is about knowing when you shouldn't fly.

And as someone pointed out, we're all doing that to some extent now.

What would I do differently? I'd have let the 3rd class expire until the symptoms fully resolved (obviously with the help of the ENT), and I would've brought to the AME a better accounting of my situation, and all of the data -- ENT narrative, clinical notes, hearing tests, whatever -- all at once instead the way i did it.

I tried to sneak all of this passed the AME and I would have had I not made two critical mistakes: (a) I mistakenly wrote down Benadryl (a banned substance) under medication I'm taking (indicating it was "as needed") because I misread the question. I wasn't really taking it at that time and I take Benadryl for the same reason everyone else does and (2) I indicated I was on a diuretic, which is not a banned substance and has no side effects, but which threw up a red flag that there might be a reason I was.

I feel bad about approaching it that way, but that's what I did. The fact that I did is what's wrong with the current system and the relationship between pilot and medical certification. It's inherently a dishonest one.

Paul Tuttle 09-12-2013 09:59 AM

Another chime in from Canada.
 
Bob,

From what I've seen over the years, you seem like a pretty resilient and resourceful guy. I'm pretty sure if there's any way to safely and honestly overcome this obstacle, you'll find it.

All the best.

BobTurner 09-12-2013 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don (Post 806614)

Oddly, I would say there's lots of precedent that disqualification for a Class I medical certificate doesn't disqualify you for a Class II or III certificate.

Be careful here. If you don't meet a standard for class one but do meet a reduced standard for class 3, that's okay. But if you fail the class one EKG, or another health issue is discovered, the AME cannot issue you a third class medical until the matter is resolved, even though if you had originally asked for the third class there would never have been an EKG test.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-12-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Tuttle (Post 806656)
Bob,

From what I've seen over the years, you seem like a pretty resilient and resourceful guy. I'm pretty sure if there's any way to safely and honestly overcome this obstacle, you'll find it.

All the best.

The doc at the EAA has been quite helpful (along with others) and I've sent him additional information today although he did indicate today that his FAA consultant said, "ultimately that certification is very unlikely if the diagnosis is correct."

I'm pretty much as the "whatever" stage of this.

tjo 09-12-2013 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 806513)
Personally, I find "sidestepping" the regs in that way to be offensive.

I don't see how it's sidestepping, but in any case, personally I find the regs offensive.

And I think Bob articulated why quite well.

Tim

Bob Axsom 09-12-2013 02:34 PM

That's a good thing I think
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 806679)
The doc at the EAA has been quite helpful (along with others) and I've sent him additional information today although he did indicate today that his FAA consultant said, "ultimately that certification is very unlikely if the diagnosis is correct."

I'm pretty much as the "whatever" stage of this.

I have followed some "LettersFromFlyoverCountry" valley and peak cycles in the past and I see a glimmer of spunk in there. If it is possible I think you are the man to pull it off as you have in the past and if it is not possible you have put things in perspective and are ready to continue on with the good life in a different direction. Believe me there is a lot worse in the future in this short experience called life and I know you know that. ENJOY!

Bob Axsom

Snowflake 09-15-2013 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n981ms (Post 806604)
Case 1: Pilot with PPL and however much other experience lets say 10,000 hours in all manner of aircraft. New diagnosis of whateveritis. Fails medical.

Case 2: Fresh LSA pilot with whateveritis.

I personally would rather fly with Case 1.

Personally, I wouldn't fly with either, armed with just the information you've given. But how often do we ask what a pilot's medical status is before we hop in their right/rear seat? I've had *one* pilot tell me, pre-boarding, that he held a Recreational Pilot Permit, not a PPL. He was also the only person who's ever asked me to sign a passenger waiver (I did... I really wanted a ride in his Mustang II).

But you do highlight a flaw with the LSA permit... Someone who would be normally medically unfit to fly, and who might not even be aware of it, can go fly anyway. You won't avoid all of that risk by getting a full medical, I agree.

Quote:

I am not sure I agree with the young people argument either. In general they don't have many medical problems so all you really save most of them is the cost of the medical which is peanuts compared to the overall cost of flying. And someday they will be old pilots anyway.
Not quite... The Sport Pilot program also saves something like 20 hours of flying time before you're licensed and on your way, so overall the cost looks a lot lower to a potential student off the street.

I really doubt that the FAA expected all the medically unsure pilots to just switch to Sport Pilot, as a liability-avoidance technique. In the long run, if we did have a run of pilots who all switched to Sport Pilot and then crashed later on due to medical issues, wouldn't the FAA take just as much flak for creating the Sport Pilot category in the first place?

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-15-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 807481)
I really doubt that the FAA expected all the medically unsure pilots to just switch to Sport Pilot, as a liability-avoidance technique. In the long run, if we did have a run of pilots who all switched to Sport Pilot and then crashed later on due to medical issues, wouldn't the FAA take just as much flak for creating the Sport Pilot category in the first place?

