Vitreous Detachment ...

U

Unregistered

Guest
90 days ago; a sudden increase in the qty of floaters in my left eye and a momentary
flash of a bright, thin, vertical line whenever I moved by head to the right ... in the far
left corner of the eye. (No curtains. No bands. No darkness.)

This problem lasted for less than one week.

Ophthalmologist diagnosed:

- Vitreous detachment

Ophthalmologist billed:

- Vitreous detachment
- Vitreous hemorrhage (never mentioned this to me)

Final (planned) appointment (week 12) is next week. My questions:

- What documentation will CAMI require when I renew is in Aug 2014?
- Assuming that everything is healed/nominal; can I expect an in-office issuance?
 
A partial vitreal detachment (aka "PVD") is not a big deal. What you'll need when you renew your medical is a full FAA eye evaluation Form 8500-7 filled out and signed by an eye doctor (either an ophthalmologist or doctor of optometry), done within the preceding 60 days. If all is well, it is, as Bruce says, a "yawner".
 
Ron forgot:

You're also going to need full Humphrey 24-2 or 30-2 Visual fields on BOTH eyes, done within 90 days prior to the reup, e.g, after 6/1/2014 Make sure the 8500-7 is dated after that date.

There is ALWAYS vitreous hemmorage (even a wee bit) with a detachment. That's a billing thing but sometimes is a problem. Thus the FORMAL visual field requirements.
 
bbchien said:
Ron forgot:

You're also going to need full Humphrey 24-2 or 30-2 Visual fields on BOTH eyes, done within 90 days prior to the reup, e.g, after 6/1/2014 Make sure the 8500-7 is dated after that date.
Click to expand...
Ummm...you mean after 7/1/2013 for a renewal this week?
 
Ron Levy said:
Ummm...you mean after 7/1/2013 for a renewal this week?
Click to expand...
He's obviously intent on flying without documentation until his next medical, Ron. I can't help him with that. I just tell 'em what they need.
unregistered said:
- What documentation will CAMI require when I renew is in Aug 2014?
Click to expand...
To the OP: Read 67.313 and tell me what you think about flying to next medical. Your call.
 
Thank you for the 67.313 referral ... I self-grounded for the 19 days that the ophthalmologist said, no flying/PIC.

I returned to PIC duties when he said it was okay.
 
I will sched a new AME visit for Oct 2013, with 8500-7 and Humphrey results in-hand.
 
Unregistered said:
I will sched a new AME visit for Oct 2013, with 8500-7 and Humphrey results in-hand.
Click to expand...
Make sure that AME is the kind a guy who will "call it in" and not defer for that.

If your level of training and pilot certification is not to CFI, AND you possess that stuff, you can argue that nothing in the syllabi of your training, oral exam, or written points you to 67.313. But it's safer to get it vetted.

A guy like me....ATP/CFI/AME hasn't got a chance personally, of claiming that, however :(.
 
> Make sure that AME is the kind a guy who will "call it in" and not defer for that.

To minimize the possible office/paperwork snafus; I plan to visit one of your HIMS-qualified
colleagues. (No requirement for me to visit with a HIMS AME.)

Is this doing a "consultation" appointment first?
 
> Is this doing a "consultation" appointment first?

Arrgh - typo and missing/add'l info. Trying again:

Earlier this year; I had my only vertigo episode. The ENT (pilot, not AME) did three exams
over ten weeks. He wrote a letter re: his diagnosis, my (full) recovery and included, "No
increased risk of sudden incapacitation."

I'm seeking out a HIMS-qualified AME to minimize the risk of an office or paperwork snafu and
for him possibly having more respect & judgement allowed by CAMI.

Is it wise(r) sit for a "consultation" first? Before executing a Second-class exam? (Trying
to protect my LSA options.)
 
bbchien said:
He's obviously intent on flying without documentation until his next medical, Ron. I can't help him with that. I just tell 'em what they need.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that you told someone a few years ago that with a PVD, there was no need to stop flying as long as the eye eval was clean and there were no other visual issues.
 
The problem is case law, Ron. We keep making new caselaw.

