FAA Medical Question

wrote:
On Jul 17, 4:48Â*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Current medical standards are excessively strict,

What are your qualifications to make this statement?????????????

MSFS experience?????????????

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

IMHO for private and below I agree.

There already exists the obligation to self certify before each flight
and there is nothing that requires one to run to a doctor to get evaluated
when you get sick or injured.

What I would propose is that the FAA medical exam for private and below
be replaced with a requirement to get a physical from a real doctor, any
doctor, once a year, which everyone should do anyway, and based on that
you self certify your general fitness to fly.

The physical would be entered into your log.

As a bonus, most insurance will pay for an ordinary physical but not a
FAA physical.

I'm on the fence where some ratings are involved as in should the current
FAA medical requirement be kept to hold and exercise ratings such as IFR,
jets or over 12,000 pounds.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 1, 11:38*am, wrote:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Yes, but a broken clock "been there and done it twice a day"

Mx hasn't been through a medical exam so he is not qualified to even
know. I never took a medical to play MSFS.

I have had an exam that essentially was place a mirror under my nose,
I'm breathing, I came in the office so I can see, and I am talking to
the examiner so I can hear to the full fledge "the way it's suppose to
be done exam" hence me bringing up Mx's lack of qualification on
saying it's too strict or not. He has no clue what happens behind the
closed doors.

IMHO for private and below I agree.

There already exists the obligation to self certify before each flight
and there is nothing that requires one to run to a doctor to get evaluated
when you get sick or injured.

Agree and this applies to sports as well to PPL.

What I would propose is that the FAA medical exam for private and below
be replaced with a requirement to get a physical from a real doctor, any
doctor, once a year, which everyone should do anyway, and based on that
you self certify your general fitness to fly.

My take has always been, the damage on the ground will most likely be
the same whether it be a 110 hp plane or a 180. So, why not convert
the medical requirement based on equipment rather then certificate
type would be my take. (I see you said this later on)

As a bonus, most insurance will pay for an ordinary physical but not a
FAA physical.

Very true, but in my case, since I never have been the doctoring type,
my medicals every two years have been "life saving" literally and
figuratively. What you suggest essentially would cost me twice as
much since I never meet my insurance deductable.

I'm on the fence where some ratings are involved as in should the current
FAA medical requirement be kept to hold and exercise ratings such as IFR,
jets or over 12,000 pounds.

Yep, was replying as I was reading, so yes, as I said above (and you),
more logical to base the medical requirement on equipment being
operated.

wrote:
On Sep 1, 11:38Â*am, wrote:


IMHO for private and below I agree.

There already exists the obligation to self certify before each flight
and there is nothing that requires one to run to a doctor to get evaluated
when you get sick or injured.

Agree and this applies to sports as well to PPL.

What I would propose is that the FAA medical exam for private and below
be replaced with a requirement to get a physical from a real doctor, any
doctor, once a year, which everyone should do anyway, and based on that
you self certify your general fitness to fly.

My take has always been, the damage on the ground will most likely be
the same whether it be a 110 hp plane or a 180. So, why not convert
the medical requirement based on equipment rather then certificate
type would be my take. (I see you said this later on)

As a bonus, most insurance will pay for an ordinary physical but not a
FAA physical.

Very true, but in my case, since I never have been the doctoring type,
my medicals every two years have been "life saving" literally and
figuratively. What you suggest essentially would cost me twice as
much since I never meet my insurance deductable.

Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

That, cash basis, cost me all of $80, which is not much of an adder to the
cost of flying.

Lab work can cost a lot more, but isn't a part of the FAA physical, so
that would be at your discretion based on what your doctor says.

And, FWIW, I opted for lab work which found a couple of things the FAA
medical would never find and doesn't care about but I do.

I'm on the fence where some ratings are involved as in should the current
FAA medical requirement be kept to hold and exercise ratings such as IFR,
jets or over 12,000 pounds.

Yep, was replying as I was reading, so yes, as I said above (and you),
more logical to base the medical requirement on equipment being
operated.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

Good for you! But one could argue that it would be better to get that
private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Why? Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. In
particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
unchanged. For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.

Vaughn

On Sep 1, 4:30*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
wrote in message

...



Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

* *Good for you! *But one could argue that it would be better to get that
private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Good point Vaughn.

Case in point with me. Had DVT which required the use of blood
thinners. By the time I got to my medical I was NOT on the
medication. But the question on the form does ask if you had any
vascular problems (or something to that effect) since the last exam.

I could have easily said no as I wasn't on my last medical and I
wasn't during this last exam. I did the right thing and reported it.
This put a 2 month delay on my medical even though I came in with the
proper INR and prognosis documentation per AOPA guidance AND I started
the medical process a month before expiration.

I don't see the FAA medical exam being a strict exam even though I had
this inconvenience..

In a nutshell for a class three certification, they check your vision,
hearing and pee to meet minimum requirements and depend on the pilot
to be upfront and honest about any other conditions. The actual exam
is not strict by any standards. (so much for Mx's knowledge of this
process)

In my case and I have posted this in the past, my past class three
exams revealed pre-melanoma on one exam and extreme high blood
pressure (210 over 170) on another exam and I was flying the day
before the exam with this blood pressure asymptomatic.

Neither of the above prevented me from flying AFTER I came up with the
appropriate documentation to recertify my medical.

Even with me seeing a doctor once a year, I am all for the FAA exam as
my current doctor doesn't check my vision or hearing.

wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:30Â*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
wrote in message

...



Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

Â* Â*Good for you! Â*But one could argue that it would be better to get that
private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Good point Vaughn.

Case in point with me. Had DVT which required the use of blood
thinners. By the time I got to my medical I was NOT on the
medication. But the question on the form does ask if you had any
vascular problems (or something to that effect) since the last exam.

I could have easily said no as I wasn't on my last medical and I
wasn't during this last exam. I did the right thing and reported it.
This put a 2 month delay on my medical even though I came in with the
proper INR and prognosis documentation per AOPA guidance AND I started
the medical process a month before expiration.

I don't see the FAA medical exam being a strict exam even though I had
this inconvenience..

In a nutshell for a class three certification, they check your vision,
hearing and pee to meet minimum requirements and depend on the pilot
to be upfront and honest about any other conditions. The actual exam
is not strict by any standards. (so much for Mx's knowledge of this
process)

In my case and I have posted this in the past, my past class three
exams revealed pre-melanoma on one exam and extreme high blood
pressure (210 over 170) on another exam and I was flying the day
before the exam with this blood pressure asymptomatic.

Neither of the above prevented me from flying AFTER I came up with the
appropriate documentation to recertify my medical.

Even with me seeing a doctor once a year, I am all for the FAA exam as
my current doctor doesn't check my vision or hearing.

If your doctor doesn't check what you ask him to check, nor give you
a recommendation on what needs to be checked, find another doctor.

I told the doctor exactly why I was there and what I wanted checked.

His recommendation was while I was there and am over 50 to get a prostate
check and a basic blood panel, both of which sounded like a good idea to
me.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 1, 5:30*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
wrote in message

...



Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

* *Good for you! *But one could argue that it would be better to get that
private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Why? *Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. *In
particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
unchanged. *For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.

Vaughn

An interesting ethics question would be, what would you have done if
your 'ordinary' physical would have disclosed something that would
have prevented you from passing the FAA one?

a wrote:
On Sep 1, 5:30Â*pm, "vaughn" wrote:
wrote in message

...



Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

Â* Â*Good for you! Â*But one could argue that it would be better to get that
private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Why? Â*Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. Â*In
particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
unchanged. Â*For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.

Vaughn

An interesting ethics question would be, what would you have done if
your 'ordinary' physical would have disclosed something that would
have prevented you from passing the FAA one?

In my case I had already decided; sell the Tiger and buy a LSA assuming
whatever it was didn't mean flying would be stupid, like an aneurism that
could blow at any time.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

In my case I had already decided; sell the Tiger and buy a LSA assuming
whatever it was didn't mean flying would be stupid, like an aneurism that
could blow at any time.

Once you've failed the FAA medical exam, you cannot fly a LSA. If you want the
LSA, you need to pass the medical exam.

vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...

Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
would be no surprises.

Good for you! But one could argue that it would be better to get that
private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Why? Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. In
particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
unchanged. For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.

Vaughn

I got the private physical 6 months before the FAA physical because that
would give me plenty of time to take care of any issues per the FAA
requirements.

It doesn't matter to the FAA what your doctor calls something, what matters
is numbers, as in your doctor can say you have high blood pressure but the
only thing the FAA cares about is that it is under 155.

Also, as you get older and don't take a private physical first, there is the
chance you will be denied and there goes everything, including Sport Pilot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.