Flying Gliders as a Schizo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unregistered
  • Start date Start date
Sorry boss, but what the boys are telling you sounds about right. Do get up in the air, but take a CFI along for the ride. Its kinda like flying solo, they usually don't say much.

It's the albatross you were born with. May not be fair, but that's just how it is. Hey, I'd love to have been out there enjoying amorous congress with supermodels, but I was born short and fat, and went bald prematurely. Not exactly supermodel material. I would have loved to have been good at sports, but I was born a klutz and have remained that way despite my best efforts. We all have to deal with the hand dealt us.
 
RJM62 said:
If it's ultralights you're interested in, you don't need a note. For your own protection (and others'), you just need to talk it over with your doctor and come to an honest understanding of whether it's something that you can safely do, and under what conditions. That's not even a legal requirement so much as a common-sense one. You want to be safe.
Click to expand...
I got $20 that sez that the OP's doctor doesn't have his/her panties in a bunch about the OP driving a two ton SUV...
 
Unregistered said:
Honestly it is schizoaffective disorder, which in itself has a better outlook than schizophrenia. Don't worry I already know it is not certifiable. I take too many medications to hold a medical and won't bother even wasting my time applying for one. It sounds like I will always need someone to act as PIC besides myself. I just want to enjoy being up in the air. It would be nice to be able to take people in the air however it doesn't sound possible. I have struggled with this since my mid 20s and it just got worse. My biggest goal is to actually fly solo but that may not be possible from what I hear.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct on all counts. However, I must wish good luck to as honest a person as yourself.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
The above is absolutely incorrect. The FAA explicitly states:

"When an ultralight is involved in an accident, the first step by the FAA is to determine if it is a “true” ultralight, in accordance with the regulations, or if it is an unregistered aircraft that does not qualify for true ultralight status. If it is a true ultralight (see bullets, page one), the FAA will defer any further investigation of the accident to local law enforcement. The accident then becomes a law enforcement investigation, and the FAA has no further involvement."
Source:
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?print=go&newsId=6633


I know of no cases where the FAA has ever taken action against an operator of a true ultralight because the operator had any medical condition of any sort. If they defer action to local law enforcement even in the face of an actual accident, they definitely will not take any preemptive action based on the condition of the pilot or the aircraft. Airworthiness of pilot or aircraft simply doesn't apply and Ron appears to be dragging in factors from other regulatory Parts where they do not apply.
Click to expand...
That only covers accident investigation, not violation of Subpart B of Part 103 (i.e., the operating rules for ultralight vehicles). The FAA has civil penalties of thousands of dollars waiting for those who violate those regulations.
 
Ron Levy said:
That only covers accident investigation, not violation of Subpart B of Part 103 (i.e., the operating rules for ultralight vehicles). The FAA has civil penalties of thousands of dollars waiting for those who violate those regulations.
Click to expand...

Well absent an accident or a violation of some other regulation other than 103.9(a), I know of no case where the FAA acted against an ultralight pilot who might present a danger due to any medical condition they have. If you know of such a case you should present it because otherwise you have nothing to show your opinion is more right than mine.

I've not found any case where the FAA has cited only 103.9(a). In all the cases I've found it appears in conjunction with a violation of another section - with 103.15, operations over congested areas, being the most common.

Lastly, I'm not sure under what circumstances a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any other mental health would come to be known prior to, or anytime reasonably after, the usual initial contact with an FAA IIC after an ultralight crash. Nor could I see the FAA taking any preemptive action in response to a report that someone diagnosed with a mental health problem was planning to operate an ultralight. The poor FAA person would have probably to engage aeromedical expertise to judge whether mental health problem X would likely be a violation of 103.9(a).

There doesn't appear to be any historical evidence to back up your opinion. Just your own firm conviction of your opinion's rightness.
 
