3rd class mdical re-visited

The rules are clear on this issue. Unless or until I fill out the new form for my upcoming 3rd class medical, I am the authority as to what is grounding.

QED
 
docmirror said:
Unless or until I fill out the new form for my upcoming 3rd class medical, I am the authority as to what is grounding.
Click to expand...
Only someone who has never read 14 CFR 61.53 (or has significant English language reading comprehension issues) could say that honestly.
 
Ron Levy said:
Only someone who has never read 14 CFR 61.53 (or has significant English language reading comprehension issues) could say that honestly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, a clear reading of 61.53 doesn't talk about past medical conditions that are no longer applicable.

It talks about "taking medication or receiving other treatment", not previously taken or previously received.
 
By the way, I noticed that the FAA's Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners is 371 pages long. I haven't waded through all that to find out if it says anything about a requirement to self-ground after being declared cancer-free.
 
I had cancer, then got cured, then got an SI, then gave it back.....

So what now, do I have to self-ground until my next medical?
 
Ron Levy said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you walk into your AME office and present him a statement from your provider and various lab reports. He states you are good to fly until your next medical. Are you legal?
 
Ron Levy said:
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).
Click to expand...


Yep. It does. Pilot checks to see if they have a "reason to know". They pick up their copy of the FARs and read the 15 items that are clearly defined, don't see their malady on that list, close the book, and go about their business until their next application.

This is the key piece you want to ignore. How is said pilot supposed to know if they have a "reason to know"?

And no, a document written for their AME on a website they don't even know exists, doesn't count.

It's easy to fix. ("Woe is me" stories about how hard they've made their own law creation processes don't count either.)
 
Same hypothetical but now I'm a glider pilot. I have no medical nor requirement for one.

I get cancer. When do I go back to flying?
 
denverpilot said:
Same hypothetical but now I'm a glider pilot. I have no medical nor requirement for one.

I get cancer. When do I go back to flying?
Click to expand...

Who said you had to quit?
 
Bob Noel said:
Yeah, sure, a clear reading of 61.53 doesn't talk about past medical conditions that are no longer applicable.

It talks about "taking medication or receiving other treatment", not previously taken or previously received.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does, but that's only subpargraph (a)(2). Please read subparagraph (a)(1), also.
 
Clip4 said:
So you walk into your AME office and present him a statement from your provider and various lab reports. He states you are good to fly until your next medical. Are you legal?
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. You've consulted someone whom the FAA has certified as knowing the rules on medical certification, and I think that fulfills your responsibility.
 
Tom-D said:
Who said you had to quit?
Click to expand...
14 CFR 61.53(b) says you might have to ground yourself:
(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner.
Click to expand...
Per the Federal Air Surgeon's guidance, you'd need to talk this over with your physician to make that decision.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yes, it does, but that's only subpargraph (a)(2). Please read subparagraph (a)(1), also.
Click to expand...

oh please. I did read the entire 61.53.

Being cured means you no longer have a medical condition that "would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation;" Thus subparagraph (a)(1) wouldn't apply.

Maybe you should read it.
 
Bob Noel said:
oh please. I did read the entire 61.53.

Being cured means you no longer have a medical condition that "would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation;"
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Note that the FAA has standards for what is considered "cured" enough to return to flying, and by that regulation, you are responsible for finding out what those are. Further, in some cases, a Special Issuance is still required even when your non-AME doctor says you're "cured".
 
I think if I was half as smart as everyone in this thread thought they were, I'd have cured cancer by now and made it a non issue.

Go fly. What the hell. When it doesn't work for you, just don't come here complaining about it, because you will have deserved what happens to you.

And Jeff, there are lots of people who want to fly but can't. Go search yourself for them. Better yet, call Dr. Bruce. It is illogical to think that problems haven't crossed his desk with the way people did things that he couldn't fix. He complained loudly about that here for years. Listening to you, I conclude he must have made it all up just for show....:rolleyes2:
 
Ron Levy said:
No, it doesn't. Note that the FAA has standards for what is considered "cured" enough to return to flying, and by that regulation, you are responsible for finding out what those are. Further, in some cases, a Special Issuance is still required even when your non-AME doctor says you're "cured".
Click to expand...

