3rd class mdical re-visited

[poadeleted20]

The FAA Web site has a huge amount of information on it. If they want to hold pilots responsible for knowing what's on a specific page, they should at least mention it in the AIM, including where to find it.

The AIM is not meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia of all the information necessary to execute all your responsibilities as an airman certificate holder, only "to provide the aviation community with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States." Part 67 is beyond the scope of its purpose. The AME Guide is published on the internet, as are the Regional Flight Surgeons' contact information. The resources are already readily available to answer any question you have about Part 67 without loading the AIM with material extraneous to its intended purpose.

 

[denverpilot]

And it really isn't "double-secret probation" -- the information is posted on the internet for all to see, and they'll happily provide a prompt answer to a direct question if that AME guide is too complicated for you to understand. And the RFS contact information is both posted on the internet and available from your local FSDO.

There are people without Internet access, you know. Or who don't have computers for that matter.

Last I checked, posting **** to a website is not how we create laws. Nor how we have all agreed to distribute them.

Sloppy work, below minimum standard. By bright folks who know better.

Bright folks who also know they can get away with substandard work and have no real consequences.

 

[Bob Noel]

I love it. The information is out there (somewhere) so there is no excuse for a pilot to ground himself after some medical condition.

 

[docmirror]

It's not what you know that important, it's important that what you don't know is known by someone else, whom you don't know, but need to know, and you know, that you also need to know how to find the guy who knows what you need to know - to self-certify.

It's only fair.

 

[Palmpilot]

The AIM is not meant to be a comprehensive encyclopedia of all the information necessary to execute all your responsibilities as an airman certificate holder, only "to provide the aviation community with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System (NAS) of the United States." Part 67 is beyond the scope of its purpose. The AME Guide is published on the internet, as are the Regional Flight Surgeons' contact information. The resources are already readily available to answer any question you have about Part 67 without loading the AIM with material extraneous to its intended purpose.

I doubt that the majority of pilots even know that that guide is on the FAA Web site, let alone where to find it.

The AIM frequently tells pilots where to find rules that are published elsewhere. In this case, Section 8-1-1, Fitness for Flight, would seem like an appropriate place to do it.

Or are you saying that making it easier for pilots to find rules the FAA expects them to follow is a BAD thing?

 

[poadeleted20]

There are people without Internet access, you know. Or who don't have computers for that matter.

No phone, either? The RFS numbers are readily available from your FSDO, and anyone with a medical certificate must know how to reach the AME who issued it. The only way someone cannot learn the FAS's position on any particular form of cancer is willful blindness.

 

[poadeleted20]

I doubt that the majority of pilots even know that that guide is on the FAA Web site, let alone where to find it.

The AIM frequently tells pilots where to find rules that are published elsewhere. In this case, Section 8-1-1, Fitness for Flight, would seem like an appropriate place to do it.

Or are you saying that making it easier for pilots to find rules the FAA expects them to follow is a BAD thing?

All I'm saying is there is no excuse for a pilot not checking with a reliable authority as to the effect of any given medical condition on their legal fitness to fly. If you don't know the answer (that's "know", not "guess" or "think"), you find out, and the sources of that information are not kept secret, but rather are available with even the slightest effort on the pilot's part.

 

[jbarrass]

Heck, I always assumed the AME guide was for, well, AME.

If they wanted pilots to know, and for some bizarre reason they choose not to put it in the regs as a 16th criteria, I assume they would put it in a "pilots" guide?

I've always assumed incompetence, I understand, but don't necessarily agree, with the thought that it could be more sinister.

 

[poadeleted20]

Heck, I always assumed the AME guide was for, well, AME.

Then if you have a question about such issues, ask an AME.

 

[denverpilot]

No phone, either? The RFS numbers are readily available from your FSDO, and anyone with a medical certificate must know how to reach the AME who issued it. The only way someone cannot learn the FAS's position on any particular form of cancer is willful blindness.

The expectation that everyone who wonders what the hell the latest fad in fake laws that someone published on a website are, and hat we should all pick up the phone and call randomly whenever we sniffle, is ridiculous.

Standard: Look up law. Law says not a problem. Go about business.

It's not the pilot doing sub-standard work who's causing the problem here. There's a standard for how to publish laws and people who are bright enough to know how procedures work, since they spend their entire professional life working on a procedural basis anyway, are willfully not following it.

The message should be clear: Fire up an NPRM and make the necessary changes. It's NOT THAT FREAKING HARD TO DO YOUR JOB. It's even written down how to do it.

You make a good argument as to why they'll make your life hell if you don't go out of your way to figure out WTF they want, sure.

Doesn't mean any of us have to agree they're doing their jobs correctly.

Making up crap and putting it on a website is not appropriate legislation nor administration in our system of government. And it shouldn't be defended.

 

[retailguy]

The only way someone cannot learn the FAS's position on any particular form of cancer is willful blindness.

That's what is being argued here as a "strategy". Maybe it will work, but why risk your ability to fly for this? I just don't understand.

 

[Palmpilot]

All I'm saying is there is no excuse for a pilot not checking with a reliable authority as to the effect of any given medical condition on their legal fitness to fly. If you don't know the answer (that's "know", not "guess" or "think"), you find out, and the sources of that information are not kept secret, but rather are available with even the slightest effort on the pilot's part.

If the FAA's position is the same as yours, then there's no excuse for the way they are handling it. If they want pilots to call an AME every time they recover from an illness, they should put it in the regulations.

 

[jbarrass]

That's what is being argued here as a "strategy". Maybe it will work, but why risk your ability to fly for this? I just don't understand.

Because, despite Ron's certainty, the FAS position is clear as mud.

For cancer, the AME guide says: Submit all pertinent medical records, operative/ pathology reports, current oncological status report, including tumor markers, and any other testing deemed necessary.

So what does that mean?

Lots of AME read it differently and this board is full of stories of AME who guess wrong and put the pilot into SI heck. It's hardly clear.

When I had my cancer (prostate), my AME and AOPA legal did not agree with Ron that you had to immediately ground. They said OKC "wanted" you to, but there was no regulatory requirement. Made sense to me, since that's what the regs say.

Some say why not do what the bureaucrats want, some say why. I prefer not to facilitate the bureaucratic rules creep unless I have to.

They could make it clear, follow the rules, do an NPRM and make it a 16th. They choose not to. I take their deliberate actions not to put it into the reg at face value.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's what is being argued here as a "strategy". Maybe it will work, but why risk your ability to fly for this? I just don't understand.

I suspect that the majority of pilots don't even know that there is a list of disqualifying conditions on the FAA Web site that may be different from what is in the regulations. If I'm right, is it willful blindness on the part of the majority of pilots, or willful negligence on the part of the FAA?

Now, as it happens, I found it quite easy to use the menus on the FAA Web site to find the list of disqualifying conditions that the FAA has created for AME's, but if I hadn't heard on an online forum that such a list existed outside of the regulations, I wouldn't even have known to look for it. That raises the question: Is it willful ignorance to not participate in online forums? It's very easy to find pilots and instructors who don't. One can only assume that they don't have time for these online debating societies.

And oh by the way, regarding the OP's question, cancer is not on the list!

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/standards/

 

[poadeleted20]

If the FAA's position is the same as yours, then there's no excuse for the way they are handling it. If they want pilots to call an AME every time they recover from an illness, they should put it in the regulations.

I never said they did, and they don't. I didn't say anyone should "call randomly whenever we sniffle", either. All they said is that if you don't know whether your medical condition is acceptable for flight by the FAA Aeromedical people, it's your responsibility to find out, and there are easy ways to do that with nothing more than a telephone.

I'm tired of people twisting words to support their own anti-FAA positions. I'm out.

 

[NoHeat]

I have had the scenario described in the OP. Basal Cell Carcinoma. Moles that were suspicious. Biopsied. Removed. No trace of them in a follow-up appointment. I kept flying the whole time. The AME certified me at my next examination without asking a single question about my disclosure of Basal Cell Carcinoma.

