jcj

Louisville, KY man shoots down drone looking at his daughters from over his property. Maybe there's more to be learned and disclosed on this story. But right now, I'm with this guy. If you're hovering a drone over my property looking in my house and at my daughters, I'll blow that drone out of the sky if I can do it without hurting any bystanders. I'd say #8 birdshot was a good choice. And frankly, I'd suggest that the gentlemen's comment to the pissed off drone owners that "if you step over that sidewalk onto my property there'll be another shooting" is a perfectly appropriate warning to a group of four who have offered to beat his ass. Given that this was in Kentucky, I am surprised that they even arrested him. Unless there's something major about this story that hasn't been disclosed, I think this will be laughed right on out of the courthouse - perhaps followed by the Judge ordering that the homeowner be reimbursed for the ammunition he had to use. https://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

(.civ pilot viewpoint) The other issue with flight following is ATC can terminate you anytime they are too busy to provide flight following or for other reasons. it's an "if resources are available after managing IFR traffic" kind of resource. IFR traffic separation has priority. Several years ago, we had a guy going cross country (VFR on flight following) across our state in a Cessna 180. He was a "VFR-only" pilot, and the slowly lowering ceiling and some gently rising flat terrain as he was flying southeast eventually forced him below radar coverage, leading to "FastFlight 1234, radar service terminated, squawk 1200, frequency change approved". ATC didn't pick up any clue that the 180 was in trouble, nor would they be from his confident-sounding voice and lack of mention of trouble on the radio. After being dropped from flight following, he then continued into scud-running until he crashed killing all occupants about 10 miles from where they terminated his flight following. Because his termination from flight following was a "routine" transaction (as opposed to someone falling off radar while on an IFR flight plan) , it took overnight to go back through the radio and radar data to figure out exactly where his flight following was terminated. I absolutely understand that there were other major issues, and the lack of flight following in no way caused his crash. I understand and appreciate the concept of VFR flight following, but if I'm ever in an environment where I think VFR flight following is necessary, I'm filing IFR. At least they can't drop me from an IFR flight plan without my consent (and yes, I get it not everyone can file IFR - but I am grateful that I can). And yes I am a little too anal about this stuff for my own good).

I don't think I've ever been allowed through an active MOA while IFR - I've always been routed around. I'm guessing ATC would do the same thing if you were on VFR flight following - and they might want to cut you loose from flight following if you insisted on not accepting the reroute & going through one.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=little%20white%20rock

I saw this after the edit but I'll jump in anyway - do not with chest pain. See your doc right away or (especially if having an acute episode) go to an emergency room - by ambulance if you are acutely ill. Chances are it's something annoying but not serious, but you just don't know until it's checked out. If it is something serious and you need something done, there are really good treatments & procedures available today that are about 1000% better than when I was in medical school (and I'm still pretty young & actively practicing). I can't speak for USAF policy (I'm an AME but not a military flight surgeon) but for the FAA you can regain a medical after all but just a couple of specific procedures (providing your overall health is good enough and you didn't lose a lot of heart muscle). Take care of yourself and your family first. If you want to ask specific questions PM me (I'm a general and critical care surgeon) - but don't PM me instead of seeing your doc (or ER if you are having an acute episode).

I'd say this qualifies https://taskandpurpose.com/unsung-heroes-this-army-medic-overcame-gunfire-and-a-broken-leg-to-save-14-soldiers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share

I meant to add - once one develops a hernia, it's there until it is repaired (exception - umbilical hernias in newborns often close up early in life. We fix those if they aren't closed by age 5). There is no medicine or exercise regimen that will correct a hernia. Once a hernia exists, it will either remain the same size or slowly grow larger until fixed. There is also the possibility of getting a piece of bowel trapped in the hernia & having its blood supply cut off. When this happens it's a big problem - but this is pretty uncommon. They usually just slowly grow larger. Today we can fix almost all hernias with very good results. It's straightforward surgery and once it's over and healed up there is no problem with return to civilian or military flight status.