The tricky part of this isn't so much the person who IS medically unfit to fly -- whether it be with a medical certificate or without one -- it's the person who MIGHT someday be unfit to fly -- being a week, a month, or two years from now.

When you get a medical certificate, it's not only being determined that you're fit to fly now, it's also being determined that you'll be fit to fly for the duration of that certificate.

In that reality, there's a particularly subjective -- one might even say arbitrary -- component that deals with the "what might be" more than the "what is now."

That might not be a bad thing; I don't know. But it does raise the question in my mind of whether we just shouldn't say at age 70 (or pick any other number) no more flying. By anybody. The odds at that age are that you're going to become unfit to fly; so why not just concede the odds and keep 'em on the ground?

rv8ch 09-15-2013 10:33 PM

Trolling
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 807547)
... But it does raise the question in my mind of whether we just shouldn't say at age 70 (or pick any other number) no more flying. By anybody. The odds at that age are that you're going to become unfit to fly; so why not just concede the odds and keep 'em on the ground?

Bob, I assume you are trolling us here! I know lots of 70+ people in excellent shape and I can't imagine that we should just ground them arbitrarily. In the liberty vs. safety discussion, count me firmly on the liberty side.

Snowflake 09-15-2013 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry (Post 807547)
But it does raise the question in my mind of whether we just shouldn't say at age 70 (or pick any other number) no more flying. By anybody. The odds at that age are that you're going to become unfit to fly; so why not just concede the odds and keep 'em on the ground?

We do this now, just at a lower break point... Under 40, medicals are every 5 years (for private pilots), over 40, medicals are every two years. Is there another break point where medicals become yearly? I thought I overheard one of the local pilots said it was every 1 year over 70 but I hadn't heard that before.

I don't think you'd need to look at much data before you'd find statistically significant evidence that correlated increased risk with increased age. Increased scrutiny as people age may be prudent, and if it's not hugely inconvenient or unreasonably expensive, i'm not sure I see a problem with that.

I think there's enough evidence that people can fly safely well into their 70's, 80's, and heck, i'm sure 90's too. I hope so, i'll get there eventually!

And good luck Bob, I hope you do persevere and get your medical back. Despite the pain in the backside that this process creates, I would like to trust that once all the evidence is presented logically, that reasonable decisions will be made.

Buggsy2 09-16-2013 12:35 AM

Everybody's posted their opinion so I'll chime in too. As a 58 year old guy I've thought from time to time what I would do if denied a medical. LSA would not be an option, of course. And it does no good to !@#$% and whine about the mean old FAA, the reality is what it is. So what would the options be?
  • Stop flying, do something else
  • Keep flying (illegally) without a valid medical
  • Fly something legal: powered parachute or motor glider
I think I would do the last, a motor glider. As others have already said, you can do a lot of flying with one, more than an LSA in some ways. I wish you could somehow get your medical back and keep your -7A; I hope you can sell it for a good price and buy a motor glider and keep flying for years to come.

wilddog 09-16-2013 06:21 AM

70
 
No flying after 70 is about as bad an idea as I've heard. For that matter I know a lot of 40 year olds, not many pilots, in terrible shape, overweight, smoking, no exercise.... heart attack waiting to happen. And the few 80+ year old pilots that I know take care of themselves and seem in good shape. Nobody wants to crash, I don't fly if I don't feel well and would ground myself if I developed a medical problem that made me unsafe. The FAA 3rd class medical saying we are safe that day means nothing the next day and we should be able to self certify ourselves.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-16-2013 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rv8ch (Post 807653)
Bob, I assume you are trolling us here! I know lots of 70+ people in excellent shape and I can't imagine that we should just ground them arbitrarily. In the liberty vs. safety discussion, count me firmly on the liberty side.

Liberty isn't any component in the medical certification system and really isn't germane to the analysis of it; it's strictly the ability of the pilot to operate safely. If you read the post again, you'll see the context in which the point is made. You're missing the point, which was how one "reasonably" assesses future medical condition and makes the distinctions necessary.

In any affliction in which there are presently no disruptive symptoms, the decision is based on the liklihood of problems presenting themselves during the duration of the certificate. The process involves informed guesswork, which is the subjective nature that we're faced with. The more information we can get on that part of the process (which is currently fairly secretive and not explained in any letter of denial), the better we can respond to it.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-16-2013 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buggsy2 (Post 807668)
[*]Keep flying (illegally) without a valid medical

There are a fair number of people on my field who are doing this. 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.

n981ms 09-16-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 807481)
Personally, I wouldn't fly with either, armed with just the information you've given.

I was assuming that otherwise we had deemed them adequate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 807481)
But how often do we ask what a pilot's medical status is before we hop in their right/rear seat?

