Sport Pilot cuts off special issuance at the knees

[Juan~--~Jimenez]

From the Sport Pilot final rule:

"The FAA has reconsidered the circumstances in which a current and valid
U.S.
driver's license should be allowed in lieu of a valid airman medical
certificate and has
made substantive revisions to the medical provisions in the final rule.
These revisions are
based on the FAA's concern that pilots whose airman medical certificates
have been
denied, suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special Issuance of
a Medical
Certificate (Authorization) has been withdrawn would be allowed to operate
light-sport
aircraft other than gliders and balloons under the proposed rule. Therefore,
possession of
a current and valid U.S. driver's license alone is not enough to dispel this
concern. For
this reason, this final rule permits using a current and valid U.S. driver's
license as
evidence of medical qualification based on certain conditions. If a person
has applied for
an airman medical certificate, that person must have been found eligible for
the issuance
of at least a third-class airman medical certificate. If a person has held
an airman medical
certificate, that person's most recently issued airman medical certificate
must not have
been revoked or suspended. If a person has been granted an Authorization,
that
Authorization must not have been withdrawn."


"The medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 15, 35, and 111 are
transferred to §§61.3 and 61.23. Under §61.23 (c)(2)(i), a requirement is
added that each restriction and limitation, including those imposed by
judicial and
administrative order on a current and valid U.S. driver's license, apply at
all times when a U.S.
driver's license is used to meet the requirements of this section."

"In addition, language is added to paragraph (c)(2) to provide that persons
may not use a current and valid U.S. driver's license as evidence of medical
qualification if his or her most recent application for an airman medical
certificate has been
denied based on being found not eligible for the issuance of at least a
third-class airman
medical certificate, his or her most recently issued airman medical
certificate has
been suspended or revoked, or his or her most recent Authorization has been
withdrawn.
Further, that person must not know or have reason to know of any medical
condition that
would make him or her unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe
manner."

In other words, if you have a special issuance medical for _any_ reason,
sorry, you _must_ continue to pay through the nose and jump through
Silberman's Hoops and Obstacle Course, rather than dealing with your family
doctor as was originally planned (in exchange for limiting the type of
aircraft and flying that you can do), because if you don't, your special
issuance medical expires and will be either suspended, revoked or withdrawn,
and you
can't fly with a DL.

What this boils down to is that the wording of the rule allows the FAA to
take administrative action against you if you fly LSA's, you were issued a
special issuance,
and you do not continue to follow the steps to continue to qualify WITH THE
FAA for that special issuance medical certificate.

Here we go again. In my opinion, we might as well call the thing
"Recreational Pilot Certificate, Part II."

<sigh>

Juan

[Rich S.]

"Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
...
>
> What this boils down to is that the wording of the rule allows the FAA to
> take administrative action against you if you fly LSA's, you were issued a
> special issuance,
> and you do not continue to follow the steps to continue to qualify WITH
THE
> FAA for that special issuance medical certificate.
>
> Here we go again. In my opinion, we might as well call the thing
> "Recreational Pilot Certificate, Part II."

This is not correct. The rule clearly says, and I quote:

Question: Is the special issuance of a medical certificate under §67.401
considered a denial of an application for an airman medical certificate?
Response: No. A pilot who has received a special issuance of a medical
certificate may also exercise sport pilot privileges using a U.S. driver’s
license, provided he or she is medically fit to fly.

Rich S.

[Rich S.]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
>
> In my case, I own a glider (no medical req'd) and a 7AC
> Champ that qualifies under the SP rules. I'm probably going
> to skip the medical because I now run the risk of losing the
> right to fly my Champ if there are medical hassles and I
> don't want to or can't afford to jump through the medical
> hoops.

I think you will be complying with both the spirit and the letter of the new
rules.

Rich S.

[Juan Jimenez]

Todd Pattist > wrote in
:

>>Question: Is the special issuance of a medical certificate under
>>§67.401 considered a denial of an application for an airman medical
>>certificate? Response: No. A pilot who has received a special
>>issuance of a medical certificate may also exercise sport pilot
>>privileges using a U.S. driver’s license, provided he or she is
>>medically fit to fly.

That's not the point, the point is that you cannot exercise LSA pilot
privileges with a DL if you were issued a special issuance medical and do
not continue to meet the requirements and have it renewed. Why? Because if
you let it expire it is essentially revoked.

> It's also seems pretty clear that allowing a normal medical
> to expire or allowing a special issuance medical to expire
> is OK and still allows you to fly with a DL:

NO, this is NOT what the rule says.

> "The FAA acknowledges that those interested only in
> exercising sport pilot privileges may not seek airman
> medical certification or may allow their current airman
> medical certificate to expire. This is acceptable under
> this rule."

But it does NOT say that letting SPECIAL ISSUANCE medicals is acceptable
unde the rule.

> In my case, I own a glider (no medical req'd) and a 7AC
> Champ that qualifies under the SP rules. I'm probably going
> to skip the medical because I now run the risk of losing the
> right to fly my Champ if there are medical hassles and I
> don't want to or can't afford to jump through the medical
> hoops.

I suggest you consult with your AME first. If you are a member of AOPA,
contact their aeromedical dept and get their opinion as well. Until there
is a PUBLISHED interpretation that allows special issuance medical holders
to let them expire and fly LSA-qualified aircraft with their DL's only, you
run the risk of having the FAA file an enforcement action against you.

