What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

End of the line... NOT!!!!

I have real questions about the self-certification thing. I'd like to see the FAA consider the entire anti-depressant thing, too. It's about much more than side effects; it's about thinking that everyone who's on an anti-depressant is suicidal, but that's another story.

I see the rationale behind self certification, but I just hear too many stories of people who simply are unfit to fly, flying under this sort of thing, and here on VAF we've seen the post by people not reporting heart problems so we know that people are going to abuse this thing and the question I have is by how much?
 
"I have real questions about the self-certification thing."

Without rehashing the whole Sport Pilot and Drivers License Medical thing, EVERYONE is under self-certification EVERY DAY.

Whether you're an ATP flying 747s with a First Class, or a Super Cub pilot with a Third Class, you are self-certifying yourself from the minute you walk out of your AME's office with a fresh ticket in hand, until the next time you walk out of his office (with - or without a new ticket.)

Bob Bogash
RV-12
N737G
 
Bob,

This whole thing saddens me, as it does about everyone of VAF. Since you are good at keeping your options open, I thought I'd throw out another one--Working with a group of kids and building an RV-12. You might just find this the most satisfying option out there. I won't try to describe all the "highs" you can get from this, but they are many. Let things settle out a bit. You have had plenty of practice at that...

Bob
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
Because I had Meniere's Disease? Well, OK, but I had Meniere's Disease several years ago when the FAA investigated it and gave me the certificate anyway with the provision that if the symptoms reoccur, I don't fly.

It was entirely predictable several years ago that those symptoms would reoccur because that's how Meniere's Disease works.

So I don't quite understand what's changed. Well, except for the fact there's another person in charge in OKC now and two guys have different definitions of what's "reasonable,"
Click to expand...

And the guy who was (probably) in charge when you got the cert the first time around is now working with AOPA, and working on our side.

Have you contacted AOPA medical???
 
I will throw you an out of the box suggestion since several are suggesting the LSA/RV12 approach.
Sell the 7A and find a joint partnership in a RV10 with local folk. Four passenger plane, you can have a safety pilot, still fly to OH for BB games, to family out of state and spouse can go. Safety pilot can coordinate a flight home or go to a destination of his/her choice. Ideal partner would be retired of course. Then you can work towards your medical being renewed. Once renewed, you still have a fabulous magic carpet ride that the two of you can enjoy.
Best to you Bob. You are a special person.

Pat Garboden
Katy, TX
RV9A N942PT

FAA Certified. Planning first flight this weekend.
 
AOPA / EAA Help???

An instructor of mine also has a law degree, and could make tons of money just by practicing law. He was a highly successful attorney, way back when. But he chose to be a full-time CFI instead, simply for the love of flying and teaching people to fly. He thought he was healthy as a horse, and waltzed in casually to take his medical recently. FAIL. He has some sort of diabetes that he was completely unaware of. He is grounded but says the AOPA is working their tails off for him, and he is hoping to have some sort of resolution in the quickest manner possible.

I know diabetes may not be an apples-to-apples comparison, Bob. I sure don't mean to imply that since I know next to nothing about ANY medical condition. But as someone asked above, have you reached out to the AOPA and/or the EAA? You may have already answered this in an earlier reply, and perhaps I missed it?

Keep on trying, Bob. You've worked too hard to fulfill your dream to just walk away.
 
Don said:
The FAA proposed regulations, based on data, that a valid drivers license and self-certification is enough to assure the same level of safety (or better) than we have with the current AME medical certification process. The FAA received a record number of public comments and the response was over-whelmingly favorable.
Click to expand...
Thread creep continues, as this becomes more of a political issue. But as someone who watched the Recreational Pilot Permit development here in Canada and peripherally the LSA stuff in the US, I think it's safe to say that the purpose of both was to make it easier for young pilots to get into aviation, not for old pilots to stay in aviation.

I know a few pilots who have "tested the waters" with their AME and have been (unofficially) told that they should just let their medicals lapse, and self-declare for the lesser permit... Because once they're denied a proper medical, they're done, or at least they'll be on the same roller coaster Bob is on now. Personally, I find "sidestepping" the regs in that way to be offensive.
 
