FAA Medical Question

[T182T]

I have always had a First-Class medical, not because my aviation
activity (PPL/IR) requires it, but mostly in case I don’t get in to see
the doctor in time, so it derates to a second class instead of leaving
me grounded. That happened this year for the first time, because my
doctor told me she is retiring, so I need to find someone else.

I have moderate arterial hypertension (about 160/110 uncontrolled)
which is well controlled (130/85) with a calcium channel blocker
(verapamil, 360 mg/d). This condition is unchanged throughout all the
years I have been flying. Also, because I am over 40 and I always get a
first-class medical, it means I have an EKG every year, and these have
always been perfectly normal.

My problem is that my AME has always considered this well-controlled
condition to be not serious enough to bother with the FAA procedures,
and not worth declaring. So all these years I have declared that I am
not taking any medication, when this is not in fact true. My question
is, now that I have to change AME, is this the time to "come clean" with
the FAA and declare this condition? I have never lied to the medical
examiner, she is the one who suggested I not declare it, stating that I
do not have a serious medical condition or a higher chance that the
average person to have a health-related incident when flying. If I
don’t say this to the new AME then it becomes me who is not telling the
truth, and I know the FAA takes a dim view of this. On the other hand,
if I come forward with it then it becomes obvious there has been a
"white lie" for many years. I am also concerned for the AME. Even if she
is now retired, I’m concerned another doctor could find fault with her
method, even though she has always been very thorough, and my exams have
rarely lasted less than 2 hours with all the tests and questionnaires.

Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

[gil hamilton]

> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

Yikes! I am not an attorney so I may not really know.... But, I would
contact AOPA and get their take. IMHO even tho the AME advised you to
not report the condition, it is YOUR signature on the form and thus
you are responsible for misrepresentation on the FAA form. A real no-
no.

BTW I take 240 mg verapamil and have to get an ECG every 2 years to
get a 3rd class medical.

Regards,
Jerry

[gil hamilton]

> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

Yikes! I am not an attorney so I may not really know.... But, I would
contact AOPA and get their take. IMHO even tho the AME advised you to
not report the condition, it is YOUR signature on the form and thus
you are responsible for misrepresentation on the FAA form. A real no-
no.

BTW I take 240 mg verapamil and have to get an ECG every 2 years to
get a 3rd class medical.

[gil hamilton]

> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

Yikes! I am not an attorney so I may not really know.... But, I would
contact AOPA and get their take. IMHO even tho the AME advised you to
not report the condition, it is YOUR signature on the form and thus
you are responsible for misrepresentation on the FAA form. A real no-
no.

BTW I take 240 mg verapamil and have to get an ECG every 2 years to
get a 3rd class medical.

gil

[[email protected]]

T182T > wrote:
> I have always had a First-Class medical, not because my aviation
> activity (PPL/IR) requires it, but mostly in case I don?t get in to see
> the doctor in time, so it derates to a second class instead of leaving
> me grounded. That happened this year for the first time, because my
> doctor told me she is retiring, so I need to find someone else.
>
> I have moderate arterial hypertension (about 160/110 uncontrolled)
> which is well controlled (130/85) with a calcium channel blocker
> (verapamil, 360 mg/d). This condition is unchanged throughout all the
> years I have been flying. Also, because I am over 40 and I always get a
> first-class medical, it means I have an EKG every year, and these have
> always been perfectly normal.
>
> My problem is that my AME has always considered this well-controlled
> condition to be not serious enough to bother with the FAA procedures,
> and not worth declaring. So all these years I have declared that I am
> not taking any medication, when this is not in fact true. My question
> is, now that I have to change AME, is this the time to "come clean" with
> the FAA and declare this condition? I have never lied to the medical
> examiner, she is the one who suggested I not declare it, stating that I
> do not have a serious medical condition or a higher chance that the
> average person to have a health-related incident when flying. If I
> don?t say this to the new AME then it becomes me who is not telling the
> truth, and I know the FAA takes a dim view of this. On the other hand,
> if I come forward with it then it becomes obvious there has been a
> "white lie" for many years. I am also concerned for the AME. Even if she
> is now retired, I?m concerned another doctor could find fault with her
> method, even though she has always been very thorough, and my exams have
> rarely lasted less than 2 hours with all the tests and questionnaires.
>
> Question for those who really know - What?s the best thing for me to do?
>

Well, since anything over 155 is disqualifying and all the tests and
treatments to keep it under 155 have to be reported, somebody, likely you,
is in trouble.

If not an AOPA member, join immediately and sign up for the Legal Services
Plan (which you are likely going to need) and pose your question to the
AOPA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

T182T writes:

> My problem is that my AME has always considered this well-controlled
> condition to be not serious enough to bother with the FAA procedures,
> and not worth declaring. So all these years I have declared that I am
> not taking any medication, when this is not in fact true.

It's your signature, so you are the one making a fraudulent declaration, which
is not good (for you).

> My question is, now that I have to change AME, is this the time to
> "come clean" with the FAA and declare this condition?

You need to talk to a lawyer, not an AME. This sounds like a very delicate
situation that will backfire seriously on you if you don't handle it with the
utmost care.

> I have never lied to the medical examiner, she is the one who suggested
> I not declare it, stating that I do not have a serious medical condition
> or a higher chance that the average person to have a health-related
> incident when flying.

In practical terms, she is right, but legally, she's wrong. You have to
declare it, and so does she. Unfortunately the ultimate responsibility is
yours, because you're supposed to know that you must declare everything, and
it isn't necessary to be a doctor to know this and do this.

The AME might be in the wrong, too (and now everyone to whom she has given a
medical is going to be suspect), but you need to worry about yourself.

