Bad medical examiner postcript

[Wiz]

Friends:
You may have seen my earlier post about the issue with my AME's office
screwing up my student certificate. Well, he straightened it out, and
now I can't fly. Rather than editorialize, I will just lay out the
chronology and let you make your own judgments. It starts in 1965,
believe it or not, but isn't TOO long...

March 1965: I am a disruptive and distractible four-year old when they
are trying to teach us to read (I already knew how to read and was, in
part, bored). I am sent to visit with the school psychologist. We
talk some on two occasions and play a board game. That's the last I
hear of it. I complete grade school, junior high and high school,
college, and law school, with no meds or educational assistance, test
in the 99th percentile on all standardized aptitude tests for college
and law school, and am named a National Merit Scholar.

September 2004: I see my doctor about my congenital borderline
hypertension, some tendonitis in my wrist from typing, and the fact
that I feel sometimes distractible in my high-tension job as a trial
lawyer in public service. We talk, and I relate my grade school issue.
He writes a history of tendonitis, hypertension, and ADD.

February 2005. I finally get to the point in my finances and schedule
where I can live my dream of flying. I go to Samuel Scott, M.D., at
Washington Occupational Health, and pay $140 for a Class III medical
exam. Dr. Scott jokes, "flying, huh? So, you have some extra money
you don't need? How about giving it to me?" I explain to him that I
am getting my medical to make sure there are no issues before I spend
the time and money in flight training. He notes my BP meds, tells me I
can't qualify, then goes away for a while, and comes back with the BP
evaluation protocol he seems to have just discovered. Over the next
couple of weeks, I submit the necessary records (including the
September 2004 note that has a BP reading on it) and the stuff from my
MD.) I pass the medical, but never receive my certificate...

March 2005: After weeks of trying to find out why I don't have my
certificate, without explanation, I am told by his office assistant to
come in and pick it up, which I do. I start flight training.

November 21, 2005: 8.5 months and $10,000 later (I am in the ADIZ and
have to fly 20 minutes each way to and from the practice area, which
adds to the cost) my CFI has me schedule my checkride for December 5.
I try to register for IACRA and can't. FAA tells me the number on the
certificate in my possession does not match the paperwork the AME's
office submitted to the FAA. FAA says AME has to fax in explanation.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 (13 days to checkride): I call the AME to
get this corrected and he says "it's the holidays and I'm leaving
town." I indicate some urgency because of the impending checkride. He
says he will look into it when the office assistant gets back in on
Monday.

Monday, November 28 (7 days to checkride): I call and talk to the
office assistant. First she ever heard of it (she's not the same one
who issued the faulty certificate). Pledges to look into it and says
she will call back Tuesday.

Tuesday, November 29 (6 days...): Call office assistant back. She's
not in the office that day.

Wednesday, November 30 (5 days...): AME calls me, says former office
assistant messed up my certificate and just filled in a new one to give
me. He explained she was not used to them being numbered, because only
student pilot certificates are numbered. Informs me the number is now
straightened out. However, he noticed the ADD notation in the
September 2004 record and says "that is a disqualifying condition.
Goodbye." End of story. No help, no mention of any protocol to submit
additional information, nor any explanation of why he didn't think of
this when he performed the exam and signed off originally. Recall that
I obtained the exam BEFORE I spent the time and money training, just to
make sure.

Saturday, December 3 (checkride is Monday, December 5): I receive
letter from FAA dated November 30 revoking my medical, and suggesting I
"voluntarily" surrender it within 14 days or face legal action.
Attached is a protocol for a battery of tests to be performed by a
psychologist or psychiatrist and submit if I want to be re-evaluated.
Tests include an IQ test, Rorschach (inkblot) test, alcoholism and
depression screening, and other tests for which the relevance isn't
apparent.

Anyway, that's my story. I have submitted a letter from my primary MD
pointing out that the diagnosis of ADD did not even exist in 1965, and
that I received no treatment, so his history is in error. Waiting to
see what the FAA says...

In the meantime, I'd like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone in
this newsgroup for sharing their knowledge of flying, and their passion
for it, during my brief foray into the blue. You all really added a
lot to it.