Juan

[Juan Jimenez]

"Rich S." > wrote in
:

> "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> In my case, I own a glider (no medical req'd) and a 7AC
>> Champ that qualifies under the SP rules. I'm probably going
>> to skip the medical because I now run the risk of losing the
>> right to fly my Champ if there are medical hassles and I
>> don't want to or can't afford to jump through the medical
>> hoops.
>
> I think you will be complying with both the spirit and the letter of
> the new rules.
>
> Rich S.

Are you willing to bet YOUR wallet on this statement of yours, Rich? If
Todd goes ahead with this plan and he finds himself in the middle of an
enforcement action, are you going to back him up financially and legally?

Juan

[Cy Galley]

At the risk of stating obvious, when were you ever checked for a current
medical? I know several people that fly without. Your biggest problem is
getting insurance without a medical or having the FAA come around after an
accident.
..

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> Todd Pattist > wrote in
> :
>
> >>Question: Is the special issuance of a medical certificate under
> >>§67.401 considered a denial of an application for an airman medical
> >>certificate? Response: No. A pilot who has received a special
> >>issuance of a medical certificate may also exercise sport pilot
> >>privileges using a U.S. driver’s license, provided he or she is
> >>medically fit to fly.
>
> That's not the point, the point is that you cannot exercise LSA pilot
> privileges with a DL if you were issued a special issuance medical and do
> not continue to meet the requirements and have it renewed. Why? Because if
> you let it expire it is essentially revoked.
>
> > It's also seems pretty clear that allowing a normal medical
> > to expire or allowing a special issuance medical to expire
> > is OK and still allows you to fly with a DL:
>
> NO, this is NOT what the rule says.
>
> > "The FAA acknowledges that those interested only in
> > exercising sport pilot privileges may not seek airman
> > medical certification or may allow their current airman
> > medical certificate to expire. This is acceptable under
> > this rule."
>
> But it does NOT say that letting SPECIAL ISSUANCE medicals is acceptable
> unde the rule.
>
> > In my case, I own a glider (no medical req'd) and a 7AC
> > Champ that qualifies under the SP rules. I'm probably going
> > to skip the medical because I now run the risk of losing the
> > right to fly my Champ if there are medical hassles and I
> > don't want to or can't afford to jump through the medical
> > hoops.
>
> I suggest you consult with your AME first. If you are a member of AOPA,
> contact their aeromedical dept and get their opinion as well. Until there
> is a PUBLISHED interpretation that allows special issuance medical holders
> to let them expire and fly LSA-qualified aircraft with their DL's only,
you
> run the risk of having the FAA file an enforcement action against you.
>
> Juan
>

[Juan Jimenez]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in
news:XffLc.128980$JR4.81709@attbi_s54:

> At the risk of stating obvious, when were you ever checked for a
> current medical? I know several people that fly without. Your
> biggest problem is getting insurance without a medical or having the
> FAA come around after an accident.

Every time I rent I get checked for a current medical. Every time a medical
I have on file expires I get a call from a company asking to please send
the new one so they can have it on record the next time I want to rent.
Anybody who doesn't want lawyers owning your estate darn well better have a
current medical. I'm one of the honest ones, that must be the reason why
the FAA makes my life so difficult...

[Rich S.]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:XffLc.128980$JR4.81709@attbi_s54...
> At the risk of stating obvious, when were you ever checked for a current
> medical? I know several people that fly without. Your biggest problem is
> getting insurance without a medical or having the FAA come around after an
> accident.

Another hitch that may need to be resolved is that of crossing the border. I
understand that when returning to the U.S., a U.S. certificated pilot must
show his license and medical to U.S. Customs inspectors. Inter-governmental
agency co-ordination will be needed to clarify procedures and applicability
of international licensing and certification. Wow! I damn near choked on
that sentence.

Rich "Don' throw me in that calabozo" S.

[Juan Jimenez]

Todd Pattist > wrote in
:

> I disagree. "Expiration" is different from "revocation."
> The latter implies affirmative action by the issuing
> authority to withdraw the medical, presumably for cause.
> The former does not carry that implication.

If you let it expire you did not meet the requirements to have the medical,
so by definition it is either revoked or suspended. You can't use it. For
the purposes of the LSA that is how it can be interpreted. It is one thing
to allow a normal medical to expire, but anyone who has a special issuance,
by definition, does not qualify for a normal medical certificate. The
letter that you are sent when you receive a special issuance medical is
VERY specific: "You are ineligible for third-class medical certification
under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's)," blah blah...

> "Not have had his or her most recently issued medical
> certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate)
> suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a
> Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn;"
>
> Nowhere does the rule mention "expired." It refers
> throughout to affirmative actions by the FAA such as
> "suspended," "revoked" and "withdrawn."

Todd, if you do not follow the requirements to renew your special issuance
medical, the issue doesn't just lie in limbo, What makes you think it does?

> The FAA goes on to say:
> "These revisions are based on the FAA's concern that pilots
> whose airman medical certificates have been denied,
> suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special
> Issuance of a Medical Certificate (Authorization) has been
> withdrawn would be allowed to operate light-sport aircraft"
>
> It seems clear to me that expired medical certificates, even
> ones under Special Issuance, are not going to prevent use of
> the DL as a medical.