> If I don’t say this to the new AME then it becomes me who is not telling the
> truth, and I know the FAA takes a dim view of this.

You've already failed to declare it, which the FAA views very dimly as well.

> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

Find a lawyer who is an expert in aviation law and follow his advice. Doctors
are not lawyers, so they cannot help you here, as this is a legal issue, not a
medical issue.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 14, 1:23 pm, T182T > wrote:

> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

As others indicated, contact AOPA for an authoritive answer.

My UNauthoritive answer AFTER I looked at the AOPA online medical
form.

The question reads:

17a. Do You Currently Use Any Medication (Prescription or
NonPrescription)?

No Yes If yes, in the space below, list medications used and
check appropriate box indicating whether or not it was previously
reported.

18. Medical History

Down to H under 18

18. Medical History

HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR LIFE BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH, HAD, OR DO YOU
PRESENTLY HAVE any of the following? In the EXPLANATIONS box, you may
note "PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, NO CHANGE" only if the explanation of the
condition was reported on a previous application for an airman medical
certificate and there has been no change in your condition. See
Instructions Page.

h. Yes No High or low blood pressure

Just answer yes and move on putting in the explanation (H) high blood
pressure. Nothing is asked about a start date of your treatment. My
high BP was discovered during an exam and it was no big deal once I
complied with what the FAA needed. (BP was 220 / 170). I saw a
cardiologist, had a nuclear stress test and moved on once my BP came
down to human levels with Diovan. There is nothing to say your
condition wasn't discovered between your last medical and your current
one or any questions with regards to onset..

AGAIN as others indicated, check with AOPA for an authoritive answer
and consider my post an opinion of one.

[Bob Moore]

T182T > wrote

> I have always had a First-Class medical, not because my aviation
> activity (PPL/IR) requires it, but mostly in case I don’t get in to see
> the doctor in time, so it derates to a second class instead of leaving
> me grounded.

Waste of both time and money. For Private Pilot operations, 1st, 2nd, and
3rd class medical certificates all have exactly the same total valid time.

Bob Moore ATP/CFI (with a 3rd class medical)

[betwys1]

On 7/14/2010 1:23 PM, T182T wrote:
> I have always had a First-Class medical, not because my aviation
> activity (PPL/IR) requires it, but mostly in case I don’t get in to see
> the doctor in time, so it derates to a second class instead of leaving
> me grounded. That happened this year for the first time, because my
> doctor told me she is retiring, so I need to find someone else.
>
> I have moderate arterial hypertension (about 160/110 uncontrolled)
> which is well controlled (130/85) with a calcium channel blocker
> (verapamil, 360 mg/d). This condition is unchanged throughout all the
> years I have been flying. Also, because I am over 40 and I always get a
> first-class medical, it means I have an EKG every year, and these have
> always been perfectly normal.
>
> My problem is that my AME has always considered this well-controlled
> condition to be not serious enough to bother with the FAA procedures,
> and not worth declaring. So all these years I have declared that I am
> not taking any medication, when this is not in fact true. My question
> is, now that I have to change AME, is this the time to "come clean" with
> the FAA and declare this condition? I have never lied to the medical
> examiner, she is the one who suggested I not declare it, stating that I
> do not have a serious medical condition or a higher chance that the
> average person to have a health-related incident when flying. If I
> don’t say this to the new AME then it becomes me who is not telling the
> truth, and I know the FAA takes a dim view of this. On the other hand,
> if I come forward with it then it becomes obvious there has been a
> "white lie" for many years. I am also concerned for the AME. Even if she
> is now retired, I’m concerned another doctor could find fault with her
> method, even though she has always been very thorough, and my exams have
> rarely lasted less than 2 hours with all the tests and questionnaires.
>
> Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?
>

You know that there is only one answer that will do.
And you know that the FAA can handle single declared medicines to
control blood pressure, when they are declared.

Brian W

[RST Engineering[_2_]]

On 14 Jul 2010 22:01:53 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:


>
>Waste of both time and money. For Private Pilot operations, 1st, 2nd, and
>3rd class medical certificates all have exactly the same total valid time.


Yeah, but ...

When I lived down south, I had an AME with license #17. He was 78
when I first met him and 88 when he turned his shingle around. His
teen-aged daughter worked in the office. You do the math. If you
couldn't bend over and touch your toes, he'd slam both palms face down
on the floor and say, "like THAT". Marvelous man.

His advice (since a 1st class and a 3rd class were the same price !!)
was to go for the first class on the off chance that some yoyo will
involve you in an accident and you will be able to prove that you were
in 1st class shape not too many months ago.

Just for my 8% of two bits.

Jim

[T182T]

In article >,
says...

>His advice (since a 1st class and a 3rd class were the same price !!)
>was to go for the first class on the off chance that some yoyo will
>involve you in an accident and you will be able to prove that you were
>in 1st class shape not too many months ago.
>
>Just for my 8% of two bits.
>
>Jim
>


I agree with this. As pilots, we are goal and performance oriented, and we
go for what we can get!
A First-Class medical is a goal all of us can establish early, but none can
maintain indefinitely, so why not keep it as long as we can? It is cheap,
compared with other certificates we hold.
For me personally, I prefer the obligatory ECG. Just as I enjoy and pursue
advanced ratings and qualifications. Keep the learning curve high and avoid
getting behind in your game. In medical terms, go for First Class until you
no longer qualify for it. For me, despite this little snafu, I’m looking at
another couple of decades!

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:41:56 +0200, T182T wrote:

> A First-Class medical is a goal all of us can establish early, but none
> can maintain indefinitely, so why not keep it as long as we can?

I've followed this as well, and I'm healthy enough that I've no concerns
about it.