Wiz

[Gus]

> Friends:
> You may have seen my earlier post about the issue with my AME's office
> screwing up my student certificate. Well, he straightened it out, and
> now I can't fly. Rather than editorialize, I will just lay out the
> chronology and let you make your own judgments. It starts in 1965,
> believe it or not, but isn't TOO long...
>

<depressing story snipped>

This is another excellent example of why the medical certificate system for
private pilots is totally broke. You in effect self certify yourself to fly
every day. I have always and will continue to advocate to friends and
students for 3rd class medicals: Get regular checkups from your regular
physician to pronounce yourself healthy and safe. Go to a doctor you don't
know and have no history with for an aviation medical, and don't tell them
anything they don't need to know. If you need a 2nd or 1st class medical,
this advice does not apply.

Don't bother replying that somebody was recently prosecuted for lying on
their medical application, I know all about it, and I don't care.

[Morgans]

"Wiz" > wrote
....
> Friends:
> You may have seen my earlier post about the issue with my AME's office
> screwing up my student certificate. Well, he straightened it out, and
> now I can't fly. Rather than editorialize, I will just lay out the
> chronology and let you make your own judgments. It starts in 1965,
> believe it or not, but isn't TOO long...

snip

> Anyway, that's my story. I have submitted a letter from my primary MD
> pointing out that the diagnosis of ADD did not even exist in 1965, and
> that I received no treatment, so his history is in error. Waiting to
> see what the FAA says...

That is the story from hell! I can't believe it, but it does happen.
Another thing that I remember a crusty 'ole falcon pilot telling me about
medicals. F%#k 'em (the FAA). Don't tell 'em a damn thing.

Seems like it would have been good advise, for you.

Don't let them win. Keep up the hope!
--
Jim in NC

[Skywise]

"Wiz" > wrote in news:1134778275.425245.226330
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola of really F'd up story>

First, my symapathies for your troubles.

But based solely on what you've written, I wonder if there
might not be some legal action you can take to recoup your
monetary loss because of the screwup by the AME. After all,
you would not have started your flight training if you had
not been issued a certificate in the first place, right?

This assumes you don't get things straightened out and are
allowed to fly.

Keep fighting, and let us know how it goes.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!

[Jose]

> Dr. Scott jokes, "flying, huh? So, you have some extra money
> you don't need? How about giving it to me?" I explain to him that I
> am getting my medical to make sure there are no issues before I spend
> the time and money in flight training.
> [...] I pass the medical, but never receive my certificate...

> March 2005: After weeks of trying to find out why I don't have my
> certificate, without explanation, I am told by his office assistant to
> come in and pick it up, which I do. I start flight training.

There is a legal principle called "detrimental reliance", which holds
that if you reasonably rely on somebody's actions, to your detriment,
they are responsible for the harm. You relied on your AME's examination
and the certificate he presented you, to your detriment (the cost of
flight traning), and their actions were in error (you do not have a
valid certificate, and apparantly never did).

According to this legal principle, they are responsible for your costs.

I am not a lawyer, but I have heard of them. It might be worth an
appointment.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[zatatime]

On 16 Dec 2005 16:11:15 -0800, "Wiz" > wrote:

>job as a trial
>lawyer


Not that I'm a fan of the "sue him" mentality, but if your story is as
black and white as you describe it, it seems you are in the best
position possible to do something about it. You won't need to pay a
lawyer to have charges or liability suit put against the AME, and
hopefully you can present a factual case to the FAA that winds through
their legal requirements to get your medical re-issued.

Good Luck.
z

(I'm Not a lawyer so the reasons for suit may not be accurate, but
from the story it seems something is there to persue.)

[Montblack]

("Wiz" wrote)
[snip]
> Anyway, that's my story. I have submitted a letter from my primary MD
> pointing out that the diagnosis of ADD did not even exist in 1965, and
> that I received no treatment, so his history is in error. Waiting to
> see what the FAA says...


If you haven't already, join AOPA. Then contact AOPA. Do this Monday!


Montblack

[Peter R.]

Skywise > wrote:

> After all,
> you would not have started your flight training if you had
> not been issued a certificate in the first place, right?

Students don't normally need a medical certificate until they are ready to
solo, so it is certainly conceivable that one could start flight training
with the risk that a medical certificate is unobtainable, some ten to
twenty hours into lessons.

--
Peter

[Ron Natalie]

Wiz wrote:

>
> Anyway, that's my story. I have submitted a letter from my primary MD
> pointing out that the diagnosis of ADD did not even exist in 1965, and
> that I received no treatment, so his history is in error. Waiting to
> see what the FAA says...
>
> In the meantime, I'd like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone in
> this newsgroup for sharing their knowledge of flying, and their passion
> for it, during my brief foray into the blue. You all really added a
> lot to it.
>
You need to call your regional flight surgeon's office. I believe it's
still the one up in Jamaica NY for this area. They were very helpful.
They can help you decode the initials on the bottom of the form and call
them and negotiate a shorter way out than the full PPP protocol.

[Chris Ehlbeck]

I think he had mentioned he wanted to get the medical first, just to make
sure all was OK. I had received the same good advice because of a heart
murmur. Had I not gone through the hoops and gotten the SI medical first, I
would've been waiting for it so I could solo.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Skywise > wrote:
>
> > After all,
> > you would not have started your flight training if you had
> > not been issued a certificate in the first place, right?
>
> Students don't normally need a medical certificate until they are ready to
> solo, so it is certainly conceivable that one could start flight training
> with the risk that a medical certificate is unobtainable, some ten to
> twenty hours into lessons.
>
> --
> Peter

[Peter R.]

Chris Ehlbeck > wrote:

> I think he had mentioned he wanted to get the medical first, just to make
> sure all was OK.

Ahhh, I missed that point. Thanks.

--
Peter

[Milehiguy]

Peter R. wrote:
> Chris Ehlbeck > wrote:
>
> > I think he had mentioned he wanted to get the medical first, just to make
> > sure all was OK.
>
> Ahhh, I missed that point. Thanks.
>
> --
> Peter

I think the medical requirements for pilots are absolutely rediculous!!
I can see regualtion for commercial pilots but GA pilots should be
left alone. I am in the auto ins biz and you should see the people
they let drive. I have clients with seizure disorders, are 90 years
old, and others that have a 2 page driving record. You can do just as
much damage with a car as you can with a Cessna. When are the
bureaucrats going to wake up! I guess if they didn't have all these
regulations to oversee, they wouldn't have a job!

[Milehiguy]

One final thought: I have a friend who is a retired 747 captain and he
lost his medical due to a heart attack. It took him 2 years to get it
back. He finally got it back becuase he contacted his senator in
Washington at my suggestion. After he contacted his senator, he had
his medical back in 2 weeks! It is amazing how these guys can cut
through the red tape. Good luck.

[Peter R.]

Milehiguy > wrote:

> I think the medical requirements for pilots are absolutely rediculous!!
<snip>

Are you familiar with the sport pilot certificate? A valid driver's
license takes the place of the medical.


--
Peter

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Dec 2005 10:53:10 -0800, "Milehiguy" > wrote
in . com>::

>I think the medical requirements for pilots are absolutely rediculous!!

If you were charged with the responsibility to certify pilots, what
would you think were reasonable medical requirements to carry
passengers and fly over the heads of the public?

> I can see regualtion for commercial pilots but GA pilots should be
>left alone. I am in the auto ins biz and you should see the people
>they let drive.

I hope you're not suggesting that airmen should be held to those lax
standards.

>I have clients with seizure disorders, are 90 years
>old, and others that have a 2 page driving record.

I don't see age alone as disqualifying for airmen, but permitting
people to share the road/sky who have demonstrated loss of faculties
is ridiculous.

The difference, the way I see it, between driving and flying is that
one makes a conscious choice to operate in the hazardous environment
on the highway, while those who have made no such choice are subject
to aircraft operating overhead.

>You can do just as much damage with a car as you can with a Cessna.

However, automobile damage is largely confined to the highways.

>When are the bureaucrats going to wake up! I guess if they didn't
>have all these regulations to oversee, they wouldn't have a job!

Well, there's always that, but I think it's mostly a matter of their
shouldering the responsibility with which they've been tasked.

[Wiz]

Unfortunately, you cannot fly under the sport pilot regs with just a
driver's license if you have been denied a medical.

Thanks, everybody, for the encouragement and advice. I have contacted
AOPA, and they thought I was caught up in regulations that aren't
relevant to someone like me. It was AOPA who suggested the letter from
my doctor. I will contact the Regional Flight Surgeon Monday.

