Sport Pilot cuts off special issuance at the knees

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Certificate (Authorization) has been withdrawn would be allowed to operate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been revoked or suspended.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Authorization must not have been withdrawn."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withdrawn.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

"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.

"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" 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 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/regulat...edical_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.

"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

(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/regulat...edical_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

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/regulat...edical_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

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...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.

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/regulat...edical_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