Medical after cancer

On Feb 26, 11:09 pm, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Why should I, as an experienced physician, flight surgeon, and AME not
respond when MXS makes medical prouncounemts that are ungrounded in
fact or logic (like many of his other posts)?

You absolutely should respond with corrections. But you did not, and
since as a cancer patient I personally didn't see anything that needed
correcting, then I'd of course be sincerely interested in what you
would say.

Do you not regard this as relevant to
the thread or to flying in general? Who are you to say that any comment is
not pertinent, particularly when you support the abrasive, condescending,
and arrogant responses by MSX?

If you communicate in the same manner, then I see no difference
between him and you, except that as a pilot I expect _more_ maturity
from you. Otherwise you make the rest of us look bad.

I also have no idea of your experience level until I hear some non-
trivial responses. My uncle was famous as one of the longest, if not
the longest, continually serving AME's in the country... I think well
over 60 years giving medicals. But he was humble about it. He
didn't beat his chest, he just gave answers.

Regards, Kev

Kev writes:

If you communicate in the same manner, then I see no difference
between him and you, except that as a pilot I expect _more_ maturity
from you.

Why would pilots be more mature than other people?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 27, 12:36 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Kev writes:
If you communicate in the same manner, then I see no difference
between him and you, except that as a pilot I expect _more_ maturity
from you.

Why would pilots be more mature than other people?

In short, the discipline required to make it through training. It
takes finding money, working hard, spending actual sweat, even
overcoming primal fear at times. Book learning, class learning, new
coordination skills, juggling work, getting through disappointing
lapses, trying again anyway.

It does not mean that all pilots are more mature, of course. There
are plenty of examples of the opposite around here daily. Certainly
Chuck Yeager wouldn't respond in the childish way many of them
do ;-) But this is the net, and I don't think we the outspoken are
really representative of the majority in the world... who are just
plain solid people with good judgement.

Kev

Kev writes:

In short, the discipline required to make it through training. It
takes finding money, working hard, spending actual sweat, even
overcoming primal fear at times. Book learning, class learning, new
coordination skills, juggling work, getting through disappointing
lapses, trying again anyway.

All of these can be provided by motivation and ambition; maturity is not
necessarily required. Indeed, a single-minded pursuit of a goal might well be
considered a sign of immaturity, if it leads to an unbalanced lifestyle.

It does not mean that all pilots are more mature, of course. There
are plenty of examples of the opposite around here daily. Certainly
Chuck Yeager wouldn't respond in the childish way many of them
do ;-) But this is the net, and I don't think we the outspoken are
really representative of the majority in the world... who are just
plain solid people with good judgement.

I think a lot of people here claim to be what they are not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article m,
"Kev" wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:09 pm, "Viperdoc" wrote:
Why should I, as an experienced physician, flight surgeon, and AME not
respond when MXS makes medical prouncounemts that are ungrounded in
fact or logic (like many of his other posts)?

You absolutely should respond with corrections.

Except for Trolls. No one should respond to a troll.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

and Kev seems to hae some sort of strange "need" to respond to him. He
is one of a few that are keep MXIdiot coming back. Unbelieveable, but
that is what this NG has degenerated to.

Kev's BS snip
The FAA view is that if you have a known cancer, then you could also
have unseen brain / nervous system damage. If it was non-metastatic,
I believe they want a year to go by after cure. Otherwise could be
five years or more or never.
end of BS snip

You should do some research before you post such BS. Ask Cecil Chapman
how long it was before he got back in the cockpit after breast cancer.



Except for Trolls. No one should respond to a troll.

On Feb 27, 7:04 am, Jon Kraus wrote:
The FAA view is that if you have a known cancer, then you could also
have unseen brain / nervous system damage. If it was non-metastatic,
I believe they want a year to go by after cure.

You should do some research before you post such BS.

Well, since I had my esophagus removed due to cancer, yes I've done
research.

Please read the FAA Policy on Cancer section in this flight surgeon's
website:

http://www.aviationmedicine.com/arti...7&contentID=67

Ask Cecil Chapman
how long it was before he got back in the cockpit after breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a special case. However, I'm wrong about the non-
metastatic timeline, which is great.

Kev

"Kev" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 27, 7:04 am, Jon Kraus wrote:
The FAA view is that if you have a known cancer, then you could also
have unseen brain / nervous system damage. If it was non-metastatic,
I believe they want a year to go by after cure.

You should do some research before you post such BS.

Well, since I had my esophagus removed due to cancer, yes I've done
research.

Please read the FAA Policy on Cancer section in this flight surgeon's
website:

http://www.aviationmedicine.com/arti...7&contentID=67

Ask Cecil Chapman
how long it was before he got back in the cockpit after breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a special case. However, I'm wrong about the non-
metastatic timeline, which is great.

Kev


Yeah, but you are still feeding a Troll.