I'm confused

[Ken Ballenger]

I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification. I got my PPL back in 1969 but didn't fly much after that (family, career, etc). A couple of years ago I decided I wanted to resume flying after my retirement and discovered light sport aviation. I got light sport certified but then decided that I wanted to get back into general aviation. I went in for my third class medical not knowing that my 14-year history of taking an SSRI was going to be a problem. I went off the medication for the required 60 days and forwarded to the FAA statements from my primary care physician that I had a good prognosis. The FAA wrote me back and said I still needed to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, but when I realized how expensive and exhaustive the process was going to a be, I wrote them a letter and told them I was not going to do it. They wrote me back and said as a result of my failure to provide the required medical information they had no alternative except to deny my application for medical certification. My question is this: since I still possess a valid private pilot's license and a valid driver's license why can I not go back to flying light sport aircraft? FAR 61.23ciii seems to state that I can fly light sport aircraft if I have not had my most recently issued medical certificate suspended or revoked. My medical certificate was never issued; it was only denied because I refused to continue the process required by the FAA. I would appreciate any feedback on this matter. Thanks

 

[rk911]

unless something has recently changed once you've failed or been denied a medical you cannot fly on your driver’s license. you might want to re-apply for 3rd class and this time jump through the hoops.

https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/sportpilots/response3/

 

[skier]

Either jump through the hoops or take up flying gliders. You don’t need a medical to fly them and it doesn’t matter if you were ever denied a medical.

 

[coblej]

FAR 61.23cii -- "Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);"

You say your most recent medical certificate was denied; i.e., you were not found eligible for issuance of the certificate. So, I believe that excludes the sport pilot option.

 

[Stan Cooper]

I believe the denial of your most recent medical certificate application disqualifies you from using your driver's license in lieu of a medical certificate for flying LSAs as a sport pilot.

MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPORT PILOT
(14 CFR part 61.23/53/303)

A Medical or U.S. Driver’s License
(Other Than Balloon or Glider)
• A Student Pilot Seeking Sport Pilot Privileges in a Light-sport Aircraft
• A Pilot Exercising the Privileges of a Sport Pilot Certificate
• A Flight Instructor Acting As PIC of a Light-sport Aircraft

A Person Using a Current and Valid U.S. Driver’s License Must
• Comply With Each Restriction and Limitation Imposed on Your Drivers License
• Comply With Any Judicial or Administrative Order Applying To The Operation of a Motor Vehicle
• Not Have Been Denied Your Most Recent Application For A Medical Certificate (If You Have Applied for Medical Certificate)
• Not Have Your Most Recently Issued Medical Certificate Suspended or Revoked (If You Have Been Issued A Medical Certificate)
• Not Had Your Most Recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate Withdrawn (A Special Issuance Is Not A Denial)

A Person Using a Valid Medical or Current and Valid U.S. Driver’s License Must
• Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner

 

[Clip4]

I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification. I got my PPL back in 1969 but didn't fly much after that (family, career, etc). A couple of years ago I decided I wanted to resume flying after my retirement and discovered light sport aviation. I got light sport certified but then decided that I wanted to get back into general aviation. I went in for my third class medical not knowing that my 14-year history of taking an SSRI was going to be a problem. I went off the medication for the required 60 days and forwarded to the FAA statements from my primary care physician that I had a good prognosis. The FAA wrote me back and said I still needed to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, but when I realized how expensive and exhaustive the process was going to a be, I wrote them a letter and told them I was not going to do it. They wrote me back and said as a result of my failure to provide the required medical information they had no alternative except to deny my application for medical certification. My question is this: since I still possess a valid private pilot's license and a valid driver's license why can I not go back to flying light sport aircraft? FAR 61.23ciii seems to state that I can fly light sport aircraft if I have not had my most recently issued medical certificate suspended or revoked. My medical certificate was never issued; it was only denied because I refused to continue the process required by the FAA. I would appreciate any feedback on this matter. Thanks

3 Requirements

2) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of paragraph (c) while exercising sport pilot privileges must—

(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;

(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);

(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and

You were not found eligible at the time of your most recent medical application. You were OK until applied for the medical cert and were denied.

 

[bbchien]

Ken, Don't be confused.

You need to go through the process once and succeed; then you can do Basic Med. I've got a lot of guys doing that- but most did not stumble into total denial, they were careful, well informed, and we will not be applying (any of them) until we have favorable files.

You just locked yourself out of the air. Even a Stemme S10S, a 145 knot ship, which does not require any medical at all is in doubt. Look at the certified denial letter that you received and then read 61.53. "Reason to know...." and the FAA knows you received their letter.

sigh.