It is an extremely non-threatening condition. Nobody dies from it. Nobody loses consciousness or anything that would affect your daily life. It is much less malignant than melanoma. It is very close to being a non-event in your life. It would be just plain stupid to stop flying due to Basal Cell Carcinoma. And it is technically a cancer.

 

[docmirror]

Well, actually, we all self-certify that we are medically competent to make the flight each time we get in the plane. Remember IMSAFE? There's no 'cancer' listed in that. So, I do my IMSAFE, discover that I have no self-disqualifying conditions based on that criteria, since we are a permissive, and not a permission society(no, we really are) I go ahead and fly. Next week, I get a diagnosis of a cancer. I do my IMSAFE test, discover that my cancer has not affected my ability to manage the flight and off I go. BTW, here's the FAAs definition of the "I" in IMSAFE, with my emphasis: Illness - Is the pilot suffering from any illness or symptom of an illness which might affect them in flight Well? Will it? Do I have a reasonable suspicion that my cancer might affect me IN FLIGHT?

There's a lot of others who think we have devolved to a permission society, which is not surprising given the increasing oversight into all human activities but the facts that exist, without any plain language alternative is what it is. There's no need for me to go hunting around some obscure(yes, the AME guide is obscure) reference, written for medical pros to determine if I am qualified for flight. The FAA checks me every 2-3 years to insure that I haven't missed something. If, during that scheduled check with the AME I get the bad news, well I guess I'll deal with it after that. Until then - IMSAFE? why yes I am, thank you very much. Geez, what a bunch of Felix Ungers.

 

[Stewartb]

Being such a rebel I'm surprised you get a medical at all. Or ask for clearances for operating a flight, etc.

Some of the opinions in this thread reflect personal experiences. They're easy to recognize. Some are fertilizer. Those are easy to spot as well. Here's a clip from the CFRs.

§ 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.
(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or
(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.

"(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate " is pretty clear in the legal sense. It has nothing to do with the ability to pilot a plane and everything to do with the ability to hold a medical certificate under the FAA's published standard. And it isn't overbearing in my experience. Any pilot who gets diagnosed with a DQ or potentionally DQ condition is very well informed about the aeromedical considerations within a day or two of finding out. That applied to myself and it's been true for my circle of pilot friends. And as for self-certifying capability? If humans were good at that we wouldn't have impaired drivers, would we? So in this discussion spare me your theories about how things are supposed to work and tell me how they've worked for you in your navigation through medical issues and aeromedical certification, because that's what counts. Every contributor with experience will report different specifics probably due to different conditions. That's interesting stuff. The supposition and name calling? A waste of our collective time.

 

[docmirror]

Yeah, fertilizer is pretty easy to spot. It's where they grow all the grovelers to cratocisy.

Can't you put me on ignore please? That way I won't violate your march to fascism. It'll be a nice smooth trip.

 

[Palmpilot]

I never said they did, and they don't. I didn't say anyone should "call randomly whenever we sniffle", either. All they said is that if you don't know whether your medical condition is acceptable for flight by the FAA Aeromedical people, it's your responsibility to find out, and there are easy ways to do that with nothing more than a telephone.

I'm tired of people twisting words to support their own anti-FAA positions. I'm out.

The position I was referring to was this:

All I'm saying is there is no excuse for a pilot not checking with a reliable authority as to the effect of any given medical condition on their legal fitness to fly. If you don't know the answer (that's "know", not "guess" or "think"), you find out, and the sources of that information are not kept secret, but rather are available with even the slightest effort on the pilot's part.

Those were your exact words. And speaking of twisting people's words, I never said anything about sniffles. The context of the discussion was serious conditions.

 

[poadeleted20]

And I'll stand by the second quote above -- if you don't know, it's on you to find out, and it isn't that hard to do that. OTOH, I never said you had to call the Federal Air Surgeon every time you have a medical condition for which you already know the answer.

 

[Palmpilot]

And I'll stand by my position that the FAA has done a poor job of informing pilots of that requirement, if it exists.