Yes, they will be. The paragraph above is part of the explanation of why
the change was made at the last minute, without giving anyone a chance to
have an opinion or complain!!!

> I don't have a special issuance medical, but even if I did,
> I'm comfortable that they would have said "expired" if they
> meant that everyone with a current medical had to keep
> getting one.

That's not what they say either.

Juan

[Ron Natalie]

"Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message ...
> From the Sport Pilot final rule:
>

It sounds like you can just continue to keep your Special Issuance/3rd class in line
until it expires and then you are free. Special issuances always have a time limit
on them (usually a year) anyhow.

[Ron Natalie]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message ...
> If you let it expire you did not meet the requirements to have the medical,
> so by definition it is either revoked or suspended.

Bull****. It's just expired...you can't use it anymore. There's a difference between
expiration (which is without prejudice) and having it terminated by an explicit action.

[cj]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> Todd Pattist > wrote in
> :
>
> > I disagree. "Expiration" is different from "revocation."
> > The latter implies affirmative action by the issuing
> > authority to withdraw the medical, presumably for cause.
> > The former does not carry that implication.
>
> If you let it expire you did not meet the requirements to have the
medical,
> so by definition it is either revoked or suspended. You can't use it. For
> the purposes of the LSA that is how it can be interpreted. It is one thing
> to allow a normal medical to expire, but anyone who has a special
issuance,
> by definition, does not qualify for a normal medical certificate. The
> letter that you are sent when you receive a special issuance medical is
> VERY specific: "You are ineligible for third-class medical certification
> under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR's)," blah blah...

Gee, along with just about everyone in this thread, the AOPA seems to
disagree with you too:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040720sport.html#miller

"...Under the rules, if his special issuance medical certificate lapses, he
can still fly exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot certificate with a
driver's license, providing that he self-certifies that he is medically fit
to fly."

You may be proved correct (I don't think so), but until that distant time, I
think I'll believe all the doctors and lawyers on the various AOPA panels.

-cj

[Juan Jimenez]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
> ...
>> From the Sport Pilot final rule:
>>
>
> It sounds like you can just continue to keep your Special Issuance/3rd
> class in line until it expires and then you are free. Special
> issuances always have a time limit on them (usually a year) anyhow.

I wish it were, but that does not seem to be the case...

[Juan Jimenez]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you let it expire you did not meet the requirements to have the
>> medical, so by definition it is either revoked or suspended.
>
> Bull****. It's just expired...you can't use it anymore. There's
> a difference between expiration (which is without prejudice) and
> having it terminated by an explicit action.

No, Ron. Suppose you get a letter from the FAA asking you for an update
of... say... your diabetic situation, from your doctor. What do you think
will happen if you ignore the letter and try to wait until the special
issuance expires, so that you can then fly LSA aircraft with a DL? (This is
no different than not sending in the required medical reports needed to
renew the special issuance medical; that request is made when you get the
medical in the first place.)

I'll give you one guess, and a hint: it's not an expiration and it will be
highly prejudiced. Make sure you check your sources, because I have the
answer right in front of me, in black and white, on FAA letterhead.

Juan

[Rich S.]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll give you one guess, and a hint: it's not an expiration and it will be
> highly prejudiced. Make sure you check your sources, because I have the
> answer right in front of me, in black and white, on FAA letterhead.
>

And so what *is* the definition of "is"?

This is the archtypical example of phony news hacks trying to make something
out of nothing. I already posted the specific response of the FAA with
regard to this specific question. Read it again. If you can't find it, ask
for help.

This is a dip**** bull**** response that is trying to stir up a non-existant
issue.

*PLONK*

Rich S.

[Juan Jimenez]

"cj" > wrote in
:

> Gee, along with just about everyone in this thread, the AOPA seems to
> disagree with you too:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040720sport.html#miller
>
> "...Under the rules, if his special issuance medical certificate
> lapses, he can still fly exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot
> certificate with a driver's license, providing that he self-certifies
> that he is medically fit to fly."
>
> You may be proved correct (I don't think so), but until that distant
> time, I think I'll believe all the doctors and lawyers on the various
> AOPA panels.

You know what, CJ? I hope AOPA is right. However, this is what the final
rule says:

"The FAA has reconsidered the circumstances in which a current and valid
U.S. driver's license should be allowed in lieu of a valid airman medical
certificate and has made substantive revisions to the medical provisions in
the final rule. These revisions are based on the FAA's concern that pilots
whose airman medical certificates have been denied, suspended, or revoked
or whose Authorization for Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate
(Authorization) has been withdrawn would be allowed to operate light-sport
aircraft other than gliders and balloons under the proposed rule.
Therefore, possession of a current and valid U.S. driver's license alone is
not enough to dispel this concern. For this reason, this final rule
permits using a current and valid U.S. driver's license as evidence of
medical qualification based on certain conditions. If a person has applied
for an airman medical certificate, that person must have been found
eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical
certificate. If a person has held an airman medical certificate, that
person's most recently issued airman medical certificate must not have been
revoked or suspended. If a person has been granted an Authorization, that
Authorization must not have been withdrawn."

There is NOTHING in the rules that say that if a special issuance medical
lapses, you can use your DL as a replacement, but there is SPECIFIC text in
the rule that says that if your special issuance is withdrawn, you cannot
use your DL.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Rich S." > wrote in
:

> And so what *is* the definition of "is"?

Hello, Mr. Clinton. Didn't know you were a pilot.

> This is the archtypical example of phony news hacks trying to make
> something out of nothing. I already posted the specific response of
> the FAA with regard to this specific question. Read it again. If you
> can't find it, ask for help.
>
> This is a dip**** bull**** response that is trying to stir up a
> non-existant issue.
>
> *PLONK*

Ah, so your real agenda finally popped up. Hmm. Oh, well, no loss to the
thread.

[ET]

Juan Jimenez > wrote in
:

> "cj" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Gee, along with just about everyone in this thread, the AOPA seems to
>> disagree with you too:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/040720sport.html#miller
>>
>> "...Under the rules, if his special issuance medical certificate
>> lapses, he can still fly exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot
>> certificate with a driver's license, providing that he self-certifies
>> that he is medically fit to fly."
>>
>> You may be proved correct (I don't think so), but until that distant
>> time, I think I'll believe all the doctors and lawyers on the various
>> AOPA panels.
>
> You know what, CJ? I hope AOPA is right. However, this is what the
> final rule says:
>
> "The FAA has reconsidered the circumstances in which a current and
> valid U.S. driver's license should be allowed in lieu of a valid
> airman medical certificate and has made substantive revisions to the
> medical provisions in the final rule. These revisions are based on
> the FAA's concern that pilots whose airman medical certificates have
> been denied, suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special
> Issuance of a Medical Certificate (Authorization) has been withdrawn
> would be allowed to operate light-sport aircraft other than gliders
> and balloons under the proposed rule. Therefore, possession of a
> current and valid U.S. driver's license alone is not enough to dispel
> this concern. For this reason, this final rule permits using a
> current and valid U.S. driver's license as evidence of medical
> qualification based on certain conditions. If a person has applied
> for an airman medical certificate, that person must have been found
> eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical
> certificate. If a person has held an airman medical certificate, that
> person's most recently issued airman medical certificate must not have
> been revoked or suspended. If a person has been granted an
> Authorization, that Authorization must not have been withdrawn."
>
> There is NOTHING in the rules that say that if a special issuance
> medical lapses, you can use your DL as a replacement, but there is
> SPECIFIC text in the rule that says that if your special issuance is
> withdrawn, you cannot use your DL.
>
>

EAA also disagrees with you:

Read the following from EAA’s page:
http://www.sportpilot.org/becoming/index.html :



"However, a pilot who has specifically been denied a medical certificate
because of a medical condition that the FAA has judged would make the
person unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner is not eligible to
use a drivers lecense as a medical. When a pilot is denied a medical, he
or she obtains a letter from the FAA that has the specific word "denied"
in the letter. If you have not received sucha letter, then you can use a
drivers license as a medical. If you have obtained such a letter, your
recourse is to obtain at least one special issuance 3rd class medical
before acting as a sport pilot."



--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Rich S.]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> > *PLONK*
>
> Ah, so your real agenda finally popped up. Hmm. Oh, well, no loss to the
> thread.

Main Entry: stu·pid
1 a : slow of mind : b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting
in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason
<too dumb to figure out what's going on>.

Main Entry: agen·da
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program <a political agenda>

I have no agenda, stupid.

[Juan Jimenez]

"Rich S." > wrote in
:

When is a plonk not a plonk? When it comes from a dimwit with an agenda.

Since you really didn't mean it, I'll show you how it's done.

<KER-plonk!>

[Juan Jimenez]

Bashir Salamati > wrote in :

>>There is NOTHING in the rules that say that if a special issuance
>>medical lapses, you can use your DL as a replacement, but there is
>>SPECIFIC text in the rule that says that if your special issuance is
>>withdrawn, you cannot use your DL.
>
> Exactly.
>
> As restrictive as things have gotten in the US over the past 20 years,
> we aren't yet to the point where all things not specifically allowed
> are automatically illegal.
>
> The things that it says are so, are so. If it doesn't address the
> issue they aren't so.

Never heard of the FAA's catch-all rules? Hmm. Guess not.

[Juan Jimenez]

ET > wrote in news:Xns952CCDAEC662DEviltwigcom@
140.99.99.130:

> EAA also disagrees with you:
>
> Read the following from EAA’s page:
> http://www.sportpilot.org/becoming/index.html :
>
> "However, a pilot who has specifically been denied a medical certificate
> because of a medical condition that the FAA has judged would make the
> person unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner is not eligible to
> use a drivers lecense as a medical. When a pilot is denied a medical, he
> or she obtains a letter from the FAA that has the specific word "denied"
> in the letter. If you have not received sucha letter, then you can use a
> drivers license as a medical. If you have obtained such a letter, your
> recourse is to obtain at least one special issuance 3rd class medical
> before acting as a sport pilot."

That only addresses a denial, not a revocation, nor the fact that when you
get a special issuance the letter specifically states that you are
"ineligible" for a third class medical. It also does not address the issue
of what happens if you get a letter from aeromedical stating that since you
did not send them such and such info, your special issuance medical has
been revoked, and you can keep it, but if you don't turn it in the matter
will be referred to the local FSDO for enforcement action.

It appears, though, that neither the EAA nor AOPA is clearing this up, but
the FAA is trying to do so. There may yet be hope that whomever decided to
tweak the rule at the last minute and play with this very important part of
it will change their minds.

