Am I too old to fly?

On Dec 19, 10:00*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

I've just explained why they are one and the same.

Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
standards.

Like a lawyer, in other words.

You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Then why isn't the limit 157?

There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.
Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
even for hypertensives.

The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
otherwise gotten.

It's a pleasure to see an occasional posting that is actually related
to aviation!

a wrote:
On Dec 19, 10:00Â*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Because the requirements for a medical are rather rigid while the requirements
for a sport pilot is the rather flexible "safe to fly".

I've just explained why they are one and the same.

Once again you see everything as black and white and can't decern shades of
grey nor do you seem to be able to understand the concepts of two sets of
standards.

Like a lawyer, in other words.

You would fail your medical with a blood pressure reading of 156,
which is 1 mm over the limit for the medical, but there is no one (except
maybe you) who would make the claim that a person is safe to fly with a
blood pressure of 155 but not with a blood pressure of 156.

Then why isn't the limit 157?

There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.
Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
even for hypertensives.

The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
otherwise gotten.

It's a pleasure to see an occasional posting that is actually related
to aviation!

One can get a waiver for just about any condition with enough time and
money for doctors and lab work, none of which will be covered by insurance.

The rational alternative is to spend the money on a LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

a writes:

There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.

So why would it increase more for a pilot who requires a medical than for a
pilot who does not? That's the issue for a light sport license. If you can't
pass the medical, then you're not fit to fly--that's what the medical is
designed to determine--and so you don't qualify for the light sport license.

The fact that some applicants engage in doublethink to avoid facing this
obvious reality doesn't mean that they are right in doing so. The fact that
the FAA chooses not to pursue this in many cases doesn't mean that it cannot
or won't do so in the future or at its discretion.

Of minor interest is in a location I am familiar with when people are
subjected to a max effort treadmill test and their blood pressure as
well as EKG is being monitored, the test will stop when (ready for
this?) the BP exceeds 260 over I forgot what. The moral of the story
may be steady state hypertension does long term damage to organs, but
the chance of something sudden happening is probably fairly remote,
even for hypertensives.

Yes. A systolic pressure of 230 increases the chance of having a heart attack
in the next decade by only a few percent. But it is true that consistently
high BP does a lot of wear and tear, especially on things like the kidneys and
eyes. These won't cause sudden incapacitation, so they aren't relevant to
aviation, but they do affect general health, and may eventually affect fitness
to fly.

The FAA thinks in terms of cut-offs, but we all know the risk increase
is gradual, not abrupt. I am not sure but wonder if the BP limit is
something for which one can get a waiver, just as I had gotten one for
vision to get a Class 2 medical instead of the Class 3 I would have
otherwise gotten.

I've never heard of a waiver for BP, but it's an interesting question. Perhaps
if you could prove that it was white-coat syndrome or something, you could get
a waiver.

Sometimes, if your BP is very high at the doctor's office, you can try
monitoring your BP several times a day at home over a period of weeks. The
results may be surprisingly normal, although that might not necessarily
satisfy the FAA (even though it should).

Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:

There is little doubt that the risk of a 'cardiovascular
accident' (stroking or MI) increases with increasing blood pressure.

So why would it increase more for a pilot who requires a medical than for a
pilot who does not? That's the issue for a light sport license. If you can't
pass the medical, then you're not fit to fly--that's what the medical is
designed to determine--and so you don't qualify for the light sport license.

Wrong again.

You just can't seem to get it into your head that light sport has one set
of standards, basically a common sense definition, while the other certificates
have a different set of standards primarily based on numerical limits.

One set of standards has little to nothing to do with the other.

By your black and white, one size fits all interpretation, anyone that can't
pass the phyical for astronauts is "not fit to fly".

The fact that some applicants engage in doublethink to avoid facing this
obvious reality

It is only obvious to someone that can't understand the concept of having
two sets of standards for two set of circumstances.

snip irrelevant babble

I've never heard of a waiver for BP

Because you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Sometimes, if your BP is very high at the doctor's office, you can try
monitoring your BP several times a day at home over a period of weeks. The
results may be surprisingly normal, although that might not necessarily
satisfy the FAA (even though it should).

A home BP test will satisfy the FAA for the medical requirements for sport
pilot.

If the home test is normal, the person has no reason to believe they are
not fit to fly as defined by the rules which apply to sport pilot.

Look up the term "white coat hypertension".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

By your black and white, one size fits all interpretation, anyone that can't
pass the phyical for astronauts is "not fit to fly".

No. By my interpretation, anyone who could not pass a third-class FAA medical
is not eligible to fly with a light sport license. That's the obvious
interpretation of the regulations, but it is clear that the FAA left a
loophole in them deliberately, by allowing pilots to certify themselves.

I suppose this is tacit recognition that the medical standards are too high,
but it avoids actually lowering the standards and risking the heat if a pilot
causes a crash due to medical issues. The FAA can always say that the pilot
didn't follow the regulations.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

By your black and white, one size fits all interpretation, anyone that can't
pass the phyical for astronauts is "not fit to fly".

No. By my interpretation, anyone who could not pass a third-class FAA medical
is not eligible to fly with a light sport license. That's the obvious
interpretation of the regulations,

No, it is not obvious by any stretch of the imagination and it is just as
stupid as saying a private pilot is not fit to fly because they could not
pass a first class medical.

When you look at the rules taken as a whole, instead of through the blinders
you always wear, you discover that the FAA recognizes four different types
of flying with four different standards with respect to medical qualificaton:

That which requires a first class medical

That which requires a second class medical

That which requires a third class medical

That which requires the pilot to self certify as to fitness


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

When you look at the rules taken as a whole, instead of through the blinders
you always wear, you discover that the FAA recognizes four different types
of flying with four different standards with respect to medical qualificaton:

That which requires a first class medical

That which requires a second class medical

That which requires a third class medical

That which requires the pilot to self certify as to fitness

You don't need to be able to pass a first-class medical to fly in situations
that require only a second-class medical. But you need to be able to pass some
sort of medical to fly at all, either explicitly or (for the light sport
license) implicitly. The medical determines your fitness; if you cannot pass a
third-class medical, you are unfit. Otherwise having failed or lost a
third-class medical would not disqualify you from flying light sport. If the
FAA didn't care about your ability to pass a medical, that restriction would
not exist.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

When you look at the rules taken as a whole, instead of through the blinders
you always wear, you discover that the FAA recognizes four different types
of flying with four different standards with respect to medical qualificaton:

That which requires a first class medical

That which requires a second class medical

That which requires a third class medical

That which requires the pilot to self certify as to fitness

You don't need to be able to pass a first-class medical to fly in situations
that require only a second-class medical.

Yep, and you don't need to be able to pass a second class medical to fly in
situations that require only a third class medical.

And you don't need to be able to pass a third class medical to fly in
situations that don't require a medical, which by the way is more than
just light sport pilot.

But you need to be able to pass some
sort of medical to fly at all, either explicitly or (for the light sport
license) implicitly.

Nope, there is nothing "implicit" in the rules and they are quite clear.

In relation to the FAA, the term "medical" means specific tests, specific
results, and performance by specific people as in for a third class medical
blood pressure is tested to be less than 155 under specific conditions and
done by an AME.

To fly as a light sport pilot there is no requirement that one has ever
seen a physican of any kind at any time in their life, only the requirement
that they be safe to fly.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.