 

[denverpilot]

I never said they did, and they don't. I didn't say anyone should "call randomly whenever we sniffle", either. All they said is that if you don't know whether your medical condition is acceptable for flight by the FAA Aeromedical people, it's your responsibility to find out, and there are easy ways to do that with nothing more than a telephone.

I'm tired of people twisting words to support their own anti-FAA positions. I'm out.

He gave a very clear scenario where his doctor said he was 100% cured.

100% cured means ...

You... Do... Not... Have... A... Medical... Condition.

Cured. Past tense. Over with. Done.

And he asked if one should self-ground AFTER the cured diagnosis. Not during the treatment.

There's no twisting of words. You replied and recommended that yes, someone with a diagnoses of HEALTH, should read a website intended for Medical Examiners, which isn't aviation law...

We said... Some people don't know the website even exists. Why not make a proper law if that's what they want? They're lazy and don't want to go through the proper NPRM process.

Ok then! No Internet? They should pick up the phone and call someone immediately!

Ummm. They have a Doctor who said they're HEALTHY. Why would a healthy person call an 800 number at the government asking if they want information about an illness they no longer have? Isn't that as stupid as writing to the Chief Counsel asking their "opinion" on something?

(Which you have pointed out never leads to anything good and should generally be avoided.)

Now we are "twisting my words"!

LOL. Got it.

Is FAA without a doubt going to need the information at the next application for American certificate? You betcha.

Should a smart person talk to a professional AME who's dealt with them and at the very least have everything they'll want prepared and ready to ship to them on a moment's notice, and know the protocols for all the mountains of follow ups and paperwork that some Doctor'crat, wants in order to fulfill a goofy mandate to make the skies safe from cured people? Absolutely.

Should they consider sending it immediately because Aeromedical is known to have dropped the regulatory ball on this one, and has a goofy-assed concept of how law is created and published? Probably but debatable. Most of us here would, since we know the power of a 'crat scorned and we aren't stupid.

Could someone who truly had no knowledge of this goofiness by Aeromedical have cancer, not know from the published law that they needed to do anything, and then report at their next application for a medical certificate, and they have to rewind and get a mountain of paperwork under a time crunch? Sure. I bet it happens regularly.

Here's something telling about that scenario: Aeromedical may be lazy when it comes to following lawmaking process. But they aren't stupid. They know this possibility exists and I would happily wager $20 they've seen it happen many times. They DON'T CARE.

How can you tell? They upped the number of years between medical certificates for the 3rd Class for youngsters. And even for oldsters it isn't all that close together. They know damn well they'll have this happen and the person will walk in the door to their AME and have been cancer free for YEARS.

Where they are concerned all the multitude of possible diseases out there is in the commercial world. And they tighten the standard on how often one must chat with one's AME, accordingly.

Handle it your version of right, or the naysayers version, it doesn't matter in the slightest. You're at the bottom of a pile of paperwork and will be waiting on an SI. Only the start date of that process changes.

Common sense. If you're healthy, you're healthy. Nobody can complain about you not reporting that you're healthy.

 

[retailguy]

He gave a very clear scenario where his doctor said he was 100% cured.

100% cured means ...

You... Do... Not... Have... A... Medical... Condition.

Cured. Past tense. Over with. Done.

And he asked if one should self-ground AFTER the cured diagnosis. Not during the treatment.

There's no twisting of words.

I disagree with this. He did not state what type of cancer the person had. Some types of cancer require an SI for 5 years. This person has been cancer free for 18 months. Not cured by the regs. Some cancers require an SI issuance FOREVER. Again, not cured by regs.

Not as simple as you make it.

There have been all kinds of "word twisting" in this thread. It's patently ridiculous and to anyone reading it without having understood the background, following the advice in this thread could get them in a heap of trouble.

Ron might be a little too "black and white" for me, however, this time his advice is correct. Whether you like it or not.

 

[Everskyward]

I disagree with this. He did not state what type of cancer the person had. Some types of cancer require an SI for 5 years. This person has been cancer free for 18 months. Not cured by the regs. Some cancers require an SI issuance FOREVER. Again, not cured by regs.

Not as simple as you make it.

