Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
Good call on your part. While I appreciate the legion of voices telling you it's no big deal and just go for it with a fake set of reading glasses...you're dealing with a legal issue, and sidestepping that by being cute could cost you your medical and or special issuance, and land you in other legal jeopardy. It's a stupid position to be in, because it's entirely of the FAA's own doing, and despite finally issuing you a medical with only a few months remaining, thanks to the bureaucracy, they're further cutting into your remaining time and the ability to earn a living.
The folks at Aeromedical should be able to send you an electronic copy pending receipt of a hardcopy. It's also something that can be done when people have the special issuance approval at the FAA ,but haven't received it in hand...they can go to the AME and get the medical, and he can issue basd on a verbal authorization (phone call) from Aeromedical. That cuts down on the time one is out of service. I'm not sure in this case that your AME could (or would) do that, but Aeromedical should provide you with an electronic copy. Given that today medicals are simply generated pieces of paper that we cut out and fold over (and in my case, glue together), there shouldn't be any problem with them sending you a copy electronically eliminte your downtime while you wait for the slow-boat edition.
There are a couple of issues here. Part 67.103(a) and (b) dictates the standards you must meet. 20/20 far and 20/40 near and intermediate (Cl I/II). If you meet them, and there is documentary evidence that you do meet them, OKC made a clerical error, then the legal issues are resolved, should anyone wish to bring a certificate action. But, getting the ALJ to agree may be a different matter. So, better to avoid that.
The FAA decided that having half a dozen vision limitations was counterproductive, they elected to reduce them to just one. There is a youtube AME Minute vid that describes this. You can google it and find it, produced by the Federal Air Surgeon's Office and aimed at explaining it to AMEs.
If you needed to get around the problem, your prescription from your optometrist would say something like OD: PLANO and OS: PLANO, and ADD 0.00. Meaning you should be fine with clear flat glass lenses without correction. A pair of standard flat safety glasses would allow you to meet the terms of the limitation on the issued (clerical error by OKC ) mistake, until they fix it. Those glasses would meet the prescription requirements. Personally, I would go so far as to say, just carrying the prescription that says you do not need vision correction at all would fully meet the limitation cited: Must use corrective lense(s) at all required distances. The required distances are defined distant, near and intermediate. That prescription says no correction is needed. That should end the discussion without need for carrying any glasses, let alone wearing them.
Finally, if the OKC delay is lengthy, you can always ask your AME to do another physical earlier, and resend. Your SI/OSA complicates this a bit, and to be safe you would have to provide all the documentation required in your SI letter, but you would walk out of the office with a new printed cert with only the time limitations as required by the SI letter for the OSA. If you were not on an SI and the only issue was an incorrect vision limitation, then the new physical and history along with a documented vision check would allow the AME to issue a new certificate good for another 6 or 12 months or 12/24 months (I/II class). You'd be good to go, as long as it didn't show the vision limitations.
I have done this for airmen who have come to me with a limitation that clearly did not apply when they came in for a flight physical. In your case, if you were one of mine, I'd probably do it for free as I think the FAA should fix it immediately. But that's just me, a little AME out in the boondocks.