Wiz

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On 18 Dec 2005 10:53:10 -0800, "Milehiguy" > wrote
> in . com>::
>
>>I think the medical requirements for pilots are absolutely rediculous!!
>
> If you were charged with the responsibility to certify pilots, what
> would you think were reasonable medical requirements to carry
> passengers and fly over the heads of the public?
>
>> I can see regualtion for commercial pilots but GA pilots should be
>>left alone. I am in the auto ins biz and you should see the people
>>they let drive.
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that airmen should be held to those lax
> standards.
>
>>I have clients with seizure disorders, are 90 years
>>old, and others that have a 2 page driving record.
>
> I don't see age alone as disqualifying for airmen, but permitting
> people to share the road/sky who have demonstrated loss of faculties
> is ridiculous.
>
> The difference, the way I see it, between driving and flying is that
> one makes a conscious choice to operate in the hazardous environment
> on the highway, while those who have made no such choice are subject
> to aircraft operating overhead.
>
>>You can do just as much damage with a car as you can with a Cessna.
>
> However, automobile damage is largely confined to the highways.
>


How many deaths have been caused by small, light, GA planes crashing in to unknowing groundlings?

[newsgroups.comcast.net]

I respectfully, disagree. How many times have we seen (on TV or in person)
cars drive through store fronts, homes, over pedestrians on sidewalks,
etc.... To me, it seems like I'm seeing it frequently.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Dec 2005 10:53:10 -0800, "Milehiguy" > wrote
> in . com>::
> The difference, the way I see it, between driving and flying is that
> one makes a conscious choice to operate in the hazardous environment
> on the highway, while those who have made no such choice are subject
> to aircraft operating overhead.
>
> However, automobile damage is largely confined to the highways.

[Morgans]

"newsgroups.comcast.net" > wrote in message
...
> I respectfully, disagree. How many times have we seen (on TV or in person)
> cars drive through store fronts, homes, over pedestrians on sidewalks,
> etc.... To me, it seems like I'm seeing it frequently.

So if you see it, you need to have more information.

How many of these incident's drivers had other previous incidents of the
type?

Those are the only ones who stricter medicals would catch. Even then, even
a class 1 medical that the ATP's have to give, allow them back into the
cockpit after heart attacks, ect. If that is the case, why could stricter
medicals help prevent out of control occurrences?
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

..Blueskies. wrote:

> How many deaths have been caused by small, light, GA planes crashing in to unknowing groundlings?

How many have been prevented by the diligence and foresight of the fine medical
staff at Oklahoma City?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:

> So if you see it, you need to have more information.

True.

> How many of these incident's drivers had other previous incidents of the
> type?

Completely immaterial. The only important question is how many of these
incidents were caused by medical conditions that would have been caught during a
typical FAA exam. Many of these incidents would have been prevented if drivers
had to go through the same procedure.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Andrew Sarangan]

What did the senator tell the FAA?

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote

> Completely immaterial. The only important question is how many of these
> incidents were caused by medical conditions that would have been caught
during a
> typical FAA exam. Many of these incidents would have been prevented if
drivers
> had to go through the same procedure.

This could be argued adnauseum (is that a word?) with no answers.

The proof (one way or another) will be the statistics gathered after a few
years of the sport pilot program. The results could very well result in
changes in the current system of PPL medicals, or show reasons for keeping
the system in place for many years to come.

Of course, even if data has been collected showing no significant change in
the medically caused accident rate, many will say there is not proof of a
reason to change anything.

'Twill be interesting times to come.
--
Jim in NC

[Sylvain]

Morgans wrote:
> The proof (one way or another) will be the statistics gathered after a few
> years of the sport pilot program. The results could very well result in
> changes in the current system of PPL medicals, or show reasons for keeping
> the system in place for many years to come.

again (the subject keeps popping up regularly in this newsgroup),
the data is already here, and has been available for ages:
how many flying hours have been flown by glider (sailplane) pilots,
who routinely do something far more challenging physically than what
most powered private pilots do, i.e., longer, higher, more
adrenaline charged flights, and who do all that without
requiring a medical certificate (not even a driving license as
required by sport pilots);


--Sylvain

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:19:10 -0800, Sylvain > wrote in
>::

>Morgans wrote:
>> The proof (one way or another) will be the statistics gathered after a few
>> years of the sport pilot program. The results could very well result in
>> changes in the current system of PPL medicals, or show reasons for keeping
>> the system in place for many years to come.
>
>again (the subject keeps popping up regularly in this newsgroup),
>the data is already here, and has been available for ages:
>how many flying hours have been flown by glider (sailplane) pilots,
>who routinely do something far more challenging physically than what
>most powered private pilots do, i.e., longer, higher, more
>adrenaline charged flights, and who do all that without
>requiring a medical certificate (not even a driving license as
>required by sport pilots);

And what information has been gleaned from those data? I would guess,
that the rate of glider accidents per hour flown is significantly
higher than that of typical private pilot powered operation. But
would that be a result of the glider's lack of an engine or
catastrophic medical issues?

