Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs, and conditions, legal??

[DL152279546231]

Is it legal in the US to fly gliders while taking drugs such as Prozac,
Effexor, or Lithium for depression given that a medical certificate is not
required??

[Bullwinkle]

No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per 61.53)
that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give you,
if you asked.

For more details, see my two responses in the other thread on
bipolar/schizoaffective.

Sorry. I know this isn't the answer you want, but it's the truth.

Bullwinkle.

On 6/12/04 3:20 PM, in article ,
"DL152279546231" > wrote:

> Is it legal in the US to fly gliders while taking drugs such as Prozac,
> Effexor, or Lithium for depression given that a medical certificate is not
> required??

[DL152279546231]

>No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per 61.53)
>that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give you,
>if you asked.
>

I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot
certificate??

I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and your
doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a medical
certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot liscense goes
through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)

[Bullwinkle]

I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
"deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider pilots
ever arises.

Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and it
comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a diagnosis
which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the question.
Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days of
CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
guy, and the FAA will go along with it.

Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively conservative
interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best interests
of the overall sport in mind.

Bullwinkle

On 6/12/04 8:23 PM, in article ,
"DL152279546231" > wrote:

>> No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per 61.53)
>> that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give you,
>> if you asked.
>>
>
> I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot
> certificate??
>
> I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and your
> doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a medical
> certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot liscense goes
> through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)

[Bill Daniels]

"Bullwinkle" > wrote in message
...
> I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
> deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
> "deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
> incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider pilots
> ever arises.
>
> Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and
it
> comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a diagnosis
> which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the
question.
> Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
> glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days of
> CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
> guy, and the FAA will go along with it.
>
> Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively
conservative
> interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best
interests
> of the overall sport in mind.
>
> Bullwinkle
>

Agreed. Conservatism on this issue is good council.

Bill Daniels

[Finbar]

>
> I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot
> certificate??
>

It appears that 61.53 does not apply to ultralights. It looks like
this was something of an oversight.

61.53 is in 2 parts. The first part says that if you have a current
medical certificate then you can't use it for any flight operation
where it's required if you know or have reason to know that your
medical condition and/or treatment would make you unable to meet the
requirements for the medical. The second part, which is supposed to
cover all flight operations where a medical is not required, instead
specifies that you cannot act as pilot in command of any aircraft
operations listed in 61.23(b) if you know or have reason to know your
medical condition makes you unable to operate the aircraft in a safe
manner.

61.23(b) refers to
- exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate with a glider
category rating
- exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate with a balloon
class rating
- exercising the privileges of a student pilot certificate while
seeking a pilot certificate with a glider category or balloon class
rating
- exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a
glider category rating
- exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate when
not serving as pilot in command or as a flight crewmember
- when exercising the privileges of a ground instructor certificate
- when serving as an examiner or check airman
- when taking a test or check for a certificate, rating or
authorization

Since ultralights don't require a medical, the first part doesn't
apply. Since ultralights aren't listed in 61.23(b), the second part
doesn't apply.

Common sense would have to apply instead, I guess.

[Doug Hoffman]

Bullwinkle wrote:

>
> Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively conservative
> interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best interests
> of the overall sport in mind.

I can understand your response, especially given our our society's current
climate of "sue anybody you think you can should anything go wrong even
though you know it wasn't their fault". CYA is the smart way to go.


I know *nothing* of this bipolar condition, so perhaps the correct answer is
indeed "if you have it, regardless of degree or intensity and regardless of
type and ammount of medication then you should not fly gliders".

I *do* know quite a bit about headaches. Not by choice I can assure you.
61.53 does seem to read as DL152279546231 has indicated below:

>> I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and your
>> doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a medical
>> certificate because none is required.

Let's apply the above and its interpretation to headaches. I can tell you
that there are headaches and there are *headaches* and everything in
between. There is also a seemingly endless list of prescription medications
that are in use to combat chronic headaches along with either very small
dosages of medication or relatively large dosages of medication.

If I decide that my level of headache, and the effects of my type and level
of medication are such that I am "fit to fly", then what am I *required* to
do per the FAA regulations? Must I seek out some sort of opinion from an MD
and/or the FAA? If so, what then is the meaning of "self certification"?

I would appreciate a non-CYA response.

Regards,

-Doug

[Doug Hoffman]

Btw, I thought it has already been established that there *is* no FAA list
of unapproved medications. Ergo the title of this thread is misleading.
Right?

Regards,

-Doug

[DL152279546231]

FAA has a section on their site called
"ask FAA" so I sent them an E-Mail
I don't know if they can answer such a question, except with a conservative
"no" but I asked

[ADP]

You are required to do nothing.
If you decide you are fit to fly, you are fit to fly. You need not consult
any doctor or any so-called medication list.

The CYA naysayers here attempt to persuade others that they have the only
true interpretation of the FARs.
They aren't even close.

Ignore them. Don't fly if you don't feel well for any reason, otherwise fly
and enjoy it.

Allan

"Doug Hoffman" > wrote in message
...
> Bullwinkle wrote:
>

>
> If I decide that my level of headache, and the effects of my type and
level
> of medication are such that I am "fit to fly", then what am I *required*
to
> do per the FAA regulations? Must I seek out some sort of opinion from an
MD
> and/or the FAA? If so, what then is the meaning of "self certification"?
>
> I would appreciate a non-CYA response.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

Some thoughts, and not necessarily PC for this group...

I've never been a big fan of litigation, but here is a case where it
serves an important purpose. The FAA has made medical
self-certification avialable to glider pilots. This leaves a great
deal of grey in determining one's own physical/mental competency.
However, if anyone were harmed by a glider pilot taking drugs for a
condition that precluded him/her from obtaining a third-class medical,
I would heartily endorse suing the pilot or his estate.

We will all someday be faced with the choice of giving up flying, or
continuing with risk to ourselves, and therefore, others. Love of
flight, individual rights, denial are poor excuses if you do damage to
others as a result of physical or mental incompetence brought on by
drugs and/or disease and/or diminishing capacity. While I believe it
is your right to make up your own mind, I also believe strongly that
you should be fully responsible for any damage your willful negligence
may cause.

Continue to fly if you want. But consider the effects upon your estate
and your heirs. While the regs leave you some room to quibble, a jury
of your peers will not.

[ADP]

Fortunately, you don't get to decide whether others can fly or not.
It has nothing to do with Political Correctness, it has to do with
individual responsibility.
No one is suggesting that a pilot should fly when he or she is ill or
affected by medications,
but the "one size fits all" solution that FAA medical requirements impose do
not apply to gliders, period!
If this is such a hard concept to grasp, one wonders how one ever passed the
written and
practical tests to get a certificate in the first place.

There many reasons for not having a FAA medical, among which is the
impossibility of documenting
many of things in one's medical history. Many folks have not lost their
medical, it merely ran out and
they chose not to renew it. In addition, prescription drugs affect people
in different ways.
What might put you under the table, could go unnoticed by me.

Since you are so devoted to solutions that require a law suit, perhaps we
should do as some Doctors are doing; they
are refusing to treat malpractice lawyers for routine or non-essential
medical conditions. As a proponent of law suits to
get your way, perhaps the gliding community ought not to allow you to have
tows or operate your glider. After all, one
does not wish to be sued. Let me say it again so that you understand: no
element of Part 67 applies to glider pilots.
The reasons are myriad and have been discussed often here. Why is it so
hard to grasp?

Allan

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...

However, if anyone were harmed by a glider pilot taking drugs for a
condition that precluded him/her from obtaining a third-class medical,
I would heartily endorse suing the pilot or his estate.

[Chris OCallaghan]

Gosh, Allan, did a bug crawl up someplace private? I know at least a
dozen pilots who continue to fly with health problems that make them a
danger to themselves and others. Most continue to fly without
incident. Others have broken gliders, themsleves, and in one case I
know of, another person.

All I'm doing is stating the facts... Pilots choose to fly with these
conditions. The law does not currently preclude this; it is not
criminal. But the law also provides the injured with recourse. Perhaps
more aging and infirm pilots would gracefully leave the sport if they
recognized that they were risking their estates? It's amazing that for
so many, money is more important than life (theirs and others).

I think it's fair to say that if I did you financial harm through my
willful negligence, with or without criminal intent, you'd be shaking
the lawyer tree hard and fast in an attempt to recoup your losses. (Or
perhaps you are far more Christian -- read the "patiance of Job" --
than I give you credit...) Regardless, the threat of litigation is a
powerful tool, one that helps people weigh the outcomes of their
actions. One perhaps that might cut through the absurd
rationalizations some pilots practice.

And just to keep you on my straight and narrow, I've offered up the
right to choose, based on how the law is currently framed. And your
reaction proves my intoduction. Speaking favorably of litigation is
not politically correct in any aviation forum. Unless, of course, you
happen to be the injured party. Litigation is a just a tool...
granted, some abuse it, but it has its place in a society of personal
freedoms AND accountabilities.

[Andy Durbin]

"ADP" > wrote in message >...


> Let me say it again so that you understand: no
> element of Part 67 applies to glider pilots.
> The reasons are myriad and have been discussed often here. Why is it so
> hard to grasp?
>
> Allan
>


Let's assume we agree that Part 67 does not apply. How do you deny
the applicability of 91.17 a) 3). Don't you operate under part 91
when you fly? How is possible to operate a certificated glider in USA
without being subject to part 91?


Andy

[ADP]

No Chris,

It is simply the tendency of some to frame their interpretations based on
their world view
and not realize that there are as many world views as there are people.

Since I am not immune to that tendency, you get to learn about my prejudices
as well.

Seemingly every time someone submits a question that involves FARs,
responses come
out of the woodwork that appear to come from that room full of monkeys
trying to
reproduce Shakespeare's plays.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since, for 228 years, folks haven't
figured out what
the US constitution means.

Unfortunately, you are not stating facts, you are stating assumptions based
upon
faulty interpretations of the FARs.

There is no negligence if there is no standard to base it on.

There is nothing "Politically Correct" about my opinion.

A case in point: 14 CFR 91.175(c) specifies the rules for takeoff and
landing under IFR.
Ignoring for the moment part 121 and part 135 rules, the specification for
descending
below MDA or DH describes "flight visibility". This is not a RVR value or
measured
value, this is the visibility that the pilot sees from the cockpit. So, if
the pilot can see well enough
to land at DH or MDA, then the pilot may land regardless of the reported
visibility.
(This assertion ought to be enough to start a 300 response thread.)
Nevertheless, it is a fact.

The controlling FAR for glider pilot health gives the pilot, and no one
else, the authority
and the responsibility to determine his fitness for flight.

If there are those who abuse this authority, then that is their problem.
Since I do not
and I presume you do not, abuse this authority, then what is the point of
trotting out
potential lawyer threats?