 

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

Ken - it looks like you were reading here this morning and saw the Doc’s post above. bbchien is Dr Bruce Chien at aeromedicaldoc.com

He’s a highly sought after senior AME who worked with the FAA to write the procedure to approve pilots with SSRI use.

If I were you, I’d check out his website and spend a little cash to engage him (if he’s taking new patients).

I won’t say he can get you issued, but if anyone can, it’s Dr Bruce. He will tell you the likelihood of getting issued, and if there is a chance, do exactly what he says. Don’t skip any steps or take short cuts. He’s done this A LOT. Just follow the advice exactly.

 

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

I cringed when I read your post a bit because the advice given to almost everyone that comes here to fly is be CERTAIN before you go for the medical so you don’t block the sport pilot path.

I’m guessing you were busy raising your family and not on flying web boards or getting the magazines etc. SSRIs and related diagnosis are a stress point.

You can get the 3rd class issued. Might be costly. Up to you whether it’s worth it to be in the air. As someone said, gliders remain an option (maybe even motorgliders).

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Sorry to hear.

Seems you have 3 choices with various costs and risks:
(1) Never be PIC again.
(2) Fly illegally (weigh the financial and freedoms downside).
(3) Go through the hoops (pay to play, and wait).

I know this is obvious, but the choices are at least 100% clear. Not sure I would be able to pick #1, but depends on my stage of life. #2 would depend on the penalties and how far along in life I was to not give a crap. #3 might not be financially viable.

Wish you the best.

 

[Lindberg]

If you are not medically unfit to fly, which is a different question from whether you are unable to obtain a medical, you can fly gliders. Note the difference in the language between FAR 61.53 (a) and (b). Gliders fall under (b). Getting a new rating is also a great way to get back in the air after a long hiatus.

 

[dbahn]

If you are not medically unfit to fly, which is a different question from whether you are unable to obtain a medical, you can fly gliders. Note the difference in the language between FAR 61.53 (a) and (b). Gliders fall under (b). Getting a new rating is also a great way to get back in the air after a long hiatus.

I don't know if it's been tested, but I would certainly have some "reservations" about claiming that you don't know of a medical condition that would make you unable to operate a glider safely after you've been told by the FAA that you have a medical condition that they've determined to be a basis for denial of a medical certification.

But that's just me from a cautious standpoint . . .

While I'm pretty sure you'd get away with it, I wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands of an administrative law judge for the FAA should you be involved in some kind of accident or other event, nor would I want to risk loss of insurance coverage in the event of an accident and claim.

 

[Lindberg]

I don't know if it's been tested, but I would certainly have some "reservations" about claiming that you don't know of a medical condition that would make you unable to operate a glider safely after you've been told by the FAA that you have a medical condition that they've determined to be a basis for denial of a medical certification.

It depends on the facts. Maybe the FAA thinks you have a condition you don't. Maybe you're cured. Maybe you have a criminal history. Maybe you once took a drug that the FAA considers disqualifying forever. Maybe the FAA wants some documentation you can't or won't provide. Maybe the FAA is just being unreasonable.

Flying Gliders does not require you to hold, or be eligible to hold, any class of medical. That is an express difference in the regs from some operations that require you to have not been deemed ineligible. These are different standards for a reason.

The fact that you can be challenged is orthogonal here. If you have a condition the FAA thinks disqualifies you, and it finds out, you may be challenged regardless of whether you've been denied a medical.

 

[dbahn]

It depends on the facts. Maybe the FAA thinks you have a condition you don't.

Absolutely agree, and we don't know the facts other than the OP's statement that he has a 14 year history of taking SSRI's, which is a giant red flag for CAMI.

If a person elects to fly gliders in these circumstances, I would advise to keep quiet to everyone about the denial - instructors, fellow pilots, estranged wives or girlfriends or anyone else who might disclose the details to the FAA, because your last point is also dead on:

If you have a condition the FAA thinks disqualifies you, and it finds out, you may be challenged regardless of whether you've been denied a medical.

. . . and "challenged" in this case could include immediate revocation of all certificates.

 

[jonvcaples]

Engage Dr Chien! He is very nice, incredibly supportive, and frank. If there is a way to legally accomplish your goal he will help you figure it out. Go checkout some of Denverpilot's posts re his condition and Dr Chien's help. Accept only accurate advice from the horses mouth.

Good luck!

 

[Half Fast]

I don't know if it's been tested, but I would certainly have some "reservations" about claiming that you don't know of a medical condition that would make you unable to operate a glider safely after you've been told by the FAA that you have a medical condition that they've determined to be a basis for denial of a medical certification.

The other argument here is that his treating physician has said, in writing, that his prognosis is good. He therefore has knowledge from a physician who knows him and has examined him that his condition does not "...make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner." That would seem to carry more weight than an assessment from an FAA employee who has not examined him.