(I'm a general surgeon and AME and I fix these regularly as a part of my practice). The specific terminology is of some importance. Epigastric hernia is the diagnosis that is usually given when you have a small hernia in the midline just above or below the umbilicus (bellybutton) and you've had no prior surgery in the area. An umbilical hernia is a hernia in the umbilicus when you've had no prior surgery in the area. I mention it because although epigastric and umbilical hernias are technically different entities, sometimes they're hard to tell apart and practically it doesn't matter much regarding decision for repair or outcome (however the usual technique for repair of an epigastric hernia is a little different from that of an umbilical hernia). Usually these are small hernias that are fixed in outpatient surgery, and for someone in good health and with a reasonable BMI (certainly someone within or close to mil ht/wt standards) the operation is straightforward and recovery is quick. I'm not a flight surgeon so the DNIF question is best to others on the board, but I advise my patients limited lifting for the first couple of weeks after surgery advancing up to unrestricted activity six weeks postop. That may be a little overkill - although I don't see ejection-seat aviators. This assumes no complications with the surgery, but if you are reasonably young (60ish or less) and meet military medical standards your risk of complications is extremely low. If you've had prior surgery where your hernia is, then by definition you have an incisional hernia. If so the repair is a little more complex and the recovery might be a little longer (but you still should be GTG at 6 - 8 weeks). Good luck & if you have other Q's, feel free to ask.

WSO's qualify for a gently used Yugo...

This thread is just awesome. I guess I'm lucky - never been sick - but I've only flown small aircraft & been in the back of helicopters - never anything fast. Only remember once that I almost lost it - had a great Tex-Mex lunch with some buds & then had a check ride with a bunch of under-the-hood unusual attitudes, partial panel, etc. Of course by then it was summer afternoon so it was really hot & a little bumpy. Poor planning on my part. This - back in the day (late 70's early 80's) I got to spend time in the back with grunts (I was a corpsman) in CH-46's & Huey's. Zip ahead to about 5 years ago & I'm at a meeting in Chicago - same weekend Obama is in town speaking to the AMA - and I cross paths with some HMX-1 pilots in the same hotel i'm at - originally CH-46 pilots but now flying HMX-1 birds.. I mention i rode in the back a ***long*** time ago. Their response - "we're probably still flying the ones you rode in".

Not necessarily the policy for all departments, and also not necessarily protective.. The defense expert witness in the trial of the officer in the New Year's Day, 2009 BART police shooting (where the intention was to use a TASER on the suspect but the suspect was shot) pointed out that in six prior cases where firearms were mistakenly drawn instead of TASER's, the TASERS were carried on the same side as the duty weapon. In the BART case, the officer indeed did have his TASER mounted on his (non-dominant) weak side - opposite of his firearm - but in that setting the TASER is still set up for use in cross-draw mode with the dominant hand - the same hand that would be used to deploy the duty weapon. Of course in this (2009 BART Police) case the mounting of the TASER on the opposite side of the duty weapon didn't prevent unintentional firing of the duty weapon with fatal results. Another reported technique to reduce errors in which weapon is being deployed is strong (dominant) side mounting of the taser on the duty belt in a cross-carry configuration - to make it very difficult to deploy the taser with the strong side (dominant) hand as opposed to easy to deploy the service weapon with the strong side hand. I don't know offhand of any evidence of how well this works (although I'm sure it's out there). I see this as a human factors issue. Compare to retractable gear aircraft (at least small ones, i don't know much about large aircraft) - the gear lever usually has a handle that feels like a small tire and the flap lever has a flat lever similar to a flap. That's a human factors countermeasure to help dissuade activating the unintended control. On the other hand, the M-26 model police model TASER is shaped like and feels like a pistol - presumably to make quick deployment and use easier. It may be that this was a bad design decision, and I'm sure it will be discussed in the wake of this incident. On the deal with a 73 year old reserve officer - coincidentally a high-value donor to the department - in an sting operation? I'm with KState_Poke22. WTF? That just looks bad. References https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1772254-BART-shooting-raises-issue-of-TASER-confusion/ https://www.californiabeat.org/2010/06/28/mehserle-defenses-use-of-force-expert-falters-during-cross-examination

this. Plus probably an error to make the law enforcement version of the tazer about the same shape as a service weapon. They might have been better off if they were a completely different shape like the consumer-variant tazers are.

FAA AME here - the "trivial TR regurgitation" (I'm sure he used that word, but the actual term that probably should have been used in the report is "trace"). is no problem by FAA standards. I don't think the other is an issue either but I want to look at some stuff before I say for sure. These findings shouldn't be related since TR regurgitates into the right. atrium, not the left. Remember FAA standards in many items =/= USAF standards but I think it wont be an issue. Of course as @deaddebate mentions the final call is the USAF Flight Surgeons.