NASA515 said:
Without rehashing the whole Sport Pilot and Drivers License Medical thing, EVERYONE is under self-certification EVERY DAY.

Whether you're an ATP flying 747s with a First Class, or a Super Cub pilot with a Third Class, you are self-certifying yourself from the minute you walk out of your AME's office with a fresh ticket in hand, until the next time you walk out of his office (with - or without a new ticket.)
Click to expand...
Correct. Self-certification and a medical are not mutually exclusive. You can hold a valid medical and not be fit to fly. You can be fit to fly and not be eligible for a medical. IMHO, the people who should make the judgement on you being fit to fly are you and your doctor.

In Bob's case, there is always glider and motorglider flying. If you're looking for a challenge, soaring is a good one. There are some good motorgliders out there that aren't all that different from LSAs.

The best potential outcome would probably be to get a special issuance, let it lapse, and fly an LSA. Or, in the alternate reality of my daydreams, the EAA/AOPA "drivers license medical" waiver gets approved, and keep flying your RV :)

TODR
 
Very sorry to hear Bob. As has been said there are still some options to scratch the itch. Understandably not the same.

Snowflake said:
I find "sidestepping" the regs in that way to be offensive.
Click to expand...

I personally don't and here is why. Given that whateveritis is something that we can agree could be self certified.

Case 1: Pilot with PPL and however much other experience lets say 10,000 hours in all manner of aircraft. New diagnosis of whateveritis. Fails medical.

Case 2: Fresh LSA pilot with whateveritis.

I personally would rather fly with Case 1.

I am not sure I agree with the young people argument either. In general they don't have many medical problems so all you really save most of them is the cost of the medical which is peanuts compared to the overall cost of flying. And someday they will be old pilots anyway.

I believe the government/FAA (us too) just do not want to someday read a headline including "FAA knew pilot had medical problem, allowed to fly under new LSA law and crashes". With our law they can just say well we didn't know about that medical problem.
 
n981ms said:
I believe the government/FAA (us too) just do not want to someday read a headline including "FAA knew pilot had medical problem, allowed to fly under new LSA law and crashes". With our law they can just say well we didn't know about that medical problem.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's precisely the argument that a lawyer would use to reach into the deep pockets of the government and the FAA's attorney's know it.

Common sense isn't allowed to reign. Instead the lawyers violate our Constitution Right to pursue our own happiness (through flight) in order to limit government liability. Some might argue that flight, like driving isn't a guaranteed right. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but it sure seems to me we are guaranteed freedom from government interference in our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness and for me flying is certainly a big chunk of my life, liberty, and happiness.

A logical argument would be, there exists several levels of medical certification based on risk and complexity of aircraft. Airline pilots carry hundreds of passengers in complex aircraft and they're required to have a Class I medical. This process continues through Class II and III certificates and for pilots of LSA, simple VFR aircraft that carry a max of two people, no special medical is required, only a drivers license. Disqualification for a higher certificate does no affect lower certificates.

Oddly, I would say there's lots of precedent that disqualification for a Class I medical certificate doesn't disqualify you for a Class II or III certificate. The only time you run into this conundrum is when you can't get a Class III, then the FAA disqualifies you for the LSA. It would be interesting to try and get this fixed...not sure I've got the energy left but I believe it could be done.

And if the Driver's License medical, that was proposed and was so well supported by the people ever was to pass, Bob would be self certifying now.
 
Just for the record, and I'm probably stating this again, this was not a new diagnosis and was not unknown to the FAA. It had previously issued a medical with the requirement that IF the symptoms reappeared or IF the medication for it changed, I was not to exercise airman privileges.

The FAA doesn't make clear if that means during the time the symptoms present themselves or for ever and ever, amen.

My medical was up at the end of May. The symptoms presented themselves in February. I grounded myself.

The system worked fine. The pilot in question is a really good pilot in all facets of safety. The pilot has no interest in endangering himself, his passengers, or anyone on the ground.

As a result, the pilot wasn't endangered, the passengers weren't endangered, and no one on the ground was endangered.