You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one who
does.
Which of us is closer to reality? I don't know and. I suspect, neither do
you.

Now, while I reach around for that bug, let us go fly and have fun.

Allan




"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Gosh, Allan, did a bug crawl up someplace private? I know at least a
> dozen pilots who continue to fly with health problems that make them a
> danger to themselves and others. Most continue to fly without
> incident. Others have broken gliders, themsleves, and in one case I
> know of, another person.
>

[ADP]

Of course it applies. All of Part 91 applies as qualified for gliders.
91.17 covers alcohol and " substances (any drug) "that affects the person's
faculties in any way contrary to safety."
Since we know that illegal substances are included here, i.e., you may not
fly while under their influence, that leaves
us with OTC and prescription drugs that might have that affect.
The difference between piloting operations which require a medical and
piloting a glider which does not, is that the PILOT gets
to make the determination whether or not a legal drug affects his ability to
fly.
If you take antihistamines and they do not make you sleepy or interfere with
your ability to fly, you may fly.

It is a valuable and important distinction and I agree with every one who
suggests that we ought not to abuse it
or let it slip away.

Allan

"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
om...
> "ADP" > wrote in message
>...
>
>
> Let's assume we agree that Part 67 does not apply. How do you deny
> the applicability of 91.17 a) 3). Don't you operate under part 91
> when you fly? How is possible to operate a certificated glider in USA
> without being subject to part 91?
>
>
> Andy

[Jim Vincent]

>You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one who
>does.
>Which of us is closer to reality?

OK, how about max gross weight and seat limits? Just hang around my gliderport
for three hours during any Saturday or Sunday when we have flight instruction
and you will routinely see people exceeding the max gross capacity of the
aircraft. Their solution is to rip out the placards that showed the carrying
capacity.

You're lucky if you fly at a place where PICs don't abuse their authority.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Jack]

ADP wrote:

> You state that you know of many who abuse this authority.
> I know no one who does.
> Which of us is closer to reality?
> I don't know and, I suspect, neither do you.
>
> Now...let us go fly and have fun.


But, that's not the purpose of a NewsGroup -- to Fly and Have Fun. The purpose
of a NG is to balance one's own prejudices against everyone else's, or, in my
case, to enlighten the benighted. ;>

There are those who do abuse their "authority", both in the power- and in the
glider-world. We have witnessed here recently individuals with an admittedly
questionable grasp of that which the rest of us loosely agree is reality,
stumbling about verbally while hoping against hope for someone to give them
permission to do that which even they know is wrong.

If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable person would know that one is
impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics in the world will not
change the fact that one is morally and legally liable if one injures someone
else while operating with said impairment.

As always, if they have to ask then the answer is, "No."



Jack

[ADP]

Jim,
I certainly can't argue with that assertion. I was only referencing medical
issues.
I suspect that there is not an older Grob 103 that does not fly overgross
with two people
onboard.

I'm also not saying that glider (or any) pilots are angels, but to
arbitrarily limit your
ability to fly based on false assumption does not enhance your enjoyment of
flight.
I may be in the minority here, I fly because I enjoy it -no, I love it.
Perhaps I can find a news group called "The joy of flying".

Allan


"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> >You state that you know of many who abuse this authority. I know no one
who
> >does.
> >Which of us is closer to reality?
>
> OK, how about max gross weight and seat limits? Just hang around my
gliderport
> for three hours during any Saturday or Sunday when we have flight
instruction
> and you will routinely see people exceeding the max gross capacity of the
> aircraft. Their solution is to rip out the placards that showed the
carrying
> capacity.
>
> You're lucky if you fly at a place where PICs don't abuse their authority.
>
> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

[ADP]

Let me see, rec.aviation.soaring, if having fun is not at least part of the
purpose of this newsgroup,
then I am in the wrong place. (I'm certain that some would argue that I'm
in the wrong place
Anyway.)

Let's cut directly to the crux of the matter:

You state:

>If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable person would know that
one is
> impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics in the world will
not
> change the fact that one is morally and legally liable if one injures
someone
> else while operating with said impairment.
>
> As always, if they have to ask then the answer is, "No."

The FARs do not say that. They do not mention reasonable persons, doctors
or publish a prohibited medication list
when referring to gliders. The only verbal acrobatics practiced here are by
those who can not read and understand
plain (bureaucratic) English.
It's rather like arguing about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. If you can
read, it is quite clear.
The FARs are similar, if you can read, it's quite clear.

Allan

"Jack" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> ADP wrote:
>

[Nyal Williams]

Allan,

I do believe you have missed an important point in
this discussion. You are arguing the point that the
CFRs make no statement about medical factors for glider
pilots and thus you cannot be held liable for violating
the CFRs. You might well be 100% correct. (NB, though,
that the law, regulations, and their interpretation
are not always logical.)

The point is well taken that in the event of a serious
accident involving life, limb, or substantial financial
damage, a criminal and/or civil trial could ensue.
In such a case, a clever lawyer will undoubtedly bring
in the medical requirements for SEL pilots, set them
before a jury, and demand a common-sense decision.
He will not be arguing before the FAA, nor the NTSB.
If he can sway that jury, said pilot will have lost
his assets.



At 21:30 15 June 2004, Adp wrote:
>Let me see, rec.aviation.soaring, if having fun is
>not at least part of the
>purpose of this newsgroup,
>then I am in the wrong place. (I'm certain that some
>would argue that I'm
>in the wrong place
>Anyway.)
>
>Let's cut directly to the crux of the matter:
>
>You state:
>
>>If the FARs say one must not fly when a reasonable
>>person would know that
>one is
>> impaired in some manner, then all the verbal acrobatics
>>in the world will
>not
>> change the fact that one is morally and legally liable
>>if one injures
>someone
>> else while operating with said impairment.
>>
>> As always, if they have to ask then the answer is,
>>'No.'
>
>The FARs do not say that. They do not mention reasonable
>persons, doctors
>or publish a prohibited medication list
>when referring to gliders. The only verbal acrobatics
>practiced here are by
>those who can not read and understand
>plain (bureaucratic) English.
>It's rather like arguing about the meaning of the 2nd
>amendment. If you can
>read, it is quite clear.
>The FARs are similar, if you can read, it's quite clear.
>
>Allan
>
>'Jack' wrote in message
gy.com...
>> ADP wrote:
>>
>
>
>

[ADP]

Nyal,

Actually I think it is you who have missed the point.
I am not saying that some lawyer somewhere couldn't bring up the fact that
you had
3 oz of lint in your pocket when your glider was blown over by a 727 with
you at the controls and, by virtue of
being 2.5 oz overweight, you are culpable; I'm saying that to interpret
regulations based upon what a
lawyer might or might not do is self flagellation. To be conservative is
one thing, to be paranoid
is quite another.

The title of the thread is "Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs".
There are no unapproved prescription drugs for a glider pilot, regardless
what someone thinks a
lawyer might or might not allege. Ergo it is not an element except within
the provisions of
14 CFR 61.53(b) and 91.17(a) 1-4.

While I agree that this assertion is certainly within the realm of
possibility:

> The point is well taken that in the event of a serious
> accident involving life, limb, or substantial financial
> damage, a criminal and/or civil trial could ensue.

I believe that this is not:

>In such a case, a clever lawyer will undoubtedly bring
> in the medical requirements for SEL pilots, set them
> before a jury, and demand a common-sense decision.
> He will not be arguing before the FAA, nor the NTSB.
> If he can sway that jury, said pilot will have lost
> his assets.

If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements, a much more clever
defense lawyer
would have them thrown out.


Allan

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Allan,
>

[Jack]

ADP wrote:

> If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements, a much more clever
> defense lawyer would have them thrown out.

And a jury, in whom cleverness is not always considered by lawyers to be a
virtue, will decide the issue based upon their own sense of right and wrong,
even while attempting to hew responsibly to what they believe are the judge's
instructions and the requirements of the law.

Should you find yourself either in the dock or in the jury box during such a
trial, I suspect your eyes would be opened a bit wider.



Jack

[ADP]

I'm not certain how we arrived at this point. What country did you say you
were from Jack?
Now we have predictions about theoretical jury behavior based upon
theoretical breaches
of non-existent rules and regulations.

Perhaps you should go out and fly your theoretical glider - or not - based
upon your theoretical
determination of the probability of running into someone flying a motor
glider when that someone
is theoretically suffering from a theoretical incapacity after theoretically
taking non-prohibited drugs.

Later,

Allan

"Jack" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> ADP wrote:
>
> > If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements, a much more
clever
> > defense lawyer would have them thrown out.
>
> And a jury, in whom cleverness is not always considered by lawyers to be a
> virtue, will decide the issue based upon their own sense of right and
wrong,
> even while attempting to hew responsibly to what they believe are the
judge's
> instructions and the requirements of the law.
>
> Should you find yourself either in the dock or in the jury box during such
a
> trial, I suspect your eyes would be opened a bit wider.
>
>
>
> Jack

[Rich Chesser]

I'm pretty sure a glider has right of way over an airliner. Therefore
it is most likely that the airliner would be at fault.

ls6pilot





Bullwinkle > wrote in message >...
> I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
> deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
> "deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
> incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider pilots
> ever arises.
>
> Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and it
> comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a diagnosis
> which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the question.
> Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
> glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days of
> CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
> guy, and the FAA will go along with it.
>
> Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively conservative
> interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best interests
> of the overall sport in mind.
>
> Bullwinkle
>
> On 6/12/04 8:23 PM, in article ,
> "DL152279546231" > wrote:
>
> >> No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per 61.53)
> >> that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give you,
> >> if you asked.
> >>
> >
> > I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot
> > certificate??
> >
> > I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and your
> > doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a medical
> > certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot liscense goes
> > through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)

[Rich Chesser]

(DL152279546231) wrote in message >...
> FAA has a section on their site called
> "ask FAA" so I sent them an E-Mail
> I don't know if they can answer such a question, except with a conservative
> "no" but I asked



I would like to relate an experience I had on this subject. I was an
Army senior flight surgeon and am board certified in Aerospace
Medicine.

Several years ago I wrote an aeromedical summary to appeal the denial
of a medical to a pilot who had a history of depression controlled
with an antidepressant (Effexor). My argument for his appeal was as
follows.

1. The present FAA position is that a history of depression is not
disqualifying. If the patient is having no symptoms and has not taken
any antidepressant medication for the last 3 months he may receive a
class 3 medical.

2. This position was formulated when depression was treated with
tricyclic antidepressants and these were discontinued after the
episode ended. Treatment was episodic and the meds had significant
side effects that could affect flying such as postural hypotension.