Agree with your concerns - the situation is very imperfect. There is a diagnosis (dysthymia) that is basically an appropriately sad or somber mood, situationally appropriate because of events such as a divorce. there will be more when we go to ICD - 10. Sometimes one has to be proactive with one's provider to get them to document that diagnosis since it's so easy to just diagnose "depression" and move on. not defending this approach at all - just describing it so interested people will know and can take countermeasures. However diagnoses and coding of diagnoses are so embedded in the framework of health care - they aren't going away.

It was also a major area of discussion. Short answer is that the prior, oversimplified "everybody with BMI of 40 or more gets a sleep study" was replaced with a more complex, but I think more appropriate screening process based on criteria of the recognized medical experts in the area - the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) (https://www.aasmnet.org) - this makes sense to me because there are people with BMI of > 40 who don't have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and some with much lower BMI's who do. And untreated severe OSA really is an aeromedical safety issue. The current (as of today) guidance is here: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/dec_cons/disease_prot/osa/ Longer answer: Every applicant for every class of medical is screened and ends up in one of six categories by a flow chart (contained as a pdf reference in the link above). We are required to document this in the exam portion of the system for all applicants. Here's my brief summary (for the definitive info see the FAA documentation) - you will end up in one of the six categories below: 1. If you already have a special issuance (SI) certificate for OSA you'll stay in that category. In most cases if your OSA treatment is satisfactory and you're otherwise qualified, your AME will be able to issue your follow-up certificates through the AASI process (the first SI certificate must still come from OKC). If you have permanent treatment (i.e. substantial weight loss or UP3) that rids you of OSA there's a way to get out of this but it's complicated. 2. If you've already been diagnosed by your doctor with OSA and are being treated (and haven't yet reported it to the FAA), but you're otherwise qualified - you'll need to report it on MedExpress. If otherwise qualified you'll receive a certificate from the AME. But the FAA will write you and want documentation on their Spec sheet "A" (see link) which means data from the recording function of your CPAP machine. They want 6 hours use per night, and they understand and are willing to accommodate those with irregular schedules such as commercial pilots with irregular overnight schedules who may travel with a portable non-recording machine. 3. If you don't have 1 or 2 and you have no risks for OSA (not obese, no large neck size, no daytime drowsiness) the AME just marks that on the record that there's no risk for OSA and that's all. 4. If you have some risk factors for OSA but not at severe risk, the AME will issue your certificate if you're otherwise qualified and educate you about OSA (it's a real thing with significant consequences). The risk factors are those developed by the AASM - references available on the FAA link. Nothing else happens and your certificate is good for whatever duration it's otherwise good for. 5. If you have severe risk factors for OSA but don't seem to present an immediate flight danger, you'll be issued your certificate by the AME if otherwise qualified but you'll get a letter from the FAA wanting an evaluation within 90 days (see Spec sheet B in the reference) - this does not necessarily require a sleep medicine specialist or a formal sleep study - your personal physician can do it if he/she feels qualified. But they must follow AASM guidelines (again doesn't necessarily require a formal sleep study) 6. High risk for OSA that, in our judgment is in immediate aeromedical safety risk. - this is the only category where we are told to defer the application to the FAA rather than issue with required follow-up. Examples given to us are - the airman has multiple OSA risk factors and is found asleep in your waiting room waiting to be called back for exam or falls asleep during the exam (without an acceptable explanation such as being up all night at work the night before the exam). ***THIS IS THE ONLY APPLICANT WHO WILL NOT LEAVE THE AME OFFICE WITH A CERTIFICATE BASED ON OSA ISSUES*** However if you have a certificate issued by the AME and the FAA sends you a letter requesting additional info and you don't provide it, your certificate is voided. It's complicated, but I think makes a lot of sense and is much better than the first (now rescinded) version of "everybody with BMI>= 40 gets a sleep study" In fact, we're not allowed to use BMI as the sole criteria for any of these decisions we are required to use the AASM criteria (of which BMI is one). One last thing - OSA is a real disease with real, sometimes fatal consequences. Patients with BMI >= 40 have a 90% probability of having significant OSA. It;s something to think about for your health in general, not just your fitness to fly. For those interested, the most current guidance for AME's is always available (to the public as well as AME's) at : https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/. We are encouraged to always consult the latest internet version, rather than any paper versions we may have since the official version (always the one on the internet) may change sometimes several times in a month. There's also a lot of good information about the AME process - including the OSA issue with videos - at https://www.faa.gov/go/ame (sorry for multiple edits but this is both important and high profile so I wanted to be sure I had it right)