Medical lesson learned.

[dkkim73]

9 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

Now flying over the Rockys or Cascades is a different story, but that isn’t my regular playground. The impact out west would be more deliberate planning with terrain elevation more front and center in my route planning.

Yeah, part of my view right now is the terrain I'm flying. Seeing MIAs not infrequently in the mid to upper teens. I think I could mostly get away below 18000, OTOH I ended up at FL210 avoiding ice coming back from the MPPP in Cheyenne. 

I'm not really worried about maintaining and defending my situation aeromedically to another flight surgeon/AME. I'm more worried about falling afoul of the timing and the bureaucracy. Esp. if a routine thing needs to be signed off by a civil servant in OK at some point. Vide supra. 

I was kind of thinking of your viewpoint when I asked the question, so thank you

 

[dkkim73]

2 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Here’s another for you- at the turn of the century, before government regulations, milk vendors would water down the milk and then add chalk powder to make it look like whole milk.  

I had another thought with this example: 

We have a lot of deleterious medical and food stream/dietary substances these days, and they are all within the context of the all-knowing regulations. Red dye #4, Vioxx, Oxycontin, Trovafloxacin, high-fructose corn syrup, and other things I won't name because they'll be more "controversial". The "food pyramid" itself even is arguably serving us ill. I see it every day. 

So getting the big stamp of approval doesn't really protect a person from harm or exploitation for profit. There's arguably a fair bit of regulatory capture, inertia in public health, etc. 

A wise ruler looks for his blind spots. Contrariwise, lot of hubris in the big agencies. 

And yes, I know a lot of FAA aeromedical types and bureaucrats are well-intentioned. 

 

[Hank]

7 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

And yes, I know a lot of FAA aeromedical types and bureaucrats are well-intentioned. 

 

As my grandmother used to say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Pinecone]

On 7/17/2025 at 8:51 AM, dkkim73 said:

I took a quick look at Basic Med last night. The big limitation in my mind is to 18,000 ft and below. 

I wonder if this was conceived in terms of where "simple" private flying would end, or if the aeromedical folks made a more specific assessment that high altitude risk factors would be better assessed by AMEs. 

For those instrument rated turbo mafiosi on Basic Med, how did you approach this trade off in your thinking? 

 

I fly a max of 17,000 feet.  A few times it would be nice to go higher, but not a huge deal.

Since they have already opened up some of the other limits, I am hoping that they will do the same for altitude limits.  Airspeed limit increase would also be nice.

FAA's own data shows no difference in incidents between Basic Med and 3rd class.

[Pinecone]

11 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

We have a lot of deleterious medical and food stream/dietary substances these days, and they are all within the context of the all-knowing regulations. Red dye #4, Vioxx, Oxycontin, Trovafloxacin, high-fructose corn syrup, and other things I won't name because they'll be more "controversial".

I remember when Vioxx was taken off the market.  I was taking it for an off label use.

The newspaper front page had two articles I remember.  One was that Vioxx was out due to 2x risk of heart attack.  The other was about a study that the stress of commuting by car in major cities caused a 3x risk of heart attack.

Hmm, why aren't they banning commuting?????

 

[Pinecone]

11 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

OTOH I ended up at FL210 avoiding ice coming back from the MPPP in Cheyenne. 

If I had to climb above 18,000 due to icing, I would do so under my PIC authority in dealing with an emergency.

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, Jackk said:

 That and personally if it’s not a pressurized turbine I’ll just stay 10k and below, no desire to suck air out of a hose, and I don’t have much faith in the very complex pressurized piston offerings.

 

 It’s also more fun to follow roads and canyons, love a little ridge running 

I prefer to be above 12,000.  Less traffic.  Less frequency changes (talking to centers), more direct (I once got a direct to destination that was about 1300 miles away).  Less bumps and weather.

[dkkim73]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, why aren't they banning commuting?????

 

Do *not* give them ideas, my friend. 

[dkkim73]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I prefer to be above 12,000.  Less traffic.  Less frequency changes (talking to centers), more direct (I once got a direct to destination that was about 1300 miles away).  Less bumps and weather.

I love cruising in the upper teens. To paraphrase an old movie line from Thelma and Louise "now I know what all the fuss is about!!". All of the above. 

I've been getting more comfortable in the low flight levels. Building my own protocols for cross-checks re: O2 etc. I always wear the Wellue ring and early on cross-checked with a different pulse ox. Some similar advantages. 

@Pinecone's point is well-taken. If planning to stay below 18,000 but something happened, very reasonable under the general discretionary reg to climb. 

 

 

[Dick Denenny]

I've been a little bummed out because of this and haven't responded to all the comments. But I want to thank all of you for the positive feelings you all have given me. It makes me realize the FAA isn't rational at times. It makes no sense to me and I think I will now sell the plane and quite after forty years of flying. I'm 78 but still viable and strong but problems happen. The plane is in the best shape it's ever been. With the turbo I fly well east or west out of Spokane mostly between 15 and 17. Going to miss it. Don't want to pay all the fixed costs for the next 6 to 8 months not flying hoping it will change. Thanks guys and gals. Dick

[MikeOH]

24 minutes ago, Dick Denenny said:

I've been a little bummed out because of this and haven't responded to all the comments. But I want to thank all of you for the positive feelings you all have given me. It makes me realize the FAA isn't rational at times. It makes no sense to me and I think I will now sell the plane and quite after forty years of flying. I'm 78 but still viable and strong but problems happen. The plane is in the best shape it's ever been. With the turbo I fly well east or west out of Spokane mostly between 15 and 17. Going to miss it. Don't want to pay all the fixed costs for the next 6 to 8 months not flying hoping it will change. Thanks guys and gals. Dick

While I understand your reaction, I'd ask you give the SI a chance.  Sure, it's 8 months of fixed expenses but after 40 years that shouldn't stop you!

[Pinecone]

And if you can find a friendly pilot to be legal PIC, you can still fly in the interim.

I know a couple of people who flew for years with a second pilot due to medical issues.