Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
BBS Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

transition
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:00 am    Post subject: transition Reply with quote

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(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
Quote:
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com>

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. Wink.  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(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)> wrote:
>
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Bob Turner" <bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu (bobturner(at)alum.rpi.edu)>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


====================================
-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
====================================







- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
flyboy(at)gmail.com
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject: transition Reply with quote

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
Quote:
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.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
Tim Olson



Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2634

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:50 am    Post subject: transition Reply with quote

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 anyway. 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 him 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(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
Quote:
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.




- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bob Turner



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 759
Location: Castro Valley, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:26 am    Post subject: Re: transition Reply with quote

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.

- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rngurley



Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Indianapolis, IN

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:36 am    Post subject: transition Reply with quote

There has been some talk about AMEs checking prostates. Let me encourage everyone to get regular PSAs. It saved my life and cost a few of my friends theirs 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(at)MyRV10.com (Tim(at)MyRV10.com)> wrote:
Quote:

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 anyway. 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 him 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(at)gmail.com (flyboy(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Olson <Tim(at)myrv10.com (Tim(at)myrv10.com)> wrote:
Quote:
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.





- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
dmaib@me.com



Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 443
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:30 pm    Post subject: Re: transition Reply with quote

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.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
David Maib
RV-10 #40559
New Smyrna Beach, FL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob Turner



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 759
Location: Castro Valley, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:38 pm    Post subject: Re: transition Reply with quote

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.


- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List

_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
lyleapgmc



Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:24 pm    Post subject: transition Reply with 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.

Quote:



- The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group