Yes. it does.

Which is it? a "standard" or a "regulation"?

If a regulation, which regulation is it?
 
retailguy said:
It is illogical to think that problems haven't crossed his desk with the way people did things that he couldn't fix. He complained loudly about that here for years. Listening to you, I conclude he must have made it all up just for show....:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between not being able to get a certificate vs. having an enforcement action taken against you.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
There is a world of difference between not being able to get a certificate vs. having an enforcement action taken against you.
Click to expand...


And that's my point and we're saying the same thing. If you don't follow the protocol to return to flying after cancer, you put yourself in the position where the FAA has to decide whether or not to undertake an enforcement action against you.

It makes no sense to me why any pilot would put themselves in that position UNLESS he knew he was not certifiable, and that's a very different discussion.
 
retailguy said:
And that's my point and we're saying the same thing. If you don't follow the protocol to return to flying after cancer, you put yourself in the position where the FAA has to decide whether or not to undertake an enforcement action against you.

It makes no sense to me why any pilot would put themselves in that position UNLESS he knew he was not certifiable, and that's a very different discussion.
Click to expand...


In the case presented, what law would they enforcing?

And I mean the case where the pilot has read and followed every FAR and has no idea there's any "protocol" for something, because "protocols" are the AMEs job to know, not the pilot's.

In the case of "fully cured", and "had no idea they needed to do anything", they're not going to "enforce" anything, other than to have the person go get the paperwork pile together that the "protocol" wanted, and then continue the "protocol" for however long it's supposed to last, if it hasn't already timed-out.

There's nothing to be gained, safety or otherwise, to turn the process into a game of Catch-22 like many here think it is.

The person could end up grounded waiting on inefficient processes, once they realized they weren't given good information by the FARs, but that's par for the course. And isn't really based on any particular safety problem.

It's pretty rare the book gets thrown at people who didn't trigger any real safety problem and made honest mistakes. Some "retraining" (in this case, on what, we have no idea, since they didn't miss an FAR) and maybe a small suspension, worst case

Many recreational folks can do that "time" without caring too much. Commercial folks, probably not, unless they don't need the job.

They know all of this. With many years between required visits now, for the youngsters, and still years inbetween for oldsters, they certainly see this all the time. If it was a priority, they'd change it.
 
I'd like to hear some examples of enforcement cases where pilots were sanctioned for not self-grounding in the scenario posed by the OP. Does anyone have any?
 
It's been less than an hour - let's give it some time.
 
denverpilot said:
And I mean the case where the pilot has read and followed every FAR and has no idea there's any "protocol" for something, because "protocols" are the AMEs job to know, not the pilot's.
Click to expand...
Right -- which is why when you have a medical question, you ask the medical people. I don't think one should need a regulation to realize that.
 
Ron Levy said:
Right -- which is why when you have a medical question, you ask the medical people. I don't think one should need a regulation to realize that.
Click to expand...

So why does the FAA even bother to publish regulations? Just require everyone to call and ask every time they want to know if they can do something!
 
Ron Levy said:
Right -- which is why when you have a medical question, you ask the medical people. I don't think one should need a regulation to realize that.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your tenacity at being an apologist for them, but there's an FAR list and 99% of the pilots out there have no idea there's anything else to know.

Malady not on the list? Doc says healthy? They go flying. What will happen? They'll report at their next application for a medical and the paper pile will start then.

The people who made the list also created their own minimum standard that the list must be kept up to date, by making the list. If they can't meet their own simple self-imposed minimum standard they created, five minutes with a word processor is all it takes to start their own process to change it. (Also created by them.)
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I asked the same question more than once earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

Circling back on this...I actually can only find one enforcement item against any sport pilot for any reason....a person who buzzed the Santa Monica pier. My Google-foo is usually pretty good, so I'm not convinced the failure of anyone to show an example is proof they don't exist. Unless you're suggesting sport pilots only get enforcement actions for completely egregious stuff.
 
bflynn said:
Circling back on this...I actually can only find one enforcement item against any sport pilot for any reason....a person who buzzed the Santa Monica pier. My Google-foo is usually pretty good, so I'm not convinced the failure of anyone to show an example is proof they don't exist. Unless you're suggesting sport pilots only get enforcement actions for completely egregious stuff.
Click to expand...