There have been all kinds of "word twisting" in this thread. It's patently ridiculous and to anyone reading it without having understood the background, following the advice in this thread could get them in a heap of trouble.

Ron might be a little too "black and white" for me, however, this time his advice is correct. Whether you like it or not.

He did not state what type of cancer the person had because it was a hypothetical question to stir the pot which he obviously managed to do successfully.

But we have clarified the point that the standards for reporting in this instance are not clear and people will interpret them differently.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

following the advice in this thread could get them in a heap of trouble.

Still waiting for someone to post an *actual* enforcement action related to "operating in the gray zone" being discussed here.

I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

 

[Tom-D]

He did not state what type of cancer the person had because it was a hypothetical question to stir the pot which he obviously managed to do successfully.

But we have clarified the point that the standards for reporting in this instance are not clear and people will interpret them differently.

Totally a personal opinion based upon nothing. It was a honest question, and proves a point of a lot of experts here don't understand self certification rules.

 

[Stewartb]

To add a dimension, run your same mental exercise for a pilot who's flying with a special issuance. Any special issuance for any condition. Now what?

 

[denverpilot]

I disagree with this. He did not state what type of cancer the person had. Some types of cancer require an SI for 5 years. This person has been cancer free for 18 months. Not cured by the regs. Some cancers require an SI issuance FOREVER. Again, not cured by regs.

Not as simple as you make it.

There have been all kinds of "word twisting" in this thread. It's patently ridiculous and to anyone reading it without having understood the background, following the advice in this thread could get them in a heap of trouble.

Ron might be a little too "black and white" for me, however, this time his advice is correct. Whether you like it or not.

Sure it is. Without something to point the pilot to the "cured by regs" requirement, how do they know it exists? Certainly those of us here, reading this thread, know. But I'll contend there are probably pilots who have had one of those "not cured until the government says you're cured" types, walk in for their next medical and not know they did anything wrong.

And like I said, Aeromedical isn't stupid. They've seen it too. If they cared, they'd put it on the list and make a big stink about it through their press friends. They haven't, and don't.

If they give a crap, they'd better avail themselves of numerous considerable resources at their disposal and make it law. It isn't right now.

Then again, Ron's wise words about not bothering the Chief Counsel about stupid crap also applies here. I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to go ask or point out their legal problem to them. They're bright. They can, and I contend, have... already figured it out. It'll show up at the next medical application for anyone who doesn't spend their free time reading documents meant for their AME posted on a website somewhere.

He did not state what type of cancer the person had because it was a hypothetical question to stir the pot which he obviously managed to do successfully.

But we have clarified the point that the standards for reporting in this instance are not clear and people will interpret them differently.

Yup.

Still waiting for someone to post an *actual* enforcement action related to "operating in the gray zone" being discussed here.



I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Yup.

 

[denverpilot]

To add a dimension, run your same mental exercise for a pilot who's flying with a special issuance. Any special issuance for any condition. Now what?

The requirement of an SI are clearly stated in the letter received when the SI is issued. Depends on what's on the letter.

 

[Everskyward]

Totally a personal opinion based upon nothing. It was a honest question, and proves a point of a lot of experts here don't understand self certification rules.

Based on your own admission or do you not remember posting this?

No it's not me, it was a hypothetical question, And No I don't know the answer. I'm not a Dr or a Lawyer.

I'm a member of a morning aviators coffee club, and some of the gezzers ask questions, That's all there is to most of these questions.

 

[Stewartb]

The requirement of an SI are clearly stated in the letter received when the SI is issued. Depends on what's on the letter.

Sort of. What it says is that an SI holder is required to report any change in condition during the issuance time. The change is not limited to the SI condition. What that demonstrates to all of us who've been involved with SIs is that like standard medicals, the issuance is conditional. And that's where some of your advice is contradictory to what some of us have come to understand. The conditional nature of a medical issuance is spelled out on the back side of the cert, which is further substantiated by the quote of the CFRs that I posted earlier. The issue has nothing to do with common sense or health, it's purely administrative. Will standard medical holders get busted? Probably not. Not until they become subject to investigation for an accident, anyway. Are they negligent in that case? Perhaps. The consequences are likely less in that pilot's favor if he holds an SI because we've already been warned. Does that make sense in the big picture? No, but it's very simple for me to manage with respect to myself, which I characterize as the small picture.