[Milehiguy]

Someone from the senator's office called someone at the FAA and told
them that this was a rediculous hang up.

[Andrew Sarangan]

It is scary that a guy with a heart attack is able to use his political
connections to get back at the controls of a 400-passenger airline,
while a student pilot is prevented from taking his checkride in a
Cessna 152 because he had ADD 30 years ago.




Milehiguy wrote:
> Someone from the senator's office called someone at the FAA and told
> them that this was a rediculous hang up.

[Jose]

> It is scary that a guy with a heart attack is able to use his political
> connections to get back at the controls of a 400-passenger airline,
> while a student pilot is prevented from taking his checkride in a
> Cessna 152 because he had ADD 30 years ago.

Did the student pilot call his senator?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Andrew Sarangan" wrote)
> It is scary that a guy with a heart attack is able to use his political
> connections to get back at the controls of a 400-passenger airline, while
> a student pilot is prevented from taking his checkride in a Cessna 152
> because he had ADD 30 years ago.


Many of us had ADD 30, 40, 50 years ago. Back then they had a different name
for it. We were called ...boys.


Montblack
Stop fidgeting
Pay attention
Stop staring out the window
Stop poking her with your pencil
Pay attention
Stop tapping on your desk
Stop talking in line
Pay attention
Stop rolling your pencil on your desktop
Stop squirming in your chair
Stop counting ceiling tiles during music class
(...more after lunch)

[Wiz]

Actually, in another cruel twist of fate, since I live in our nation's
capitol, Washington, D.C., I don't actually have a senator.

Another reason, in addition to the Washington DC metropolitan ADIZ, why
this is a tough home base from which to fly.

[Jose]

> Actually, in another cruel twist of fate, since I live in our nation's
> capitol, Washington, D.C., I don't actually have a senator.

Then write the president. Sure, he won't answer personally, but white
house staff may be able to do something. Else write a neighboring senator.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sylvain]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I would guess,

wrong approach. Check NTSB database and tell
us how many gliders went down due to medical
issues (if you find any)

--Sylvain

[nrp]

>how many gliders went down due to medical
issues<

Still better would be how many on the ground (3rd party) have ever been
killed by no-medical glider pilots. (Ha!)

I read in an interesting WWII history book "Blood, Sweat, and Folly"
(about that name but since given away & can't remember the author) that
describes many of the subtle screwups etc of pre-WWII -

"The reason so many regulations for private pilots were generated in
the '20s after WWI was the paranoia that most governments had to aerial
surveilance"

[Robert M. Gary]

But interestingly, the OP is a lawyer.

[Robert M. Gary]

Congressman?

[George Patterson]

Morgans wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote
>
>
>>Completely immaterial. The only important question is how many of these
>>incidents were caused by medical conditions that would have been caught
>
> during a
>
>>typical FAA exam. Many of these incidents would have been prevented if
>
> drivers
>
>>had to go through the same procedure.
>
> This could be argued adnauseum (is that a word?) with no answers.

Actually, that's two words. I think you misunderstand me. As I said, the only
question is how many of these incidents were caused by medical conditions that
would have been caught. *If there are any*, most of them would've been prevented
by medical exams (there are always people who will drive after their licenses
are revoked).

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[George Patterson]

nrp wrote:

> Still better would be how many on the ground (3rd party) have ever been
> killed by no-medical glider pilots. (Ha!)

No really material to powered flight, The reason that the FAA does not require
medical exams for glider pilots is that gliders don't weigh much, don't travel
at high speeds, and don't carry fuel. Therefore, they can't cause a lot of
damage in a crash. The only important question is how many glider crashes have
been caused by conditions that would have been caught by a medical exam. Those
crashes have the potential of causing severe damgae on the ground in something
like a Bonanza (and have done so).