It is just meant to deflect the discussion. There is no "published list" of enforcement actions. The only ones you could find are the ones that pilots made public. If I had an enforcement action against me and I never talked publicly about it the only ones who would know about it are me and the FAA....

It's not possible to answer his question honestly, but he knows that already...
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Yes, it is. The answer is "I can't point to any cases."

If this issue was a significant concern to the FAA, we'd know about.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want to believe. I don't understand why any pilot would put themselves in the position to let the FAA decide what to do. It is simply stupid.
 
retailguy said:
It is just meant to deflect the discussion. There is no "published list" of enforcement actions. The only ones you could find are the ones that pilots made public. If I had an enforcement action against me and I never talked publicly about it the only ones who would know about it are me and the FAA....

It's not possible to answer his question honestly, but he knows that already...
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I brought the question up again had nothing to do with deflecting the discussion. I asked because if I hear about such cases, then I would be more likely to self-ground if I were ever in a scenario like the OP posed. Until then, I will try to follow the regulations as I understand them, and not worry about aggressive interpretations posted by SGOTI.
 
Palmpilot said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I brought the question up again had nothing to do with deflecting the discussion. I asked because if I hear about such cases, then I would be more likely to self-ground if I were ever in a scenario like the OP posed. Until then, I will try to follow the regulations as I understand them, and not worry about aggressive interpretations posted by SGOTI.
Click to expand...

You're living "on the odds". I understand that. I'm not going to assess the likelihood of an enforcement action. I'm not an AME, nor an FAA employee. What I know, is the risk is greater than zero. What I further know is that if you don't self-ground, you give the power of the decision to the FAA. Maybe they'll decide in you favor, maybe they won't.

All any of us have to do is ask Bob Hoover if stupid stuff happens. It does, and it takes forever then to get it worked out. Bob spent 2 years flying in Australia. A cancer survivor might only have 2 years left to fly. The risk is higher than you acknowledge.

Now, both of us know that enforcement actions aren't publicized, nor should they be. Unless the pilot himself discloses it, there is NO data to find. Therefore what you do find is possibly hugely incomplete and understated. What could any reasonable person possibly conclude from incomplete data?

There is no reason to risk not following the AME protocol if the airman is cancer free and the cancer is dealt with under the FAA protocol. Even in my case where it isn't, I was able to prevail. Failure to disclose is stupid, senseless and sets the airman up for risk that is not necessary.

These semantic arguments discussing "FAA intent" are silly. The same folks in here advocating keeping ones mouth shut are the same people that talk about bureaucracy of the FAA being insurmountable and unreasonable. Don't you seen the disconnect?

Bob Hoover didn't even fail to disclose and got into a 2 year legal battle. What would have happened had the FAA been able to prove he failed to disclose? It would have taken longer and the possibility that it wouldn't have ended well would have certainly increased.
 
retailguy said:
Believe what you want to believe. I don't understand why any pilot would put themselves in the position to let the FAA decide what to do. It is simply stupid.
Click to expand...


Guess we all had better stop taking checkrides. (Did you put ANY thought into that comment? LOL!)

retailguy said:
Bob Hoover didn't even fail to disclose and got into a 2 year legal battle. What would have happened had the FAA been able to prove he failed to disclose? It would have taken longer and the possibility that it wouldn't have ended well would have certainly increased.
Click to expand...


Bob Hoover was targeted by folks who wanted to make a name for themselves. Non sequitur.
 
Wanna know what's stupid? Stupid is calling the Feds to ask a question about SELF certify situation. You, and I, and every person with a room temp or higher IQ knows better than to do something that dumb.:confused::nono::yikes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top