However, some of the older pilots I know have warned me against this
practice. The concern is apparently that the more in-depth examination
might expose something that would be disqualifying - once known - even
for a 3rd class medical.

I've mixed feelings. On one hand, I'd hate to lose my medical by "over
testing". On the other hand, I'd hate to be caught aware of a medical
problem that could have been detected earlier.

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:41:56 +0200, T182T wrote:
>
>> A First-Class medical is a goal all of us can establish early, but none
>> can maintain indefinitely, so why not keep it as long as we can?
>
> I've followed this as well, and I'm healthy enough that I've no concerns
> about it.
>
> However, some of the older pilots I know have warned me against this
> practice. The concern is apparently that the more in-depth examination
> might expose something that would be disqualifying - once known - even
> for a 3rd class medical.
>
> I've mixed feelings. On one hand, I'd hate to lose my medical by "over
> testing". On the other hand, I'd hate to be caught aware of a medical
> problem that could have been detected earlier.
>
> - Andrew

If you get a real physical from your private physician and he/she finds
something, you have the chance of getting it under control to FAA standards
by the time your next FAA physical comes around.

If it is found during your FAA physical, you are screwed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mike Adams[_1_]]

wrote:

>
> If you get a real physical from your private physician and he/she
> finds something, you have the chance of getting it under control to
> FAA standards by the time your next FAA physical comes around.
>
> If it is found during your FAA physical, you are screwed.


You may be screwed either way. If you have your own physical and it finds
something, you're obligated to report it on the FAA medical application
form.

Mike

[[email protected]]

Mike Adams > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you get a real physical from your private physician and he/she
>> finds something, you have the chance of getting it under control to
>> FAA standards by the time your next FAA physical comes around.
>>
>> If it is found during your FAA physical, you are screwed.
>
>
> You may be screwed either way. If you have your own physical and it finds
> something, you're obligated to report it on the FAA medical application
> form.
>
> Mike

Yes, there is always the possibility that you will develop something that
will cause you to fail an FAA physical.

The point is if your personal physician finds it, you at least have a chance
to get it under control before you take a FAA physical and get yourself
denied.

And if you are denied, you can forget about even flying LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Mike Adams" > wrote in message
.. .
>If you have your own physical and it finds something, you're obligated to
>report it on the FAA medical application
> form.


This is a classic case of unintended consequences from a perfectly
reasonable-sounding governmental regulation. The requirement for medical
certification may actually make pilots, especially Commercial pilots, LESS
healthy because any visit to their private physician has the potential to ground
them and forever remove their livelihood. It is hard to think of any other
group of workers with that type of potential bombshell hanging over their head.

Vaughn

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 17, 9:17*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Mike Adams" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> >If you have your own physical and it finds *something, you're obligated to
> >report it on the FAA medical application
> > form.
>
> This is a classic case of unintended consequences from a perfectly
> reasonable-sounding governmental regulation. *The requirement for medical
> certification may actually make pilots, especially Commercial pilots, LESS
> healthy because any visit to their private physician has the potential to ground
> them and forever remove their livelihood. *It is hard to think of any other
> group of workers with that type of potential bombshell hanging over their head.
>
> Vaughn

Interesting take, and may have some truth, but in that the government
is the certifying authority there is an obligation on its part to
unleash on the rest of us people capable of performing the tasks they
are certified as capable. The other weeding out process, the BFI,
probably helps catch some of the medical misses. That leads to an
interesting question: has there been any work that demonstrates the
BFI has led to a safer universe of pilots?

A related question might focus on some kind of proficiency test for
drivers -- at least a test for reflexes!

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Interesting take, and may have some truth, but in that the government
> is the certifying authority there is an obligation on its part to
> unleash on the rest of us people capable of performing the tasks they
> are certified as capable.

Current medical standards are excessively strict, more suited to 1960s
astronauts than to modern-day pilots. In reality, pilot incapacitation for
medical reasons is virtually unknown.

And before you say that's because the sick pilots are weeded out by strict
medicals, consider the fact that medical incapacitation is also virtually
unknown among automobile drivers. It's pretty unusual for someone to become
incapacitated at the wheel of an automobile, even among drivers who are in
questionable health.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 17, 9:17*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Mike Adams" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> >If you have your own physical and it finds *something, you're obligated to
> >report it on the FAA medical application
> > form.
>
> This is a classic case of unintended consequences from a perfectly
> reasonable-sounding governmental regulation. *The requirement for medical
> certification may actually make pilots, especially Commercial pilots, LESS
> healthy because any visit to their private physician has the potential to ground
> them and forever remove their livelihood. *It is hard to think of any other
> group of workers with that type of potential bombshell hanging over their head.
>
> Vaughn

I had a conversation about a related subject yesterday. This had to do
with recruiting healthy subjects in the 40 to 60 year old range for a
clinical trial. The principal investigator mentioned that about 1 in 8
of those who self reported themselves as 'healthy' failed to meet the
screening criteria and were referred to their primary care physician
or a cardiologist. This 'unintended experiment' more or less led me to
conclude most of us with class 2 or 3 physicals may only see an MD for
a regular check up as part of of flight physical, and that is probably
the first time many of us learn of an underlying problem.

The obvious exception of course would be eye examinations.

Some health problems are preventable -- there are better reasons than
a desire to fly as PIC to stay fit, but no matter what the reason,
just do it! (Full disclosure, I own Nike stock.)

I do agree some small number when learning of a problem from someone
other than a flight surgeon will try to hide it. If the uncovered
disease is cardio pulmonary messing around in airplanes around 10,000
feet without supplementary O2 is not smart and it would be a good idea
for a prudent pilot to know that.

