Sport Pilot inconsistency

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.

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.

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

(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

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

"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. )

Rich "Not on *MY* watch" S.

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

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. )

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

"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.

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