pilots that lost medicals are you on the LSA group?

[Gilan]

Just a note for any of the thousands of pilots out there that can't fly
because they don't have a medical. If you are one or know someone then have
them join the Sport-Aircraft group.

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

[Peter Duniho]

"Gilan" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Just a note for any of the thousands of pilots out there that can't fly
> because they don't have a medical. If you are one or know someone then
have
> them join the Sport-Aircraft group.

Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.

People selling the sport plane certification rules as a "you don't need a
medical to fly" solution are only telling half the story.

Pete

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Peter Duniho" > said:
>Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
>reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.

On the other hand, I used an anti-depressant for 3 months, and after I
stopped it took me two years and a lot of leg work to get my medical back.
If LSA had been available, I might not have bothered.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Zero Tolerance" in this case meaning "We're too stupid to be able to
apply conscious thought on a case-by-case basis".
-- Mike Sphar

[Ace Pilot]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
> reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.

Really? Can you point to the reg in Part 103 that prevents someone
from operating an ultralight for medical reasons?

> People selling the sport plane certification rules as a "you don't need a
> medical to fly" solution are only telling half the story.
>
> Pete

And here we see Mr. Duniho pontificating at his best. Despite the fact
that the final Sport Pilot rule has not been published, and, hence, no
one knows what the final rule says about medical requirements, he
somehow has the ability to not only speculate, but actually predict
what will be decided.

No need to reply since you already know what the future holds...

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Ace Pilot wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>
>>Of course, for many pilots that have lost their medical, there's a good
>>reason for it, one that would prevent them from legally flying anything.
>
>
> Really? Can you point to the reg in Part 103 that prevents someone
> from operating an ultralight for medical reasons?\

an ultralight is different from a light sport aircraft.

>
>
>>People selling the sport plane certification rules as a "you don't need a
>>medical to fly" solution are only telling half the story.
>>
>>Pete
>
>
> And here we see Mr. Duniho pontificating at his best. Despite the fact
> that the final Sport Pilot rule has not been published, and, hence, no
> one knows what the final rule says about medical requirements, he
> somehow has the ability to not only speculate, but actually predict
> what will be decided.
>

Even the people pushing the Light Sport rule acknowledge that what Mr.
Duniho says is correct. They don't trumpet it, but they acknowledge it.

Buried in http://www.sportpilot.org/nprm/sectional_analysis.html:

> Under the proposal if a pilot knows or has reason to know of
> any medical condition that would affect his or her ability to
> operate a light-sport aircraft, then the pilot would have to
> refrain from acting as a pilot in command

So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
aircraft?

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
> So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
> medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
> aircraft?

"Losing your medical" can come in different forms. I know of several
older friends who developed a medical condition that could have been
waivered (special issuance), but didn't want (or could afford) the
endless testing that they'd have to endure every 6 or 12 months. In the
case of the Light Sport Aircraft, if they still had a driver's license,
and their personal doctor said its OK to fly, they could probably fly.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> Really? Can you point to the reg in Part 103 that prevents someone
> from operating an ultralight for medical reasons?

Who said anything about ultralights?

> And here we see Mr. Duniho pontificating at his best. Despite the fact
> that the final Sport Pilot rule has not been published, and, hence, no
> one knows what the final rule says about medical requirements, he
> somehow has the ability to not only speculate, but actually predict
> what will be decided.

It hasn't been finalized, no. But to say it hasn't been published is pretty
silly. We have had a pretty good idea of what is likely to be in the final
rulemaking for some time now. In particular, we have every reason to expect
the medical requirements will be more like those required for glider and
balloon ratings, than for flying ultralights.

> No need to reply since you already know what the future holds...

Ahh, but do YOU know?

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
>
> So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
> medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
> aircraft?

Perhaps you do, perhaps not. A medical can be denied because a person has a criminal
record. It can be denied because of a history of substance abuse. Neither of these
is, IMO, a medical condition at all.

A friend of mine has a pacemaker. He sold his 182 because the tests he had to take
every six months to retain his medical became too expensive. He flies gliders now. He
does not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would affect his
ability to fly. As far as he's concerned, he spent several years and a ton of money
proving that he is no more likely to have one than I do.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Todd Pattist]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:

>So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
>medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
>aircraft?