> "The reason so many regulations for private pilots were generated in
> the '20s after WWI was the paranoia that most governments had to aerial
> surveilance"

Blood, Tears and Folly, by Len Deighton. The author was writing about
regulations produced by the European nations and Britain. He made it very clear
that this was not the case in the United States.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[zatatime]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:47:15 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>
>Many of us had ADD 30, 40, 50 years ago. Back then they had a different name
>for it. We were called ...boys.
>
>
>Montblack
>Stop fidgeting
>Pay attention
>Stop staring out the window
>Stop poking her with your pencil
>Pay attention
>Stop tapping on your desk
>Stop talking in line
>Pay attention
>Stop rolling your pencil on your desktop
>Stop squirming in your chair
>Stop counting ceiling tiles during music class
>(...more after lunch)



T H A N K Y O U ! ! ! ! ! !

I've been saying this for a looong time. Most people just think I'm
insensitive.

z

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> It is scary that a guy with a heart attack is able to use his political
> connections to get back at the controls of a 400-passenger airline,
> while a student pilot is prevented from taking his checkride in a
> Cessna 152 because he had ADD 30 years ago.

Ok, it's even worse than that. Let me tell you about a guy I know.

This guy always seemed to be in trouble for one thing or another, never
managed to "live up to his potential" blah, blah, blah. Anyhow, at one point
he decides to learn to fly. Takes lessons and stuff. Turns out he's pretty
good at it. Gets a medical - no problem. Passes check ride with flying
colors. Fly's a couple three hundred accident free hours. So, that suggests
to me, at least, that he probably actually was capable of flying an
airplane, right?

Anyhow, life happens. He gets married - things are rocky, but what's new?
Has kids, kids go to school. School starts sending stuff home about ADD.
Wife reads the stiff and says "I don't know about our child, but I think
whoever wrote this stuff has been following you around." So, this guy
finally agrees to see a doctor. Doctor says ADD. Ok, the guy goes to another
doctor. This doctor says ADD. The guy then tries an "adult ADD clinic" After
piles of questionnaires, half a day or so of testing, the results come
back - ADD. What's a guy to do? Ok, he tries the medication. His marriage
gets better. He starts doing way better at work. He'd probably even be a lot
better pilot. But. Of course, now he can't get a medical.

You see, the way things work is, It's OK to fly if you have a problem like
ADD (or depression, or ...) as long as you don't know (or admit) it. But no
matter how well you flew without knowing about the problem, once you address
the problem and take steps that would make you a BETTER, SAFER pilot, NOW
you have to stop.

Explain how that makes sense.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:08:07 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote in <XPIpf.10446$aU4.1733@trnddc06>::

>The reason that the FAA does not require
>medical exams for glider pilots is that gliders don't weigh much, don't travel
>at high speeds, and don't carry fuel.

And seldom fly over congested areas.

[George Patterson]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> You may not be aware of it, but the FAA released all this
> information when they proposed eliminating the third class
> medical as an unnecessary expense.

I was unaware that the FAA had done this. When was this?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[.Blueskies.]

"zatatime" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:47:15 -0600, "Montblack"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Many of us had ADD 30, 40, 50 years ago. Back then they had a different name
>>for it. We were called ...boys.
>>
>>
>>Montblack
>>Stop fidgeting
>>Pay attention
>>Stop staring out the window
>>Stop poking her with your pencil
>>Pay attention
>>Stop tapping on your desk
>>Stop talking in line
>>Pay attention
>>Stop rolling your pencil on your desktop
>>Stop squirming in your chair
>>Stop counting ceiling tiles during music class
>>(...more after lunch)
>
>
>
> T H A N K Y O U ! ! ! ! ! !
>
> I've been saying this for a looong time. Most people just think I'm
> insensitive.
>
> z


you are both insensitive! ;-)

[Ron Natalie]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Congressman?
>
A powerless one. DC gets a non-voting observer in congress.
Essentially she can stand up and make speeches and otherwise
participate in hearings but otherwise is powerless.

Not only is DC taxed without real representation, they also
have to deal with incessent federal tinkering in their local
affairs that would be unconstitutional if they were a state.

[Jim Macklin]

And DC residents lost their Second Amendment rights and the
right to lawful self-defense about 30 years ago.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
Merry Christmas
Have a Safe and Happy New Year
Live Long and Prosper
Jim Macklin
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
| Robert M. Gary wrote:
| > Congressman?
| >
| A powerless one. DC gets a non-voting observer in
congress.
| Essentially she can stand up and make speeches and
otherwise
| participate in hearings but otherwise is powerless.
|
| Not only is DC taxed without real representation, they
also
| have to deal with incessent federal tinkering in their
local
| affairs that would be unconstitutional if they were a
state.

