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)

I'm a general surgeon, civilian pilot and former navy corpsman - I was in OKC at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) in the AME basic course when this went down. Obviously it initiated a lot of discussion while we were there - although many of the details we now know came out after we left for home. My thoughts are this: About a year ago (of course before the Germanwings incident) the FAA did a study of pilot-aircraft suicide. It does happen, but it is extremely rare in U.S. aviation (see link below for details). The full-time FAA docs (almost all of which are retired military or NASA flight surgeons and are BC in aerospace medicine) "get it" that it's safer to have a pathway for certification for pilots with mild/moderate depression on SSRI's than an absolute prohibition which results in the problem being hidden - which most know was the case until recently. They "get it" that the current process is cumbersome and interrupts medical certification for at least 6 months, and finding a HIMS AME is sometimes not an easy task (for example there isn't one in Arkansas at all - there is one in Memphis who is the closest). And they also "get it" I think that the Germanwings incident was an anomaly that it would be difficult - if not impossible - to effectively screen for and would be better prevented by operational measures rather than tightening aeromedical standards. I think the FAA docs would very much like to find a way to simplify the depression/SSRI med program. But they live in a very political system and will have their hands full fending off proposed "solutions" to the Germanwings incident based on political expedience rather than sound aeromedical logic. I think they will be effective in preventing any unwarranted changes to the current system, but I'm guessing the political fallout will prevent any significant progress in improving (read: simplifying) the current process for a while. Here is a nice read in the MSM (now several days old but still a good read) about why enhanced aeromedical screening probably isn't a reasonable way to prevent another incident: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/german-plane-crash/could-better-screening-catch-suicidal-pilots-n331406

@deaddebate - a few years ago I had a nice young kid get transferred in in to my place after being in an MVC - he was an Army NG Spec4 - he & a couple buddies had just came back from Iraq and had an accident (hit a tree - not drinking). he had a head injury - was on the vent - had one of the worst liver injuries I've ever seen in someone who lived - had bad ARDS, had to be prone positioned & on APRV vent, got an emergency trache @ 3AM because he lost his airway, a couple of emergency angio's, a couple of surgeries, etc. And he had a knee injury (ligament not a fracture) that just required a brace for a few weeks. He gets over all of that, leaves the ICU to go to rehab & next time I see him is a couple of months later he's up in the ICU with his Mom visiting the nurses & he looks great. His unit was getting ready to deploy back to somewhere in the sandbox & he wanted to go so the Army was having him go over to Ft. Sill for a medical evaluation - of his knee! Apparently they didn't give a damn about all the other stuff that almost killed him he just needed a good knee because his unit was an infantry bde. Go Army!

I'm a medical school faculty member (have been for a long time) - one thing to know is that - as mentioned above - while it's probably easier to get into medical school when you're younger, it's not a "carved in stone" deal requiring a waiver like entry into UPT is. We have plenty of prior military folks come to medical school older than their classmates - some officers (pilots and others), some enlisted who do their tour, then go to college & med school. These days coming to med school later than your peers because you've been in the military really is no big deal. So the path of less resistance might be med school after you are a rated pilot. There is a saying that it's easier to make a Soldier (Airman, Marine, etc) into a physician than to make a physician into a Soldier. Having trained a whole bunch of physicians and having been in the military and around a whole bunch of military people, I think that's right. Also, don't think you have to major in biology or chemistry in college to get into med school. You do have to take the basic premed stuff (two semesters of biology, two semesters of physics, two semesters of general chemistry, two semesters of organic chemistry) - but other than that major in whatever you want & will make good grades at. We don't care as long as it's an actual college major and your grades are good. I've worked with two chiefs of surgery who were English majors and docs who were music majors, sociology majors, engineers & math majors. try to rock the MCAT - really high MCAT scores make you stand out in a good way although they won't compensate for bad college grades. And I think those people who tell you that prep courses for the MCAT don't make any difference are full of shit. It's a high stakes exam & I highly recommend serious preparation, usually with a prep course.

I don't know as much about this diagnosis (I'm a general surgeon, not orthopedics) but the attached article looks like it's a really good resource. It's evidence-based & from a very reputable source. If you have any option to see a provider (either a PT, Family Med doc or Orthopedist) with additional training in sports medicine I think that'll be a bonus. If you happen to be @ LRF, there is a sports medicine fellowship trained family medicine doc (civilian AME) who is working there as a contract doc in the Med Group on base. He's a personal friend & really good - PM me & I'll give you his name. Everyone I know who does yoga swears by it. I think it's for real. I keep promising myself I will start one day. ITBS article.zip

short answer - I agree with @deaddebate. slightly longer answer - the FAA is concerned primarily with a pilot being able to safely (from a medical standpoint) execute the duties of their airman's certificate for the duration their medical certificate is valid, with an additional concern of advising pilots on factors that may affect their overall health. Besides being able to safely operate military aircraft, the military is concerned with medical suitability for military duty, including deployability, ability to operate in austere environments and longevity of a potential military career. The FAA medical certification process doesn't address that. Unfortunately, it's difficult to imagine a diagnosis of Crohn's disease being consistent with a military career - particularly with the risk of exacerbations and need for immunosuppressants such as steroids. This is especially true in that Crohn's is a chronic disease that is never cured, only controlled. I did look at the latest FAA AME guide (current version always available at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/)- as you well know (but other readers may not) Crohn's disease is not necessarily disqualifying for FAA medical certification - depending on severity. In some cases the medical certificate can be issued by the AME, in others it requires deferral to the FAA with follow-up certification possible in many cases by an AME. But as deaddebate points out in detail, military considerations are different from the FAA. good luck (my background - general surgeon, civilian pilot, former Navy corpsman with aeromedical experience, in training pathway for FAA AME designation).

