Copy of FAA Medical legal?

[Unregistered]

Is it legal to carry a photocopy of my Third Class Medical?
Does it have to be the original?
If so, what happens if it is lost or damaged?
Thanks.

 

[AggieMike88]

Needs to be original. But I keep a photo copy of current one with my records incase original is lost and I need a bit of data from it to replace the original.

If original is lost, contact OKC and request a replacement.

What I did was to re-use one of the tyvek sleeves my bank sends with their debit cards. I folded my medical around my plastic pilot's certificate, stuffed it in the sleeve, and then placed that in my wallet.

Written on the sleeve are additional useful info such as my logins for DUAT/DUATS, IACRA login info, etc.

 

[murphey]

Since you can get a replacement by contacting FAA OKC, and a PDF is sent by email, which is printed on your personal printer, who cares?

 

[flyingron]

Since you can get a replacement by contacting FAA OKC, and a PDF is sent by email, which is printed on your personal printer, who cares?

The FAA cares. I'd not risk having only a copy of my certificates. Your signature is always the original.

 

[gkainz]

Since you can get a replacement by contacting FAA OKC, and a PDF is sent by email, which is printed on your personal printer, who cares?

The FAA cares. I'd not risk having only a copy of my certificates. Your signature is always the original.

I assume she means "who cares about having a copy just in case you lose the original"?, since you can replace it with an email and a printer.

 

[taters]

Either an original or a "replacement" which as stated above comes in an email...the latter is actually an affidavit to the fact that you indeed have a medical, its not a photocopy.

 

[AggieMike88]

And if we "file" the 8700-8 electronically, and the tech savvy AME can fill his portion out electronically, how long until we have the ability to keep said document on our smart phone's like the various auto insurance apps?

 

[murphey]

Either an original or a "replacement" which as stated above comes in an email...the latter is actually an affidavit to the fact that you indeed have a medical, its not a photocopy.

But I can print as many copies of the official replacement on my printer. Which one is the original?

 

[poadeleted20]

And if we "file" the 8700-8 electronically, and the tech savvy AME can fill his portion out electronically, how long until we have the ability to keep said document on our smart phone's like the various auto insurance apps?

Depends on how fast Jim Viola can get it past the rest of the FAA bureaucracy, as that's one of the ideas he has come up with. Might be a while, but the idea is percolating inside 800 Independence Ave. Biggest problem is Congress' mandate regarding secure photo ID pilot certificates, which the FAA has been dodging on the "unfunded mandate" argument for over 10 years now, but it's still a shadow hanging over anything the FAA does regarding certificates.

 

[poadeleted20]

But I can print as many copies of the official replacement on my printer. Which one is the original?

The replacement you print out is only good for something like 90 days while they send you a new "real" original, after which you need the new original. Guess they're willing to accept that situation that long. And you can only get the emailed temporary authorization letter once every couple of years (IIRC).

 

[EminiTrader]

I fly on a SODA medical - so it (my medical) was delivered by the FAA Examiner who administered the checkride and soda flight. It was a photocopy and signed by a doctor I'd never met -. I asked the same question - he said its fine. He was FAA so good enough for me.

 

[Stewartb]

My SI medical was faxed to me by OKC. No original signature.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

I've been wondering this since I have a habit of misplacing paperwork. The answers in this thread made my brain melt a little bit. It must be original. Unless you lose it, then the FAA will send you a copy. So you can't use a copy unless it comes off an FAA copy machine??

 

[poadeleted20]

I've been wondering this since I have a habit of misplacing paperwork. The answers in this thread made my brain melt a little bit. It must be original. Unless you lose it, then the FAA will send you a copy. So you can't use a copy unless it comes off an FAA copy machine??

The FAA doesn't send you a copy of the one you lost. They send you a new original document to use in place of the one you lost.

 

[Pedals2Paddles]

And that "new original" is signed by...?

 

[RotorAndWing]

Biggest problem is Congress' mandate regarding secure photo ID pilot certificates, which the FAA has been dodging on the "unfunded mandate" argument for over 10 years now, but it's still a shadow hanging over anything the FAA does regarding certificates.

That's a bit disingenuous. The FAA will get the photo certificates going if congress will ever appropriate the funds to do so. With no funding for the project it's a bit hard for the FAA to prioritize such a project.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

FWIW, I carry my original, have a copy in my plane, and have a picture of it on my phone and iPad.

Jim

 

[Stewartb]

Where do you guys come up with this "original document" crap? It isn't accurate. And by the way, your medical questionnaire is an 8500-8, not an 8700-8. And filing it electronically is all there is.

 

[tmyers]

I think your signature is what makes it original. When I received my SI and Medical I signed it in blue ink. A week or so later I received another copy (not a scan). I signed it in blue ink put it in my trifold and stored the one they e-mailed to me at the house.

 

[flyingron]

Where do you guys come up with this "original document" crap? It isn't accurate. And by the way, your medical questionnaire is an 8500-8, not an 8700-8. And filing it electronically is all there is.