For what it's worth I have no such problems, but have been persuaded
O2 and a bottle of 5 Hour Energy is a good way to stay safe at 10,000
feet at night. (Hey guys, Five Hour Energy has a lot less fluid than a
thermos of high octane coffee, and that makes the need for urinating
into a ziplock bag on a long XC less likely -- more than you wanted
to know, huh?).

[[email protected]]

On Jul 18, 8:31*am, a > wrote:

>This 'unintended experiment' more or less led me to
> conclude most of us with class 2 or 3 physicals may only see an MD for
> a regular check up as part of of flight physical, and that is probably
> the first time many of us learn of an underlying problem.

Yep, describes me to the tee. 2 very serious conditions for me was
discovered during my medical. One as described in my prior post
extreme hypertension and another was pre-melanoma freckle on my back
that look like a freckle to me. Both considered silent killers since
I had no "symptoms" to complain about.

So, this pilot doesn't complain about the nuances of the medical
process.

Of course I now see a doctor once a year for my BP medication renewal
but even then it's less then an FAA medical review.

[vaughn[_3_]]

"a" > wrote in message
...
> and that is probably
>the first time many of us learn of an underlying problem.

Perhaps, but I don't know of any serious research that proves that the present
FAA medical certification system has any statistically significant role in
predicting/preventing incidents of sudden pilot incapacitation. (The system has
virtually no role in detecting declining judgement, reaction time, or flying
skills; that is why we have the flight review process.)

>The obvious exception of course would be eye examinations.

How so? Actually eyes can get pretty bad before a person finally stops
compensating and seeks help. The same is true for hearing.

>Some health problems are preventable -- there are better reasons than
>a desire to fly as PIC to stay fit, but no matter what the reason,
>just do it! (Full disclosure, I own Nike stock.)

I tended towards overweight until I finally got serious about being a glider
pilot. Then I took off the extra poundage and have been thus for the last 15-20
years.

>I do agree some small number when learning of a problem from someone
>other than a flight surgeon will try to hide it.

Agree with all above except the word "small".

>If the uncovered
>disease is cardio pulmonary messing around in airplanes around 10,000
>feet without supplementary O2 is not smart and it would be a good idea
>for a prudent pilot to know that.

True. You can buy a blood oxygen tester for under $100.00 these days. (Knowing
your O2 saturation at altitude is important, but is still not the whole story)

Vaughn

..

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 18, 12:28*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "a" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > and that is probably
> >the first time many of us learn of an underlying problem.
>
> Perhaps, but I don't know of any serious research that proves that the present
> FAA medical certification system has any statistically significant role in
> predicting/preventing incidents of sudden pilot incapacitation. *(The system has
> virtually no role in detecting declining judgement, reaction time, or flying
> skills; that is why we have the flight review process.)
>
> >The obvious exception of course would be eye examinations.
>
> How so? *Actually eyes can get pretty bad before a person finally stops
> compensating and seeks help. *The same is true for hearing.
>
> >Some health problems are preventable -- there are better reasons than
> >a desire to fly as PIC to stay fit, but no matter what the reason,
> >just do it! (Full disclosure, I own Nike stock.)
>
> I tended towards overweight until I finally got serious about being a glider
> pilot. *Then I took off the extra poundage and have been thus for the last 15-20
> years.
>
> >I do agree some small number when learning of a problem from someone
> >other than a flight surgeon will try to hide it.
>
> Agree with all above except the word "small".
>
> >If the uncovered
> >disease is cardio pulmonary messing around in airplanes around 10,000
> >feet without supplementary O2 is not smart and it would be a good idea
> >for a prudent pilot to know that.
>
> True. *You can buy a blood oxygen tester for under $100.00 these days. *(Knowing
> your O2 saturation at altitude is important, but is still not the whole story)
>
> Vaughn
>
> .

I have not attempted to find evidence that medicals prevent accidents
-- the research may not have been done. Not many accidents in GA have
medical/physical incapacitation listed as the cause, which does NOT
mean the medical certification is preventing such causes. There are, I
think we can agree, physical conditions that are not as much a cause
for concern on the ground as they might be in the air, but I have no
evidence as to how often the exam uncovers them.

I mentioned eye tests because some of us visit eye care professionals
at intervals different than we visit flight surgeons. I've already
learned my personal habits and findings are likely different than many
others who enjoy GA, but I based my comments on my experience and
those other pilots with whom I am friendly who pretty much fly like I
do (namely, the airplane is a business tool that can get us door to
door faster if the trip is less than say 800 miles faster than most
other ways.)

Good for you in deciding if you needed additional ballast you'd add
water rather than fat! There is some emerging analysis that tends to
suggest human life span in the US may stop extending and may in fact
contract with the increasing obesity and the problems that brings. We
were at a flea market at the Sate Fair Grounds in NC yesterday, and
came across -- I kid you not! -- a vendor offering chocolate covered
bacon!

What wine would go with that?

[Morgans[_2_]]

> We
> were at a flea market at the Sate Fair Grounds in NC yesterday, and
> came across -- I kid you not! -- a vendor offering chocolate covered
> bacon!
>
> What wine would go with that?

Chuckle-

How about deep fried butter? Yep, I kid you not. There has been some for
sale there, in past years.
--
Jim in NC

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:28:17 -0400, vaughn wrote:

> I tended towards overweight until I finally got serious about being a
> glider pilot. Then I took off the extra poundage and have been thus for
> the last 15-20 years.

Hanging around pilots, many of whom are overweight, that face losing
their medicals is also rather motivating. At least, it has been so for
me.

- Andrew

[Mxsmanic]

Stephen! writes:

> Commercial truck drivers.

