Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next week. Anticipate
some degree of chemical warfare post operation. Doc says it may cause hot
flashes, wife says welcome to her world.

Current medical runs for another 14 months. I will be talking to the AOPA
folks but was curious if anyone had comparable experience and could give me
view as to hoops, traps, etc that I might anticipate.

thx

chuck

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:03:54 -0500, Chas wrote:

> Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next week.

Sorry to hear that.

As a very simple answer, the whole FAA medical system is based on
incapacitation. If any part of your treatment or condition could lead to
any form of incapacitation you'll have an uphill battle with them until you
are finished with the treatment and can provide proof that you are in the
clear.

I assume you've read this?
http://www.aopa.org/members/pic/medical/certification/cancer/breast.html

BTW the AOPA Medical folks are a great resource.

--
Dallas

Chas writes:

> Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next week. Anticipate
> some degree of chemical warfare post operation. Doc says it may cause hot
> flashes, wife says welcome to her world.
>
> Current medical runs for another 14 months. I will be talking to the AOPA
> folks but was curious if anyone had comparable experience and could give me
> view as to hoops, traps, etc that I might anticipate.

Since cancer is not normally a cause of sudden incapacitation in flight, I
don't see why the FAA would care, especially after it is cured. However,
during the course of chemotherapy you probably would not be in flying
condition, so that would have to finish first.

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

Chuck,
Sorry to hear the bad news but don't feel alone.
Google the rec.aviation.student group archives. A frequent poster and
fellow pilot walked this path before you.
Good luck,
Jim

On Feb 26, 4:40 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Since cancer is not normally a cause of sudden incapacitation in flight, I
> don't see why the FAA would care, especially after it is cured. [...]

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.

Doesn't seem quite fair to deny someone with a limited lifespan, the
joy of flight, does it? Of course, if you actually had just a few
months, who'd care about the FAA? :-)

I'm coming up on one year since my chemo, rad, and major cancer
operation, and am interested in slowly getting back in the saddle as
well.

Kev

Kev writes:

> The FAA view is that if you have a known cancer, then you could also
> have unseen brain / nervous system damage.

Wow! They are _really_ grasping at straws here. Who makes these decisions?

A substantial percentage of the population shows brain aneurysms at autopsy,
but only a fraction experience ruptured aneurysms during life. Why doesn't
the FAA require MRIs of pilots' brains and exclude anyone with even a hint of
a vascular abnormality from flight? It's just as likely to cause
incapacitation as occult metastases of a primary malignancy to the brain.

And even when metastases occur and are symptomatic, it's unlikely that they
will present _suddenly_ as abrupt incapacitation with no prior warning.

Many pilots are walking around with a cardiovascular system that may given
them a CVA or MI at any moment, but the FAA does not deny their medicals, as
long as their BP is normal and they have no history. Shouldn't it require
invasive testing to verify that all major arteries are patent and clean?

> Doesn't seem quite fair to deny someone with a limited lifespan, the
> joy of flight, does it?

The gap between the FAA's view and reality is quite astonishing.

> I'm coming up on one year since my chemo, rad, and major cancer
> operation, and am interested in slowly getting back in the saddle as
> well.

Good luck. If you are anything less than Khan Noonien Singh it seems that
you'll need it with the FAA.

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

MxWhatever wrote:

> A substantial percentage of the population shows brain
> aneurysms at autopsy, but only a fraction experience ruptured
> aneurysms during life.

A mere MSFS sim pilot is now also a physician and forensic
pathologist. Totally awesome.

F--

Why did I bother going to medical school and then seven years of residency?

I could have sat on my ass all day surfing the internet and become as smart
(and respected) as MX.

Your current medical is invalid until your treating doctor
fully releases you and you are not on any medication the FAA
finds disqualifying.
Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal Regulations >
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
e-CFR Data is current as of February 22, 2007




Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 61-CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND
GROUND INSTRUCTORS
Subpart A-General


Browse Previous | Browse Next


§ 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical
deficiency.
(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as
provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, a person who
holds a current medical certificate issued under part 67 of
this chapter shall not act as pilot in command, or in any
other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while
that person:

(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition
that would make the person unable to meet the requirements
for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot
operation; or

(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a
medical condition that results in the person being unable to
meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary
for the pilot operation.