We don't know the exact rules, but if they are similar to
gliders, as expected, there are lots of ways you might lose
a medical and still be able to fly. All of the waiverable
medical problems would allow you to fly. Another big
difference is that a medical requires you to be medically
fit during the entire period of the medical, whereas the
glider/balloon criteria only requires you to be fit during
the flight. Progressive diseases, and periodic medical
problems with sufficient warning to permit landing may
disqualify you from a medical even though you could safely
fly either prior to the full progression of the disease or
between bouts of the problem. At least with respect to the
glider and balloon medical standard, the official position
of the FAA is that loss of a medical is not a disqualifying
condition for flight.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Ben Smith]

> A medical can be denied because a person has a criminal
> record.

Does the AME make this call, or someone in OKC? And what would be a
disqualifying set of circumstances?

[zatatime]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:11:32 -0500, "Ben Smith"
> wrote:

>> A medical can be denied because a person has a criminal
>> record.
>
>Does the AME make this call, or someone in OKC? And what would be a
>disqualifying set of circumstances?
>
>


I think it's OKC. I know someone who had a suspension because of a
DWI. I also had a temporary medical suspension about 18 years ago
when I had points on my license. I had to send them a copy of my
driving record, they "evaluated it" and saw I wasn't a menace to
society and re-instated my medical privileges. I was ticked off then
and still disagee with this concept as none of what is above has
anything to do with being physically and medically sound.

z

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Todd Pattist wrote:

> TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
>
>
>>So if I lose my medical, do I not know or have reason to know of "any
>>medical condition that would affect" my ability to operate a light-sport
>>aircraft?
>
>
> We don't know the exact rules, but if they are similar to
> gliders, as expected, there are lots of ways you might lose
> a medical and still be able to fly. All of the waiverable
> medical problems would allow you to fly. Another big
> difference is that a medical requires you to be medically
> fit during the entire period of the medical, whereas the
> glider/balloon criteria only requires you to be fit during
> the flight. Progressive diseases, and periodic medical
> problems with sufficient warning to permit landing may
> disqualify you from a medical even though you could safely
> fly either prior to the full progression of the disease or
> between bouts of the problem. At least with respect to the
> glider and balloon medical standard, the official position
> of the FAA is that loss of a medical is not a disqualifying
> condition for flight.

All good points, and reassuring to know if I ever lose my medical.
However I think Peter's original point, which is that a lot of LSA
advocates are pushing it as a panacea for "unable to get medical"
problems, which it is not. There are lots of reasons to lose your
medical that an honest interpretation would disqualify you from flying
LSA (having a retained kidney stone comes to mind).

[Todd Pattist]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:

>All good points, and reassuring to know if I ever lose my medical.
>However I think Peter's original point, which is that a lot of LSA
>advocates are pushing it as a panacea for "unable to get medical"
>problems, which it is not. There are lots of reasons to lose your
>medical that an honest interpretation would disqualify you from flying
>LSA (having a retained kidney stone comes to mind).

I'm no expert on kidney stones, but I agree that there are
clearly some medical conditions that should disqualify you
from flying.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ben Smith wrote:
>
> > A medical can be denied because a person has a criminal
> > record.
>
> Does the AME make this call, or someone in OKC? And what would be a
> disqualifying set of circumstances?

The AME will defer the decision to OKC. They make the call. Any felony is likely to
be disqualifying, but they do things on a case-by-case basis. Drug violations are big
hitters.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Jerry Kurata]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
>
> >All good points, and reassuring to know if I ever lose my medical.
> >However I think Peter's original point, which is that a lot of LSA
> >advocates are pushing it as a panacea for "unable to get medical"
> >problems, which it is not. There are lots of reasons to lose your
> >medical that an honest interpretation would disqualify you from flying
> >LSA (having a retained kidney stone comes to mind).
>
> I'm no expert on kidney stones, but I agree that there are
> clearly some medical conditions that should disqualify you
> from flying.
>

Agreed. I have had kidney stones (years before I began flying). When you
are have an attack crashing the plane seems like a viable option to relieve
the pain! As I understand it, women that have gone through childbirth say
that kidney stones hurt a lot worse.

jerry