Another update for the archive:
I had my medical with a new AME down at the Mayo Clinic. I couldn't get in to see the guy I wanted --
Clayton Cowl -- because he was booked into August. Popular guy.
So I got
Mark Steffen at Mayo's Aeromedical Dept., who has been tremendous.
It's the first time I've had an AME who actually seems interested in helping me navigate the process. Most of the guys I've gone to have cashed the check and sent the paperwork to Oklahoma City.
I spent about four hours down in Rochester on Monday and Mark called three times on Tuesday and once on Wednesday with updates on how the process is going.
He's still getting more clinical notes and old EKGs (I have a right bundle branch block in the heart and that's always made the FAA nervous) but he's sent what he has on to the Great Lakes office and it's getting some attention.
Bottom line: He says I'm normal and he's recommending -- pending the acquisition of more data -- that I be approved.
He said the worst that's likely to happen on the Meniere's is they make me wait another 5 months (bringing it to a year sympton free), which I said is fine at this point since I can save more money on Avgas to pay for what's likely to be a pretty big bill from Mayo.
The FAA also may require another stress test for the heart, which I'll pass with flying colors as usual.
So, to keep the narrative updated, there's hope.
Still: I constantly think that if someone here hadn't known about that 2007 Aeromedical bulletin article that the FAA put out, I'd be out of the flying business and sold the plane by now.
There was zero information on the options therein available.
And I also keep thinking about the EAA consultant who intervened on my behalf and reported back -- after conferring with the FAA --that I was finished as a pilot.
It's kind of a crazy, disjointed medical certification system we have. Granted -- and this is important -- it was a GOOD decision not to deny my medical. I wouldn't have been a safe pilot. But the gap in the process is the lack of direction and assessment upon denial that gives the airman a clearer picture of the path (or not) to recovery.
Yes, I realize you can pay some consultants big bucks for that, but that fact only further defines the problem. They're usually ex-FAA'ers who, AOPA's case, helped create the system in the first place, now making money as consultants to navigate it.
A better idea is to have a system that's navigable in the first place.