(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.
For operations provided for in §61.23(b) of this part, a
person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other
capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that
person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition
that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in
a safe manner.

(c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S.
driver's license. For operations provided for in §61.23(c),
a person must meet the provisions of-

(1) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a
valid medical certificate issued under part 67 of this
chapter and does not hold a current and valid U.S. driver's
license.

(2) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a
current and valid U.S. driver's license.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by
Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44866, July 27, 2004]

"Chas" > wrote in message
. ..
| Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next
week. Anticipate
| some degree of chemical warfare post operation. Doc says
it may cause hot
| flashes, wife says welcome to her world.
|
| Current medical runs for another 14 months. I will be
talking to the AOPA
| folks but was curious if anyone had comparable experience
and could give me
| view as to hoops, traps, etc that I might anticipate.
|
| thx
|
| chuck
|
|

It is so much easier to fabricate, misunderstand, and misreport
information than actually be truthful.

MX does write well though, doesn't he?




data On Feb 26, 7:29 pm, "Viperdoc" >
wrote:
> Why did I bother going to medical school and then seven years of residency?
>
> I could have sat on my ass all day surfing the internet and become as smart
> (and respected) as MX.

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:03:54 -0500, Chas wrote:
>
>> Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next week.
>
> Sorry to hear that.
>
> As a very simple answer, the whole FAA medical system is based on
> incapacitation. If any part of your treatment or condition could lead to
> any form of incapacitation you'll have an uphill battle with them until
> you
> are finished with the treatment and can provide proof that you are in the
> clear.
>
> I assume you've read this?
> http://www.aopa.org/members/pic/medical/certification/cancer/breast.html
>
> BTW the AOPA Medical folks are a great resource.
>
> --
> Dallas

Thanks, I have indeed and have already gathered all records, except one
key test. Others will follow the surgery and what ever systemic treatment
is prescribed. Likely I'll have a better maintenance log on me than on the
rentals I fly.

Thanks for the cite. I hadn't gone to the FAR's yet. At first read it
appears that a) I'm grounded from my SEL activities and b) my pursuit of a
glider rating this spring may also be on hold although the wording in 61.53b
is a lawyers delight.

Definitive thing is get cured and that is of course my focus. Consideration
of FAA view is however a welcome distraction.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Your current medical is invalid until your treating doctor
> fully releases you and you are not on any medication the FAA
> finds disqualifying.
> Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal Regulations >
> Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
>
> Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
> e-CFR Data is current as of February 22, 2007
>
>
>
>
> Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
> PART 61-CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND
> GROUND INSTRUCTORS
> Subpart A-General
>
>
> Browse Previous | Browse Next
>
>
> § 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical
> deficiency.
> (a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as
> provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, a person who
> holds a current medical certificate issued under part 67 of
> this chapter shall not act as pilot in command, or in any
> other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while
> that person:
>
> (1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition
> that would make the person unable to meet the requirements
> for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot
> operation; or
>
> (2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a
> medical condition that results in the person being unable to
> meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary
> for the pilot operation.
>
> (b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.
> For operations provided for in §61.23(b) of this part, a
> person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other
> capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that
> person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition
> that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in
> a safe manner.
>
> (c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S.
> driver's license. For operations provided for in §61.23(c),
> a person must meet the provisions of-
>
> (1) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a
> valid medical certificate issued under part 67 of this
> chapter and does not hold a current and valid U.S. driver's
> license.
>
> (2) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a
> current and valid U.S. driver's license.
>
> [Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by
> Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44866, July 27, 2004]
>
> "Chas" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next
> week. Anticipate
> | some degree of chemical warfare post operation. Doc says
> it may cause hot
> | flashes, wife says welcome to her world.
> |
> | Current medical runs for another 14 months. I will be
> talking to the AOPA
> | folks but was curious if anyone had comparable experience
> and could give me
> | view as to hoops, traps, etc that I might anticipate.
> |
> | thx
> |
> | chuck
> |
> |
>
>

On Feb 26, 7:29 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Why did I bother going to medical school and then seven years of residency?
> I could have sat on my ass all day surfing the internet and become as smart
> (and respected) as MX.

If you have some knowledge to add to the conversation, let's hear it,
please. You won't gain any respect by tossing around null responses
like that one.

