|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

09-15-2013, 10:33 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 3,200
|
|
Trolling
Quote:
Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry
... 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.
|

09-15-2013, 11:36 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LettersFromFlyoverCountry
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.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

09-16-2013, 12:35 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 565
|
|
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.
__________________
Ralph Finch
RV-9A QB-SA
Davis, CA
Last edited by Rosie : 09-16-2013 at 07:24 AM.
|

09-16-2013, 06:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: va.
Posts: 523
|
|
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.
|

09-16-2013, 06:24 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8ch
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.
Last edited by LettersFromFlyoverCountry : 09-16-2013 at 06:42 AM.
|

09-16-2013, 06:26 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buggsy2
[*]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.
Last edited by Rosie : 09-16-2013 at 07:25 AM.
|

09-16-2013, 10:57 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dublin, GA
Posts: 256
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake
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
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
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
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
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.
__________________
Maxwell Duke
Kitfox S6/TD/IO240/SteamIFR Built it
RV10 IO540/AFS5600x3 Bought it
CH750 O200/AFS5500. Built it with 7 friends. DAR-Vic Syracuse
Maule M7-235C Sold it(kind of miss it)
VAF paid 5/2017
Last edited by n981ms : 09-16-2013 at 11:00 AM.
Reason: spelling
|

09-16-2013, 11:17 AM
|
 |
Senior Curmudgeon
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,420
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by n981ms
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.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909
Rv-10, N210LM.
Flying as of 12/4/2010
Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011 
Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.
"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
|

09-16-2013, 12:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8ch
. 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.
|

09-23-2013, 11:54 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: St. Paul, MN.
Posts: 4,792
|
|
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.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:53 AM.
|