[Wiz]

All:

Got some good news when I spoke to the FAA today. Based apparently on
the letter from my primary physician that the ADD diagnosis did not
exist in 1965, and noting my educational, professional, and flight
training history, the FAA has reinstated my medical. They said they'd
send out the certificate this week or next, given the holiday.

I'm still upset at the AME, who pulled the trigger on this based on
almost zero facts and did not offer any guidance in getting a
determination of whether I was really qualified to fly. However, I
have to hand it to the FAA for making a relatively quick determination
based on the additional information -- I think they deserve credit for
that.

Thanks, everyone, for the supportive comments.

Wiz

[Jose]

> Based apparently on
> the letter from my primary physician [...] the FAA has reinstated my medical.

Great! And I'm always glad to hear stories of how the FAA operates in
our interests rather than against us as a big bureaucracy.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dallas]

"Wiz"
> Got some good news when I spoke to the FAA today. Based apparently on
> the letter from my primary physician that the ADD diagnosis did not
> exist in 1965,

That is awesome! ...sometimes the good guy wins.

But, your experience has shown how broken parts of the system are. You
mentioned the protocol for a battery of tests the FAA wanted performed by a
psychologist or psychiatrist for a diagnosis of ADD which include an IQ
test, Rorschach (inkblot) test and depression screening.

Does the FAA think that ADD is a form of mental retardation? I wonder if
they would be surprised to find out that ADD has no relationship to IQ. It
makes you wonder how they come up with this stuff.


Dallas

[Roger]

On 22 Dec 2005 10:44:24 -0800, "Wiz" > wrote:

>All:
>
>Got some good news when I spoke to the FAA today. Based apparently on
>the letter from my primary physician that the ADD diagnosis did not
>exist in 1965, and noting my educational, professional, and flight
>training history, the FAA has reinstated my medical. They said they'd
>send out the certificate this week or next, given the holiday.

Congratulations! I'm glad to hear it all worked out in the end.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>I'm still upset at the AME, who pulled the trigger on this based on
>almost zero facts and did not offer any guidance in getting a
>determination of whether I was really qualified to fly. However, I
>have to hand it to the FAA for making a relatively quick determination
>based on the additional information -- I think they deserve credit for
>that.
>
>Thanks, everyone, for the supportive comments.
>
>Wiz

[Morgans]

"Wiz" > wrote

> the FAA has reinstated my medical. They said they'd
> send out the certificate this week or next, given the holiday.
>
> I'm still upset at the AME, who pulled the trigger on this based on
> almost zero facts

I've got to wonder if this wasn't a little "payback" for you getting mad
because they messed up with your medical numbers, in the first place. Wrong
in any case, but I have to wonder.
--
Jim in NC

[Dallas]

"Wiz"
> I'm still upset at the AME, who pulled the trigger on this based on
> almost zero facts

Hey Wiz.. how did he even get a report from your doctor with the mention of
ADD on it, I thought he wanted more info on the BP meds?



Dallas

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Bashir Salamati wrote:
> Never, never, never admit anything to an AME. Never. Ever. Even if
> you are having a stroke in his office.


Truer words were never spoken. Excellent advice if you want to fly. Of course,
if you want to retire, blab all.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Wiz]

Dallas:

The protocol for approval if you take blood pressure medication
requires documentation of three normal BP readings in your MD's office
over a period of time. My MD faxed the office notes for that period
with the BP readings on them (guess he could have sent a letter with
the BP readings, but I didn't know he was going to do it that way).
The notation for one day said "BP xxx/xx, ADD, tendonitis (r) wrist."

Wiz
--------
Dallas wrote:

Hey Wiz.. how did he even get a report from your doctor with the
mention of
ADD on it, I thought he wanted more info on the BP meds?

Dallas

[Wiz]

Mortimer said:

>Truer words were never spoken. Excellent advice if you want to fly. Of course,
>if you want to retire, blab all.

Well, in my case, the three letters that caused the problem were in a
record disclosed by my MD for other reasons (for the BP readings they
contained). I didn't even know the reference was in my MD's notes.
It's unfortunate, however, that the system encourages pilots to be less
than forthcoming. The medical exams should serve some purpose.
Because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of some of the decisions
based on the medical, though, the process seems to discourage candor to
the AME, and that's not helpful to aviation safety.