3. The current treatment for depression has changed so that many
patients are treated chronically in a preventive manner with
medications that have less and different side effects.
I cited a study in which healthy persons were given cognitive function
tests while taking effexor and while not taking effexor. The study
concluded that the persons taking effexor had better concentration and
performed better on the cognitive function testing. The side effects
such as may cause drowsiness occur in a small number of patients and
usually early in the course of treatment.

Thus if the patient has no symptoms of depression and the current
medication gives him no side effects that would effect his ability to
fly he should be granted a waiver.

The response was as follows:

I received a response over the telephone from the Federal Air
Surgeon's consultant in Psychiatry. He said that everything in my
argument made sense. He really couldn't say that the pilot was unsafe
to fly. It was just a political thing. They weren't ready for pilots
on Prozac.

Remember also that the FAA recommended that pilots flying with a
recreational license be required only to have a driver's license
instead of a medical . Secretary of Transportation Pena would not
approve the recommendation.

Some of the present FAA decisions are political not medical.

As evidenced above, not being able to get a medical does not mean you
are not safe to fly. It may mean that the politics and the regs
haven't caught up to current day medicine.

It is my opinion that this is why the regulation is written the way it
is. I have no doubt that if the FAA wanted glider pilots to meet the
requirements for a Class 3 medical they would require it.

IMHO

[Bill Daniels]

Do you think you could convince Dan Rather of that after somebody has a
midair with an airliner?

Bill Daniels

"Rich Chesser" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm pretty sure a glider has right of way over an airliner. Therefore
> it is most likely that the airliner would be at fault.
>
> ls6pilot
>
>
>
>
>
> Bullwinkle > wrote in message
>...
> > I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
> > deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
> > "deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
> > incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider
pilots
> > ever arises.
> >
> > Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and
it
> > comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a
diagnosis
> > which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the
question.
> > Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
> > glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days
of
> > CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
> > guy, and the FAA will go along with it.
> >
> > Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively
conservative
> > interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best
interests
> > of the overall sport in mind.
> >
> > Bullwinkle
> >
> > On 6/12/04 8:23 PM, in article
,
> > "DL152279546231" > wrote:
> >
> > >> No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per
61.53)
> > >> that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give
you,
> > >> if you asked.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport
Pilot
> > > certificate??
> > >
> > > I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and
your
> > > doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a
medical
> > > certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot
liscense goes
> > > through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)

[ADP]

Thank you, thank you. Finally a rational response by a knowledgeable
individual.

There are other issues as well that buttress Rich's and my opinion.

For example there is the so-called off label use of meds like Zoloft and
other Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors.

These medications can and are used (quite effectively) for obsessive
compulsive behavior and anger management
issues, among others. What pilot does not have an element of OC behavior in
his make up?

Who but the glider pilot is able to determine whether or not such use, for
example, impacts negatively on his flying?

Who indeed!

Allan


I would like to relate an experience I had on this subject. I was an
Army senior flight surgeon and am board certified in Aerospace
Medicine.

Several years ago I wrote an aeromedical summary to appeal the denial
of a medical to a pilot who had a history of depression controlled
with an antidepressant (Effexor). My argument for his appeal was as
follows.

....Snip...

It is my opinion that this is why the regulation is written the way it
is. I have no doubt that if the FAA wanted glider pilots to meet the
requirements for a Class 3 medical they would require it.

IMHO

[Jim]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:39:38 GMT, "Bill Daniels" >
wrote:

>Do you think you could convince Dan Rather of that after somebody has a
>midair with an airliner?
>
>Bill Daniels
>

My guess would be, no. But what's your point?

[Graeme Cant]

Rich Chesser wrote:

> I'm pretty sure a glider has right of way over an airliner. Therefore
> it is most likely that the airliner would be at fault.

....and the FAA/NTSB/jury/judge would base their decision solely on that?

In your and Allan's dreams.

Graeme Cant

[ME]

I don't know how accurate these statistics are. These come from the
following web site: http://www.leftseat.com/sistats.htm


It is a website to promote the use of their service, which is to help
people who have been denied medicals get waivers, so take it with a
grain of salt.

A quote from the web site is:

"Over the last few years, the FAA has been moving towards approval of
psychotropic medications. There has been rare isolated approval of
certain psychiatric medications, yet the agency approves very few
cases and utilizes extremely strict requirements."



The number and type of medicals given to pilots denied for psychiatric
reasons are listed below. The link also shows numbers of medicals
issued to others, including 3rd class medicals to insulin dependent
diabetics.


Psychiatry

Condition / Pathology 1st 2nd 3rd

Neuroses, Anxiety, Hypochondria, Phobia 1,361 1,835 5,456

Schizophrenia 7 12 28

Major Affective Disorder, Depression and Mania 11 10 29

Don't shoot the messenger, just wanted to share what I found on the
subject.

[ADP]

From Avflash 10.25b:

PILOTS ON ANTI-DEPRESSANT MEDICATIONS GAIN AME SUPPORT
Aeromedical certifying authorities -- such as the FAA's Office of Aviation
Medicine -- should begin to study and license pilots on anti-depressant
medication, the Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA) said in a position
paper published last month. The proposal is "stunning," says Aviation
Medical Examiner (AME) Dr. Brent Blue, who said he has tried for years to
get medicated pilots licensed. "The appearance of this paper was an
unexpected triumph of rational thought in pilot certification," he told
AVweb yesterday. The paper proposes that aeromedical certifying authorities
remove the current absolute prohibitions that bar pilots from flying while
taking anti-depressants. The 10-page proposal, Blue said, would allow a test
group of pilots to fly under the watchful eye of psychological specialists,
AMEs and perhaps aeromedically trained psychiatrists. More...


