manfred33

Yes of course, something as simple as a cold causes me to say, I'm not safe, so I should not be flying. Doesn't mean my medical is invalid... Something more serious means that I need to go to an AME before I fly again, but it doesn't mean my medical is invalid, or does it? Doesn't sound like it to me. Just don't go fly until you have checked with an AME... So, prohibited from flying, yes. Medical invalid, no.

Again, my question was not can I (or should I) legitimately go fly... It was a question about my medical. Naturally no one is going to fly during a period of medical deficiency (or at least they're not supposed to), but that doesn't automatically render your medical invalid it seems. And that was my whole question. Does your medical become invalid as a result of a serious medical deficiency or surgery etc... Nobody is saying yes to this question yet, so it sounds like the answer is no, you are just prohibited from flying, as we all know.

manfred33

I will have to look in ours now, but it is entirely possible that we have something like that as well.

Excargodog

This would seem to me to be a distinction without a difference. The FAA medical serves no other purpose than permitting you to fly. AND IT IS INVALIDATED WHEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN YOUR HEALTH OR MEDICAL STATUS OCCURS.

Perhaps you would be comfortable splitting hairs with an administrative law judge over whether or not replacement of your thoracic aorta with an artificial graft constitutes a significant change in your health or medical status. I certainly would not.

manfred33

Show me that in the regs in black and white. Because otherwise it just becomes an interpretation that hairs could conceivably be split over... And I have no intention of arguing anything with anyone sooooo...

You seem to be getting worked up over this; no need to really, I just asked a question that nobody has conclusively answered with a definitive answer other than everybody telling me ohhhhh you better not go flying after that, something I never even mentioned in the first place. Not trying to be argumentative, but it seems to me that this is not black and white, at least in my opinion.

If I had thought this was a pretty straight-forward question I wouldn't have asked it and so far it doesn't seem to be that straight-forward...

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

manfred33

14. Title 14 CFR § 61.53, Prohibition on Operations During Medical Deficiency

NOTE: 14 CFR § 61.53 was revised on July 27, 2004 by adding subparagraph (c)

(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, a person who holds a current medical certificate issued under

part 67 of this chapter shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity

as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:

(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the

person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary

for the pilot operation; and/or

(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that

results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical

certificate necessary for the pilot operation.

I don't see the word INVALIDATED anywhere so please show me where I can find that wording and I will defer to you. Everything is so vague in the regs I would find it difficult to believe that the word INVALIDATED is used anywhere, at least in this instance, so that means splitting hairs because of differences in interpretation.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

rpatte1637

I had a small stroke a little over two years ago and have been out on pilot leave ever since. The FAA has a mandatory two year wait for any type of stroke unless a cause is found. Since I was back to pretty much 100% in about 3 months and placed on blood pressure and diabetes medicine, my AME and I decided to try for a one year waiting period, which ended up being closer to one and a half after doing a new MRI. He told me before we started "the worst they can say is you have to wait two years". So I filled out the Medexpress form, just in case he needed it to do a flight physical before we submitted all my medical records. I quickly received a letter in the mail from the FAA stating that I did not meet the medical requirements and needed to send my medical certificate to them in the next 30 days, if I remember right, or I could face legal action. After we sent in all my initial medical records, the FAA sent me another letter just before my two year anniversary requesting some additional testing be done after my two year anniversary, before they could start the review process. A lot of the tests were redundant, such as another MRI and medical information, which was basically the same as six months before. Even my neurologist said it was a bunch of unneeded expense, but that's what the FAA wanted, so that's what we did. All my new information has now been in OKC for about two months and when checked today, I got the standard "Its under review". I would say as long as you have not talked to the FAA, it is still valid technically, but any AME is going to recommend that you not fly. So its a definite yes but no, like any other government regulation. Hopefully your condition does not have as long of a waiting period as mine, being grounded sucks. Luckily between my ALPA Loss of License and delivering food part time, I have survived the last two years. Just remember the FAA works at it's own pace and be prepared to hurry up and wait. Best of luck

manfred33

Wow, well thanks for sharing that and glad to hear you recovered quickly. That is quite some time to be grounded and I am surprised that they make pilots sit out that long, but I guess when a cause has not been found in the case of a stroke then it is justified. I wonder if something along the same lines would be determined for me as well, since I don't know if the doc really knows what caused my aorta to fail... And with being on the BP meds and the fact that I still have part of my aorta, which could also potentially fail as the rest did at some point, could have some bearing on the whole decision to allow me to fly again. Fortunately I am on disability though my company and am getting paid a reasonable portion of my salary so...

Now, talking about the medical, did you report to the FAA that you had the stroke after you had it, or did you only do so when advised that you had to? I am confused as to whether I need to notify them in OKC of my condition or not. And I thank you for your opinion on the "validity" of my medical. That was my opinion and argument as well, that until I go and notify my AME or the FAA, my certificate is still valid. If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe not the best comparison, but it's what I think of. In any case, the fact that I should not be flying is obvious to me, nor do I have ANY desire to go fly at the moment, because of my condition as well as the fact that I know it is not a good idea and don't even feel healthy enough to do so. I'm NOT safe so...

rpatte1637

Manfred, it was about a year after my stroke that I did the Medexpress form and that was the only reason that the FAA knew about my condition. I had emailed the Atlanta RFS to see what I needed to do about six months after my stroke and they emailed me back how the process works, but never said anything about returning my medical to them or OKC. My private care physician was my former second class medical AME and he never said anything about notifying the FAA when I saw him, just not to fly and that it would take some time but he was sure I would get my medical back at some point. Since a senior AME has to file that type of request, I spoke to Dr Tom Faulkner in Atlanta and he said we could try for the one year period, since I was being treated for high blood pressure and diabetes and that was most likely the cause of my stroke, but he too never said anything about returning my medical certificate to the FAA. He did tell me right off hand that there was a chance that they would tell me that I had to wait the full two year and I agreed if they did then it was just something we would have to do, I'd already been out a year another year wasn't going to make much of a difference. Since we were filing the paperwork, I was not sure if he had to do a physical and actually defer it to the FAA or not, so I went ahead and filled out the Medexpress form anyway. Turned out all we had to do was file the paperwork with the Atlanta RFS and they reviewed it and forwarded everything to OKC for further review. Either way OKC would have found out when the paperwork was submitted and probably sent me the same letter then.

manfred33

Well thanks for clarifying that. I wasn't sure, but it almost sounded as though it was incumbent on me to report to the FAA on my own so... Glad to know that I haven't done anything wrong....yet.