[UltraJohn]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "Rich S." > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> In my case, I own a glider (no medical req'd) and a 7AC
>>> Champ that qualifies under the SP rules. I'm probably going
>>> to skip the medical because I now run the risk of losing the
>>> right to fly my Champ if there are medical hassles and I
>>> don't want to or can't afford to jump through the medical
>>> hoops.
>>
>> I think you will be complying with both the spirit and the letter of
>> the new rules.
>>
>> Rich S.
>
> Are you willing to bet YOUR wallet on this statement of yours, Rich? If
> Todd goes ahead with this plan and he finds himself in the middle of an
> enforcement action, are you going to back him up financially and legally?
>
> Juan
>
>
What legal hassles? He doesn't need the medical for the glider and as long
as !. his last medical wasn't revoked or @. he has never had a medical come
Sept he will be able to fly whichever craft he wishes. So Rich is right in
his opinion with what information was presented by Todd. The only
clarification needed is whether he previously had a medical or whether his
last was revoked.
Juan Don't be such an insistent negative till people really in the know
have had a time to sort out the true answers!
John

[Ron Natalie]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message ...

>
> No, Ron. Suppose you get a letter from the FAA asking you for an update
> of... say... your diabetic situation, from your doctor. What do you think
> will happen if you ignore the letter and try to wait until the special
> issuance expires, so that you can then fly LSA aircraft with a DL? (This is
> no different than not sending in the required medical reports needed to
> renew the special issuance medical; that request is made when you get the
> medical in the first place.)
>
Your original authorization will say "this authorization expires XXXX". The
letter will also tell you what to do (usually about 3 months before the expiration
of your auhtoriation) to renew it. What ever mental condition your special issuance
is for surely reads like this.

[Jerry]

The link below is to an AOPA web site on medical questions for the sport
pilot. I indicates if your last FAA physical was approved or you had a
Special Issuance, then you are legal to use the Driver's License medical and
self certify as you usually do. If the physical or Special Issuance was
denied say to information not being submitted, then you need to get one
current valid FAA physical or Special Issuance, then switch to DL medical.
No problem to let this FAA physical or SI expire.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/faa_medical_faq.doc

Jerry in NC


"Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
...
> From the Sport Pilot final rule:
>
> "The FAA has reconsidered the circumstances in which a current and valid
> U.S.
> driver's license should be allowed in lieu of a valid airman medical
> certificate and has
> made substantive revisions to the medical provisions in the final rule.
> These revisions are
> based on the FAA's concern that pilots whose airman medical certificates
> have been
> denied, suspended, or revoked or whose Authorization for Special Issuance
of
> a Medical
> Certificate (Authorization) has been withdrawn would be allowed to operate
> light-sport
> aircraft other than gliders and balloons under the proposed rule.
Therefore,
> possession of
> a current and valid U.S. driver's license alone is not enough to dispel
this
> concern. For
> this reason, this final rule permits using a current and valid U.S.
driver's
> license as
> evidence of medical qualification based on certain conditions. If a person
> has applied for
> an airman medical certificate, that person must have been found eligible
for
> the issuance
> of at least a third-class airman medical certificate. If a person has held
> an airman medical
> certificate, that person's most recently issued airman medical certificate
> must not have
> been revoked or suspended. If a person has been granted an Authorization,
> that
> Authorization must not have been withdrawn."
>
>
> "The medical provisions proposed in SFAR No. 89 sections 15, 35, and 111
are
> transferred to §§61.3 and 61.23. Under §61.23 (c)(2)(i), a requirement is
> added that each restriction and limitation, including those imposed by
> judicial and
> administrative order on a current and valid U.S. driver's license, apply
at
> all times when a U.S.
> driver's license is used to meet the requirements of this section."
>
> "In addition, language is added to paragraph (c)(2) to provide that
persons
> may not use a current and valid U.S. driver's license as evidence of
medical
> qualification if his or her most recent application for an airman medical
> certificate has been
> denied based on being found not eligible for the issuance of at least a
> third-class airman
> medical certificate, his or her most recently issued airman medical
> certificate has
> been suspended or revoked, or his or her most recent Authorization has
been
> withdrawn.
> Further, that person must not know or have reason to know of any medical
> condition that
> would make him or her unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe
> manner."
>
> In other words, if you have a special issuance medical for _any_ reason,
> sorry, you _must_ continue to pay through the nose and jump through
> Silberman's Hoops and Obstacle Course, rather than dealing with your
family
> doctor as was originally planned (in exchange for limiting the type of
> aircraft and flying that you can do), because if you don't, your special
> issuance medical expires and will be either suspended, revoked or
withdrawn,
> and you
> can't fly with a DL.
>
> What this boils down to is that the wording of the rule allows the FAA to
> take administrative action against you if you fly LSA's, you were issued a
> special issuance,
> and you do not continue to follow the steps to continue to qualify WITH
THE
> FAA for that special issuance medical certificate.
>
> Here we go again. In my opinion, we might as well call the thing
> "Recreational Pilot Certificate, Part II."
>
> <sigh>
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>

[B25flyer]

>
>"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> No, Ron. Suppose you get a letter from the FAA asking you for an update
>> of... say... your diabetic situation, from your doctor. What do you think
>> will happen if you ignore the letter and try to wait until the special
>> issuance expires, so that you can then fly LSA aircraft with a DL? (This is
>
>> no different than not sending in the required medical reports needed to
>> renew the special issuance medical; that request is made when you get the
>> medical in the first place.)
>>
>Your original authorization will say "this authorization expires XXXX".
>The
>letter will also tell you what to do (usually about 3 months before the
>expiration
>of your auhtoriation) to renew it. What ever mental condition your special
>issuance
>is for surely reads like this.

Ron.

The sad part is that juan will not get it even if he reads what you just
posted. But I like it "What ever mental condition YOUR special issuance if for"

Good one Ron

[C Kingsbury]

Juan Jimenez > wrote in message >...
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in
> m:
>
> >
> > "Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
> > ...
> >> From the Sport Pilot final rule:
> >>
> >
> > It sounds like you can just continue to keep your Special Issuance/3rd
> > class in line until it expires and then you are free. Special
> > issuances always have a time limit on them (usually a year) anyhow.
>
> I wish it were, but that does not seem to be the case...

There's always good reason to be cynical, but this document
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/faa_medical_faq.doc) from the
FAA leaves a lot of doors open, albeit on both sides.

It is important to look at what the FAA did *not* do, which is to have
a clause specifically excluding everyone having cardiac conditions,
diabetes, loss of consciousness, etc. They could have referenced the
existing medicals certification standards and required everyone to
self-certify that they have none of the automatic disqualifiers.
Instead, for those that have never hald a certificate but have such
conditions, the document says,

"You should consult your private physician to determine whether you
have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe
performance of sport piloting duties. You may exercise sport pilot
privileges provided you are in good health, your medical condition is
under control, you adhere to your physician's recommended treatment,
and you feel satisfied that you are able to conduct safe flight
operations."

The phrase, "your medical condition is under control," is very
important as this establishes that the existence of a condition is not
in and of itself disqualifying.

Earlier, the document reads, "..nor is it our intent that affected
persons would have to maintain an airman medical certificate if they
would rather use their current and valid U.S. driver's license to
medically qualify as a sport pilot."

What we are dealing with here is a sort of bipolar disorder. What the
FAA does not want is a newspaper story that reads, "Three children and
their puppy were killed when an elderly pilot with alzheimers, a heart
condition, and diabetes crashed into a park after a new FAA rule
allowed him to resume flying despite being found unfit to fly three
years earlier." And yet, that same man could, in theory, be OK so long
as he had never tried to obtain a medical, and simply followed his
doctor's advice.

What we may be seeing here, and this is pure speculation on my part,
is the Solomonic solution. If you don't exclude the denials, you stand
to have a flood of thousands of "medically questionable" pilots flying
on Sept. 1. On the other hand, the rate of new entrants will be
moderate, and the same "medically questionable" pilots will be
introduced into the arena at a gradual rate, allowing time to evaluate
what happens. Depending on events they will likely "clarify" the rule
one way or the other. Unfortunately this would likely take 3-5 years
at minimum, though the FAA may develop a more forgiving
pseudo-special-issuance regime in the meantime.

-cwk.

[Juan Jimenez]

UltraJohn > wrote in
nk.net:

> What legal hassles? He doesn't need the medical for the glider and as
> long as !. his last medical wasn't revoked or @. he has never had a
> medical come Sept he will be able to fly whichever craft he wishes.

If what the FAA is saying they are going to do is in fact what is going to
happen, then I would agree with you.

> Juan Don't be such an insistent negative till people really in the
> know have had a time to sort out the true answers!

I wouldn't be so damn negative if the FAA has stuck to what they said they
were going to do, instead of trying to come up with these unannounced
strategies for special issuances. Do you know what's going to happen at FAA
aeromedical when thousands of pilots start sending in their special
issuance apps for denials that are no longer valid because acceptable
treatment protocols are in place (for example, diabetes type II treated
with oral hypoglycemic drugs). What exactly is the point of making these
people jump through those hoops if they will later be able to forget about
the special issuance and deal with the issue with their doctors and self-
certification?

[Juan Jimenez]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in
m:

> Your original authorization will say "this authorization expires
> XXXX". The letter will also tell you what to do (usually about 3
> months before the expiration of your auhtoriation) to renew it. What
> ever mental condition your special issuance is for surely reads like
> this.

Wrong letter. I'm talking about the letter revoking your medical because
you did not reply to them with a status letter from your doctor on your
diabetes type II, for example. Would you like to see proof, via email? I
think when you see it you will agree with me on this issue.

While you are under the special issuance, the FAA will consider you to be
flying under the authority of the special issuance, not the DL, and you'll
be treated just like any other special issuance regardless of what kind of
airplane you fly (short of ultralights).

Juan

[Vaughn]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
om...
> If you don't exclude the denials, you stand
> to have a flood of thousands of "medically questionable" pilots flying
> on Sept. 1.

"Medically questionable" pilots have been able to fly motorgliders all
along, some motorgliders look and perform a lot like the new sport airplanes.
"Medically Questionable" pilots have statistically never been a significant
problem in the past, and I don't expect it them be much of one in the future.

Vaughn

[Juan Jimenez]

(C Kingsbury) wrote in
om:

> Juan Jimenez > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>> >
>> > "Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> From the Sport Pilot final rule:
>> >>
>> >
>> > It sounds like you can just continue to keep your Special
>> > Issuance/3rd class in line until it expires and then you are free.
>> > Special issuances always have a time limit on them (usually a
>> > year) anyhow.
>>
>> I wish it were, but that does not seem to be the case...
>
> There's always good reason to be cynical, but this document
> (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/faa_medical_faq.doc) from the
> FAA leaves a lot of doors open, albeit on both sides.
>
> It is important to look at what the FAA did *not* do, which is to have
> a clause specifically excluding everyone having cardiac conditions,
> diabetes, loss of consciousness, etc. They could have referenced the
> existing medicals certification standards and required everyone to
> self-certify that they have none of the automatic disqualifiers.
> Instead, for those that have never hald a certificate but have such
> conditions, the document says,

They do indeed make reference to disqualifiers in part 67 if you have are
flying an LSA with a medical certificate. I wonder... I thought the NPRM
made reference to part 67 disqualifiers for BOTH medical certificate
holders and people flying with DL's. Was that a change? Hmm. If so, I'm
surprised that was relaxed.

> What we are dealing with here is a sort of bipolar disorder.

<chuckle>

> And yet, that same man could, in theory, be OK so long
> as he had never tried to obtain a medical, and simply followed his
> doctor's advice.

Then again, the same man could do that right now with an ultralight.

Another issue that has not been discussed is whether family doctors are
going to want to assume additional liability for telling someone they can
fly. How much you want to be that's going to become a big issue sooner than
later?

Juan

[Jerry]

Don't ask if you are safe to fly; ask if you are safe to drive.

Jerry in NC

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> (C Kingsbury) wrote in
> om:
>
> > Juan Jimenez > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in
> >> m:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Juan~--~Jimenez" <b*d&5^-*@()--b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> From the Sport Pilot final rule:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It sounds like you can just continue to keep your Special
> >> > Issuance/3rd class in line until it expires and then you are free.
> >> > Special issuances always have a time limit on them (usually a
> >> > year) anyhow.
> >>
> >> I wish it were, but that does not seem to be the case...
> >
> > There's always good reason to be cynical, but this document
> > (http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/faa_medical_faq.doc) from the
> > FAA leaves a lot of doors open, albeit on both sides.
> >
> > It is important to look at what the FAA did *not* do, which is to have
> > a clause specifically excluding everyone having cardiac conditions,
> > diabetes, loss of consciousness, etc. They could have referenced the
> > existing medicals certification standards and required everyone to
> > self-certify that they have none of the automatic disqualifiers.
> > Instead, for those that have never hald a certificate but have such
> > conditions, the document says,
>
> They do indeed make reference to disqualifiers in part 67 if you have are
> flying an LSA with a medical certificate. I wonder... I thought the NPRM
> made reference to part 67 disqualifiers for BOTH medical certificate
> holders and people flying with DL's. Was that a change? Hmm. If so, I'm
> surprised that was relaxed.
>
> > What we are dealing with here is a sort of bipolar disorder.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> > And yet, that same man could, in theory, be OK so long
> > as he had never tried to obtain a medical, and simply followed his
> > doctor's advice.
>
> Then again, the same man could do that right now with an ultralight.
>
> Another issue that has not been discussed is whether family doctors are
> going to want to assume additional liability for telling someone they can
> fly. How much you want to be that's going to become a big issue sooner
than
> later?
>
> Juan
>

[C Kingsbury]

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/sport_rule.doc

Look for page 156. This starts a fairly extended discussion of their
thought processes behind it.

On closer examination it seems to me like what they're aiming at is, a
requirement that you be able to get a special issuance at least once,
and then you're OK with a DL for a while. In their view, the number of
people who are rejected totally is small, most simply drop out
voluntarily part of the way through. Of course we'd all rather just
have the DL medical and be done with it, but the FAA is more lenient
in medical certification than most other agencies in the world.

In any case, it is at least a partial gain if they do not require
people to keep their special issuances current. Having to get a 3C
once every 2-3 years is OK, but if you need to get a bunch of tests
done every 12-18 months that can add up fast.

Of course, what this doesn't address are those who are unable to
obtain a special issuance because of current practices. This stinks
for them, but there is some hope. There are plenty of conditions that
used to be flat-out, not-a-chance disqualifying that can now be
cleared. Sport pilot is better than nothing but many of us will still
want to exercise PPL privileges.

-cwk.

[Ken Finney]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/sport_rule.doc
>
> Look for page 156. This starts a fairly extended discussion of their
> thought processes behind it.
>
> On closer examination it seems to me like what they're aiming at is, a
> requirement that you be able to get a special issuance at least once,
> and then you're OK with a DL for a while. In their view, the number of
> people who are rejected totally is small, most simply drop out
> voluntarily part of the way through. Of course we'd all rather just
> have the DL medical and be done with it, but the FAA is more lenient
> in medical certification than most other agencies in the world.
>
> In any case, it is at least a partial gain if they do not require
> people to keep their special issuances current. Having to get a 3C
> once every 2-3 years is OK, but if you need to get a bunch of tests
> done every 12-18 months that can add up fast.
>
> Of course, what this doesn't address are those who are unable to
> obtain a special issuance because of current practices. This stinks
> for them, but there is some hope. There are plenty of conditions that
> used to be flat-out, not-a-chance disqualifying that can now be
> cleared. Sport pilot is better than nothing but many of us will still
> want to exercise PPL privileges.
>

And the EAA will be working with the FAA to establish "alternatives",
with one of the expectations being that special issuances for SP will
be easier to get than for PPLs.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, David D Cowell says...
>
>Sure wish this was a moderated group......:0(

Actually Dave you really don't. Otherwise those of us who have had or are having
problems with the aviation media ,Aero News Network in particular would have no
place to tell the other side . zoom and jaun are a part of ANN news (I use that
term loosely) organization.Sometimes it gets petty but most of the time we get
to see both sides of an issue and the real personalities of those who claim the
title of Journalist.

Lastly I'd say if any of this offends you then hit the kill file,no muss no fuss
and it was just self moderated. Good luck

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

[Jerry Springer]

David D Cowell wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
> I'm as much interested in Aviation news and events as the next guy, but
> beating this dead horse has very little to do with Home Building.


David why don't you tell us what you have built and post some interesting facts
instead of bitching???? If you have been around aviation very long you would
know that this horse is not dead yet and this has everyting to do with aviation

Beat away Chuck

Jerry

[B2431]

>rom: (RobertR237)
>Date: 8/6/2004 10:51 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to send Zoom to test fly the
>>Moller Skycar. ;o)
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>
>
>Only if he promises to roll it for us.
>
>
>Bob Reed

You mean he hasn't done this already?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Andy Asberry says...
>Note to Chuck: Tony also cautioned that some of the 15 were fair
>weather friends. Your experience has proved him correct. He certainly
>knew how to read people.

Hi Andy
He was right about the RAH-15 he warned me not to say anything to some people
that I wouldn't say to zooms face.I was sure fooled for a while but Tony backed
my suspicions.He was a true friend and an honorable man who I still miss. I
often wonder what Tony would do and lo and behold his voice comes ringing out
loud and clear via your post . It was good to read it again.
Thanks

see ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

>
>
>From: Tony P. )
>Subject: Re: Chucked?
>
>
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
>Date: 1997/11/13
>
>Andy:
>
> Thank you for having an open mind. I apologize for the excessive
>enthusiasm of some of the local inhabitants. Unfortunately, while it
>tends to lend credence to Mr. Campbell's characterization of this
>newsgroup as uniformly hostile to him, there's been so much verbiage
>that folks tend to assume everyone knows the history. Some also tend
>to assume that anyone popping off favorably to Mr. Campbell's position
>is a mole or pseudonymous plant of some kind.
>
> Unfortunately, there have been occasional provocateurs also, who have
>come in flaming after either reading stuff Campbell posts or, perhaps,
>being in contact with him. Some even seem suspiciously as if they may
>BE him, which makes for some comical exchanges when some poor guy with
>a new aol account blunders in and gripes about the Campbell threads
>(many "popups" have been from aol, for some strange reason, and I
>think some of his more benighted fans try to emulate his uh, unusual
>writing style with startling results).
>
> Anyway, the hardest thing for any human being to do is to acknowledge
>NOT having all the answers and that admission is usually the solution
>to most human problems (pardon me for the philosophy, but I think it
>is also the answer to Mr. Campbell's problem, in part). As far as I'm
>concerned, your initial reaction was appropriate to what you knew, and
>your second reaction is appropriate to what you learned. Frankly
>there is room even when the facts are known, to differ on what is
>reasonable anyway.
>
> Stick around. We need people who are willing to stick their heads up
>and speak their minds around here. You'll fit right in. Just don't
>think we are ALL completely crazy because some of us are. There are
>some fine aviators and surprisingly good minds around here.
>
> Tony Pucillo
>
>[I speak only for myself unless I say otherwise. One personality is
>quite enough, thank you.]
>
>"Castigat ridendo mores" <laughter succeeds where lecturing won't>
>

[RobertR237]

>
>"RobertR237" wrote ...
>> >
>> >Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to send Zoom to test fly the
>> >Moller Skycar. ;o)
>> >
>> >Tony
>>
>> Only if he promises to roll it for us.
>
>That's silly. Even Jim couldn't roll the Skycar ... it would get wrapped in
>the cable that's holding it up in the air.
>
>Rich
>

But he would claim he did...even if only in his wet dreams.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Richard Lamb]

Richard Isakson wrote:
>
> "RobertR237" wrote ...
> > >
> > >Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to send Zoom to test fly the
> > >Moller Skycar. ;o)
> > >
> > >Tony
> >
> > Only if he promises to roll it for us.
>
> That's silly. Even Jim couldn't roll the Skycar ... it would get wrapped in
> the cable that's holding it up in the air.
>
> Rich


Naw, he'd loop it first, then run back through the loop and tie
a neat little square knot in the cable...

[RobertR237]

>
>>From: Richard Lamb
>>Date: 8/9/2004 11:08 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Richard Isakson wrote:
>>>
>>> "RobertR237" wrote ...
>>> > >
>>> > >Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to send Zoom to test fly
>the
>>> > >Moller Skycar. ;o)
>>> > >
>>> > >Tony
>>> >
>>> > Only if he promises to roll it for us.
>>>
>>> That's silly. Even Jim couldn't roll the Skycar ... it would get wrapped
>>in
>>> the cable that's holding it up in the air.
>>>
>>> Rich
>>
>>
>>Naw, he'd loop it first, then run back through the loop and tie
>>a neat little square knot in the cable...
>
>Get real, he's incapable of finding his butt with both hands unless he sues
>someone first.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

Dan,

For once I must totally disagree with you. Zoom know exactly where his butt
is, all he has to do is look for Jaun's head.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)