Sport Pilot inconsistency

[frustrated flier]

I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
Sport Pilot and the other is not.

For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
medical.

[Dude]

I don't think you have this quite right, but I am certainly no expert.

As I understand it neither pilot can fly under sport pilot if they know that
their condition is an impairment to safe operation.

Now, the experienced pilot who lost his medical certainly knows this (at
least knows that it is the FAA's opinion), and there is proof. The new
pilot may either not know this, or "elect" to not know this, and the worst
he will likely suffer bureaucratically is losing his new privileges. The
fact that he is at risk for real problems is another discussion.

I suspect that before too long the FAA will publish a laundry list for the
sport pilots to help them police themselves. So if you are upset about the
loophole and its potential to penalize the formerly certidfied pilot, rest
assured, the loophole will likely close.

Also, try to put on the hat of the bureaucrat. They have all decided that
it is unsafe for people with a list of conditions to fly. If they were to
suddenly turn around and so it is safe for them to fly, just in sport
planes, then what are they going to say when a pedestrian gets killed by a
sport plane piloted by a guy who formerly lost his medical? Their number
one priority is keeping their job long enough to get their pension, and this
sort of thing could keep that from happening.

Now, you also threw out some frustration over whether the condition you
mention should be considered a problem or not. I feel your pain, but you
have to know that the bureaucrat will choose the CYA answer everytime. The
only solution is to get all the folks on this drug together, and lobby for a
change. Numbers are the answer.


"frustrated flier" > wrote in message
m...
> I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
> a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
> last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
> have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
> Sport Pilot and the other is not.
>
> For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
> preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
> impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
> the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
> carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
> medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
> home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
> medical.

[Daniel]

frustrated flier wrote ...
> I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
> a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
> last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
> have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
> Sport Pilot and the other is not.

Incorrect, at least partially. A new pilot may NOT qualify for an SP
ticket if taking a medication OR having a medical condition which may
impair their ability to fly safely. Granted, the supposed pilot may
not be aware of the impairment or they may simply lie about it, but
the reg doesn't permit the situation you describe. The higher ticket
pilot, having already been denied a medical, is already on notice
(along with the FAA) that there may be an impairment, so both
ignorance and cheating are out. In both cases, the pilots need a
determination of "no impairment" in order to get an SP ticket. (How
to get that determination is still undefined.) The difference is only
that the new pilot has an opportunity to cheat or slip by through self
ignorance while the existing pilot does not.

> For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
> preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
> impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
> the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
> carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
> medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
> home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
> medical.

I think you're omitting a very key set of facts here.

In the case of combat carrier pilots, SSRI's are prescribed for their
anti-anxiety effects. Extreme anxiety is a very natural and normal
consequence of air combat, but has very negative effects on combat
pilots' abilities to keep themselves alive, hence the prescription -
normally a single preflight dose. Anxiety produced under such
conditions is not only a normal acute response, but is transient as
well. Any negative side-effects are more than outweighed by the
benefits _in that situation_.

In the case of civilians, pilots or otherwise, while SSRI's are also
prescribed for anxiety and panic disorders, they are primarily used
for the treatment of depression. In a civilian setting, anxiety or
depression to the extreme of requiring medication is most definitely
not a normal state. There is something fundamentally out of whack.
Hence the prescription, normally long term. Even accepting the
argument that the medication may not impair a pilot, there is still
the underlying condition that is of concern.

I don't think I'd have any concern with a pilot who pops a Prozac, a
Paxil or a Zoloft flying me home for Christmas, _if_ that was all of
the story. But I would absolutely take issue with being piloted by an
agoraphobic or dysphoric pilot (medicated or not) on any such flight.
(Remember the suicidal SilkAir pilot a couple years back who took 100+
passengers down with him?) As for non-commercial pilots, would any of
us have argued for an SP tickets for SSRI medicants such as Andrea
Yates & Eric Harris? Even before their murderous rampages, anyone
examining their particular problem sets would have said no.

Please note that I'm not arguing that all persons taking SSRI's should
be denied an SP, simply that each individual case needs to be looked
at in light of the facts particular to that potential pilot. That's
the precise route that the FAA is trying to fly on this issue.

Daniel

[Michael]

(frustrated flier) wrote
> I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
> a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
> last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
> have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
> Sport Pilot and the other is not.

Sounds like you're perfectly clear on that issue. At least you
described it exactly as it is.

> For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
> preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
> impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
> the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
> carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
> medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
> home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
> medical.