Kev

I am not looking for respect or affirmation- I get that every day by doing
my job to the best of my abilities.

On the other hand, I will not act professorial or knowledgeable without the
experience or credentials to support those opinions.

Would you accept the medical opinions of individuals because they seemed
nice or perhaps smart? Would you make potentially life altering decisions
based upon the advice of people who talk like they're experts?

If so, you should consider all sources as well as their background before
making such critical decisions. This is not a null response, and has serious
implications.

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)? 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?

TxSrv writes:

> A mere MSFS sim pilot is now also a physician and forensic
> pathologist. Totally awesome.

Thank you. But it's just a matter of reading.

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

Viperdoc writes:

> Who are you to say that any comment is
> not pertinent, particularly when you support the abrasive, condescending,
> and arrogant responses by MSX?

This made me smile again.

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

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.

("Viperdoc" wrote)
> Why did I bother going to medical school and then seven years of
> residency?


Seven years?

That's a long time till solo... <g,d,r>


Montblack

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

Chas,
I will not make any comments on your particular situation, the medical folks
have those answers.

But almost 9 years ago I started a fight with a particularly mean type of
cancer. After chemo, surgery, radiation and a metal implant to save my
femur from breaking at a later date, my orthopedic oncologist wrote a letter
to the FAA saying he could see no reason to keep me from flying. (this was
about 6 months after chemo/ 4 months after surgery/ 3 months after chemo/ 1
month after the metal implant). I ride a bicycle also, and my doc was
particularly adamant about the metal implant.

The right chemo was picked, my doc was fabulous with his knife, and the
radiation polished off the rest of the critters. Lots of CTs, MRIs, bone
scans etc. made the record stack way over max gross weight.

All medical records went to the FAA along with the doc's recommendation. In
a very short time....something like 6 weeks after my AME visit, I had a
"special issuance" 3rd class medical under FAR 67.401 signed by the FAA head
doc from OKC. It was only good for a short time (~5 months), but at the end
of that time, after the FAA saw I was getting checked every 3 months by my
doc, they issued a full year 3rd class medical.

I have to admit, dealing with the OKC FAA office was a breeze. I just had
to get all the paperwork and my oncologist doc's set of letters to the FAA.
After several special issuances from OKC, they came back with a letter
authorizing my normal AME to grant me another year extension after passing
the normal 3rd class physical. Sometimes my AME could hand me the paper,
sometimes it came from OKC, but in the past 8.5 years I was without a valid
3rd class for only a few days (usually because I did not get my act together
early enough and send in the required documentation to OKC about 2 months
before my medical expired). Of course, during initial diagnosis, chemo,
surgery and radiation my medical was invalid. But once my local docs wrote
the magic words, the FAA did its job. I'm still very impressed and
satisfied how the FAA handled my case. Yes, I believe the AOPA can help,
but I just called OKC and got all the details myself. They were very
accessible.

After 5 years, I got another letter from the FAA saying I was now eligible
for a standard two year medical and did not need a special issuance under
67.401. Last 2 medicals were standard, and I just keep giving them the
normal list of medical practitioner contacts like you have been doing at
your previous physicals.

If you desire, you may email me privately (removing the ".cutout" will get
you my valid address).

I wish you the best in your fight. I know that everyone here will be
pulling for you. You are among LOTS of friends.

Best Regards,
John Severyn

"Chas" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thanks for the cite. I hadn't gone to the FAR's yet. At first read it
> appears that a) I'm grounded from my SEL activities and b) my pursuit of a
> glider rating this spring may also be on hold although the wording in
> 61.53b is a lawyers delight.
>
> Definitive thing is get cured and that is of course my focus.
> Consideration of FAA view is however a welcome distraction.
>

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.

You can fly all the dual you want and can afford. Any
private or commercial pilot can be your PIC, it doesn't have
to be a CFI [check with insurance company].


"Chas" > wrote in message
. ..
| Thanks for the cite. I hadn't gone to the FAR's yet. At
first read it
| appears that a) I'm grounded from my SEL activities and b)
my pursuit of a
| glider rating this spring may also be on hold although the
wording in 61.53b
| is a lawyers delight.
|
| Definitive thing is get cured and that is of course my
focus. Consideration
| of FAA view is however a welcome distraction.
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > Your current medical is invalid until your treating
doctor
| > fully releases you and you are not on any medication the
FAA
| > finds disqualifying.
| > Home Page > Executive Branch > Code of Federal
Regulations >
| > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
| >
| > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
| > e-CFR Data is current as of February 22, 2007
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
| > PART 61-CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND
| > GROUND INSTRUCTORS
| > Subpart A-General
| >
| >
| > Browse Previous | Browse Next
| >
| >
| > § 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical
| > deficiency.
| > (a) Operations that require a medical certificate.
Except as
| > provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, a person
who
| > holds a current medical certificate issued under part 67
of
| > this chapter shall not act as pilot in command, or in
any
| > other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember,
while
| > that person:
| >
| > (1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition
| > that would make the person unable to meet the
requirements
| > for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot
| > operation; or
| >
| > (2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment
for a
| > medical condition that results in the person being
unable to
| > meet the requirements for the medical certificate
necessary
| > for the pilot operation.
| >
| > (b) Operations that do not require a medical
certificate.
| > For operations provided for in §61.23(b) of this part, a
| > person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any
other
| > capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while
that
| > person knows or has reason to know of any medical
condition
| > that would make the person unable to operate the
aircraft in
| > a safe manner.
| >
| > (c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S.
| > driver's license. For operations provided for in
§61.23(c),
| > a person must meet the provisions of-
| >
| > (1) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a
| > valid medical certificate issued under part 67 of this
| > chapter and does not hold a current and valid U.S.
driver's
| > license.
| >
| > (2) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a
| > current and valid U.S. driver's license.
| >
| > [Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended
by
| > Amdt. 61-110, 69 FR 44866, July 27, 2004]
| >
| > "Chas" > wrote in message
| > . ..
| > | Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy
next
| > week. Anticipate
| > | some degree of chemical warfare post operation. Doc
says
| > it may cause hot
| > | flashes, wife says welcome to her world.
| > |
| > | Current medical runs for another 14 months. I will be
| > talking to the AOPA
| > | folks but was curious if anyone had comparable
experience
| > and could give me
| > | view as to hoops, traps, etc that I might anticipate.
| > |
| > | thx
| > |
| > | chuck
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

In article >,
"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/articles/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=23&navID=67&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

Great post. I think that was what he was looking for.
"J. Severyn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Chas,
> I will not make any comments on your particular situation, the medical
> folks have those answers.
>
> But almost 9 years ago I started a fight with a particularly mean type of
> cancer. After chemo, surgery, radiation and a metal implant to save my
> femur from breaking at a later date, my orthopedic oncologist wrote a
> letter to the FAA saying he could see no reason to keep me from flying.
> (this was about 6 months after chemo/ 4 months after surgery/ 3 months
> after chemo/ 1 month after the metal implant). I ride a bicycle also, and
> my doc was particularly adamant about the metal implant.
>
> The right chemo was picked, my doc was fabulous with his knife, and the
> radiation polished off the rest of the critters. Lots of CTs, MRIs, bone
> scans etc. made the record stack way over max gross weight.
>
> All medical records went to the FAA along with the doc's recommendation.
> In a very short time....something like 6 weeks after my AME visit, I had a
> "special issuance" 3rd class medical under FAR 67.401 signed by the FAA
> head doc from OKC. It was only good for a short time (~5 months), but at
> the end of that time, after the FAA saw I was getting checked every 3
> months by my doc, they issued a full year 3rd class medical.
>
> I have to admit, dealing with the OKC FAA office was a breeze. I just had
> to get all the paperwork and my oncologist doc's set of letters to the
> FAA. After several special issuances from OKC, they came back with a
> letter authorizing my normal AME to grant me another year extension after
> passing the normal 3rd class physical. Sometimes my AME could hand me the
> paper, sometimes it came from OKC, but in the past 8.5 years I was without
> a valid 3rd class for only a few days (usually because I did not get my
> act together early enough and send in the required documentation to OKC
> about 2 months before my medical expired). Of course, during initial
> diagnosis, chemo, surgery and radiation my medical was invalid. But once
> my local docs wrote the magic words, the FAA did its job. I'm still very
> impressed and satisfied how the FAA handled my case. Yes, I believe the
> AOPA can help, but I just called OKC and got all the details myself. They
> were very accessible.
>
> After 5 years, I got another letter from the FAA saying I was now eligible
> for a standard two year medical and did not need a special issuance under
> 67.401. Last 2 medicals were standard, and I just keep giving them the
> normal list of medical practitioner contacts like you have been doing at
> your previous physicals.
>
> If you desire, you may email me privately (removing the ".cutout" will get
> you my valid address).
>
> I wish you the best in your fight. I know that everyone here will be
> pulling for you. You are among LOTS of friends.
>
> Best Regards,
> John Severyn
>
> "Chas" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Thanks for the cite. I hadn't gone to the FAR's yet. At first read it
>> appears that a) I'm grounded from my SEL activities and b) my pursuit of
>> a glider rating this spring may also be on hold although the wording in
>> 61.53b is a lawyers delight.
>>
>> Definitive thing is get cured and that is of course my focus.
>> Consideration of FAA view is however a welcome distraction.
>>
>
>