Unregistered said:
> Make sure that AME is the kind a guy who will "call it in" and not defer for that.

To minimize the possible office/paperwork snafus; I plan to visit one of your HIMS-qualified
colleagues. (No requirement for me to visit with a HIMS AME.)

Is this doing a "consultation" appointment first?
Click to expand...
Usually. for guys who have files here already, it's just a phone conversation.
Unregistered said:
> Is this doing a "consultation" appointment first?

Arrgh - typo and missing/add'l info. Trying again:

Earlier this year; I had my only vertigo episode. The ENT (pilot, not AME) did three exams
over ten weeks. He wrote a letter re: his diagnosis, my (full) recovery and included, "No
increased risk of sudden incapacitation."

I'm seeking out a HIMS-qualified AME to minimize the risk of an office or paperwork snafu and
for him possibly having more respect & judgement allowed by CAMI.

Is it wise(r) sit for a "consultation" first? Before executing a Second-class exam? (Trying
to protect my LSA options.)
Click to expand...
This particular example depends totally on what the ENT calls it. Viral labyrinthitis? BPPV? Autoimmune labyrinthitis?

Yeah. I'd have someone knowledgeable review the record before you do any 8500-8.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
O
bbchien said:
The problem is case law, Ron. We keep making new caselaw.
Click to expand...
K, so you're telling me that a diagnosis of PVD is now immediately grounding until a new medical based on a full eye evaluation is issued?
Click to expand...
Just so you don't think he's standing you up for an answer:
Originally Posted by bbchien
Notice to EVERYONE: I'm away from 9/27 to 10/6, I'll check in when I can. Going to Coeur d'Alene thence to Fresno thence Watsonville CA.
Click to expand...
 
Ron, It depends on how careful you want to be about actually being legal, and whether the FAA can s how that you had reason to know.

They look pretty carefully at folks who should know....CFIs should know.

They look hard a folks in revenue situations.

You can infer the rest.
 
bbchien said:
Ron, It depends on how careful you want to be about actually being legal, and whether the FAA can s how that you had reason to know.

They look pretty carefully at folks who should know....CFIs should know.

They look hard a folks in revenue situations.

You can infer the rest.
Click to expand...
If you have diabetes, it's covered in plain language under 67.x13(a), but I don't see how a defect that requires a Federal Air Surgeon "finding" under 67.x13(b) can apply to CFIs or anybody else. They'd have to be clairvoyant. Have you got a reference to the contrary? I wouldn't be surprised if there is, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

dtuuri
 
bbchien said:
Ron, It depends on how careful you want to be about actually being legal, and whether the FAA can s how that you had reason to know.

They look pretty carefully at folks who should know....CFIs should know.

They look hard a folks in revenue situations.

You can infer the rest.
Click to expand...
Well, since I am not on a Special Issuance for my PVD, I infer that it is not disqualifying, i.e., it is not an "acute or chronic pathological condition of either eye or adnexa that interferes with the proper function of an eye, that may reasonably be expected to progress to that degree, or that may reasonably be expected to be aggravated by flying". Thus, as long as the pilot's eye evaluation at the time of diagnosis says you still meet the published standards (20/40 for Third or 20/20 for First/Second, etc), then s/he does not "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" and is not grounded in the interim even if the FAA will want more information at renewal time.
 
dtuuri said:
If you have diabetes, it's covered in plain language under 67.x13(a), but I don't see how a defect that requires a Federal Air Surgeon "finding" under 67.x13(b) can apply to CFIs or anybody else. They'd have to be clairvoyant. Have you got a reference to the contrary? I wouldn't be surprised if there is, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
Of course. You have to consult someone who should know.....the FAS' representative. Then the question becomes, is MY opinion adequate to satisfy 67.313, or does it have to be from the agency?

That's where the ambiguity is.
That's why I always ask, "CFI certificate in your past?"
"part 121 or 135/119 in your present?"
...because if they are you, are a high priority target.

For many it should be sufficient to have the normal visual fields, the 8500-7, but for some continuing to fly without the agency vetting is unwise. And most 121 companies require it.
 
Last edited:
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top