Antidepressants are against FAA policy; depression is not. That's
because real men don't need antidepressants. They handle their
depression the old fashioned way - drinking and womanizing.

I mean given the FAA policy on mental illness (only disqualifying if
manifested by overt acts) and drugs to treat it (universally
disqualifying) that has to be the policy, right?

Any other questions?

Michael

[BllFs6]

>Antidepressants are against FAA policy; depression is not.

okay...so a disease that might cause you to kill yourself or others is okay for
flight....

But the CURE that prevents such a thing ISNT okay for flight....

And lets not forget that many many more INNOCENTS get killed on the ground by
random lighting than the number that do by maniacally depressed GA pilots....

Yep, the FAA is really worrying about the BIG issues here....


BLLL

[Rich S.]

"BllFs6" > wrote in message
...
>
> And lets not forget that many many more INNOCENTS get killed on the ground
> by
> random lighting than the number that do by maniacally depressed GA
> pilots....
>
> Yep, the FAA is really worrying about the BIG issues here....

Random light(en)ing is God's fault and he's pretty much immune to lawsuits
and/or departmental discipline.

FAA bureaucrats are subject to both. :o)

Rich "Not on *MY* watch" S.

[BllFs6]

>Random light(en)ing is God's fault and he's pretty much immune to lawsuits
>and/or departmental discipline.
>

For NOW :)

take care

Blll

[Matt Whiting]

Rich S. wrote:

> "BllFs6" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>And lets not forget that many many more INNOCENTS get killed on the ground
>>by
>>random lighting than the number that do by maniacally depressed GA
>>pilots....
>>
>>Yep, the FAA is really worrying about the BIG issues here....
>
>
> Random light(en)ing is God's fault and he's pretty much immune to lawsuits
> and/or departmental discipline.
>
> FAA bureaucrats are subject to both. :o)
>
> Rich "Not on *MY* watch" S.
>
>

I wish I could do some lightening as I'm about 20 lbs. heavier than I
care to be ... oh, you meant light(n)ing. :-)

Correcting someone's spelling errors is always dangerous as it is so
easy to make your own error.


Matt

[Rich S.]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Rich S. wrote:
>>
>> Random light(en)ing is God's fault and he's pretty much immune to
>> lawsuits and/or departmental discipline.
>
> Correcting someone's spelling errors is always dangerous as it is so easy
> to make your own error.

True - but now it's *my* error, not his. Had I simply copied his spelling, I
knew I would be wrong. Neither did I try to call attention to it. This way,
I can be proud of my own error.

But, you're wright. I screwed up.

Rich S.

[BllFs6]

>True - but now it's *my* error, not his. Had I simply copied his spelling, I
>knew I would be wrong. Neither did I try to call attention to it. This way,
>I can be proud of my own error.
>
>But, you're wright. I screwed up.
>
>Rich S.
>
>

Hey...

I dont mind if someone points out a spelling error...."specially" if they dont
make a BIG deal about it or deal with it in a humorous way.....

And Rich "dent" so its "a otah"

Now, the pr***ks that DO make a big deal about it....acting like a forum is
some kind of refereed publication....thats ANOTHER story all together :)

But they usually slink away once I want to compare test scores and education
levels :)

Besides, ask any spelling nazi about his "hot water heater" sometime and see
what percentage get THAT wrong :)

And IFFFF that doesnt work, ask em if they ever asked a teacher if "Can I go to
the bathroom".....and did the teacher correctly reply "I dont know....CAN
you?"....thanks to my second grade teacher for that one :)

take care

Blll

[Matt Whiting]

BllFs6 wrote:

>>True - but now it's *my* error, not his. Had I simply copied his spelling, I
>>knew I would be wrong. Neither did I try to call attention to it. This way,
>>I can be proud of my own error.
>>
>>But, you're wright. I screwed up.
>>
>>Rich S.
>>
>>
>
>
> Hey...
>
> I dont mind if someone points out a spelling error...."specially" if they dont
> make a BIG deal about it or deal with it in a humorous way.....
>
> And Rich "dent" so its "a otah"
>
> Now, the pr***ks that DO make a big deal about it....acting like a forum is
> some kind of refereed publication....thats ANOTHER story all together :)
>
> But they usually slink away once I want to compare test scores and education
> levels :)
>
> Besides, ask any spelling nazi about his "hot water heater" sometime and see
> what percentage get THAT wrong :)

Well, hot water heater isn't a spelling problem... :-)


Matt

[GeorgeB]

On 03 Sep 2004 20:49:28 GMT, (BllFs6) wrote:

>Besides, ask any spelling nazi about his "hot water heater" sometime and see
>what percentage get THAT wrong :)

You don't heat your HOT water?<g> I have noticed HOT water heaters
for sale in some stores, not just the ads but sometimes on the boxes.
Give the customer what he wants.

