FAA Medical Question

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Current medical standards are excessively strict,

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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