The system is STILL working fine, so long as the FAA doesn't just say, "oh, you have Meniere's, you can't fly anymore, ever.," and says instead, "oh, you have Meniere's, have it be stable for six months, or a year, and then we'll talk." Presently, I'm trying to ascertain what they're actually saying. I've had some good contacts with people inside the FAA so far and the answers have been so far: "Don't bother, you're done; come back in six months; and come back in a year."

Meniere's symptoms have warning signs, often days in advance.

Yes, I think it's possible that if you give pilots the opportunity to do something stupid -- like flying when they know they shouldn't -- they'll probably do something stupid.

But a lot of healthy pilots are doing stupid things out there (and I'm not seeing a bunch of LSAs fallingout of the sky for medical reasons, while I am seeing fully certificated pilots falling out of the sky for non-medical ones) and the question isn't really one of keeping people on the ground so they won't do something stupid. The question is there a way to provide education to lessen the chance they'll do something stupid.

Self certification isn't about flying when you shouldn't. Yes, that would be offensive. Self certification is about knowing when you shouldn't fly.

And as someone pointed out, we're all doing that to some extent now.

What would I do differently? I'd have let the 3rd class expire until the symptoms fully resolved (obviously with the help of the ENT), and I would've brought to the AME a better accounting of my situation, and all of the data -- ENT narrative, clinical notes, hearing tests, whatever -- all at once instead the way i did it.

I tried to sneak all of this passed the AME and I would have had I not made two critical mistakes: (a) I mistakenly wrote down Benadryl (a banned substance) under medication I'm taking (indicating it was "as needed") because I misread the question. I wasn't really taking it at that time and I take Benadryl for the same reason everyone else does and (2) I indicated I was on a diuretic, which is not a banned substance and has no side effects, but which threw up a red flag that there might be a reason I was.

I feel bad about approaching it that way, but that's what I did. The fact that I did is what's wrong with the current system and the relationship between pilot and medical certification. It's inherently a dishonest one.
 
Last edited:
Another chime in from Canada.

Bob,

From what I've seen over the years, you seem like a pretty resilient and resourceful guy. I'm pretty sure if there's any way to safely and honestly overcome this obstacle, you'll find it.

All the best.
 
Don said:
Oddly, I would say there's lots of precedent that disqualification for a Class I medical certificate doesn't disqualify you for a Class II or III certificate.
Click to expand...

Be careful here. If you don't meet a standard for class one but do meet a reduced standard for class 3, that's okay. But if you fail the class one EKG, or another health issue is discovered, the AME cannot issue you a third class medical until the matter is resolved, even though if you had originally asked for the third class there would never have been an EKG test.
 
Paul Tuttle said:
Bob,

From what I've seen over the years, you seem like a pretty resilient and resourceful guy. I'm pretty sure if there's any way to safely and honestly overcome this obstacle, you'll find it.

All the best.
Click to expand...

The doc at the EAA has been quite helpful (along with others) and I've sent him additional information today although he did indicate today that his FAA consultant said, "[FONT=&quot]ultimately that certification is very unlikely if the diagnosis is correct."

I'm pretty much as the "whatever" stage of this.[/FONT]
 
That's a good thing I think

LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
The doc at the EAA has been quite helpful (along with others) and I've sent him additional information today although he did indicate today that his FAA consultant said, "[FONT=&quot]ultimately that certification is very unlikely if the diagnosis is correct."

I'm pretty much as the "whatever" stage of this.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I have followed some "LettersFromFlyoverCountry" valley and peak cycles in the past and I see a glimmer of spunk in there. If it is possible I think you are the man to pull it off as you have in the past and if it is not possible you have put things in perspective and are ready to continue on with the good life in a different direction. Believe me there is a lot worse in the future in this short experience called life and I know you know that. ENJOY!

Bob Axsom
 
n981ms said:
Case 1: Pilot with PPL and however much other experience lets say 10,000 hours in all manner of aircraft. New diagnosis of whateveritis. Fails medical.

Case 2: Fresh LSA pilot with whateveritis.

