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

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??

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??

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(?)

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(?)

"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

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

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

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

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(?)

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(?)