"Chas" > wrote in
:

> Just diagnosed with stage I breast cancer, mastectomy next week.
> Anticipate some degree of chemical warfare post operation. Doc says
> it may cause hot flashes, wife says welcome to her world.

Ouch...

> Current medical runs for another 14 months. I will be talking to the
> AOPA folks but was curious if anyone had comparable experience and
> could give me view as to hoops, traps, etc that I might anticipate.

Yeah, pretty similar. About 10 years ago I was diagnosed with colon
cancer. I had about 18 months left on the medical. Treatment was
surgery, followed by 13 months of chemo. [No, it was NOT the best year
of my life. <G>]

I talked off the record with a fairly high up FAA medical certification
person, as well as with a nationally known certification expert and AME.
Their suggestion: Use my best judgement.

We all "self certify" every day we fly. We could walk out of the AME's
office with a brand new medical, trip on the stairs and break a leg, and
be unfit to fly.

What I was told was that, in and of itself, cancer treatment is not
disqualifying. Being unfit to fly *is*. So the answer was to use good
judgement and fly when it was safe, and not when it was not.

What did I do:

o Get a letter from your doctor. The key phrase in the letter is that
you are "no more likely to experience sudden incapacitation than the
general population." You can dictate it to the doctor, or get a
suggested letter from the AOPA, but it needs those words in it.

o My chemo was mild, at least by comparison to what some folks were
going through. Some days I felt fine, and I flew. Some days I just
plain didn't feel like it.

o Further, my stamina was not what it otherwise would have been. That
meant no return flights at two o'clock in the morning after a long day
of meetings. And it meant more good VFR and less hard IFR to minimums
at the end of a five hour flight. [I carry up to seven hours fuel in
the tanks.]

By the end of the medical, I was off the chemo. I took the above
letter, plus another from my doctor, to the local AME and got my medical
renewed. Had to list the cancer on the form, of course, but it was all
a "done deal."

About three months later, as expected, I got the letter from the FAA
saying they were reviewing my medical and that I would have to turn it
in if they decided I was not fit. Now, this is key: They did NOT
revoke it - just review it. So I had a valid medical until they said
otherwise. [Which is really bizzarre if you think about it. I'm
recovering and fit to fly, but might not be later if they decide I
haven't recovered enough? <G>]

At their request I sent them FOURTEEN POUNDS of documents. Every X-ray,
CAT scan, MRI, etc. They insisted, and they will for you too. Start
collecting copies now if you want to avoid the rush later.

Another six months went by, and I get a letter saying I can keep my
medical.

All told, it boiled down to not flying when I wasn't comfortable with my
level of safety (common sense), plus the postage for a 14 pound FEDEX
box. I was able to fly as much as I felt fit to do so, the whole time.

Above all, be safe. Don't lie about anything on any application. But
there is no need for you to volunteer anything either. Make sure you
know how any follow up treatments are going to effect you. Then go
enjoy your life.

jmk


-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1300 Koenig Lane West fax 512-371-5716
Suite 200
Austin, Tx 78756
-----------------------------------------------

On Feb 27, 1:11 am, "J. Severyn" > wrote:
> Chas,
> I will not make any comments on your particular situation, the medical folks
> have those answers.
>
> But almost 9 years ago I started a fight with a particularly mean type of
> cancer. After chemo, surgery, radiation and a metal implant to save my
> femur from breaking at a later date, my orthopedic oncologist wrote a letter
> to the FAA saying he could see no reason to keep me from flying. (this was
> about 6 months after chemo/ 4 months after surgery/ 3 months after chemo/ 1
> month after the metal implant).

John (and Jim) thanks for your detailed experiences. John, can I ask
what type of cancer? One thing that seems important to the FAA is
the type, and whether it's spread or not.

Here's a short example list for AOPA members:

http://www.aopa.org/members/pic/medical/certification/cancer/

It claims, for example, that with colon cancer it might only take six
months, whereas with some lung cancers, it could take five years.

Stay indication free!
Regards, Kev

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
:

> Your current medical is invalid until your treating doctor
> fully releases you and you are not on any medication the FAA
> finds disqualifying.

> (1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition
> that would make the person unable to meet the requirements
> for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot
> operation; or
>
> (2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a
> medical condition that results in the person being unable to
> meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary
> for the pilot operation.

I don't think what you say is complete or correct. The above FAA quotes
are certainly true, but do not necessarily imply that you doctor must
"fully release you." Heck, by that logic anyone on any ongoing
treatment (for example, on a sustaining blood pressure medication
program) would not be allowed to fly.

What *is* required is just what the FAA says:

o Not on any disqualifying medications.

o Has reason to know of any condition that would make them unable to
meet the requirements for a medical. [I.e. unsafe to fly.]

And let me stress, I would NOT suggest anyone do otherwise. None of us
want a pilot (whether we are on the plane or not) passing out or having
seizures. But that leaves a LOT of area where the person is a perfectly
safe pilot, is taking medications that are not disapproved, and has no
reason to believe they have any condition which would render them unable
to safely complete the anticipated flight.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1300 Koenig Lane West fax 512-371-5716
Suite 200
Austin, Tx 78756
-----------------------------------------------

Kev writes:

> It claims, for example, that with colon cancer it might only take six
> months, whereas with some lung cancers, it could take five years.

I still don't understand why they care. The risk of _sudden_ incapacitation
from metastases is virtually zero.

As if that weren't enough, one can imagine the impact on someone with
extremely advanced metastatic disease that is not likely to resolve when the
doctor says, "Oh, and for your last six months, you're not allowed to do what
you love the most."

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

Kev,
Thanks for the best wishes....

Sure. It was a fairly rare cancer called MFH .. Malignant Fibrous
Histiocytoma. Only about 5000 cases in the US every year. Fortunately my
HMO had a doc that saw a relatively large number of cases of this junk and
specialized in its treatment. I was at the right place at the right time,
but had a bad cancer. That special doc is no longer at my HMO, but to his
credit, is now teaching at UCSF in San Francisco. I'm glad he is giving his
knowledge to the next generation of physicians.

After losing 50 pounds on the chemo, he said....."it is time to operate".
All went well. But I did lose a few extra pounds of flesh (tumor) on my
leg. The radiation killed half of my femur, but a set of interlocking
titanium-niobium rods supports it and I still ride a bicycle
today......although with much more care. And of course I have my standard
3rd class medical back.... and right now I'm taking a break from studying
for an Instrument Ground quiz we are having in class this evening.

Yes I was lucky.... no metatastic sites...or they were so small that the
chemo got them..and now that is fairly sure as I'm way down on the right
side of the re-occurrence bell curve. In my case it peaks at 18 months.

I just hope that Chas is fortunate to find a great medical team.... and
assuming he is listening... works with them....and asks lots of questions.
My doc kept me in on all the decisions. At one point he told me...."it is
50-50....what way do you want to go?" That gives you POWER.....It really
made me feel like I was taking hold of the horns of this monster and
winning..... Although at the time it was frightening. As a pilot, you can
understand the technical stuff. I even mapped radiation on the rest of my
body, by taping dosimeters under my Tshirt. (I had access to small
thermoluminescent dosimeters and a way of reading them). Funny... after my
last radiation treatment, the rad doc said, "Hey.....you know about this
stuff, you should have brought in some dosimeters. We would have let you
use them." I about choked.....because that is exactly what I had done. I
should have been more trusting and just asked. But the dose outside the
tumor area was just as he had predicted.... Those docs and techs really
know their high tech radiation machines. (thank you Varian and Siemens)

Chas..... we are so fortunate! Many of our illnesses would have been fatal
50 years ago. Today, the opposite is the norm. I hope your medical team
works as well as mine did. In any case, I for one, have you and Jim and all
folks who fight these battles in my thoughts every day.

Best Wishes,
John Severyn


"Kev" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 27, 1:11 am, "J. Severyn" > wrote:
>> Chas,
>> I will not make any comments on your particular situation, the medical
>> folks
>> have those answers.
>>
>> But almost 9 years ago I started a fight with a particularly mean type of
>> cancer. After chemo, surgery, radiation and a metal implant to save my
>> femur from breaking at a later date, my orthopedic oncologist wrote a
>> letter
>> to the FAA saying he could see no reason to keep me from flying. (this
>> was
>> about 6 months after chemo/ 4 months after surgery/ 3 months after chemo/
>> 1
>> month after the metal implant).
>
> John (and Jim) thanks for your detailed experiences. John, can I ask
> what type of cancer? One thing that seems important to the FAA is
> the type, and whether it's spread or not.
>
> Here's a short example list for AOPA members:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/members/pic/medical/certification/cancer/
>
> It claims, for example, that with colon cancer it might only take six
> months, whereas with some lung cancers, it could take five years.
>
> Stay indication free!
> Regards, Kev
>

John, Kev, and others,

Knowing you both navigated the tunnel and came out well is good reassuring
news indeed to me. Thanks for your thoughts and good wishes, and thanks to
others who responded with helpful info.

I have a great set of docs and a well known cancer center on my side. Its
still a scary thing. Mental attitude swings from the mostly coolly
analytical to occasional bouts of real fear.

It will work out. My prognosis is excellent at this point. The cancer,
while invasive shows no evidence of spread and was caught early. Second
opinion was sought from another well respected fellow and the opinions
received and likely treatment plans offerred were virtually identical to my
first doc.

Google has become my new best friend as I attempt to understand all I can
about the beast. Drinking from a fire hose comes to mind. None of this is
new to you I am sure. Lots of treatment topics options remain open pending
post-op path reports, so we wait for the next shoe to drop.

The FAA medical seems quite doable as well, thanks for sharing your
experiences there as well..


Thanks again, and good luck on the instrument training John.