I personally would rather fly with Case 1.
Click to expand...
Personally, I wouldn't fly with either, armed with just the information you've given. But how often do we ask what a pilot's medical status is before we hop in their right/rear seat? I've had *one* pilot tell me, pre-boarding, that he held a Recreational Pilot Permit, not a PPL. He was also the only person who's ever asked me to sign a passenger waiver (I did... I really wanted a ride in his Mustang II).

But you do highlight a flaw with the LSA permit... Someone who would be normally medically unfit to fly, and who might not even be aware of it, can go fly anyway. You won't avoid all of that risk by getting a full medical, I agree.

I am not sure I agree with the young people argument either. In general they don't have many medical problems so all you really save most of them is the cost of the medical which is peanuts compared to the overall cost of flying. And someday they will be old pilots anyway.
Click to expand...
Not quite... The Sport Pilot program also saves something like 20 hours of flying time before you're licensed and on your way, so overall the cost looks a lot lower to a potential student off the street.

I really doubt that the FAA expected all the medically unsure pilots to just switch to Sport Pilot, as a liability-avoidance technique. In the long run, if we did have a run of pilots who all switched to Sport Pilot and then crashed later on due to medical issues, wouldn't the FAA take just as much flak for creating the Sport Pilot category in the first place?
 
Snowflake said:
I really doubt that the FAA expected all the medically unsure pilots to just switch to Sport Pilot, as a liability-avoidance technique. In the long run, if we did have a run of pilots who all switched to Sport Pilot and then crashed later on due to medical issues, wouldn't the FAA take just as much flak for creating the Sport Pilot category in the first place?
Click to expand...

The tricky part of this isn't so much the person who IS medically unfit to fly -- whether it be with a medical certificate or without one -- it's the person who MIGHT someday be unfit to fly -- being a week, a month, or two years from now.

When you get a medical certificate, it's not only being determined that you're fit to fly now, it's also being determined that you'll be fit to fly for the duration of that certificate.

In that reality, there's a particularly subjective -- one might even say arbitrary -- component that deals with the "what might be" more than the "what is now."

That might not be a bad thing; I don't know. But it does raise the question in my mind of whether we just shouldn't say at age 70 (or pick any other number) no more flying. By anybody. The odds at that age are that you're going to become unfit to fly; so why not just concede the odds and keep 'em on the ground?
 
Trolling

LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
... But it does raise the question in my mind of whether we just shouldn't say at age 70 (or pick any other number) no more flying. By anybody. The odds at that age are that you're going to become unfit to fly; so why not just concede the odds and keep 'em on the ground?
Click to expand...
Bob, I assume you are trolling us here! I know lots of 70+ people in excellent shape and I can't imagine that we should just ground them arbitrarily. In the liberty vs. safety discussion, count me firmly on the liberty side.
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
But it does raise the question in my mind of whether we just shouldn't say at age 70 (or pick any other number) no more flying. By anybody. The odds at that age are that you're going to become unfit to fly; so why not just concede the odds and keep 'em on the ground?
Click to expand...
We do this now, just at a lower break point... Under 40, medicals are every 5 years (for private pilots), over 40, medicals are every two years. Is there another break point where medicals become yearly? I thought I overheard one of the local pilots said it was every 1 year over 70 but I hadn't heard that before.

I don't think you'd need to look at much data before you'd find statistically significant evidence that correlated increased risk with increased age. Increased scrutiny as people age may be prudent, and if it's not hugely inconvenient or unreasonably expensive, i'm not sure I see a problem with that.

I think there's enough evidence that people can fly safely well into their 70's, 80's, and heck, i'm sure 90's too. I hope so, i'll get there eventually!

And good luck Bob, I hope you do persevere and get your medical back. Despite the pain in the backside that this process creates, I would like to trust that once all the evidence is presented logically, that reasonable decisions will be made.
 
