Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

medical

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:38 pm Post subject: medical

There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year 

requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers 

license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME 

to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.

So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online 

education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I 

don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but 

it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the 

mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when 

their funding comes up again.

Linn

On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any 

 value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some 

 Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow 

 their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than 

 three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.



 Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical 

 events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old 

 medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.



 I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out 

 and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a 

 sponsor.



>

philperry9

Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Posts: 381

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:17 pm Post subject: medical

That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.  

EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. 

What has changed?  Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket.  We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.  

However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.  

This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.  

I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons.   1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.  

This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed.   I'm glad others are catching on now.  We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.  

Sent from my iPhone

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:

 There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.

 So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.

 Linn

> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:

> 

> 

> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.

> 

> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.

> 

> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.

> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:40 pm Post subject: medical

The entire medical requirement has been nothing but public eyewash from day 1. There simply is not medical technology that will predict with any reliability that a pilot will have an incapacitating event. There was zero onset to my having an incapacitating kidney stone. Once the initial pain subsided, I did not have a single subsequent incapacitating pain, but was grounded for 9 months until the stone disappeared from the X-ray tests. None of the non-invasive cardiovascular tests predicts when you might have stroke or heart attack, although they may indicate a higher probability.

It is continued political theater that is in the new standard. It is totally immaterial that my wife hasn't had a medical for 35 yrs, because she did not seek one. She can still fly the plane, but doesn't want the risk or hassle of getting one again. She could get in an LSA plane and fly it today. What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds?

-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com (philperry9(at)gmail.com)>

 That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.

 EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us.

 What has changed?  Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket.  We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.

 However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.

 This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.

 I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons.   1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.

 This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed.   I'm glad others are catching on now.  We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.

 Sent from my iPhone

 > On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com (flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com)> wrote:

 >

 > --> RV10-List message posted by: Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com (flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com)>

 >

 >

 > There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.

 > So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.

 > Linn

 >

 >

 >> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:

 >> --> RV10-List message posted by: Lyle Peterson <lyleap(at)centurylink.net (lyleap(at)centurylink.net)>

 >>

 >> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.

 >>

 >> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.

 >>

 >> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.

 >>

 >>>

 >>>

 >>>

 >>>

 >>>

 >>>

 >>>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >

 >

 >

 >

 ====================================

 -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ====================================

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ====================================

 WIKI -

 errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 ====================================

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ====================================

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

amekler

Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Posts: 164

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:41 pm Post subject: medical

Philip,

As an ame I could not agree with you more

I do  aviation medicals on the side and if the class 3s go to the PCPs it may be not worth continuing 

PCPs know so little about aviation medicine 

The cost of flying isn't because of the cost of medicals

Alan

Sent from my iPhone

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.  

 EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. 

 What has changed?  Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket.  We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.  

 However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.  

 This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.  

 I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons.   1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.  

 This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed.   I'm glad others are catching on now.  We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.  

 Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> 

> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.

> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.

> Linn

> 

> 

>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.

>> 

>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.

>> 

>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.

>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

>

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2879

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:52 pm Post subject: medical

I hate to say it but I kind of feel the same way.  I do agree with both or all of the perspectives that have commented so far.  Everyone who's replied has had a good point.  I do agree with Philip in his support of the AME.  My AME is a pilot, with the same concerns as all of us have  when it comes to himself.  He wants reasonable measures too.  He likes to help people be healthy and goes to bat to keep people that should be allowed to fly, flying.  So I really would like to see them still be around.  But, I do think improvements can be made and in some cases the rules should be tweaked. It's a very tough call on what to do.  I don't know that Phils point #2 will happen, but it's at least a possibility. 

For that matter, I feel the same way about the 100LL replacement.   My local airport where I took my Checkride for Commercial was a test site for one of the new products.   They found it caused some issues with their engines...not sure which version of fuel. But i certainly want to see change that is positive, not negative, whenever something changes.

Tim

 	  Quote: 	
		   On Jan 12, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9(at)gmail.com> wrote:

 That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.  

 EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. 

 What has changed?  Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket.  We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.  

 However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.  

 This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.  

 I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons.   1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.  

 This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed.   I'm glad others are catching on now.  We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.  

 Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> 

> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.

> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.

> Linn

> 

> 

>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.

>> 

>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.

>> 

>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.

>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

>

flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:45 pm Post subject: medical

I completely disagree.  I think that the medical reform is one of the

only worthwhile things EAA and AOPA have accomplished lately.  It's

important to a lot of their members, and I think they accomplished a lot

in terms of addressing the needless bureaucracy of the system designed

for airline pilots on folks who want to fly an RV.  Now, does it go far

enough?  Nope, I think there's lots of room for improvement, but I think

it's a great first step.