Many vehicle operators in general, but none to the extent of pilots, as far as
I know (unless the medical requirements for truck drivers have become
excessively stringent).

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stephen! writes:
>
>> Commercial truck drivers.
>
> Many vehicle operators in general, but none to the extent of pilots, as far as
> I know (unless the medical requirements for truck drivers have become
> excessively stringent).

Well, that just shows what you know.

In some respects the requirements for a truck driver are stricter and some
more lax.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Well, that just shows what you know.
>
> In some respects the requirements for a truck driver are stricter and some
> more lax.

Which ones?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Well, that just shows what you know.
>>
>> In some respects the requirements for a truck driver are stricter and some
>> more lax.
>
> Which ones?

How much are you paying me to do the reading for you?

I'll throw you a bone; the max blood pressure for pilots is 155 and for
truck drivers it is 180.

You can look up the rest yourself.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> How much are you paying me to do the reading for you?
>
> I'll throw you a bone; the max blood pressure for pilots is 155 and for
> truck drivers it is 180.

And what are the stricter requirements?

[[email protected]]

On Jul 20, 5:35*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > How much are you paying me to do the reading for you?
>
> > I'll throw you a bone; the max blood pressure for pilots is 155 and for
> > truck drivers it is 180.
>
> And what are the stricter requirements?

HE TOLD YOU, LOOK IT UP.

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 20, 6:43*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 5:35*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > How much are you paying me to do the reading for you?
>
> > > I'll throw you a bone; the max blood pressure for pilots is 155 and for
> > > truck drivers it is 180.
>
> > And what are the stricter requirements?
>
> HE TOLD YOU, LOOK IT UP.

If you click on "About this group" you will see

Description General discussion for aviators.

My recommendation is we should treat that as a guiding principle.
Think of this as a place where peers can exchange ideas, where we may
occasionally respond to an interloper. The one you're responding has,
in my view at least, been responded to too often. He is not an aviator
but is expert -- among the best -- at triggering responses. That is
how he has had the most posts. I don't think you mean to consider him
a peer.

If you are going to reply, you might suggest this is a forum for
discussing aviation.

He has gotten off track.

Again.

[Blanche]

For starters, don't publish personal/medical information like this
in a public newsgroup. Nothing ever goes away, everything can be
discovered many years later.

If you must publish like this, use an anonymous remailer to
avoid obvious references.

[Mxsmanic]

Blanche writes:

> For starters, don't publish personal/medical information like this
> in a public newsgroup. Nothing ever goes away, everything can be
> discovered many years later.

Good general advice, but it should not be limited to medical information.
Everything you write tends to linger forever on the Net. Just your style and
attitude can influence people who might google for your name. Don't write
anything you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the New York Times.

> If you must publish like this, use an anonymous remailer to
> avoid obvious references.

That might be overkill for many cases. Some USENET providers already obfuscate
the source of posts as a matter of policy, and unless you are doing something
highly illegal, that degree of anonymity is sufficient to work around casual
fishing expeditions by others.

[a[_3_]]

On Aug 30, 2:00*pm, Blanche > wrote:
> For starters, don't publish personal/medical information like this
> in a public newsgroup. Nothing ever goes away, everything can be
> discovered many years later.
>
> If you must publish like this, use an anonymous remailer to
> avoid obvious references.


Let me add something to Blanche's comment.

Those who are fortunate enough to be 'hiring authorities' are swamped
with resumes and CVs for most open positions. The reality is the
faster the candidate pool can be narrowed the better -- even if that
narrowing eliminates an otherwise qualified person. Be careful about
divulging HIPPA information or exposing other aspects of your
personality on line in groups or Facebook or elsewhere, otherwise you
may never be invited to an interview and you will not know why. It's
a new information age and employers, not just kids, are taking
advantage of it.

[Mark]

On Jul 17, 5:48*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> And before you say that's because the sick pilots are weeded out by strict
> medicals, consider the fact that medical incapacitation is also virtually
> unknown among automobile drivers. It's pretty unusual for someone to become
> incapacitated at the wheel of an automobile, even among drivers who are in
> questionable health.

No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's
not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have
become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to
low blood sugar. Also, the idiots who drive under the
influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high
on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage
of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered
a disease.
--
Mark

[[email protected]]

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

> Current medical standards are excessively strict,

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

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

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 4:48Â*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Current medical standards are excessively strict,
>
> What are your qualifications to make this statement?????????????
>
> MSFS experience?????????????

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

IMHO for private and below I agree.

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

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

The physical would be entered into your log.

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

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



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree and this applies to sports as well to PPL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[email protected]]

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


>> IMHO for private and below I agree.
>>
>> There already exists the obligation to self certify before each flight
>> and there is nothing that requires one to run to a doctor to get evaluated
>> when you get sick or injured.
>
> Agree and this applies to sports as well to PPL.
>
>> What I would propose is that the FAA medical exam for private and below
>> be replaced with a requirement to get a physical from a real doctor, any
>> doctor, once a year, which everyone should do anyway, and based on that
>> you self certify your general fitness to fly.
>
> My take has always been, the damage on the ground will most likely be
> the same whether it be a 110 hp plane or a 180. So, why not convert
> the medical requirement based on equipment rather then certificate
> type would be my take. (I see you said this later on)
>
>> As a bonus, most insurance will pay for an ordinary physical but not a
>> FAA physical.
>
> Very true, but in my case, since I never have been the doctoring type,
> my medicals every two years have been "life saving" literally and
> figuratively. What you suggest essentially would cost me twice as
> much since I never meet my insurance deductable.

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

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

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

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

>> I'm on the fence where some ratings are involved as in should the current
>> FAA medical requirement be kept to hold and exercise ratings such as IFR,
>> jets or over 12,000 pounds.
>
> Yep, was replying as I was reading, so yes, as I said above (and you),
> more logical to base the medical requirement on equipment being
> operated.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

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

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

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

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

On Sep 1, 4:30*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
> > would be no surprises.
>
> * *Good for you! *But one could argue that it would be better to get that
> private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.

Good point Vaughn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 1, 5:30*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
> > would be no surprises.
>
> * *Good for you! *But one could argue that it would be better to get that
> private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.
>
> Why? *Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
> definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. *In
> particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
> generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
> unchanged. *For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
> will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
> required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
> you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.
>
> Vaughn

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

[[email protected]]

vaughn > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
>> would be no surprises.
>
> Good for you! But one could argue that it would be better to get that
> private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.
>
> Why? Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
> definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. In
> particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
> generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
> unchanged. For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
> will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
> required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
> you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.
>
> Vaughn

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

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

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

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 4:30Â*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
>> > would be no surprises.
>>
>> Â* Â*Good for you! Â*But one could argue that it would be better to get that
>> private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.
>
> Good point Vaughn.
>
> Case in point with me. Had DVT which required the use of blood
> thinners. By the time I got to my medical I was NOT on the
> medication. But the question on the form does ask if you had any
> vascular problems (or something to that effect) since the last exam.
>
> I could have easily said no as I wasn't on my last medical and I
> wasn't during this last exam. I did the right thing and reported it.
> This put a 2 month delay on my medical even though I came in with the
> proper INR and prognosis documentation per AOPA guidance AND I started
> the medical process a month before expiration.
>
> I don't see the FAA medical exam being a strict exam even though I had
> this inconvenience..
>
> In a nutshell for a class three certification, they check your vision,
> hearing and pee to meet minimum requirements and depend on the pilot
> to be upfront and honest about any other conditions. The actual exam
> is not strict by any standards. (so much for Mx's knowledge of this
> process)
>
> In my case and I have posted this in the past, my past class three
> exams revealed pre-melanoma on one exam and extreme high blood
> pressure (210 over 170) on another exam and I was flying the day
> before the exam with this blood pressure asymptomatic.
>
> Neither of the above prevented me from flying AFTER I came up with the
> appropriate documentation to recertify my medical.
>
> Even with me seeing a doctor once a year, I am all for the FAA exam as
> my current doctor doesn't check my vision or hearing.

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

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

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


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Sep 1, 5:30Â*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Since my FAA physical is coming up soon I got a normal physical to insure
>> > would be no surprises.
>>
>> Â* Â*Good for you! Â*But one could argue that it would be better to get that
>> private physical *AFTER* your FAA physical.
>>
>> Why? Â*Because there can be considerable difference between the disease
>> definitions your doctor uses and those contained in FAA regulations. Â*In
>> particular, the thresholds for blood pressure and blood sugar have been
>> generally lowered over the years, while the FAA definitions have remained
>> unchanged. Â*For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
>> will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
>> required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
>> you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> An interesting ethics question would be, what would you have done if
> your 'ordinary' physical would have disclosed something that would
> have prevented you from passing the FAA one?

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



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

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

Yes, and that might well play into your decision to get a prior physical...or
not. If you happen to be a professional pilot, Sport Pilot privaleges may not
be terribly important to you.

FYI Myself, I see my doctor regularly. I wat to keep flying, but continuing to
live is even more important to me.

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

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.

Taking a private physical well in advance gives you the opportunity to get
a treatable condition under control to FAA standards and get the required
paper done to prove it before you see the AME.


>> Also, as you get older and don't take a private physical first, there is the
>> chance you will be denied and there goes everything, including Sport Pilot.
>
> Yes, and that might well play into your decision to get a prior physical...or
> not. If you happen to be a professional pilot, Sport Pilot privaleges may not
> be terribly important to you.

Again, it gives you the opportunity to get a treatable condition under
control to FAA standards and get the required paper done to prove it
before you see the AME.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark writes:

> No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's
> not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have
> become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to
> low blood sugar.

Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics, who represent
only a small minority of diabetics (particularly when one considers only those
who are especially at risk of hypoglycemia).

There are some jurisdictions that prohibit diabetics from driving, although
that's an extreme overreaction with no justification in reality.

> Also, the idiots who drive under the
> influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high
> on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage
> of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered
> a disease.

Substance abuse is a choice that one makes independently of uncontrollable
medical factors. Alcohol is a leading cause of automobile accidents, but
nothing forces anyone to drink alcohol.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

In contrast, if there really is diabetes, then it's better to get it diagnosed
and fixed, and whether this occurs before or after the FAA medical is
irrelevant. If you are diagnosed a day after the FAA medical, then you are no
longer fit to fly until you get it fixed.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[vaughn[_3_]]

> 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

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You don't need to be to an "insulin-dependent diabetic" become hypoglycemic.

And that's not what I said, so the rest of your comments are moot.

> The medical community, which conciders any addiction to be a disease,
> disagrees with you.

The "medical community" (whatever that is--I'm not aware of any universal
consensus) is just as vulnerable to the waves of fashion as other professions.

[Mxsmanic]

vaughn writes:

> 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.

So why mention it?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> 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.

If you were dependent on flying to earn a living, and you discovered you had a
condition that would permanently disqualify you, what would you do?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

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

There's a long list of diagnoses that matter a great deal to the FAA. Any of
them require that certification be differed and specific protocols be followed
to grant a certification or special issuance.

For example, if you've been diagnosed with psychosis or depression, you have
a problem on that basis alone--numbers don't matter (nor are numbers used with
respect to psychosis or depression).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

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

Yes. If he says so, you've been diagnosed. If he doesn't, you haven't. Noting
that your blood glucose is unusually high is not the same as diagnosing
diabetes.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You don't need to be to an "insulin-dependent diabetic" become hypoglycemic.
>
> And that's not what I said, so the rest of your comments are moot.

What you said and snipped was "Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for
insulin-dependent diabetics".

If you had left out "insulin-dependent" it would have been fairly accurate as
diabtics are the largest at-risk group for hypoglycemia, but as is, it is a
false statement.

>> The medical community, which conciders any addiction to be a disease,
>> disagrees with you.
>
> The "medical community" (whatever that is--I'm not aware of any universal
> consensus) is just as vulnerable to the waves of fashion as other professions.

The "medical community" is doctors; you know, people with real training in
medicine and not living a virtual life pulling stuff out of their ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The numbers are the only thing that matters to the FAA unless the diagnosis
>> was something like an aneurism about to blow.
>
> There's a long list of diagnoses that matter a great deal to the FAA.

What part of "something like" are you having difficulty understanding?

Do I need to list each and every serious condition that may not have
numbers for you to understand the simple term "something like"?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> If you were dependent on flying to earn a living, and you discovered you had a
> condition that would permanently disqualify you, what would you do?

If you were dependent on playing concert piano to earn a living, and you
discovered you had a condition that would permanently disqualify you, what
would you do?

Idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The doctor either says you have diabetes or he doesn't.
>
> Yes. If he says so, you've been diagnosed. If he doesn't, you haven't. Noting
> that your blood glucose is unusually high is not the same as diagnosing
> diabetes.

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> You don't need to be to an "insulin-dependent diabetic" become hypoglycemic.
> >
> > And that's not what I said, so the rest of your comments are moot.
>
> What you said and snipped was "Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for
> insulin-dependent diabetics".

Yes. I said "mainly," which is not a synonym for "exclusively." So your
comment was redundant.

> The "medical community" is doctors ...

That's like saying that the economy is businesspeople. That's a bit
simplistic, although I suppose it's not an uncommon viewpoint for people
outside the profession.

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic writes:

> ... that certification be differed ...

Deferred.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> You don't need to be to an "insulin-dependent diabetic" become hypoglycemic.
>> >
>> > And that's not what I said, so the rest of your comments are moot.
>>
>> What you said and snipped was "Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for
>> insulin-dependent diabetics".
>
> Yes. I said "mainly," which is not a synonym for "exclusively." So your
> comment was redundant.

Hypoglycemia is not mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics.

Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for diabetics.


>> The "medical community" is doctors ...
>
> That's like saying that the economy is businesspeople.

Nope, it is like saying the business commuity is businesspeople.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?
>
> A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
> blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

No ****, but what has this to do with the original point that you are obligated
to report diagnosis but not observations?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?
>
> A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
> blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not. And yes, I am
hypoglycemic.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMgd2SyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnUXAJsG0+mD9RePDKCp+LbJ1K Uk+I7SxwCg7m93
0e2ASozuHAYnjKcwcLafsq0=
=Kx9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia.

Yes, I know. So what?

Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.

> And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Okay. So what?

[Morgans[_2_]]

You may be exchanging tit for tat with someone other than Mx. I have
observed this thread, and the writing style is not exactly his style, I
think. The endless nonsense is there, but too much confrontation style.
Like the post following the one I am responding to.

I don't ever remember anything as confrentational as "OK, so what?" as one
of the responses his has become so imfamous for.

I could be wrong, but something to think about.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
> is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.

I am aware of this, thank you.

> And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:


> Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.

And a house fire is simply the house is very, very hot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
>> is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.
>
> I am aware of this, thank you.
>
>> And yes, I am hypoglycemic.
>
> Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.

Why thank you, Mister AME.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 4, 11:35*am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
> >> And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
> >> is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.
>
> > I am aware of this, thank you.
>
> >> And yes, I am hypoglycemic.
>
> > Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.
>
> Why thank you, Mister AME.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

With Google all are experts, even if reading comprehension is
substandard. The real world metric is what one does, not what one
Googles.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> > Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.
>
> And a house fire is simply the house is very, very hot.

Yes. Just about all the consequences of a house fire arise from the extreme
heat. Just about all the consequences of diabetes arise from the constant
hyperglycemia.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Why thank you, Mister AME.

You're welcome.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> > Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.
>>
>> And a house fire is simply the house is very, very hot.
>
> Yes. Just about all the consequences of a house fire arise from the extreme
> heat. Just about all the consequences of diabetes arise from the constant
> hyperglycemia.

Whooosh!!!!

Right over your head, what a surprise.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Why thank you, Mister AME.
>
> You're welcome.

Whooosh!!!

There is goes again.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
>> is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.
>
> I am aware of this, thank you.

Then you should know very well that hypoglycemia is not a risk
for insulin dependent diabetics. In short, know what you are talking
about before saying something about it.

>> And yes, I am hypoglycemic.
>
> Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.

Never said it did, but being hypoglycemic does give me better
insight into the matter, which you do not have. With that, like I said,
know what you are talking abotu before saying something about it. Like
Abe Lincoln said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than
to speak out and remove all doubt."

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMgzA0yBkZmuMZ8L8RAtrIAKD1CaTb32ayc969nsfoI0 MjrmoiAACg3q21
89cMcZ/VtojhHJ7epI5OWHw=
=ZjGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Then you should know very well that hypoglycemia is not a risk
> for insulin dependent diabetics.

Persons taking insulin or oral hypoglycemics for diabetes are always at risk
of hypoglycemia if the dosage is incorrect. The risk is high enough that
diabetics treating their condition with insulin or medication are advised to
keep a source of glucose close at hand, in case they make themselves
hypoglycemic.

The risks of hypoglycemia and DKA are the bases for the status of diabetes as
a generally disqualifying condition if it is treated by insulin or oral
medication.

> Never said it did, but being hypoglycemic does give me better
> insight into the matter, which you do not have.

No, it does not, any more than being pregnant makes one a qualified
obstetrician.

Additionally, nobody is simply "hypoglycemic"; there is always a cause for
symptomatic hypoglycemia and it is virtually never a continuous state.
Prolonged symptomatic hypoglycemia can cause brain damage, and must be
aggressively treated and corrected. Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is harmless in
itself but merits investigation.

The most common cause of hypoglycemia in adults is an overdose of insulin
during treatment for diabetes.

Symptomatic hypoglycemia may justify denial for medical certification, until
and unless the cause of the hypoglycemia can be identified and corrected so as
to prevent acute episodes during flight.

At one time (1970s mostly, I believe), "hypoglycemia" was a fashionable
condition, like fibromyalgia or peanut allergies, but its popularity has waned
today. As with all fad illnesses, most of the people who thought they had it
didn't.

[Blanche]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Mark writes:
>
>> No really. With today's epidemic of diabetes it's
>> not uncommon for police to intercept drivers who have
>> become totally disoriented and incapacitated due to
>> low blood sugar.
>
>Hypoglycemia is mainly a risk for insulin-dependent diabetics, who represent
>only a small minority of diabetics (particularly when one considers only those
>who are especially at risk of hypoglycemia).
>
>There are some jurisdictions that prohibit diabetics from driving, although
>that's an extreme overreaction with no justification in reality.
>
>> Also, the idiots who drive under the
>> influence are "medically incapacitated" while they're high
>> on booze or drugs, which account for a large percentage
>> of accidents. Alcoholism and drug addiction is considered
>> a disease.
>
>Substance abuse is a choice that one makes independently of uncontrollable
>medical factors. Alcohol is a leading cause of automobile accidents, but
>nothing forces anyone to drink alcohol.

Wonderful...Now he's a medical expert too?

[maryroth]

I have always had a First-Class medical, not because my aviation
activity (PPL/IR) requires it, but mostly in case I don’t get in to see
the doctor in time, so it derates to a second class instead of leaving
me grounded. That happened this year for the first time, because my
doctor told me she is retiring, so I need to find someone else.

I have moderate arterial hypertension (about 160/110 uncontrolled)
which is well controlled (130/85) with a calcium channel blocker
(verapamil, 360 mg/d). This condition is unchanged throughout all the
years I have been flying. Also, because I am over 40 and I always get a
first-class medical, it means I have an EKG every year, and these have
always been perfectly normal.

My problem is that my AME has always considered this well-controlled
condition to be not serious enough to bother with the FAA procedures,
and not worth declaring. So all these years I have declared that I am
not taking any medication, when this is not in fact true. My question
is, now that I have to change AME, is this the time to "come clean" with
the FAA and declare this condition? I have never lied to the medical
examiner, she is the one who suggested I not declare it, stating that I
do not have a serious medical condition or a higher chance that the
average person to have a health-related incident when flying. If I
don’t say this to the new AME then it becomes me who is not telling the
truth, and I know the FAA takes a dim view of this. On the other hand,
if I come forward with it then it becomes obvious there has been a
"white lie" for many years. I am also concerned for the AME. Even if she
is now retired, I’m concerned another doctor could find fault with her
method, even though she has always been very thorough, and my exams have
rarely lasted less than 2 hours with all the tests and questionnaires.

Question for those who really know - What’s the best thing for me to do?

I am a nurse/private pilot and have come across a product that was developed to fight type 2 diabetes, b/p, cholesterol, and obesity. I have used this for a year, and lost 50lbs. I have a non-pilot friend who has gotten off statins, metformin, nitro and b/p meds., with this fiber/vitamin based product. All natural.
I would strongly recommend trying this to any pilots who are looking to fight these problems, stay off or get off meds, and retain your medical.

I urge you to message me. Everyone needs to know about this stuff. It is NOT a scam, or gimmick. Mary

[maryroth]

On Jul 18, 8:31*am, a wrote:

This 'unintended experiment' more or less led me to
conclude most of us with class 2 or 3 physicals may only see an MD for
a regular check up as part of of flight physical, and that is probably
the first time many of us learn of an underlying problem.

Yep, describes me to the tee. 2 very serious conditions for me was
discovered during my medical. One as described in my prior post
extreme hypertension and another was pre-melanoma freckle on my back
that look like a freckle to me. Both considered silent killers since
I had no "symptoms" to complain about.

So, this pilot doesn't complain about the nuances of the medical
process.

Of course I now see a doctor once a year for my BP medication renewal
but even then it's less then an FAA medical review.

As a nurse and pilot, I have been asked many times how to regulate b/p and cholesterol issues naturally, and the easy answer is to reduce fat/cholesterol and sodium in your diet. Sadly for many, thats not enough in large part to hereditary issues.

In my search to help these people, I have come across a supplement that lowers cholesterol, b/p, triglycerides, and manages blood sugar/insulin ratios. I tried this myself, sure that it must be a scam because it sounded too good to be true, as nurses and doctors are trained to be very skeptical about things like this. I have had very good results, and have started recommending it to my patients, friends and family. And they, too, are having great results with it. Even to the point of getting off their meds.

For about $2 a day. I am now a firm believer in this stuff, and will share the information with anyone and everyone, as who wouldn't want to change their health without meds and their side effects.

email me and i will be happy to share this info. with you.

Mary