AggieMike's argument is spurious. The 8500-8 (in it's electronic form) is not the certificate, just the application.

Nope, it's amazing in this day and age of instant electronic database checks why any piece of paper from a pilot certificate to a driver's license to a passport is necessary for any identity or demonstration of credentials. The paper is perhaps the easiest thing to attack.

There was a small window of time when one of the airlines (J7 if I recall properly) went entirely paperless. You never had paper tickets or boarding passes. You showed up and showed them your credit card and you got a reusable plastic boarding card (Numbered for boarding in the SWA cattle car fashion) which you handed back to them when you got on the plane. I was amazed that I ended up with nothing physical to show I made the flight, no receipts, no boarding pass, no stubs from anything, nothing.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's a bit disingenuous. The FAA will get the photo certificates going if congress will ever appropriate the funds to do so. With no funding for the project it's a bit hard for the FAA to prioritize such a project.

I think that's pretty much what I said.

 

[poadeleted20]

Where do you guys come up with this "original document" crap?

The regulations, which refer to the certificate issued by the FAA, and don't say anything suggesting that copies you made yourself are OK. Examples:

(a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person:
(1) Has in the person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization—
(i) A pilot certificate issued under this part and in accordance with § 61.19; (ii) A special purpose pilot authorization issued under § 61.77;
(iii) A temporary certificate issued under § 61.17;
(iv) A document conveying temporary authority to exercise certificate privileges issued by the Airmen Certification Branch under § 61.29(e); or (v) When operating an aircraft within a foreign country, a pilot license issued by that country may be used.

A copy of your pilot certificate is not "A pilot certificate issued under this part".

(c) Medical certificate.
(1) A person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft only if that person holds the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the FAA, that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section provides certain exceptions to the requirement to hold a medical certificate.

Again, a copy of a medical is not "the appropriate medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter".

The FAA has specific published exceptions for certain temporary documents (i.e., "other documentation acceptable to the FAA"), but nowhere has the FAA said a photocopy you made yourself is "other documentation acceptable to the FAA".

 

[RotorAndWing]

I think that's pretty much what I said.

Biggest problem is Congress' mandate regarding secure photo ID pilot certificates, which the FAA has been dodging on the "unfunded mandate" argument for over 10 years now, but it's still a shadow hanging over anything the FAA does regarding certificates.

"Dodging on the unfunded mandate" makes it appear they are using it as an excuse not to implement.

 

[poadeleted20]

"Dodging on the unfunded mandate" makes it appear they are using it as an excuse not to implement.

You are certainly entitled to believe that if you wish, but it is in fact a) the reason the FAA did not implement it and b) the excuse they gave Congress for not complying with the law requiring it. I would note that since Mr. Mica (whose idea this was and who was the driving force in making it law) has left his position of power over the FAA, nobody else in Congress has stepped forward to push to fund this, and FAA Administrator has not been asking Congress for the money to do it. Draw your own conclusions.

My personal opinion is that the FAA does not want this to happen because of the additional administrative workload it would place on the FSDO's which would probably be the offices where those photos would have to be taken and the certificates produced and delivered (like the individual MVA offices for state-issued DL's). I think the FAA is perfectly happy with the current rules which use other existing secure photo ID's such as passports and US driver's licenses as photo ID's to accompany pilot certificates, since that's no extra work for the FAA. All things considered, I believe the FAA is happy to let this particular sleeping Congressional dog lie. But that's just a personal guess based on conversations with FAA personnel.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You are certainly entitled to believe that if you wish, but it is in fact a) the reason the FAA did not implement it and b) the excuse they gave Congress for not complying with the law requiring it. I would note that since Mr. Mica (whose idea this was and who was the driving force in making it law) has left his position of power over the FAA, nobody else in Congress has stepped forward to push to fund this, and FAA Administrator has not been asking Congress for the money to do it. Draw your own conclusions.

Congress continually leaves out the funding for it in each budget/CR. With so many other higher priority items I can hardly see the Administrator going to the mat over the funding. But I still don't see it as the FAA "dodging" anything.

My personal opinion is that the FAA does not want this to happen because of the additional administrative workload it would place on the FSDO's which would probably be the offices where those photos would have to be taken and the certificates produced and delivered (like the individual MVA offices for state-issued DL's). I think the FAA is perfectly happy with the current rules which use other existing secure photo ID's such as passports and US driver's licenses as photo ID's to accompany pilot certificates, since that's no extra work for the FAA. All things considered, I believe the FAA is happy to let this particular sleeping Congressional dog lie. But that's just a personal guess based on conversations with FAA personnel.

Like you said, just an opinion.

 

[flyingron]

The FAA can't even "charge" for anything. Any money (chart sales, registration renewals) goes back to the fund. The money to actually do anything (like printing charts, handling renewals, photo licenses) needs to be allocated by congress. Congress frequently does lip service to one issue but then fails to fund it when it comes down to it. Certain of the congressmen can then get "PR points" at home for saying "Hey, I voted for this" without caring whether or not it actually gets done.

 

[poadeleted20]

Like you said, just an opinion.

And on this one, that's just like yours.

 

[mrkbbd]

The FAA can't even "charge" for anything. Any money (chart sales, registration renewals) goes back to the fund. The money to actually do anything (like printing charts, handling renewals, photo licenses) needs to be allocated by congress. Congress frequently does lip service to one issue but then fails to fund it when it comes down to it. Certain of the congressmen can then get "PR points" at home for saying "Hey, I voted for this" without caring whether or not it actually gets done.

They definitely need a self-funding option - I believe the FCC is completely self-funded. Now when ForeFlight / Jeppensen publishes charts, do they have to pay a royalty to the FAA (so government) or are those privately created charts approved by the government?

 

[flyingron]

It will never happen. The FCC (and the USPS) have one major difference. They're not sitting on a huge bank account (the aviation trust fund) that the Congress is using to play games with to make the deficit seem smaller than it actually is.

As for the electronic charting, the FAA has attempted to collect fees and limit distribution rights to support those fees, but they're running afoul of the law. It's not really possible for the Feds at this point to assert copyright on such things.

 

[JeffDG]

Whether a copy of your medical is acceptable to the inspector ramp checking you is dependent on your attitude.

Attitude 1:
"Yeah, sorry, my medical got run through the washing machine a couple days ago, I've got this here copy, is that OK?"

Attitude 2:
"You asking this is an unconstitutional infringement on my liberty. Here, you can see my certificate but not touch it, because I don't have to surrender my certificate. AM I BEING DETAINED?"

Results:

Attitude 1: "Technically, no, but I have better things to do than write that up. Here's a phone number to call at OKC to get a proper replacement. Have a nice day."

Attitude 2: What do you think?

 

[jesse]

FWIW I've never had ANY luck getting a replacement medical certificate from OKC. You go to a voicemail and it's either full or nobody ever calls you back. You fax them and they never send you anything either. It's frustrating as hell.

The last time this happened I ended up getting a friend who works for the FAA to pull the strings and get it for me. He had it in an afternooon.

 

[Tim]

Mountains out of mole hills the government is so good at it!

 

[eetrojan]

Now that the "original" medical certificate is printed on a standard sheet of copy paper in the medical examiner's office, and then signed, it is impossible to tell the difference in the field between a wet ink original and a color print of a color scan.

As a practical matter, nobody would care, because nobody can tell the difference.

There are things to worry about, but this certainly isn't one of them.

 

[flyingron]

Now that the "original" medical certificate is printed on a standard sheet of copy paper in the medical examiner's office, and then signed, it is impossible to tell the difference in the field between a wet ink original and a color print of a color scan.

As a practical matter, nobody would care, because nobody can tell the difference.

Other than the signatures (the AME's and yours).

I don't know why people are worked up. Carry it with you. If you lose your wallet they'll send you a new one. They don't even charge unlike your PILOT CERTIFICATE that they want $2.

 

[eetrojan]

Other than the signatures (the AME's and yours).

The blue-ink signatures are part of the color scan too. Absent forensic analysis, it's impossible to tell the difference between the original and the copy.

 

[poadeleted20]

Now that the "original" medical certificate is printed on a standard sheet of copy paper in the medical examiner's office, and then signed, it is impossible to tell the difference in the field between a wet ink original and a color print of a color scan.

If it ever came down to that, I'm pretty sure any good law enforcement lab could tell the difference.

 

[JeffDG]

If it ever came down to that, I'm pretty sure any good law enforcement lab could tell the difference.

And if it ever comes down to that, you're in more trouble than having a photocopy of your medical is going to get you in.

 

[eetrojan]

If it ever came down to that, I'm pretty sure any good law enforcement lab could tell the difference.

True, but in reality, it would never come down to that.

 

[oldShar]

I've commonly made pdf copies for years and then disperse them, a copy apiece, between my various purses and flight kits.
After a few months, I'm unlikely to remember which one was the original.
With this thread, I went and checked each of the ones I stashed away ----> frankly, I can't tell which one was the original
(but then my copies are pdfs run on business quality color laser printers. I can tell the differences when run on ink jets, but not on the laser jets.)
No one has given me grief over "copies" of my medical, or other legal papers that I've pdf'd -- and I'm not about to worry about it until someone hands me a summons to appear in court (as other than a juror)

 

[poadeleted20]

True, but in reality, it would never come down to that.

Whatever. The original question was whether it's legal or not (the answer being "no"), not whether or not you might get caught doing it. The answer to the latter is "probably not" unless your original is under order of suspension or revocation, in which case there are criminal charges possible as well as FAA enforcement action if you present a copy of the suspended/revoked original to an Inspector while illegally exercising the suspended/revoked privileges of that certificate. Other than that, I suspect that even if an Inspector happens to recognize a copy as a copy, as long as you don't lie about it and do have a reasonable explanation for why you're carrying that instead of the original, it's not going to be a big deal.