Special Issuance Disqualifiers

[rwanttaja]

Discussion of Special Issuances (SI) in another thread got me to thinking.

I understand GETTING an SI is a PITA process. What I'm wondering about is, what medical conditions *can't* you get an SI for (third class medical)?

I'm guessing it's major stuff like heart problems, seizures, etc. that cannot be alleviated by therapy or by medication that won't leave you in condition to fly.

Just curious, right now...don't intend to go through the process. But does anyone have more insight on what's the "kiss of death" for a Special Issuance?

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

Discussion of Special Issuances (SI) in another thread got me to thinking.

I understand GETTING an SI is a PITA process. What I'm wondering about is, what medical conditions *can't* you get an SI for (third class medical)?

I'm guessing it's major stuff like heart problems, seizures, etc. that cannot be alleviated by therapy or by medication that won't leave you in condition to fly.

Just curious, right now...don't intend to go through the process. But does anyone have more insight on what's the "kiss of death" for a Special Issuance?

Ron Wanttaja

The regs are purposely vague (aren't they always?) regarding SI. You can obtain an SI for an otherwise disqualifying medical condition when adequate time has passed since the disqualifying condition occurred and the odds or a recurring event is low (I think less than 1%). Then you have to pass whatever test the FAA ask for. For example, I fly with some airline pilots that have had heart attacks, stroke and I know of at least one pilot with a coronary stent. Since these guys hold a 1st class medical, they had to pass various types of rigorous physical testing to get an SI -- if you elect not to do it, it's the kiss of death.

Regarding your first question, when you fill out the medical history on your application, there are 15 automatic disqualifiers buried in that list of ailments. Some of them are a kiss of death for a medical and/or SI. From what I understand, check off "Y" for epilepsy and it's pretty much a kiss of death for a medical/SI. However, some of the automatic disqualifiers come with a "what if, maybe, and if you can successfully prove otherwise" clause. I'm sure for many, cost of completing FAA required testing is a kiss of death, even when only seeking 3rd class privileges.

[FlyingRon]

It used to be a ROYAL pain. Then it got better. Now it's back in middle ground...it's a pain, but the wait times are shorter. The question is not "what can't you get an SI for" but there are a short list of things you CAN get an SI for. Actually, heart problems aren't absolutely disqualifying, but seizures almost always are. I had an SI for a while because I had a lying moron for an AME coupled with a reviewer in Joklahoma city who couldn't read. Head me down for 12 weeks while they got their collective heads out of their asses. Took another couple of years for my new AME to smack Joklahoma squarely to convince them I did not have, nor did I have have the thing that the SI was for (the original paperwork said "Ron tested positive for X in a preliminary test but subsequent tests show he does not have X." AOPA (this was long before the red board) docs told me to have my AME call the RFS if he had questions. He said he would, but when I talked to the RFS later on (who helped cut through much of the bureaucracy or I'd been down longer), he had never called them (they do log such calls and besides they would have resolved it over the phone).

[wyoranch]

I have first hand knowledge of two US Air pilots who are in cardiac rehab after their procedures to place stents into cardiac arteries that were replaced during quadruple bypass. Yes they got back in the cockpit with SI's after bypass and fully expect to get back in after the stents. Truly disqualifying cardiac issues appear to be fewer and fewer. My understanding is even heart replacement can get through the system.

[Mike M]

Looking to the future, consider the impact of fear on politics and policy.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/ame...ath/index.html

[WLIU]

A friend just had his second heart valve replacement. You have to wait 6 months and then send in a bunch of data. But he expects to be flying before Thanksgiving.

Another neighbor has his annual special issuance down to a formula. He prepares a binder, with labelled tabs, and sends it to the regional AME each year. On a first name basis with the secretary of the regional AME. His info gets approved at the region level and does not go to OKC. I will note that in this modern era of managed health care, you get the best results if you actively manage your health care and the data for it. As noted above, you may have a local AME who is less than diligent.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[martymayes]

Looking to the future, consider the impact of fear on politics and policy.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/ame...ath/index.html

I think this event confirms the "less than 1%" criteria the FAA goes for.

[Mike M]

Looking to the future, consider the impact of fear on politics and policy.
www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/us/american-airlines-pilot-death/index.html

and say goodbye to POBR2:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...consciousness/

[C150L]

and say goodbye to POBR2:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...consciousness/

I'm curious as to why these 2 incapacitated pilots comes to indicate say goodbye to POBR2?

These 2 commercial pilots do 6 month medicals (IIRC) and one passes out and the other departs the world abruptly. Indicates to me, the medical process has little to do with guaranteeing someone is going to make it for even 6 months, let alone 2 years.

Or was there some other more reasonable conclusion than mine in mind?

[Mike M]

I'm curious as to why these 2 incapacitated pilots comes to indicate say goodbye to POBR2?

I'm probably wrong as I admitted in a related thread, but suspect that any attempt to relax medical standards for any airman certificate will meet increased resistance in Congress due to these incidents. If folks getting 2 exams a year have problems, how will an elected official explain to concerned constituents a vote for fewer requirements? Remembering of course that statistical accuracy and common sense play very little part in the election process, as evidenced by the results of that process.