Wiz

[Dave Stadt]

"Wiz" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mortimer said:
>
> >Truer words were never spoken. Excellent advice if you want to fly. Of
course,
> >if you want to retire, blab all.
>
> Well, in my case, the three letters that caused the problem were in a
> record disclosed by my MD for other reasons (for the BP readings they
> contained). I didn't even know the reference was in my MD's notes.
> It's unfortunate, however, that the system encourages pilots to be less
> than forthcoming. The medical exams should serve some purpose.
> Because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of some of the decisions
> based on the medical, though, the process seems to discourage candor to
> the AME, and that's not helpful to aviation safety.
>
> Wiz

There is no evidence a Class III medical has any positive effect on aviation
safety. It for the most part keeps healthy people from flying as you have
found out.

[Rob Johnson]

"Bashir Salamati"
> Never, never, never admit anything to an AME. Never. Ever. Even if
> you are having a stroke in his office.

Is this still good advice in light of: "Falsification of a medical
application is subject to up to 5 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and
revocation of a pilot certificates and ratings."

I haven't taken my medical yet, and in theory there is nothing wrong with
me. I've got a minor heart valve thing that should pass because it
represents no real danger, but now you guys have got me scared.

So, do you keep your mouth shut and risk getting busted or do you open up
the can of worms?


Rob

['Vejita' S. Cousin]

In article t>,
>"Bashir Salamati"
>> Never, never, never admit anything to an AME. Never. Ever. Even if
>> you are having a stroke in his office.
>
>Is this still good advice in light of: "Falsification of a medical
>application is subject to up to 5 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and
>revocation of a pilot certificates and ratings."

The key thing is to not admit anything, that's different from lying.
Be honest, but don't tell them what they don't ask. Basicaly remember
that the AME is NOT your doctor, he's an agent of the FAA. And it's not
his job to 'help you' or 'improve your health.' He's a screener and
sometimes not a very good one.
I plan to become an AME after I complete my residency (applying for
Med-Peds currently). I'd like to think that I'd be fair, but I also know
that I'll act as an agent of the FAA. The main reason I want to become an
AME is to HELP pilots get through the process. I'd ground them if
necessary, but I'd like to try to help them through the system too. I
know a few other AME's that are like that (mine is also a pilot and use to
rent from the same club, the club has since folded).

[Larry Dighera]

On 22 Dec 2005 10:44:24 -0800, "Wiz" > wrote in
. com>::

>
>I'm still upset at the AME, who pulled the trigger on this based on
>almost zero facts and did not offer any guidance in getting a
>determination of whether I was really qualified to fly. However, I
>have to hand it to the FAA for making a relatively quick determination
>based on the additional information -- I think they deserve credit for
>that.

Did the AME violate anything in here?:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/?CFID=14556715&CFTOKEN=37551028

To see how the FAA expects AMEs to think, peruse the Federal Air
Surgeon's Medical Bulletin:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/

I found this issue interesting:
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/fasmb/media/F2004_3.pdf

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Rob Johnson wrote:
> So, do you keep your mouth shut and risk getting busted or do you open up
> the can of worms?



You keep your mouth shut. Think of it like you would an IRS audit. You have to
answer direct questions honestly but you don't offer anything that wasn't asked
for directly. If you have a heart murmur, don't mention it. If the AME finds
it, so be it. If he doesn't, it couldn't be much of a murmur. Many (if not
most) murmurs are benign anyway.

If he finds something awful, well, this is the first you've heard of it.
Ignorance is an excellent defense in this case. It may not prevent you being
grounded but it sure can keep the big fine off your back. FWIW, I don't know a
pilot who's ever gotten zinged in that way by the FAA over medical stuff. The
worst that happens is they don't get their medical.

You need to have two doctors: your real one that you tell your troubles to, and
your AME. The two should never meet.

Now, the one area the FAA won't play is that of DUIs and drug convictions. Only
the incredibly stupid pilot fools around with either.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Gene Whitt]

Wiz,
I have copied your email as a worthy entrant into my web site's 'Medicals
from Hell'
Next time I re-publish in it goes to join mine and many others of dubious
fame.
Gene Whitt

[George Patterson]

Rob Johnson wrote:

> So, do you keep your mouth shut and risk getting busted or do you open up
> the can of worms?

It's very simple for me. If there's a good chance that the Feds *can* find out
about something, I disclose it.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.