Unregistered said:
Honestly it is schizoaffective disorder, which in itself has a better outlook than schizophrenia. Don't worry I already know it is not certifiable. I take too many medications to hold a medical and won't bother even wasting my time applying for one. It sounds like I will always need someone to act as PIC besides myself. I just want to enjoy being up in the air. It would be nice to be able to take people in the air however it doesn't sound possible. I have struggled with this since my mid 20s and it just got worse. My biggest goal is to actually fly solo but that may not be possible from what I hear.
Click to expand...

Jim Logajan said:
Well absent an accident or a violation of some other regulation other than 103.9(a).
Click to expand...

Here is what 103.9(a) says:

§103.9 Hazardous operations.
(a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property.
Click to expand...

I think any reasonable person would conclude that flying an aircraft of any size while admittedly taking "too many medications to hold a medical" constitutes "a hazard to other persons or property", i.e. violation of 103.9(a). But the FAA (in the case of a non-certificated pilot) would very likely just let local law enforcement deal with it.
 
RotorDude said:
Here is what 103.9(a) says:



I think any reasonable person would conclude that flying an aircraft of any size while admittedly taking "too many medications to hold a medical" constitutes "a hazard to other persons or property", i.e. violation of 103.9(a). But the FAA (in the case of a non-certificated pilot) would very likely just let local law enforcement deal with it.
Click to expand...

I'm a pretty reasonable person, and I wouldn't necessarily conclude that. It would depend on whether the medications were disqualifying because of actual or bureaucratic reasons.

For example, I know a guy who takes an SSRI for some sort of bowel disorder. According to your interpretation, he would be creating "a hazard to other persons or property" and violating 103.9(a) if he took to the skies in an ultralight simply because the SSRI would be legally disqualifying for a medical, despite the fact that no medical would even required for his particular operations, nor would there exist a disqualifying underlying condition.

In OP's case, both the underlying disorder and the medications would be disqualifying if he (she?) were seeking a medical certificate. But that's not the case. OP is wondering whether he is fit to fly in some capacity that doesn't require a medical. Furthermore, OP seems to be unusually honest and conscientious about wanting to do the right and safe things; so the decision, in my opinion, and with sole regard to this particular OP, should be made by OP and his doctor.

There have been many, many posters on this board who hold valid medicals and who have never been officially diagnosed with anything scarier-sounding than a hangnail, but whose attitudes scare me a lot more than the thought of this OP taking to the skies does.

Rich
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
I'm a pretty reasonable person, and I wouldn't necessarily conclude that. It would depend on whether the medications were disqualifying because of actual or bureaucratic reasons.

For example, I know a guy who takes an SSRI for some sort of bowel disorder. According to your interpretation, he would be creating "a hazard to other persons or property" and violating 103.9(a) if he took to the skies in an ultralight simply because the SSRI would be legally disqualifying for a medical, despite the fact that no medical would even required for his particular operations, nor would there exist a disqualifying underlying condition.

In OP's case, both the underlying disorder and the medications would be disqualifying if he (she?) were seeking a medical certificate. But that's not the case. OP is wondering whether he is fit to fly in some capacity that doesn't require a medical. Furthermore, OP seems to be unusually honest and conscientious about wanting to do the right and safe things; so the decision, in my opinion, and with sole regard to this particular OP, should be made by OP and his doctor.

There have been many, many posters on this board who hold valid medicals and who have never been officially diagnosed with anything scarier-sounding than a hangnail, but whose attitudes scare me a lot more than the thought of this OP taking to the skies does.

Rich
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, in general.
I think in this case the medications are clearly not for bowel issues, but for a psychological disorder. So if the meds are of the wrong dose, kind or combination one day, your worst outcome won't just be furiously reaching for your flight bag.:eek:
And of course we have the Germanwings event as the big elephant in the room here.:(
But it seems to me that in the case in point the OP is quite reasonable, and appears willing to fly only with a CFI on board, which would be far safer, and will save him a bunch of money too, since there is no paper chasing involved.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top