Everybody's posted their opinion so I'll chime in too. As a 58 year old guy I've thought from time to time what I would do if denied a medical. LSA would not be an option, of course. And it does no good to !@#$% and whine about the mean old FAA, the reality is what it is. So what would the options be?
  • Stop flying, do something else
  • Keep flying (illegally) without a valid medical
  • Fly something legal: powered parachute or motor glider
I think I would do the last, a motor glider. As others have already said, you can do a lot of flying with one, more than an LSA in some ways. I wish you could somehow get your medical back and keep your -7A; I hope you can sell it for a good price and buy a motor glider and keep flying for years to come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
70

No flying after 70 is about as bad an idea as I've heard. For that matter I know a lot of 40 year olds, not many pilots, in terrible shape, overweight, smoking, no exercise.... heart attack waiting to happen. And the few 80+ year old pilots that I know take care of themselves and seem in good shape. Nobody wants to crash, I don't fly if I don't feel well and would ground myself if I developed a medical problem that made me unsafe. The FAA 3rd class medical saying we are safe that day means nothing the next day and we should be able to self certify ourselves.
 
rv8ch said:
Bob, I assume you are trolling us here! I know lots of 70+ people in excellent shape and I can't imagine that we should just ground them arbitrarily. In the liberty vs. safety discussion, count me firmly on the liberty side.
Click to expand...

Liberty isn't any component in the medical certification system and really isn't germane to the analysis of it; it's strictly the ability of the pilot to operate safely. If you read the post again, you'll see the context in which the point is made. You're missing the point, which was how one "reasonably" assesses future medical condition and makes the distinctions necessary.

In any affliction in which there are presently no disruptive symptoms, the decision is based on the liklihood of problems presenting themselves during the duration of the certificate. The process involves informed guesswork, which is the subjective nature that we're faced with. The more information we can get on that part of the process (which is currently fairly secretive and not explained in any letter of denial), the better we can respond to it.
 
Last edited:
Buggsy2 said:
[*]Keep flying (illegally) without a valid medical
Click to expand...

There are a fair number of people on my field who are doing this. As my wife reminded me, the main problem here is liability if something should happen and she's left to divest to satisfy a court judgment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snowflake said:
Personally, I wouldn't fly with either, armed with just the information you've given.
Click to expand...

I was assuming that otherwise we had deemed them adequate.

Snowflake said:
But how often do we ask what a pilot's medical status is before we hop in their right/rear seat?
Click to expand...

I suspect no one does. But, we as pilots often know the local scuttlebut.

Snowflake said:
But you do highlight a flaw with the LSA permit... Someone who would be normally medically unfit to fly, and who might not even be aware of it, can go fly anyway.
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken but I thought the idea was if you are fit enough to have a drivers license you are fit enough to decide if you can fly.


Snowflake said:
Not quite... The Sport Pilot program also saves something like 20 hours of flying time before you're licensed and on your way, so overall the cost looks a lot lower to a potential student off the street.
Click to expand...

Agreed. However, the medical portion is still a pretty small percentage of the LSA license cost. I remember the in lead up to the LSA law there was a whole lot of excitement about the elimination of the medical requirement allowing people back into flying.

Snowflake said:
I really doubt that the FAA expected all the medically unsure pilots to just switch to Sport Pilot, as a liability-avoidance technique. In the long run, if we did have a run of pilots who all switched to Sport Pilot and then crashed later on due to medical issues, wouldn't the FAA take just as much flak for creating the Sport Pilot category in the first place?
Click to expand...

I believe expected them to 1. Fail their medical. Then Quit flying. (or Fly illegally) or 2. Do just that. Switch to LSA before failing.
In any case no one can point their finger at the FAA in any specific case. Public attention span is too short and frequency of accidents (thankfully) too infrequent to incriminate the FAA.

I do not think their liability concern issue is primarily financial (It is not there personal money). They mainly do not like negative publicity and having to deal with "public outcry". As has been said before, much of the public thinks that all small planes crash because that is the majority of what hear about them on the news.

I hesitated to reply in that I respect Snowflakes input in this and other matters RV related. I mainly wanted to try and all those fancy quote boxes.
 
Last edited:
n981ms said:
I remember the in lead up to the LSA law there was a whole lot of excitement about the elimination of the medical requirement allowing people back into flying.
Click to expand...

That was a large part of the interest in LSA as I remember things, folks who had already lost their medicals were heavily in favor of the LSA movement.

The feds threw in the "not able to self certify if you failed a medical" zinger as a last minute surprise that no one saw coming. Pissed off many who had been supporting the proposed action.
 
rv8ch said:
. In the liberty vs. safety discussion, count me firmly on the liberty side.
Click to expand...

Me too. But let's not pretend that there is no 'cost'. Some years ago a local twin crashed into a mall, seriously burning and killing a number of shoppers. Turns out the pilot's personal physician knew about his unexplained blackouts, but the pilot hid this information from his AME. Of course the lawyers sued his estate and all the deep pockets. With burn injuries the 'deep pockets' knew they would lose even though they had nothing to do with the accident, so they settled. Now, when you buy something from TCM, or Cessna, you are helping to pay for what that pilot did. In addition there was the huge negative GA publicity to deal with.
My point is that with our liberty to fly there will be a very small but non zero cost to the non flying public; but they (non fliers) think their risk should be exactly zero. It is this - knowing the risk cannot be zero but trying to keep it very small - that drives a lot of the rules.
 
Heard back from the EAA medical consultant. I'm not seeing any inspiration to put up a fight in his response:

After reviewing his attached records, it is of great concern that he was again experiencing Meniere's symptoms "in June or July" of this year, especially after having been treated with an endolymphatic shunt procedure and also dyazide therapy. He had recently started using a Meniett device, which has been shown to REDUCE (not eliminate) vertigo attacks due to Menieres Disease in intractable patients.

In a recent study (in Japan) the following results were reported: (MD= Meniett Device)
(57%) patients with MD... remained entirely free from vertigo spells; nine (32%) patients with MD responded with a significant decrease in the frequency of vertigo spells.

Reference:
Long-term effects of the Meniett device in Japanese patients with Meniere's disease and delayed endolymphatic hydrops reported by the Middle Ear Pressure Treatment Research Group of Japan.
Shojaku H, Watanabe Y, Mineta H, Aoki M, Tsubota M, Watanabe K, Goto F, Shigeno K.
Acta Otolaryngol. 2011 Mar;131(3):277-83. doi:
10.3109/00016489.2010.526142.
PMID: 21319947

In another recent study, it was reported that:
"63.3 per cent" [of] patients felt that the device had alleviated their vertigo and tinnitus

Reference:
Initial UK experience of patient satisfaction with the Meniett? device for M?ni?re's disease treatment.
Buchanan MA, Rai A, Prinsley PR.
J Laryngol Otol. 2010 Oct;124(10):1067-72. doi:
10.1017/S0022215110001118. Epub 2010 Jun 11.
PMID: 20537216

In general the Meniett Device is marketed as a device that will help to control recalcitrant Meniere's disease. It is not a cure. Based on these reports it would seem that statistically his chances for long term freedom from vertigo is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3. Since he has only been using the device for only a few months, it is hard to know if he will be free of vertigo over the long term. As I am sure you'll agree, an attack of vertigo while in control of an aircraft could have significant impact on the safety of the airman, his passengers, the flying environment, and the general public.
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
Heard back from the EAA medical consultant. I'm not seeing any inspiration to put up a fight in his response
Click to expand...

I would look at the following info and see a lot of hope there. Better than 50 % chance of freedom from vertigo.

LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
his chances for long term freedom from vertigo is somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3. Since he has only been using the device for only a few months, it is hard to know if he will be free of vertigo over the long term.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what they are thinking of as "long term"-----perhaps you could establish a year history of being asymptomatic and then revisit the issue???
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
There are a fair number of people on my field who are doing this [flying illegal without a medical]. As my wife reminded me, the main problem here is liability if something should happen and she's left to divest to satisfy a court judgment.
Click to expand...

Yep, I just included it for completeness. Not advocating that route. The motor-glider sounds very interesting to me, and I sure wish Vans would offer one.
 
i haven't read this whole thread but i would think about getting my medical back and while it is valid transition to light sport.
 
Of interesting note here is the penalty I seem to be paying for aggressive attempts at prevention.

The surgery I had years ago was done when I wasn't symptomatic. But I thought it would satisfy the FAA. And here is an example of having that surgery ended up being used against my situation because symptoms came back after I had it.

Same thing with the "diuretic therapy" and the Meniett Device. Both are aimed at prevention, but the FAA consultant sees it as an acknowledgement of a problem rather than a progressive action to avoid symptoms.

As I've said before, I don't think the FAA made a particular bad call here in denying the medical AT THIS TIME. But as you can see I'm now facing answering for aggressively tackling a situation on a preventive basis.

That was a bad mistake on my part.
 
We just went through this a few years ago with my dad. He had an INJURY- induced stroke and is no more likely than I am to have another...but the FAA does not seem to see it the same way. However, knowing the battle we faced, he opted to not renew his medical and fly LSA - thus I became the proud owner of a J3 Cub. And he pays for the use of it by teaching me all his bush-flying Cub secrets from the great Northern Frontier. Although he always had flaps and 180 HP to work with. I have 1/3 of that...

With a disease that can ultimately have only one outcome in the eyes of the FAA (and eventually in your ability to safely operate) I do wonder why you didn't let your medical lapse and move to a -12 or similar...? Even if you win this one, every single renewal will be a battle...that's the same line of reasoning that led me to buy the Cub.

...And on what fiery comet in the far reaches of the galaxy have you been living on if you thought for even a second that the FAA is remotely interested in your plight? The FAA has as its mission statement to foster safety throughout the entire range of aviation while simultaneously doing NOTHING that could, in any way, make them look bad, in even the tiniest degree. They will not even consider allowing you a medical until such time as you are a virtually-zero threat, not to yourself or your passenger, but to bad publicity to the FAA. Consider that if you had simply let the medical expire they would have no dispute with you flying - because their name is not on it!

Don't get me wrong, the FAA does a LOT of good, but it is primarily DESPITE the FAA Overlords, not because of them. Just consider 337s and field approvals if you want another perfect example of this.
 
meloosifah said:
I do wonder why you didn't let your medical lapse and move to a -12 or similar...?
Click to expand...

Well, I tell you -- and I think I have earlier in the thread -- when you spend 11 year building an airplane and you've only flown it for 80 hours and you have a condition the FAA knows about and has issued a certificate for in the past, you gamble that you can get through one more time.

As I've said earlier, if I hadn't indicated on the medical form that I was taking a non-banned, no-side-effect medication, I'd be flying.

But the real point of failure was the night I was lying in bed, the room was spinning, I thought I might die and I spent time debating whether to call an ambulance, knowing that if I did, I'd probably have to quit flying.

Eventually I did.

I shouldn't have.
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
I spent time debating whether to call an ambulance, knowing that if I did, I'd probably have to quit flying.

Eventually I did.

I shouldn't have.
Click to expand...
And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the FAA's (and I suspect Transport Canada's, as well) medical system. When someone is making medical decisions based not on whether or not they're having a medical emergency, but on whether or not there's a possibility that it might be something serious that will ground them.

Death will ground you faster.

There are two bad things that can happen to a pilot, and it's a guarantee that one of them will:
1. You will walk out to your airplane knowing it's the last time you will fly.
2. You will walk out to your airplane NOT knowing it's the last time you will fly.

It's hard to say which is worse.
 
The system is very much what was contributing to pilots with alcohol problems flying commercial airplanes. Eventually, airlines and the FAA realized that the key was not to punish a pilot for acknowledging a problem and losing a career (here's an interview I did with one of the NWA crew who flew drunk in one of the more famous incidents).

It's worth noting that the FAA was clear when issuing my last medical that IF symptoms returned or IF medication was changed, I was not to fly.

When my medication was changed (to add this non-banned diuretic), I grounded myself accordingly and then told the AME that I had grounded myself accordingly.

I want to believe that most pilots follow the rules, but I do believe the system is generally designed based on the assumption that they don't or won't.

I don't have a solution for that; I obviously don't have any control over those people.

But if I never get a medical back, I can at least take comfort that I was safety conscious and professional while I had one.
 
I don't know whether this thread will help anyone in the future or not so I apologize for continuing to update it but I figured what the heck.

I talked to the AOPA specialist today, who stresses that she's not a doctor, who says that contrary to the suggestion of the EAA "consultant," the FAA does not have a policy that if the diagnosis of Meniere's is correct, recertification is unlikely.

She also said that the paragraph in the letter of denial that offered the option of reconsidering in six months is "significant," that is not just boilerplate copy on all denials.

On the issue of using a medical device and approved medication to PREVENT future occurrences, she seemed to stress that that is not really something that gives the FAA any comfort, so there is a penalty to be paid by aggressively moving to prevent that which the FAA is concerned about in the first place.

"They are so conservative there," she said, "that they would probably feel much better if you got off the device and medication and remained symptom free for six months."

She acknowledged that all of the experts out there who are in the business of trying to tell you what the FAA is thinking on medical issues have one thing in common: They don't really know for certain what the FAA is thinking. "Nobody does," she said.

In related news, I looked up Bruce Chien's website yesterday that paying $100 up front and $50 per every 15 minutes of work thereafter is not an expense at this time which has a tremendous upside.

More as it happens, but probably not for six months.
 
Last edited:
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
so I apologize for continuing to update it
Click to expand...
Please don't apologize. Your specific situation is of interest to many of us, as we consider you something like a penpal, please keep us updated. And we vicariously experience the highs and lows through your descriptions.

Sounds like a ray of hope in your last post. We hope it turns into a full, sunny day in a few months.
 
LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
Just to put a final stamp on things, my vertigo problems returned last week and I've decided not to pursue any more flying.
Click to expand...

What a bummer. But, as Mike said, I also think you are doing the right thing, staying safe. I, for one, certainly appreciate your openness and candor about your situation. You certainly didn't try to sweep it under the rug and hide it.

Somehow I don't think you will go away. I hope not. :)
 
+1 on what Don said, Bob. You know I (we) are here for you any time, and if you're ever down in the DFW area I expect a call/visit. br,dr

rv7boy said:
snip.....I, for one, certainly appreciate your openness and candor about your situation. You certainly didn't try to sweep it under the rug and hide it.....snip
Click to expand...
 
Bob, Know that a lot of us see ourselves in you sir and really feel for you situation. I think most of us can see ourselves in a similar situation. Best to you sir and thanks for all your mussing and fussing?s!
 
I have always respected - and envied - the openness and honesty in your posts. Whether it was admitting to a build mistake or just asking for advice, your posts have resulted in my learning something valuable 9 of 10 times. For this and a hundred other reasons, you're a much bigger part of this community than you likely realize. I can't adequately find the words to express my empathy for your situation.
 
And yet another update:

I've been out of work for three weeks after dizzy spells returned in September. Over that time, the hearing in the left ear has continued to be destroyed.

I had a good session with my neurotologist today and while the dizziness has stopped, we've decided to consider a procedure that cuts balance information and all hearing information from that ear. This would eliminate dizziness and also what pitiful amount of hearing is left.

My priority right now is being able to work for a living, but there$s also a chance the FAA would look favorably upon this since it eliminates the chance of dizzy spells unless the disease moves to another ear. I'd have to get a special issuance, I presume, because I'd be deaf in one ear.

So all hope is not yet lost.
 
Ummm

Hang on, so we are hoping you are soon completely deaf in one ear for life. That would be good.... kind of....:confused:

Keep us up to speed, I guess we are all pulling for that to work out so you can FLY.
 
Bob, I've been deaf in one ear almost all my life, thanks to mumps I got at nine years old. I'm 57 now. I've been flying since 1981. I passed a SODA checkride many years ago, and now you don't even need that.

Now, how the FAA looks at your situation will probably be different, but if you can get the best help from a senior AME and perhaps AOPA, you might pull this off! I wouldn't sell that plane yet!

LettersFromFlyoverCountry said:
And yet another update:

I've been out of work for three weeks after dizzy spells returned in September. Over that time, the hearing in the left ear has continued to be destroyed.

I had a good session with my neurotologist today and while the dizziness has stopped, we've decided to consider a procedure that cuts balance information and all hearing information from that ear. This would eliminate dizziness and also what pitiful amount of hearing is left.

My priority right now is being able to work for a living, but there$s also a chance the FAA would look favorably upon this since it eliminates the chance of dizzy spells unless the disease moves to another ear. I'd have to get a special issuance, I presume, because I'd be deaf in one ear.

So all hope is not yet lost.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top