"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> Thank you, thank you. Finally a rational response by a knowledgeable
> individual.
>

[Nyal Williams]

At 00:00 16 June 2004, Adp wrote:

>
>If such a clever lawyer were to bring up these elements,
>a much more clever
>defense lawyer
>would have them thrown out.
>

One hopes! I grew up with the old saw that says a
jury gets to vote which side has the best lawyer.

I'm not a complete wimp; I do give barebacked instruction
in a glider club. Nontheless, or perhaps because of
it in part, I will not fly a glider while using medication
that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
a C-172. It is just common sense.

[ADP]

Of course it's just common sense. But the good news is, you get to choose.

Allan


"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 00:00 16 June 2004, Adp wrote:

>
> I'm not a complete wimp; I do give barebacked instruction
> in a glider club. Nontheless, or perhaps because of
> it in part, I will not fly a glider while using medication
> that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
> a C-172. It is just common sense.
>
>
>
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.

We all love to fly. We all want to keep doing it as long as we can.
And from my point of view, we should all be able to do whatever we
want, unless our pursuit of happiness is likely to cause harm to
others. There has to be some objective measure. For now, there is
none. And since there isn't, those harmed should have some recourse. I
know of only one way to achieve this. My suggestion is that pilots who
have reason to think twice based on health, should think thrice based
on the financial well-being of their heirs. Hopefully, it will help
them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.

[Tony Verhulst]

Nyal Williams wrote:
> I will not fly a glider while using medication
> that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
> a C-172. It is just common sense.


It's not common sense bcause, as Rich pointed out, the decision as to
what medication is "deleterious to the operation of a C-172" is
sometimes more political than medical.

Tony V.

[Chris OCallaghan]

"(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.

For operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person
shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a
required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has
reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person
unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."

How much exegesis does it take to figure out that even though you
don't have to maitain a medical certificate, you cannot act as PIC
under the regs if you have a medical condition that hinders your
ability to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. A pilot who has
corrected vision and chooses not to wear glasses or contacts is
busting the regs. Note also that the reg includes not just knowledge,
but "reason to know of." You may not know what infrimity you have, but
ringing in your ears, blood in your urine, shortness of breath all
constitute "reason to know of."

My goodness, this is an exceedingly boring exercise. Arguing the
obvious. Please, someone find some nuance!

[Paul Repacholi]

(DL152279546231) writes:

> Is it legal in the US to fly gliders while taking drugs such as
> Prozac, Effexor, or Lithium for depression given that a medical
> certificate is not required??

From an article I've just seen on Avweb, this may be about to change.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[ADP]

Boring is not the half of it.
Responding to you Chris is like responding to a wall.

Hmm....

dog·mat·ic [dawg máttik, dog máttik]
or dog·mat·i·cal [dawg máttik'l, dog máttik'l]
adj
1. expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs and
opinions


While I plead guilty to having strongly held beliefs, I fail to see where my
replies
are dogmatic. In fact, I can't understand how this thread degenerated into
making
assumptions about what lawyers and juries might or might not do.

The question was, can you soar while taking unapproved legal drugs?

The answer is that there are no unapproved legal drugs for glider pilots.

Ergo, you can soar while taking any or all legal drugs.

These are facts, not opinions.

Is it wise to fly while taking these drugs? I don't know and it is not for
me to determine.
It is for the individual glider pilot to determine. Why is this fact so
difficult to comprehend.

Why is individual responsibility so frightening to so many? Perhaps you are
all
hoping to spill hot coffee into your collective laps and have Mc Donalds buy
you a new glider.

You state that you know many pilots who fly while incapacitated in some way.
Does this not make you culpable for keeping this knowledge secret? Suppose
they have an accident?
According to all of the arm-chair lawyers on this group, you would be
crucified by a jury
should they learn that you had such knowledge.

I think we've wrung about all we can out of this thread.

So, in the interests of glider pilots everywhere,
fly safe and may you all find 10k thermals when you look for them.

Allan



"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
> on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
> even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
> at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
> problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
> DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
> for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
> out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
> responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.
>
> them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.

[ADP]

We're done here Chris. Assuming that you know what exegesis means!

Go back to sleep!

Allan

"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
m...
> "(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate.
>
>
> How much exegesis does it take to figure out that even though you
> don't have to maitain a medical certificate, you cannot act as PIC
> under the regs if you have a medical condition that hinders your
> ability to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. A pilot who has
> corrected vision and chooses not to wear glasses or contacts is
> busting the regs. Note also that the reg includes not just knowledge,
> but "reason to know of." You may not know what infrimity you have, but
> ringing in your ears, blood in your urine, shortness of breath all
> constitute "reason to know of."
>
> My goodness, this is an exceedingly boring exercise. Arguing the
> obvious. Please, someone find some nuance!

[Paul Lynch]

I just happened to have a random urinalysis and breath alcohol test today.
I get these wonderful whiz quizzes because I fly Part 135 charter. I asked
the technician if mouthwash or the Listerine tabs would register or give a
reading exceeding legal limits. She said maybe initially for the mouthwash,
but not on the second required test which would happen several minutes
later.

She also noted that several over the counter cold medicines contain lots of
alcohol and will give you an alcohol level that would cause someone to be
charged with drunk driving. So there is a completely legal drug that you
should not use if piloting any aircraft (airplane, glider, or ballon). The
package is clearly labeled, but many people ignore the warnings. They do
not believe that these "do not drive or operate machinery" warnings apply to
them. Would the think any differently if the warning said "pilot a glider?"

Here is the crux of the matter. The good judgement or skills of a pilot are
often inhibited by various over the counter and/or prescription drugs. Who
decides when someone is safe to fly? The pilot using the drugs? An
Aviation Medical Examiner? The pilot's personal doctor? An admittedly
confusing FAA rule interpretation as pontificated on by the RAS?

I don't know the answer. I do know that as a professional pilot, and a CFI
in both gliders and airplanes, I would not accept a glider student who had a
disorder that was specifically disqualifying with no chance of waiver for an
airplane pilot. If the condition was waiverable, then the hard decisions
have to be made after careful research and deliberation.

PK


"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> Boring is not the half of it.
> Responding to you Chris is like responding to a wall.
>
> Hmm....
>
> dog·mat·ic [dawg máttik, dog máttik]
> or dog·mat·i·cal [dawg máttik'l, dog máttik'l]
> adj
> 1. expressing rigid opinions: prone to expressing strongly held beliefs
and
> opinions
>
>
> While I plead guilty to having strongly held beliefs, I fail to see where
my
> replies
> are dogmatic. In fact, I can't understand how this thread degenerated
into
> making
> assumptions about what lawyers and juries might or might not do.
>
> The question was, can you soar while taking unapproved legal drugs?
>
> The answer is that there are no unapproved legal drugs for glider pilots.
>
> Ergo, you can soar while taking any or all legal drugs.
>
> These are facts, not opinions.
>
> Is it wise to fly while taking these drugs? I don't know and it is not
for
> me to determine.
> It is for the individual glider pilot to determine. Why is this fact so
> difficult to comprehend.
>
> Why is individual responsibility so frightening to so many? Perhaps you
are
> all
> hoping to spill hot coffee into your collective laps and have Mc Donalds
buy
> you a new glider.
>
> You state that you know many pilots who fly while incapacitated in some
way.
> Does this not make you culpable for keeping this knowledge secret? Suppose
> they have an accident?
> According to all of the arm-chair lawyers on this group, you would be
> crucified by a jury
> should they learn that you had such knowledge.
>
> I think we've wrung about all we can out of this thread.
>
> So, in the interests of glider pilots everywhere,
> fly safe and may you all find 10k thermals when you look for them.
>
> Allan
>
>
>
> "Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Interesting, you couch you arguments very reasonably, then turn them
> > on their ear by going dogmatic. Yes, I know pilots who continue fly
> > even though they suffer from medical problems that put them and others
> > at risk. They are intelligent people who suffer the same psychological
> > problems we all face when presented with questions of mortality.
> > DENIAL. Not only do I know glider pilots who should give up the sport
> > for their own sakes as well as others, I know power pilots who seek
> > out medical examiners who are less than rigorous in pursuing their
> > responisbilities to the FAA and to the public.
> >
> > them to make more reasonable, prudent decisions.
>
>

[ADP]

How would you know?

Allan

">
> I don't know the answer. I do know that as a professional pilot, and a
CFI
> in both gliders and airplanes, I would not accept a glider student who had
a
> disorder that was specifically disqualifying with no chance of waiver for
an
> airplane pilot. If the condition was waiverable, then the hard decisions
> have to be made after careful research and deliberation.
>
> PK

[Snead1]

I have always wondered why the double standard for medical standards for
aviation and operation of autos. Who wants to pass someone at 55 (really 110)
mph head on 4 feet away in a auto who might not be all there physically.

[Paul Lynch]

Know what? The unwaiverable conditions are publically and readily
available. The rest is judgement. We can certainly disagree about what I
think someone (in this case a student pilot) condition is safe to fly. But
that student would be flying on my ticket. My assets are at risk, as well
as my professional reputation. Once someone has their ticket, then they can
substitute their judgement, for then they are responsible and accountable.

PK


"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> How would you know?
>
> Allan
>
> ">
> > I don't know the answer. I do know that as a professional pilot, and a
> CFI
> > in both gliders and airplanes, I would not accept a glider student who
had
> a
> > disorder that was specifically disqualifying with no chance of waiver
for
> an
> > airplane pilot. If the condition was waiverable, then the hard
decisions
> > have to be made after careful research and deliberation.
> >
> > PK
>
>

[ADP]

Actually, I was being serious. How would you know whether or
not a prospective glider student might have a medical condition that
you would consider serious enough to refuse to instruct him? Just curious.

I support your right to choose students for whatever reasons. Who would
not?

Allan


"Paul Lynch" > wrote in message
news:4aAAc.773$HN5.707@lakeread06...
> Know what? The unwaiverable conditions are publically and readily
> available. The rest is judgement. We can certainly disagree about what I
> think someone (in this case a student pilot) condition is safe to fly.
But
> that student would be flying on my ticket. My assets are at risk, as well
> as my professional reputation. Once someone has their ticket, then they
can
> substitute their judgement, for then they are responsible and accountable.
>
> PK
>

[Bob Greenblatt]

On 6/18/04 12:38 PM, in article , "ADP"
> wrote:

> Actually, I was being serious. How would you know whether or
> not a prospective glider student might have a medical condition that
> you would consider serious enough to refuse to instruct him? Just curious.
>
> I support your right to choose students for whatever reasons. Who would
> not?
>
> Allan
>
>
> "Paul Lynch" > wrote in message
> news:4aAAc.773$HN5.707@lakeread06...
>> Know what? The unwaiverable conditions are publically and readily
>> available. The rest is judgement. We can certainly disagree about what I
>> think someone (in this case a student pilot) condition is safe to fly.
> But
>> that student would be flying on my ticket. My assets are at risk, as well
>> as my professional reputation. Once someone has their ticket, then they
> can
>> substitute their judgement, for then they are responsible and accountable.
>>
>> PK
>>
>
>
I don't know what method others use, but I require my new students to get
their student pilot license via a third class medical.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding

[ADP]

Wow,

No wonder soaring is declining.
I'm beginning to think Lennie was right - for all of the wrong reasons.

Allan

"Bob Greenblatt" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know what method others use, but I require my new students to get
> their student pilot license via a third class medical.
>
> --
> Bob

>
>

[Doug Hoffman]

A lot of concern has been expressed here over the possibility of other
people being injured due to the poor judgement of a "self certified" glider
pilot. The poor judgement would be in judging him or herself "fit to fly"
when indeed their medical condition and/or medication had rendered them
unfit and was the casue of an incident.

I am curious to know what the facts are, if they are available. Has anyone
been able to analyze the NTSB aviation accident database or other
information and determine just how big a problem this is? How does it
compare, for example, to errors in pilot decision making during take off or
landing? How much energy should we expend trying to "fix" this potential
medical problem compared to other safety related problems in gliding?

Yes, I know, even one accident is one too many. But from a realist's
standpoint, can we put some perspective on how big a problem this is?


Regards,

-Doug

[DL152279546231]

Just to update, I have not recieved a reply from the FAA's site and I believe
it has been over a week. I would consider asking someone in the club but think
that it would be held against me

[Jim]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:21:58 -0400, Bob Greenblatt >
wrote:

>I don't know what method others use, but I require my new students to get
>their student pilot license via a third class medical.

For some reason, I find this deeply troubling. I can certainly see
the concern behind it, and it's a personal decision you have all the
right in the world to make, and no one has to employ you as an
instructor if your requirement for a third class medical is something
they choose not to comply with, since it is expressly not an FAA
requirement. So people can accomplish the goal of a certificate to
fly gliders without conforming to your personal requirements that they
acquire a thrid class medical. But for all that, I still find your
approach very upsetting. I wish I could find the words to express my
feelings better about this.

[Bob Greenblatt]

On 6/21/04 10:18 AM, in article ,
"Jim" > wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:21:58 -0400, Bob Greenblatt >
> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what method others use, but I require my new students to get
>> their student pilot license via a third class medical.
>
> For some reason, I find this deeply troubling. I can certainly see
> the concern behind it, and it's a personal decision you have all the
> right in the world to make, and no one has to employ you as an
> instructor if your requirement for a third class medical is something
> they choose not to comply with, since it is expressly not an FAA
> requirement. So people can accomplish the goal of a certificate to
> fly gliders without conforming to your personal requirements that they
> acquire a thrid class medical. But for all that, I still find your
> approach very upsetting. I wish I could find the words to express my
> feelings better about this.

I am not sure why you find it upsetting. None of my students ever had. Their
reaction is just the contrary. They are glad to get the medical. I have
never had anyone express the even the slightest doubts or hesitation about
this.

Another post said this could be a reason for the decline in soaring. I
seriously doubt it.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding

[Chris OCallaghan]

Well, you hold those opinions so strongly that you're willing to cast
off my experience as suited to the moment. (There is a whole
subculture of aging, ailing pilots flying motorgliders to circumvent
medical certification.) But you are right, this argument is
degenerating. Let's save it for sometime when we're in the same room
and can put on the beer goggles and so pursue it to its ineluctable
anticlimax.

Cheers,

Chris

[ADP]

Chris,

Anyone who can use ineluctable correctly in a sentence can't be all bad.

Maybe I'll see you in Ontario at the next convention.

Cheers yourself,

Allan



"Chris OCallaghan" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, you hold those opinions so strongly that you're willing to cast
> off my experience as suited to the moment. (There is a whole
> subculture of aging, ailing pilots flying motorgliders to circumvent
> medical certification.) But you are right, this argument is
> degenerating. Let's save it for sometime when we're in the same room
> and can put on the beer goggles and so pursue it to its ineluctable
> anticlimax.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris

[Nyal Williams]

At 17:18 17 June 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>Nyal Williams wrote:
>> I will not fly a glider while using medication
>> that the FAA finds deleterious to the operation of
>> a C-172. It is just common sense.
>
>
>It's not common sense bcause, as Rich pointed out,
>the decision as to
>what medication is 'deleterious to the operation of
>a C-172' is
>sometimes more political than medical.
>
>Tony V.
>

Tony, I never meant to say the medical decision was
common sense; as was correctly pointed out, regulations
can never keep up with medical research.

The common sense part is not to accept a risk that
some attorney will read the PDR to an ignorant jury
and persuade the jury to convict me of gross negligence.
Have an accident and let the NTSB find traces of medication
in your blood that are not proscribed for gliders,
but are so for C-172s, and that jury will nail you.
Because of the PDR and the disclaimers and side effects
descriptions that come with all medications -- OTC
or otherwise. 'You should have known, you with your
expensive toys, flaunting them over a poor, unsuspecting
public.'
>