"J. Severyn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kev,
> Thanks for the best wishes....
>
> Sure. It was a fairly rare cancer called MFH .. Malignant Fibrous
> Histiocytoma. Only about 5000 cases in the US every year. Fortunately my
> HMO had a doc that saw a relatively large number of cases of this junk and
> specialized in its treatment. I was at the right place at the right time,
> but had a bad cancer. That special doc is no longer at my HMO, but to his
> credit, is now teaching at UCSF in San Francisco. I'm glad he is giving
> his knowledge to the next generation of physicians.
>
> After losing 50 pounds on the chemo, he said....."it is time to operate".
> All went well. But I did lose a few extra pounds of flesh (tumor) on my
> leg. The radiation killed half of my femur, but a set of interlocking
> titanium-niobium rods supports it and I still ride a bicycle
> today......although with much more care. And of course I have my standard
> 3rd class medical back.... and right now I'm taking a break from studying
> for an Instrument Ground quiz we are having in class this evening.
>
> Yes I was lucky.... no metatastic sites...or they were so small that the
> chemo got them..and now that is fairly sure as I'm way down on the right
> side of the re-occurrence bell curve. In my case it peaks at 18 months.
>
> I just hope that Chas is fortunate to find a great medical team.... and
> assuming he is listening... works with them....and asks lots of questions.
> My doc kept me in on all the decisions. At one point he told me...."it is
> 50-50....what way do you want to go?" That gives you POWER.....It really
> made me feel like I was taking hold of the horns of this monster and
> winning..... Although at the time it was frightening. As a pilot, you
> can understand the technical stuff. I even mapped radiation on the rest
> of my body, by taping dosimeters under my Tshirt. (I had access to small
> thermoluminescent dosimeters and a way of reading them). Funny... after
> my last radiation treatment, the rad doc said, "Hey.....you know about
> this stuff, you should have brought in some dosimeters. We would have let
> you use them." I about choked.....because that is exactly what I had
> done. I should have been more trusting and just asked. But the dose
> outside the tumor area was just as he had predicted.... Those docs and
> techs really know their high tech radiation machines. (thank you Varian
> and Siemens)
>
> Chas..... we are so fortunate! Many of our illnesses would have been
> fatal 50 years ago. Today, the opposite is the norm. I hope your medical
> team works as well as mine did. In any case, I for one, have you and Jim
> and all folks who fight these battles in my thoughts every day.
>
> Best Wishes,
> John Severyn
>
>
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On Feb 27, 1:11 am, "J. Severyn" > wrote:
>>> Chas,
>>> I will not make any comments on your particular situation, the medical
>>> folks
>>> have those answers.
>>>
>>> But almost 9 years ago I started a fight with a particularly mean type
>>> of
>>> cancer. After chemo, surgery, radiation and a metal implant to save my
>>> femur from breaking at a later date, my orthopedic oncologist wrote a
>>> letter
>>> to the FAA saying he could see no reason to keep me from flying. (this
>>> was
>>> about 6 months after chemo/ 4 months after surgery/ 3 months after
>>> chemo/ 1
>>> month after the metal implant).
>>
>> John (and Jim) thanks for your detailed experiences. John, can I ask
>> what type of cancer? One thing that seems important to the FAA is
>> the type, and whether it's spread or not.
>>
>> Here's a short example list for AOPA members:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/members/pic/medical/certification/cancer/
>>
>> It claims, for example, that with colon cancer it might only take six
>> months, whereas with some lung cancers, it could take five years.
>>
>> Stay indication free!
>> Regards, Kev
>>
>
>

On Feb 27, 8:40 pm, "Chas" > wrote:
> Knowing you both navigated the tunnel and came out well is good reassuring
> news indeed to me. Thanks for your thoughts and good wishes, and thanks to
> others who responded with helpful info.

Don't let stats scare you, is the main thing. At my stage, stats said
only a 1 in 5 chance of making it past a few years. Heck, I was only
given four months at first diagnosis. However, I intend to be on the
good side of the equations :-) I have to be, I've got a four year
old little girl, and that's the main reason I put up with so much.

> I have a great set of docs and a well known cancer center on my side. Its
> still a scary thing. Mental attitude swings from the mostly coolly
> analytical to occasional bouts of real fear.

Understood fully. One good thing that happened because of this for
me, though, was that I finally took care of a lot of paperwork (will,
etc). While that should've been really depressing, in the end it
helped that I knew much was ready.

> Google has become my new best friend as I attempt to understand all I can
> about the beast. Drinking from a fire hose comes to mind.

Yes, you'll read a ton. Yet it's astonishing to me how little data
has been collated in a useful way. For example, why isn't there a
definitive set of data on what diet helps for each kind of
carcinoma? Etc.

I'm glad that hearing from other survivors helps. It really is
amazing how treatment results have progressed, even though much of it
is still Dark Ages stuff (poisons both chemical and radiological).

You'll be fine. Hang in there and thanks also from my side, for
making me work a little bit more towards getting back into the sky.
I'm still weak much of the time, but getting better too. It just
takes time.

Regards, Kev

"Chas" > wrote in message
...
> John, Kev, and others,
>
snip>

> Thanks again, and good luck on the instrument training John.
>
>
Thanks Chas for the luck from you.

I really feel that you are all ready grabbing the bull by the horns. I
really do keep you, Kev and James and many others in my thoughts. I wish
all of you the very, very best.

John Severyn

"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/articles/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=23&navID=67&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.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kev writes:
>
>> The FAA view is that if you have a known cancer, then you could also
>> have unseen brain / nervous system damage.
>
> Wow! They are _really_ grasping at straws here. Who makes these
> decisions?

Doctors. Maybe you can practice a bit with your Nintendo and a copy of
"under the knife" and take it up with them.



Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Who are you to say that any comment is
>> not pertinent, particularly when you support the abrasive,
>> condescending, and arrogant responses by MSX?
>
> This made me smile again.
>

how can you tell when you're smiling?



Bertie