The Sikhs have a long tradition of willing and faithful military service, peaceful and responsible existence in our communities and good citizenship.

Just bought it - quick first impression after a couple of uses on my iPhone 5S is it's quite cool & so far works very well. Also works great on my iPad mini, because it's an iPhone app it doesn't do anything additional on the iPad but it still works great & is easy to read. It correctly picked up several military and civilian airports I tested it on in Maryland (where I'm at this week) and Arkansas (where I live), including some with alphanumeric (4M3, 6M0). If you put in an alphanumeric, the app requires a "K" in front of it which I don't think is technically correct because the alphanumeric identifiers are not ICAO identifiers - but if you know to do it, it's fine. Also, there may be some bugs to be aware of with the database pulls - for example The Dexter Florence Field in Arkadelphia, Arkansas was M89 until Nov, 2012 when it changed to KADF. So if you put KADF into the App you (correctly) get the current wx and NOTAMS for Arkadelphia. If you're an old guy from Arkansas and remember Arkadelphia as 'M89" - it was "M89" for years - you put in "M89" you get nothing (because there's no "K" in front, see paragraph above). The problem is if you then put in "KM89", you get a very official looking METAR that's completely wrong because it's from 23 Nov 2012, the last day METAR's were issued from the identifier "M89". And although this date is on the METAR, you won't see it unless you scroll down past all of the other data to it - it's the very last line of text and it's hidden by the task bar at the bottom of the screen. Ideally, there should have been an error message rather than a very valid looking, almost two year old METAR. On a good note, the App throws an error message when it looks for NOTAM's for "KM89" - but instead of suggesting that "KM89" isn't a valid NOTAM station it suggests that the user needs to upgrade to a newer version of the app (of course there isn't a newer version than the one that came out today). Noneheless, this was my clue that something wasn't right about this app and the Arkadelphia airport, and once I reminded myself that the identifier was KADF and not M99, it was fine. I didn't select KADF to test the app because I thought there would be a problem, it's just an airport I know really well. I'd guess there are a few similar situations in other areas of the U.S. So the user of the app must assume some risk for confirming the accuracy of the information used and filtering out inaccuracies because it looks like old, obsolete information may be coming through into the app as well as current information. The user also needs to know specifically which NOTAM's are in the app and which aren't. For example I didn't see any FDC NOTAMS or Flight Restrictions (maybe I didn't look close enough or I didn't look anywhere where there were any). With that said, I was quite impressed and I'm glad I bought it. I'll post some more detailed feedback in a couple of days. One thing - I searched for it by name "Crosswinds" in the App store on my iPad & couldn't find it. I tried a couple of times, made sure the spelling was correct & thought I was doing it right, yada, yada, yada. I clicked on the link on your post above and it went right to it (although I had to install iTunes because I'm traveling & didn't have it on this laptop) and it pushed right to my phone like it was supposed to. Then I discovered the issue with the iPad. Since it's an iPhone designed app, if you have the iPad App store search engine set to "iPad Only" apps you'll never see it. If you switch it to "iPhone Only" apps it's right there ready to buy (or download if you've already bought it.

To a casual modestly interested civilian observer it seems like the DPRK has been acting less crazy than usual lately. Is it maybe an actual trend towards a thawing of relations or just another oscillation in the "winter's coming & we need oil & food" cycle?

In fact over a recent 30-year period we've averaged about 24,000 influenza-related deaths in the US annually (the variation is wide = from 12,000/yr to 48,000/yr over the last 10 years) even though we have a very effective vaccine and somewhat effective treatments for influenza. One other thing I've noticed - the US medical community has ramped up like I've never seen before in response to this outbreak - even more so than I remember when HIV was first identified. I am optimistic that we will see a both a vaccine and effective treatment very soon. But we (in the medical community) are still learning more about this outbreak as we work through it. In the next 24 hours or so you will see some revised recommendations from the CDC released - in large part from lessons learned from the Texas Presbyterian cases. And I think the consistent opinion of pretty much everyone credible is that the most effective way to fight this outbreak is to put it down in Africa. My concern with the Weekly Standard article above is it's using good primary medical evidence and spinning it to support an agenda. We just don't need that right now.

This Sometimes people talk about it being airborne transmissible (because HCW's are wearing N95 masks, etc) - it's not. But it is droplet transmissible, meaning if a patient sneezes and those droplets hit the mucus membranes of another person, transmission is possible. But that's just a characteristic of the virus not a mutation. Here's a longer explanation that's quite good if anyone is interested. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071110152456AAPomKI