FAA Medical Question

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 writes:

I am not sure that is true; are you? The question on form 2120-0034 is: "HAVE
YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED...". You have only two blocks to check for
each listed condition: "Yes" or "No". If you check "Yes", it is up to your AME
to resolve to issue as per FAA guidlines, or deny you. My point is that the
thresholds that your doctor uses are subject to change based on current
research, and they are likely not the same thresholds found in FAA regulations.

It's not true. The actual name of the diagnosed condition matters a lot,
although numbers matter, too.

wrote in message
...
vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...

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.

I am not sure that is true; are you? The question on form 2120-0034 is:
"HAVE
YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED...". You have only two blocks to check
for
each listed condition: "Yes" or "No". If you check "Yes", it is up to your
AME
to resolve to issue as per FAA guidlines, or deny you. My point is that the
thresholds that your doctor uses are subject to change based on current
research, and they are likely not the same thresholds found in FAA
regulations.

Yes, the FAA uses the FAA numbers.

If you were to check yes becuase, for example, your blood pressure was 145,
which most doctors concider "high blood pressure", in the notes you say it
was 145.

The AME in any case is going to take your blood pressure and if it is under
155, that is the end of it.

Suffice it to say, I think the above is very dangerous advice that does not
match my personal experience.
Since I am not about to discuss my own medical past here, this is where it ends.

Vaughn

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

No **** Sherlock?

Did you bother to read the whole post?

Obviously not.

Idiot.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...
vaughn wrote:

wrote in message
...

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.

I am not sure that is true; are you? The question on form 2120-0034 is:
"HAVE
YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED...". You have only two blocks to check
for
each listed condition: "Yes" or "No". If you check "Yes", it is up to your
AME
to resolve to issue as per FAA guidlines, or deny you. My point is that the
thresholds that your doctor uses are subject to change based on current
research, and they are likely not the same thresholds found in FAA
regulations.

Yes, the FAA uses the FAA numbers.

If you were to check yes becuase, for example, your blood pressure was 145,
which most doctors concider "high blood pressure", in the notes you say it
was 145.

The AME in any case is going to take your blood pressure and if it is under
155, that is the end of it.

Suffice it to say, I think the above is very dangerous advice that does not
match my personal experience.
Since I am not about to discuss my own medical past here, this is where it ends.

Vaughn

Well that is really helpful.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
vaughn writes:

I am not sure that is true; are you? The question on form 2120-0034 is: "HAVE
YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED...". You have only two blocks to check for
each listed condition: "Yes" or "No". If you check "Yes", it is up to your AME
to resolve to issue as per FAA guidlines, or deny you. My point is that the
thresholds that your doctor uses are subject to change based on current
research, and they are likely not the same thresholds found in FAA regulations.

It's not true. The actual name of the diagnosed condition matters a lot,
although numbers matter, too.

The numbers are the only thing that matters to the FAA unless the diagnosis
was something like an aneurism about to blow.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
vaughn writes:

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.

The doctor doesn't have to diagnose it. He may simply have a concern about
high blood glucose, which is not the same as a diagnosis of diabetes. The
diagnosis must be reported, but not just the doctor's verbally articulated
concern. And indeed, an occasionally high blood glucose doesn't necessarily
equate to diabetes, so jumping to a diagnosis isn't always warranted.

Your are contradicting yourself.

The doctor either says you have diabetes or he doesn't.

There is no obligation to report generalities, only diagnosis.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

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.

This seems like a very reasonable policy. Private pilots are not carrying
passengers for hire. Other passengers have the option of flying or not flying
with the pilot, generally speaking. And of course a pilot flying alone isn't
an issue, either. Danger to people on the ground is almost nonexistent, so a
pilot in poor health mainly just puts himself at risk ... which should be his
prerogative.

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.

Most FAA restrictions are de jure, not having been verified against real-world
data. They seem to be inherited from military programs and archaic flight
standards. They are also very inconsistent: a person who had a seizure twice
in childhood might be disqualified, but a person who is 150 lbs overweight can
still be certified ... even though the obese person is almost certainly at
much greater risk of sudden incapacitation than the person who had seizures in
childhood.

Here's a newsflash for you; a lot of government rules are inconsistent with
reality.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sep 1, 6:41*pm, "vaughn" wrote:

Suffice it to say, I think the above is very dangerous advice that does not
match my personal experience.

I have to agree. While my DVT was not an elected visit to the doc, if
you look for trouble, you will find it. I personally am along the
lines, if it works, don't fix it. As an example, If I can see
airports better then my wife who has 20/20 vision and I have corrected
20/20, I am not going to the doc. If I hear the same things she
hears, then I don't perceive myself having a hearing problem, I am not
going to the doc.

Since I am not about to discuss my own medical past here, this is where it ends.

I never can understand this about anyone. If you are upfront about
your condition, there should be nothing to hide. My sharing of my
medical certificate woes with the FAA over the past 4 years is
splattered all over the internet. I haven't shared anything different
between the FAA and my fellow pilots. If one is upfront with the FAA,
there can be nothing done to you PROVIDING YOU COMPLY with what the
FAA requests..

My high BP and DVT were red flags to the FAA that I had to do some
compliance tests (nuclear heart stress test for the BP and prove I had
a stabilized INR for my DVT). Wasn't a big deal.

Now, I will say, if I was income dependent on my flying, then it would
have been a big deal as my medical expired for a couple of weeks.
Lesson learned, start earlier in 2011 should I have a condition that
may bring up a flag. One needs to allow 90 days processing even if
you think like I did having all the ducks in a row for documentation.

The melanoma surprisingly is not a flag on the form going on memory.