I suspect no one does. But, we as pilots often know the local scuttlebut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 807481)
But you do highlight a flaw with the LSA permit... Someone who would be normally medically unfit to fly, and who might not even be aware of it, can go fly anyway.

I may be mistaken but I thought the idea was if you are fit enough to have a drivers license you are fit enough to decide if you can fly.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 807481)
Not quite... The Sport Pilot program also saves something like 20 hours of flying time before you're licensed and on your way, so overall the cost looks a lot lower to a potential student off the street.

Agreed. However, the medical portion is still a pretty small percentage of the LSA license cost. I remember the in lead up to the LSA law there was a whole lot of excitement about the elimination of the medical requirement allowing people back into flying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowflake (Post 807481)
I really doubt that the FAA expected all the medically unsure pilots to just switch to Sport Pilot, as a liability-avoidance technique. In the long run, if we did have a run of pilots who all switched to Sport Pilot and then crashed later on due to medical issues, wouldn't the FAA take just as much flak for creating the Sport Pilot category in the first place?

I believe expected them to 1. Fail their medical. Then Quit flying. (or Fly illegally) or 2. Do just that. Switch to LSA before failing.
In any case no one can point their finger at the FAA in any specific case. Public attention span is too short and frequency of accidents (thankfully) too infrequent to incriminate the FAA.

I do not think their liability concern issue is primarily financial (It is not there personal money). They mainly do not like negative publicity and having to deal with "public outcry". As has been said before, much of the public thinks that all small planes crash because that is the majority of what hear about them on the news.

I hesitated to reply in that I respect Snowflakes input in this and other matters RV related. I mainly wanted to try and all those fancy quote boxes.

Mike S 09-16-2013 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n981ms (Post 807782)


I remember the in lead up to the LSA law there was a whole lot of excitement about the elimination of the medical requirement allowing people back into flying.


That was a large part of the interest in LSA as I remember things, folks who had already lost their medicals were heavily in favor of the LSA movement.

The feds threw in the "not able to self certify if you failed a medical" zinger as a last minute surprise that no one saw coming. Pissed off many who had been supporting the proposed action.

BobTurner 09-16-2013 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rv8ch (Post 807653)
. In the liberty vs. safety discussion, count me firmly on the liberty side.

Me too. But let's not pretend that there is no 'cost'. Some years ago a local twin crashed into a mall, seriously burning and killing a number of shoppers. Turns out the pilot's personal physician knew about his unexplained blackouts, but the pilot hid this information from his AME. Of course the lawyers sued his estate and all the deep pockets. With burn injuries the 'deep pockets' knew they would lose even though they had nothing to do with the accident, so they settled. Now, when you buy something from TCM, or Cessna, you are helping to pay for what that pilot did. In addition there was the huge negative GA publicity to deal with.
My point is that with our liberty to fly there will be a very small but non zero cost to the non flying public; but they (non fliers) think their risk should be exactly zero. It is this - knowing the risk cannot be zero but trying to keep it very small - that drives a lot of the rules.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry 09-23-2013 11:54 AM

Heard back from the EAA medical consultant. I'm not seeing any inspiration to put up a fight in his response:

After reviewing his attached records, it is of great concern that he was again experiencing Meniere's symptoms "in June or July" of this year, especially after having been treated with an endolymphatic shunt procedure and also dyazide therapy. He had recently started using a Meniett device, which has been shown to REDUCE (not eliminate) vertigo attacks due to Menieres Disease in intractable patients.

In a recent study (in Japan) the following results were reported: (MD= Meniett Device)
(57%) patients with MD... remained entirely free from vertigo spells; nine (32%) patients with MD responded with a significant decrease in the frequency of vertigo spells.

Reference:
Long-term effects of the Meniett device in Japanese patients with Meniere's disease and delayed endolymphatic hydrops reported by the Middle Ear Pressure Treatment Research Group of Japan.
Shojaku H, Watanabe Y, Mineta H, Aoki M, Tsubota M, Watanabe K, Goto F, Shigeno K.
Acta Otolaryngol. 2011 Mar;131(3):277-83. doi:
10.3109/00016489.2010.526142.
PMID: 21319947

In another recent study, it was reported that:
"63.3 per cent" [of] patients felt that the device had alleviated their vertigo and tinnitus

Reference:
Initial UK experience of patient satisfaction with the Meniett? device for M?ni?re's disease treatment.
Buchanan MA, Rai A, Prinsley PR.
J Laryngol Otol. 2010 Oct;124(10):1067-72. doi:
10.1017/S0022215110001118. Epub 2010 Jun 11.
PMID: 20537216

In general the Meniett Device is marketed as a device that will help to control recalcitrant Meniere's disease. It is not a cure. Based on these reports it would seem that statistically 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. As I am sure you'll agree, an attack of vertigo while in control of an aircraft could have significant impact on the safety of the airman, his passengers, the flying environment, and the general public.


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