If you have most of those conditions you may not fly until you get a 3rd Class Medical Special Issuance. I don’t see diabetes on the list. I don’t know if Angina Pectoris falls under the heart conditions listed—but it probably does.
While that might be a good idea, I'm not aware of any such requirement in the applicable statute or regulation other than at the time of the required medical examination (if the exam is done by the pilot's personal physician).
Yes, and the angency's interpretation of that regulation will carry weight.
To put a finer point on it, this language is significantly more narrow than what would get you deffered/denied/SI on a medical. Note the tense, note "condition" not "diagnosis," etc.
Why does he think he needs an SI before Basic Med?
I'm asking why you think that. Are you basing your conclusion on a particular reg?
The violation would be 61.2(b)(2), 61.3(c)(1), and 61.23(a)(3)(1) for not holding a medical certificate. Except for balloon, glider, and light sport, you can only fly without a medical certificate (i.e under BasicMed) if you meet the requirements of 61.23(c)(3) and 61.113(i). 68.9 states that if you're operating under the provisions of 61.113(i) you have to have completed the process for obtaining a special issuance for the list of medical conditions cited earlier in the thread.
The airman should ask himself whether he improves his situation by involving the FAA in that decision if he is not legally required to do so.
Aww, c'mon. The insurance code was entered for TIA and resulted in the brain scan. Totally indefensible. It's what it is. Under the enabling legislation he needs an SI.
Which section requires that? What I see had the same limitations as the reg. Otherwise he just needs to be under the care of a physician.
(B) A neurological disorder, limited to an
established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any
of the following:
(i) Epilepsy.
(ii) Disturbance of consciousness without
satisfactory medical explanation of the cause.
(iii) A transient loss of control of nervous
system functions without satisfactory medical
explanation of the cause.Except there seems to be a satisfactory medical explanation, at least according to the doc: TIA.
(4) Special rule for neurological conditions.--
(A) In general.--In the case of an individual with a
clinically diagnosed neurological condition, the third-
class medical certificate exemption under subsection (a)
shall not apply if--
(i) in the judgment of the individual's State-
licensed medical specialist, the condition--
(I) renders the individual unable to
safely perform the duties or exercise
the airman privileges described in
subsection (a)(8); or
(II) may reasonably be expected to
make the individual unable to perform
the duties or exercise the privileges
described in subsection (a)(8); or
(ii) the individual's driver's license is
revoked by the issuing agency as a result of a
clinically diagnosed neurological condition.
(B) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Certification.--Subject to
subparagraph (A), an individual clinically diagnosed
with a neurological condition shall certify every 2
years, in conjunction with the certification under
subsection (c)(10)(C), that the individual is under the
care of a State-licensed medical specialist for that
neurological condition.I guess it boils down to what constitutes a satisfactory medical explanation. After reading about what a TIA is and reviewing the friend's description of symptoms, to this layman's eyes the explanation doesn't look very satisfactory, because it sounds like the possibility of a recurrence while flying has not been ruled out.
CT is has no hope of ruling TIA in or out. Might be useful in the case of a full-blown ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke but a negative CT scan in this case won't help rule TIA out. TIA is usually a clinical diagnosis. It would be important to know what the ultrasound showed. The presence of carotid narrowing and/or an ulcerating plaque would be a significant finding that would strongly support TIA as a diagnosis. The absence of those things wouldn't necessarily be exclusionary, however.
Indeed.
That certainly isn't the standard.
(1) In the case of an individual with a clinically diagnosed neurological condition, the ability to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter shall not apply if -
(i) In the judgment of the individual's State-licensed medical specialist, the condition -
(A) Renders the individual unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the airman privileges required to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter; or
(B) May reasonably be expected to make the individual unable to perform the duties or exercise the privileges required to operate an aircraft under § 61.113(i) of this chapter;