 

[poadeleted20]

But we have clarified the point that the standards for reporting in this instance are not clear and people will interpret them differently.

I disagree -- the standards for reporting are crystal-clear -- there is no doubt that this must be reported on the next medical application. What some folks are arguing is that one can use the excuse that FAA pilot training doesn't specifically cover all the medical conditions which may be grounding per the FAR's in order to keep flying with a condition which the FAA considers grounding. My position is that the information required is only a phone call away, so there is no excuse for continuing to fly with a serious medical condition without making that call and finding out what the rules are for that specific condition. And I think the FAA will take the same position as I hold.

 

[poadeleted20]

Totally a personal opinion based upon nothing. It was a honest question, and proves a point of a lot of experts here don't understand self certification rules.

I think the problem some folks have is they think "self-certification" means they can make up their own medical standards as opposed to certifying they meet the FAA's (which implies they must find out what the FAA's standards are, and that isn't very hard).

 

[Everskyward]

I disagree -- the standards for reporting are crystal-clear -- there is no doubt that this must be reported on the next medical application.

There is no question about it being reported on the NEXT medical application but the original question was about what to do until then.

 

[poadeleted20]

There is no question about it being reported on the NEXT medical application but the original question was about what to do until then.

There is still no question that there is no regulatory requirement for a report. However, you may need to ground yourself, depending on the condition, and if so, you'd need to report it as part of the Special Issuance process to continue flying with that disqualifying condition which can be waived on a SI. And it's pretty easy to find out whether your condition is permanently grounding, grounding pending a SI, temporarily grounding until it clears, or OK to fly with as is -- just ask your AME or the Regional Flight Surgeon.

 

[Everskyward]

There is still no question that there is no regulatory requirement for a report. However, you may need to ground yourself, depending on the condition, and if so, you'd need to report it as part of the Special Issuance process to continue flying with that disqualifying condition which can be waived on a SI. And it's pretty easy to find out whether your condition is permanently grounding, grounding pending a SI, temporarily grounding until it clears, or OK to fly with as is -- just ask your AME or the Regional Flight Surgeon.

The original question asked about the situation AFTER the person was declared cancer-free by their own doctor. In other words, they had recovered. The wording of the regs is unclear regarding this situation which is why there so much debate in this thread. Some people will take the conservative route, some won't.

 

[poadeleted20]

The original question asked about the situation AFTER the person was declared cancer-free by their own doctor. In other words, they had recovered. The wording of the regs is unclear regarding this situation which is why there so much debate in this thread. Some people will take the conservative route, some won't.

I don't see any lack of clarity in the regulations at all. The responsibility is very clearly on the pilot to find out (that "has reason to know" phrase pretty much seals the deal). The only debate seems to be whether failing to do the necessary research (basically, one phone call to someone you know has the answer) is a valid excuse, and I don't think it is -- and I don't think the FAA would buy that excuse, either.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't see any lack of clarity in the regulations at all. The responsibility is very clearly on the pilot to find out (that "has reason to know" phrase pretty much seals the deal). The only debate seems to be whether failing to do the necessary research (basically, one phone call to someone you know has the answer) is a valid excuse, and I don't think it is -- and I don't think the FAA would buy that excuse, either.

I understand you don't see a lack of clarity. I do. We even have someone who has posted in this thread who had a type of cancer, didn't report it until his next medical and didn't experience any negative consequences from his or her AME or the FAA.

It's probably prudent to ask an AME the question since it needs to be reported on the next medical, but that depends on the individual's tolerance to the risk of taking the chance he or she will be in trouble for not reporting it.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's probably prudent to ask an AME the question since it needs to be reported on the next medical, but that depends on the individual's tolerance to the risk of taking the chance he or she will be in trouble for not reporting it.

I agree -- if you can do the time, go ahead and do the crime. But don't ever say the rules aren't clear on this issue.