You're right, some of the AMEs only approved for 3rd class medicals may

well stop doing it.  But the docs approved to do 1st class medicals for

airline pilots that need them every 6 months aren't going anywhere.

That's the bulk of the money doing exams, and I'm sure that the guy I

used to use in Denver who, every time I went, had 10 airline pilots in

the waiting room isn't going to mind terribly that the GA crowd doesn't

need him anymore.

I think the system does a good (albeit inefficient) job of protecting

paying passengers on airlines, and nothing is changing.  Sure, airline

pilots are regularly incapacitated and every so often one dies at the

controls, but I think we've got a pretty good balance of minimizing that

while making it extraordinarily unlikely that both pilots will be

incapacitated simultaneously.

On 01/12/2017 05:16 PM, Phillip Perry wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 That's been my #1 complaint since the "reform" (quotes and sarcasm intended) passed.  

 EAA and AOPA has been banging their chest over "reform" and the reality is that nothing has changed for us. 

 What has changed?  Our AME network has had money taken out of their pockets and moved into the family doctors pocket.  We have had aviation related experience of AME's stripped away from the majority of the aviation community and replaced with your family practitioner who knows nothing of aviation.  

 However the "standards" still are maintained and they have been shifted from experienced hands to inexperienced hands.  

 This entire reform game has been nothing more than a sales job by the two lobbying groups.  

 I'm going to continue down the path of getting a 3rd class medical to continue to support the AME network for a couple of reasons.   1) As soon as we stop giving them our business the more difficult it's going to be to find an AME in your immediate area, and 2) I suspect the day is coming when a real AME physical is going to result in better insurance rates.  

 This entire deal has been a joke since it was passed.   I'm glad others are catching on now.  We need to all be forcing PBOR 3 and demand it's focused on real reform and not just squeezing the balloon.  

 Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Linn Walters <flying-nut(at)cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>

> 

> There is no medical requirement for a drivers license, so the 10 year requirement is just additional noise.  As I read it, the 'drivers license medical' just offloaded the same requirements from the FAA/AME to your private doctor.  I mean four pages of questions?  Sheesh.

> So, AFAIK, May 1 starts the clock ..... and you need to do the online education part and four years later you need to see your doctor.  I don't know if you have to do the online and doctor at the same time but it appears so.  I'm not sure but it appears the FAA went beyond the mandate from Congress with all the medical requirements. We'll see when their funding comes up again.

> Linn

>> On 1/12/2017 5:23 PM, Lyle Peterson wrote:

>> 

>>

>> I fail to see how a medical that can be up to ten years old is of any value in evaluating the pilot's current fitness for flight. Some Congress Critter wanted that it the PBOR2 and the FAA has to follow their directive.  As it is now a medical is not valid for more than three years.  The ten year time frame is a contradiction.

>>

>> Last year two commercial pilots suffered incapacitating medical events.  One of them died at the controls.  Would a ten year old medical have predicted these events.  A one year old medical didn't.

>>

>> I believe that that particular Congress Critter was feeling left out and just wanted his name on the bill as a co-author rather than just a sponsor.

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

jesse(at)saintaviation.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:29 pm Post subject: medical

I don't want to get in a deep discussion, and I haven't read all of the replies, but I know several pilots who would be out of flying without this "reform." They will be flying sometime after May 1. More pilots in the air = better for GA IMHO. Will I keep getting my 2nd or 3rd class medical? We'll see which is easier. I'm not affected much by this, but I know people who are, and that's enough for me to be in favor of it. 



Jesse Saint

Saint Aviation, Inc.

352-427-0285

jesse(at)saintaviation.com



Sent from my iPad

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:33 am Post subject: Re: medical

 	  Quote: 	
		  What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds? 	




One engine versus four, and the Jetstar is probably not flying anymore.

John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

Kelly McMullen

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 1188
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:41 am Post subject: medical

Right. Try Cessna C-140, Continental C-85 engine. For LSA some Luscombes qualify, the C-140 and C-150 do not.



-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm

 

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 6:33 AM, johngoodman <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  --> RV10-List message posted by: "johngoodman" <johngoodman(at)earthlink.net (johngoodman(at)earthlink.net)>

 

 

 > What is so different between a Luscombe or a C-140, besides a few pounds?

 

 

 One engine versus four, and the Jetstar is probably not flying anymore.

 John

 

 --------

 #40572 Phase One complete in 2011

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465038#465038

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ====================================

 -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

 ====================================

  FORUMS -

 eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com

 ====================================

 WIKI -

 errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com

 ====================================

 b Site -

           -Matt Dralle, List Admin.

 rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ====================================

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor
KCHD

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: medical

 	  Quote: 	
		  Right. Try Cessna C-140, Continental C-85 engine. For LSA some Luscombes qualify, the C-140 and C-150 do not. 	




Ooops! Sorry about that - I'm used to thinking heavy metal....

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum