Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:56 AM - Re: Re: transition (Tim Olson)
2. 05:18 AM - Re: Re: transition (Kevin Belue)
3. 05:33 AM - Re: Re: transition (Kelly McMullen)
4. 05:52 AM - Re: Re: transition (Kelly McMullen)
5. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: transition (Rene)
6. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: transition (Tim Olson)
7. 08:00 AM - Re: Re: transition (Berck E. Nash)
8. 08:40 AM - Re: Re: transition (Berck E. Nash)
9. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: transition (Tim Olson)
10. 10:27 AM - Re: transition (Bob Turner)
11. 10:36 AM - Re: Re: transition (Dick Gurley)
12. 12:31 PM - Re: transition (dmaib@me.com)
13. 01:38 PM - Re: transition (Bob Turner)
14. 02:24 PM - Re: Re: transition (Lyle Peterson)
15. 03:38 PM - medical (Linn Walters)
16. 04:17 PM - Re: medical (Phillip Perry)
17. 04:40 PM - Re: medical (Kelly McMullen)
18. 04:41 PM - Re: medical (Metrocast)
19. 04:52 PM - Re: medical (Tim Olson)
20. 05:45 PM - Re: medical (Berck E. Nash)
21. 06:29 PM - Re: medical (Jesse Saint)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future. I
probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them fall
to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit for some,
it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I personally
have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I have paid
is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years which is
not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new process may help
a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles
from the airport, and always gives me good health advice that I very poorly follow.
And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for 5
years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new system doesn't
really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard, and failing
to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people logistically
though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge difference is doing
it like a sport pilot is required to today.
The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are basically
evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class route?
I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my commercial.
Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with either
process today.
My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a flight
physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise healthy.
;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in a grandfather
so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to know.
Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary prostate
exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His personal
view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require MORE cost,
paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all I have to do
is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on my last one (which
he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i just go see him. No
webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only every 5 months. So the only
thing the new process does is double my visit interval to 4 years (it was 4
years, right) but requires other effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably
see a doctor more regularly than 4 years. Not that the new process is that bad...I
just don't see it as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians
and insurance industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the
financial situation and people no longer choose to be an AME because the effort
isn't worth the reduced number of patients, that could lead to an AME shortage
that will jack up prices for commercial pilots and make AME's harder to get
to. We don't need that happening either.
Tim
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use your
commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a second class
but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a valid second class
if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it happened just once -
I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, with medical reform and
just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably will let the class two be a
thing of the past.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I've never had a prostate exam from an AME - he must like you....
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future.
I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them fall
to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit for
some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I personally
have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I have paid
is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years which is
not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new process may help
a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles
from the airport, and always gives me good health advice that I very poorly
follow.
> And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for
5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new system
doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard, and failing
to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people logistically
though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge difference is
doing it like a sport pilot is required to today.
> The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are
basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class route?
I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my commercial.
> Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with
either process today.
> My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a flight
physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise healthy.
;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in a grandfather
so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to know.
> Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary prostate
exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His personal
view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require MORE cost,
paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all I have to do
is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on my last one (which
he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i just go see him.
No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only every 5 months. So the
only thing the new process does is double my visit interval to 4 years (it was
4 years, right) but requires other effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably
see a doctor more regularly than 4 years. Not that the new process is that
bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians
and insurance industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the
financial situation and people no longer choose to b!
> e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients, that
could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial pilots and
make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use your
commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a second class
but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a valid second class
if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it happened just once -
I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now, with medical reform and
just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably will let the class two be a
thing of the past.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Of course there are exceptions to 2nd class medical requirement,
specifically certain CFI activities. Some don't even require a valid
medical of any kind.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use
> your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a
> second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a
> valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it
> happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now,
> with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably
> will let the class two be a thing of the past.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The 2nd class standards for some things are significantly different than
3rd. I don't know all of them, but distant vision is correctable to 20/20
while 3rd is only correctable to 20/40. Working as a controller, a 2nd is
required, and at the time I was hired (40 years ago) I had to get a SODA
for both vision and hearing. Don't need the SODA's for 3rd class at all. I
too used to get 2nd every other year. I stopped because I didn't need 2nd
and many AMEs do charge more for 2nd. You can refuse the prostate
check...it is not required for FAA. Why some AMEs think they should do it,
I don't know. I get PSA with annual non-FAA physical and that is all my
primary doc feels is needed. I can assure you that after 50 our bodies are
more prone to problems, and passing the FAA exam becomes less and less
certain. 18 months ago I needed retina surgery that was an age related
issue, and threatened my medical. Fortunately, it and the subsequent
cataract surgery adequately restored my vision before my medical was due
and could submit a required ophthalmologic report with satisfactory
figures. Blood pressure is another very common condition as you age,
usually quite manageable with proper medication, but just another
supplemental report for the AME.
Time will tell, but I do not think the just issued rule will help very many
pilots, and is certainly not what was sought by EAA and AOPA in the
beginning. The compromises to get the bill passed seriously limited its
benefit.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the
> future.
> The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd
> are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second
> class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I
> got my commercial.
> Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok
> with either process today.
> My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for
> a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise
> healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family
> in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good
> to know.
> Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary
> prostate exam".
>
> =======================================================
> _ ===================================================
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tim I agree with what you are saying........for people in perfect health.
But, just have your eye doctor tell you that you have ocular hypertension
and see what happens. The eye doc called me good, but the FAA made me redo
all the testing and then wait three months for my medical based on the
favorable (normal) test results I had submitted. My flight doc is my
regular doc so I did call him about the eyes and he told me what was needed
and that I should start my physical early so I did. 45 days early was not
enough.......the FAA needed 90. And as far as a 1 finger wave, he always
offers and then reminds me that my PSA looks good.
If the underlying standards are not changed and we are still required to
meet them, then we really have gained very little. Remember that if you
wake up today and are not meeting any of those standard you are not to fly.
I was reminded of that by the FAA, the letter, saying I was grounded if any
of my conditions changed.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition
Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future.
I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them
fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit
for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I
personally have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I
have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years
which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new
process may help a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is
friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always gives me good health advice
that I very poorly follow.
And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for
5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new
system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard,
and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people
logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge
difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today.
The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are
basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class
route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my
commercial.
Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with
either process today.
My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a
flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise
healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in
a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to
know.
Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary
prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His
personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require
MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all
I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on
my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i
just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only
every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double my visit
interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other effort every
2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly than 4 years.
Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap
forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance industry take it.
One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial situation and people no
longer choose to b!
e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients,
that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial
pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either.
Tim
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use
your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a
second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a
valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it
happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now,
with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably
will let the class two be a thing of the past.
>
> --------
> Bob Turner
> RV-10 QB
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hey Rene',
See what you are saying informs and confuses me. I see why that
would be nice for you to not have to be restricted by the FAA due
to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you
also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't
really gain anything. I really right now think that from what
I've heard from my AME, the standards are such that they really
aren't any different. If that's true, then what we see as a benefit
is really not that much of a benefit. The biggest GAIN is just going
from a 2 year cycle to a 4 year. The effort and paperwork would
be HIGHER with the new system. The cost is variable. I think I still
pay under $200 for a class 3 or 2 and they cost the same as
eachother. Probably a good deal on my part.
To me what we should have really been hoping for is maybe just
a time extension....like make the class 3 under 40 good for
8-10 years, over 40 be for 5 years. That to me would have been
something to cheer about. Then for the class 2, maybe go for
2 years. But the way it is today, with the new system, how many
people do you think are going to remember to do their 2 year
online program? I bet most people forget to do it and
then only do the 4 year doc visit. Then we'll probably see more
people get violated for not having proper medical papers.
You don't know how many times i've been asked for my medical
the past few months. ;) (expected, since I was doing a lot of
training stuff).
It would also be nice to have just a couple of the standards
lowered just a little for class 3. We all know that some
things aren't as unsafe as the FAA thinks, in all cases.
Then again, maybe some people need motivation to do the
right thing to stay healthy. Either way, I'm sure it's
not a universally correct answer. Everyone has a different
circumstance, as some of the replies show. Right now I'm
kind of a freak in a way. 48, don't use any form of medication
of any type, never smoked, don't drink much (although last
night was an exception :) ), and no real allergies or
other issues. My worst thing is I need reading glasses, but
can still pass the FAA eye chart. People my age that I know
are starting to be on all sorts of pills, and have all
sorts of ills. (man I don't FEEL old) :)
(Don't laugh, all of you who are older who think....he's NOT old) :)
Hopefully everything will eventually change to make it more of
a drivers license medical, but I'm not holding my breath.
Tim
On 1/12/2017 9:22 AM, Rene wrote:
>
> Tim I agree with what you are saying........for people in perfect health.
> But, just have your eye doctor tell you that you have ocular hypertension
> and see what happens. The eye doc called me good, but the FAA made me redo
> all the testing and then wait three months for my medical based on the
> favorable (normal) test results I had submitted. My flight doc is my
> regular doc so I did call him about the eyes and he told me what was needed
> and that I should start my physical early so I did. 45 days early was not
> enough.......the FAA needed 90. And as far as a 1 finger wave, he always
> offers and then reminds me that my PSA looks good.
>
> If the underlying standards are not changed and we are still required to
> meet them, then we really have gained very little. Remember that if you
> wake up today and are not meeting any of those standard you are not to fly.
> I was reminded of that by the FAA, the letter, saying I was grounded if any
> of my conditions changed.
>
> Rene'
> 801-721-6080
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:55 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: transition
>
>
> Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the future.
> I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and letting them
> fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing is a benefit
> for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance companies. And I
> personally have not seen the medical process as a major issue. The price I
> have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a physical every 2 years
> which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think that while the new
> process may help a few people, it does nothing worthwhile for me. My AME is
> friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always gives me good health advice
> that I very poorly follow.
> And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good for
> 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new
> system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same standard,
> and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help some people
> logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have made a huge
> difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today.
> The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd are
> basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second class
> route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I got my
> commercial.
> Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok with
> either process today.
> My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for a
> flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise
> healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family in
> a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good to
> know.
> Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary
> prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories. His
> personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually require
> MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because today all
> I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff that was on
> my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything new. Then i
> just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it was only
> every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double my visit
> interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other effort every
> 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly than 4 years.
> Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it as a huge leap
> forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance industry take it.
> One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial situation and people no
> longer choose to b!
> e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients,
> that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial
> pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use
> your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a
> second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a
> valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it
> happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now,
> with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably
> will let the class two be a thing of the past.
>>
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
A few points.
(1) A third class medical is perfectly sufficient to act as a flight
instructor, including for-hire. 61.23 is very clear about this, and the
FAA has also clarified it, though many CFIs still erroneously believe that
a second class medical is required to operate as a flight instructor for
hire.
(2) It appears that medical reform will also apply to flight instructor
activities such that flight instructors who comply with the new rules will
not need to maintain a third class medical, either. (
https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/final_rule_faa_2016_9157.pdf)
(3) A prostate exam is not required for issuance of any medical
certificate. AMEs are encouraged to offer them, but it's not required.
I've never had one in any of the years I've needed to maintain a first
class medical. That said, I've encountered AMEs who have some very strange
ideas about the regulations and have learned to steer clear of them.
(4) Folks who have a condition that require a special issuance are the ones
who stand the most to gain from medical reform. Conditions like sleep
apnea, which should in way preclude one from flying an aircraft, currently
require a yearly special issuance, and thousands of dollars in sleep
studies in lots of time. All because a Go! pilot fell asleep and blamed
his sleep apnea. It may be a simple process for you, but it's not for
thousands of GA pilots. I'm personally not one of those yet, but who knows
what happens when I get older. I'd like to think I can keep flying my RV
for a very long time with a minimal of hassle.
(5) Unless I go back to flying for the airlines, I have no intention of
ever visiting an AME again. I don't see the point in taking even the
smallest risk that I could be denied and have to go through some terrible
process to be able to fly again, when I didn't need to go get a medical.
Don't poke the bear. Getting a medical you don't need is a (possibly
small) but completely unnecessary risk to your flying.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I just got a new class 2, but I don't know what I'll do in the
> future. I probably will just continue with class 2's every 2 years and
> letting them fall to class 3's as I have been. While the new medical thing
> is a benefit for some, it's still unclear what that means for insurance
> companies. And I personally have not seen the medical process as a major
> issue. The price I have paid is reasonable and it has forced me to get a
> physical every 2 years which is not a bad idea anyway. Personally I think
> that while the new process may help a few people, it does nothing
> worthwhile for me. My AME is friendly, 2 miles from the airport, and always
> gives me good health advice that I very poorly follow.
> And for some under 40 people, just the fact that the medical can be good
> for 5 years will save them money to go on the regular class 3 plan. The new
> system doesn't really exempt them from being evaluated to the same
> standard, and failing to be signed off, as far as I can tell. I may help
> some people logistically though. Really, the only thing that would have
> made a huge difference is doing it like a sport pilot is required to today.
> The other thing is, from everything I've heard, the second class and 3rd
> are basically evaluated to the same standard, so why NOT go the second
> class route? I see no down side so I've done it for years just in case I
> got my commercial.
> Maybe as I age I'll find reason to change, but creeping up on 50 I'm ok
> with either process today.
> My big head scratcher is why the old slippery finger test is required for
> a flight physical... Who cares if I have prostate cancer if I am otherwise
> healthy. ;). But I bend over and take it because it has run in my family
> in a grandfather so I even now get PSA tests occasionally....it may be good
> to know.
> Anyway, it's a chuckle because the AME always calls it "the complimentary
> prostate exam". He's always good for a laugh and a few flying stories.
> His personal view on the new medical reform is that it will actually
> require MORE cost, paperwork, time, and effort on many applicants because
> today all I have to do is fill in one form by re-entering the same stuff
> that was on my last one (which he gives me a pdf of) and adding anything
> new. Then i just go see him. No webinar to watch and when was under 40 it
> was only every 5 months. So the only thing the new process does is double
> my visit interval to 4 years (it was 4 years, right) but requires other
> effort every 2. And at 48 I should probably see a doctor more regularly
> than 4 years. Not that the new process is that bad...I just don't see it
> as a huge leap forward. Time will tell how the physicians and insurance
> industry take it. One thing for sure....if it reduces the financial
> situation and people no longer choose to b!
> e an AME because the effort isn't worth the reduced number of patients,
> that could lead to an AME shortage that will jack up prices for commercial
> pilots and make AME's harder to get to. We don't need that happening either.
>
> Tim
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Bob Turner <bobturner@alum.rpi.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > One more thing: Have you thought about your medical? If you want to use
> your commercial you'll need a second class. I have previously gotten a
> second class but only every 2 years, so I had a 50-50 chance of having a
> valid second class if a commercial opportunity came along. In 30 years it
> happened just once - I was hired to ferry a 182 from CA to Wisconsin. Now,
> with medical reform and just needing a physical every 4 years, I probably
> will let the class two be a thing of the past.
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Turner
> > RV-10 QB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465000#465000
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you
> also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't
> really gain anything.
What we've gained is that we don't need to prove to the FAA that we've met
the standards. (Except the first time.) If you and your doctor agree that
you meet the standards, that's all that's necessary. The FAA's extensive,
expensive and bureaucratic process for obtaining a special issuance for
people that meet the standards is the real obstacle. Something like more
than 90% of deffered medicals are eventually approved, but only after a
terrible time-consuming process. That means that people who meet the
standards are forced to spend a lot of time and effort proving to the FAA
that they meet those standards, when they and their doctors already know
that they meet those standards.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Good point. The sleep apnea reply was a good one. That's the reason my own
father gave up flying for now. He functions fine daily and uses CPAP anywa
y. But he didn't want the cost of any approvals or anything going forward.
To that end I think it's a good thing...as long as indeed that would make hi
m now able to fly. On the other hand, he could lose 40-50lbs and that would
be a very good thing too. I know I could drop 40-50 and be much better off.
..
Tim
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>> to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you
>> also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't
>> really gain anything.
>
> What we've gained is that we don't need to prove to the FAA that we've met
the standards. (Except the first time.) If you and your doctor agree that y
ou meet the standards, that's all that's necessary. The FAA's extensive, ex
pensive and bureaucratic process for obtaining a special issuance for people
that meet the standards is the real obstacle. Something like more than 90%
of deffered medicals are eventually approved, but only after a terrible tim
e-consuming process. That means that people who meet the standards are forc
ed to spend a lot of time and effort proving to the FAA that they meet those
standards, when they and their doctors already know that they meet those st
andards.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My current medical expires the end of May. I'm thinking that I'll see my AME at
least one more time, while I see how the new program works out. My personal doc
just retired, so that complicates things for me right now.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465019#465019
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There has been some talk about AMEs checking prostates. Let me encourage eve
ryone to get regular PSAs. It saved my life and cost a few of my friends the
irs who did not check. It is just a simple blood test.
Dick
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> wrote:
>
> Good point. The sleep apnea reply was a good one. That's the reason my o
wn father gave up flying for now. He functions fine daily and uses CPAP any
way. But he didn't want the cost of any approvals or anything going forward.
> To that end I think it's a good thing...as long as indeed that would make h
im now able to fly. On the other hand, he could lose 40-50lbs and that woul
d be a very good thing too. I know I could drop 40-50 and be much better off
...
> Tim
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Berck E. Nash <flyboy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>>> to not being able to get a class 1,2,3 medical. But, like you
>>> also said, if the underlying standards are not changed, you didn't
>>> really gain anything.
>>
>> What we've gained is that we don't need to prove to the FAA that we've me
t the standards. (Except the first time.) If you and your doctor agree that y
ou meet the standards, that's all that's necessary. The FAA's extensive, ex
pensive and bureaucratic process for obtaining a special issuance for people
that meet the standards is the real obstacle. Something like more than 90%
of deffered medicals are eventually approved, but only after a terrible tim
e-consuming process. That means that people who meet the standards are forc
ed to spend a lot of time and effort proving to the FAA that they meet those
standards, when they and their doctors already know that they meet those st
andards.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kelly McMullen wrote:
> The 2nd class standards for some things are significantly different than 3rd.
I don't know all of them, but distant vision is correctable to 20/20 while 3rd
is only correctable to 20/40.
>
[/quote]
I am pretty sure that the distant vision requirement is the only difference between
Class 2 and Class 3. I've had AME's that always checked the prostate, never
checked the prostate, and even had a couple that asked if I wanted them to
check the prostate.(ummm........ not really, Doc!) My understanding is that it
is not required by the FAA, but it is encouraged.
--------
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465024#465024
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My current AME never looks, I mean, probes.
I urge all males to educate themselves. PSA tests and digital exams often result
in false positives, or cancer which is destined to kill you in 60 years (e.g.,
very slow growing). Meanwhile, surgery and radiation have definite risks, as
well as significant side effects. The AMA is now recommending that if you have
no family history of prostate cancer, that you should not look! e.g., the cure
is more often worse than the disease. So males over 50 should educate themselves,
and make the choice that seems right for them.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=465026#465026
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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.
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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@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.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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@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@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.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@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@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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Phillip Perry <philperry9@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@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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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:
>
> 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@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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
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@saintaviation.com
Sent from my iPad
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|