> "Can I ... "I don't know....CAN you?"

The lack of good grammar ... I feel that the bad is becoming the norm.

And there are so many more examples ...

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 3 Sep 2004 10:22:51 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

>Antidepressants are against FAA policy; depression is not. That's
>because real men don't need antidepressants. They handle their
>depression the old fashioned way - drinking and womanizing.

I'd love to see their faces at Walgreen's when you drop THAT prescription
on the counter.... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[frustrated flier]

Good comments, but a couple of mis-conceptions in general with several
postings.

First of all, the preponderance of medical opinion is that SSRI
medications do not impair a pilot. My neighbor is a heart surgeon and
he takes a stronger dose than I do. Whether or not the underlying
diagnosis is an impairment is a case-by-case issue. With rare
exceptions, people taking SSRIs are not suicidal or about to go
'postal'. Unfortunately, the FAA has lumped everyone together -- not
by medical condition, but by the medication alone without exception.
This is similar to fixing an age limit -- no one flys after 65
regardless of your condition.

With regard to Navy pilots, I think Daniel is confusing SSRIs with
other anti-anxiety meds. It takes from 3 to 4 weeks for SSRI meds to
have an effect. My doc. is an ex-Navy flight surgeon and he was the
one who told me he regularly prescribed SSRIs to Navy pilots -- based
at home.

> Incorrect, at least partially. A new pilot may NOT qualify for an SP
> ticket if taking a medication OR having a medical condition which may
> impair their ability to fly safely.
>
> In the case of combat carrier pilots, SSRI's are prescribed for their
> anti-anxiety effects. Extreme anxiety is a very natural and normal
> consequence of air combat, but has very negative effects on combat
> pilots' abilities to keep themselves alive, hence the prescription -
> normally a single preflight dose.
>
> Daniel

[Bingo]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> BllFs6 wrote:
>
> >>True - but now it's *my* error, not his. Had I simply copied his
spelling, I
> >>knew I would be wrong. Neither did I try to call attention to it. This
way,
> >>I can be proud of my own error.
> >>
> >>But, you're wright. I screwed up.
> >>
> >>Rich S.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hey...
> >
> > I dont mind if someone points out a spelling error...."specially" if
they dont
> > make a BIG deal about it or deal with it in a humorous way.....
> >
> > And Rich "dent" so its "a otah"
> >
> > Now, the pr***ks that DO make a big deal about it....acting like a forum
is
> > some kind of refereed publication....thats ANOTHER story all together :)
> >
> > But they usually slink away once I want to compare test scores and
education
> > levels :)
> >
> > Besides, ask any spelling nazi about his "hot water heater" sometime and
see
> > what percentage get THAT wrong :)
>
> Well, hot water heater isn't a spelling problem... :-)
>
>
> Matt
>

A country favorite of mine is when a person unthaws meat.
Ain't it funny how easy it is to get off topic?
Jim

[Juan Jimenez]

(frustrated flier) wrote in
m:

> I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> would preclude a 3rd class medical.

You're confusing two issues, Qualifying for the ticket and exercising the
privileges of same are two separate issues. It's illegal to fly while
taking medications that disqualify you from a medical. Sport pilots are
still required to self-certify under Part 61 rules, same for private and
higher pilots exercising sport pilot privileges.

> However, an experienced pilot with
> a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
> last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
> have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
> Sport Pilot and the other is not.

This is only the case if the pilot had his medical revoked, denied, etc. in
writing. If the AME told the pilot he/she didn't qualify for the medical
but the pilot never received a letter from the FAA stating so, and the
pilot is no longer taking the disqualifying medication, that pilot can
exercise sport pilot privileges if he otherwise qualifies to do so.

> For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
> preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
> impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
> the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
> carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
> medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
> home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
> medical.

Unless something has changed, what the Navy or the Canadians have to say
about that medication makes no difference in this issue...

[D. Reid]

Screw the FAA...if I feel fine...I'm fly'in!...if I dont...then I
wont....and thats the way it is.
"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Sep 2004 10:22:51 -0700, (Michael)
> wrote:
>
> >Antidepressants are against FAA policy; depression is not. That's
> >because real men don't need antidepressants. They handle their
> >depression the old fashioned way - drinking and womanizing.
>
> I'd love to see their faces at Walgreen's when you drop THAT prescription
> on the counter.... :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja