![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Adams wrote:
wrote: If you get a real physical from your private physician and he/she finds something, you have the chance of getting it under control to FAA standards by the time your next FAA physical comes around. If it is found during your FAA physical, you are screwed. You may be screwed either way. If you have your own physical and it finds something, you're obligated to report it on the FAA medical application form. Mike Yes, there is always the possibility that you will develop something that will cause you to fail an FAA physical. The point is if your personal physician finds it, you at least have a chance to get it under control before you take a FAA physical and get yourself denied. And if you are denied, you can forget about even flying LSA. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Adams" wrote in message .. . If you have your own physical and it finds something, you're obligated to report it on the FAA medical application form. This is a classic case of unintended consequences from a perfectly reasonable-sounding governmental regulation. The requirement for medical certification may actually make pilots, especially Commercial pilots, LESS healthy because any visit to their private physician has the potential to ground them and forever remove their livelihood. It is hard to think of any other group of workers with that type of potential bombshell hanging over their head. Vaughn |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 17, 9:17*am, "vaughn" wrote:
"Mike Adams" wrote in message .. . If you have your own physical and it finds *something, you're obligated to report it on the FAA medical application form. This is a classic case of unintended consequences from a perfectly reasonable-sounding governmental regulation. *The requirement for medical certification may actually make pilots, especially Commercial pilots, LESS healthy because any visit to their private physician has the potential to ground them and forever remove their livelihood. *It is hard to think of any other group of workers with that type of potential bombshell hanging over their head. Vaughn Interesting take, and may have some truth, but in that the government is the certifying authority there is an obligation on its part to unleash on the rest of us people capable of performing the tasks they are certified as capable. The other weeding out process, the BFI, probably helps catch some of the medical misses. That leads to an interesting question: has there been any work that demonstrates the BFI has led to a safer universe of pilots? A related question might focus on some kind of proficiency test for drivers -- at least a test for reflexes! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
a writes:
Interesting take, and may have some truth, but in that the government is the certifying authority there is an obligation on its part to unleash on the rest of us people capable of performing the tasks they are certified as capable. Current medical standards are excessively strict, more suited to 1960s astronauts than to modern-day pilots. In reality, pilot incapacitation for medical reasons is virtually unknown. And before you say that's because the sick pilots are weeded out by strict medicals, consider the fact that medical incapacitation is also virtually unknown among automobile drivers. It's pretty unusual for someone to become incapacitated at the wheel of an automobile, even among drivers who are in questionable health. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 17, 5:48*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
And before you say that's because the sick pilots are weeded out by strict medicals, consider the fact that medical incapacitation is also virtually unknown among automobile drivers. It's pretty unusual for someone to become incapacitated at the wheel of an automobile, even among drivers who are in questionable health. No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to low blood sugar. Also, the idiots who drive under the influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered a disease. -- Mark |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark writes:
No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to low blood sugar. Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics, who represent only a small minority of diabetics (particularly when one considers only those who are especially at risk of hypoglycemia). There are some jurisdictions that prohibit diabetics from driving, although that's an extreme overreaction with no justification in reality. Also, the idiots who drive under the influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered a disease. Substance abuse is a choice that one makes independently of uncontrollable medical factors. Alcohol is a leading cause of automobile accidents, but nothing forces anyone to drink alcohol. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Mark writes: No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to low blood sugar. Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics, who represent only a small minority of diabetics (particularly when one considers only those who are especially at risk of hypoglycemia). Nonsense. You don't need to be to an "insulin-dependent diabetic" become hypoglycemic. The risk is higher for treated diabetics, but it is not limited to those on insulin or even just diabetics. There are some jurisdictions that prohibit diabetics from driving, although that's an extreme overreaction with no justification in reality. Also, the idiots who drive under the influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered a disease. Substance abuse is a choice that one makes independently of uncontrollable medical factors. Alcohol is a leading cause of automobile accidents, but nothing forces anyone to drink alcohol. The medical community, which conciders any addiction to be a disease, disagrees with you. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote:
Mark writes: No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to low blood sugar. Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics, who represent only a small minority of diabetics (particularly when one considers only those who are especially at risk of hypoglycemia). There are some jurisdictions that prohibit diabetics from driving, although that's an extreme overreaction with no justification in reality. Also, the idiots who drive under the influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered a disease. Substance abuse is a choice that one makes independently of uncontrollable medical factors. Alcohol is a leading cause of automobile accidents, but nothing forces anyone to drink alcohol. Wonderful...Now he's a medical expert too? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 17, 4:48*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Current medical standards are excessively strict, What are your qualifications to make this statement????????????? MSFS experience????????????? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question on the medical... | Richard | Piloting | 25 | March 29th 06 04:41 PM |
Yet another medical question | Rachel | Piloting | 13 | February 5th 06 10:44 PM |
Medical question | Michael | Piloting | 10 | December 7th 05 06:58 PM |
FAA medical question | G. Sylvester | Piloting | 17 | March 12th 05 11:13 AM |
Question Medical | Captain Wubba | Piloting | 5 | June 11th 04 05:12 AM |