Because the glider language does not preclude PIC operation after a medical denial, and because he has evidence from the treating physician that his fitness is acceptable for flight, he could reasonably conclude that it's legal for him to fly a glider.

Including a motor glider. Which is more capable than an LSA.

Might the FAA challenge it? Maybe, if they were given cause. Or they might choose not to challenge it for fear of an unfavorable ruling.

 

[Lindberg]

Absolutely agree, and we don't know the facts other than the OP's statement that he has a 14 year history of taking SSRI's, which is a giant red flag for CAMI.

If a person elects to fly gliders in these circumstances, I would advise to keep quiet to everyone about the denial . . . .

I know keeping private information private is somewhat out of vogue in today's social-media world, but that's my advice about most things.

. . . and "challenged" in this case could include immediate revocation of all certificates.

If the airman has a condition that makes it unsafe for him to operate an aircraft, that could be the outcome. But if the alternative is just not flying because you believed SGOTI when he wrote that being denied a medical makes you ineligible for operations that don't require a medical, what difference does it make?

- - - - -

Let's say that beyond being denied a medical, you get a letter from the FAA saying that the FAA believes you have a medical condition making you unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. Let's say further that the FAA is wrong. Does it matter whether you prove the FAA wrong now or you fly gliders and prove the FAA wrong if it ever initiates a certificate action?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

You can get the 3rd class issued. Might be costly. Up to you whether it’s worth it to be in the air. As someone said, gliders remain an option (maybe even motorgliders).

Real pity about having made the application without doing the consult first to know it would lock you out of the 3rd class. No reasonable person would anticipate this type of snafu a priori.

Cost to get the third class probably between $5-10k and 6 months to 1.5 year wait.

 

[azure]

Let's say that beyond being denied a medical, you get a letter from the FAA saying that the FAA believes you have a medical condition making you unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. Let's say further that the FAA is wrong. Does it matter whether you prove the FAA wrong now or you fly gliders and prove the FAA wrong if it ever initiates a certificate action?

But you've elided an important step here: the FAA being wrong, and your knowing they are wrong, is one thing. Your being able to PROVE it to the satisfaction of the FAA (or an ALJ) is another.

I have an ancient diagnosis of a condition that would, by the FAA's current standards, require an SI and annual imaging (at my expense) for the rest of my flying life. Several doctors who have examined me do not believe I actually have the condition, and one even wrote for my most recent 3rd class application a statement to the effect that it was "inactive", which is one step short of "it's a bullsh*t diagnosis", which is what she really believed. But no one will put it in writing that it really IS a bullsh*t diagnosis because it is something that can exist yet not show up on images, so there is a (very) small chance that I really have it. And because there is no way to 100% PROVE that I don't have it, the FAA would insist that I remain on the SI till the cows come home.

That's one of the (several) reasons that I went Basic Med. Unfortunately the OP doesn't have that luxury.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

What a stupid rule.
The guy was flying, legally.
Nothing about his health has changed.
Now, it is illegal for him to fly.
Seems like the FAA has laid a trap for the innocent.

 

[dbahn]

Let's say that beyond being denied a medical, you get a letter from the FAA saying that the FAA believes you have a medical condition making you unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner. Let's say further that the FAA is wrong. Does it matter whether you prove the FAA wrong now or you fly gliders and prove the FAA wrong if it ever initiates a certificate action?

Yes, IMHO. The reason it matters is that if you go through the hoops and comply with their request, you keep your certificates and can fly by proving that you meet their standards. If you get busted for for "being wrong" they can revoke your certificates. Then even if you can get medically certified you have go through a long court process or take the check rides all over again just to get your certificate back.

So it's one thing to fly without a valid medical or without complying with medical requirements, but it's a whole different risk to fly without a pilot certificate.

 

[azure]

Yes, IMHO. The reason it matters is that if you go through the hoops and comply with their request, you keep your certificates and can fly by proving that you meet their standards. If you get busted for for "being wrong" they can revoke your certificates. Then even if you can get medically certified you have go through a long court process or take the check rides all over again just to get your certificate back.

So it's one thing to fly without a valid medical or without complying with medical requirements, but it's a whole different risk to fly without a pilot certificate.

Wait... if they revoke your certificates but you later prove (to their satisfaction) that you never had the condition to begin with, your certificates REMAIN revoked and you have to take the check ride(s) all over again to get back into the air?

Somehow that doesn't sound right...

 

[dbahn]

Wait... if they revoke your certificates but you later prove (to their satisfaction) that you never had the condition to begin with, your certificates REMAIN revoked and you have to take the check ride(s) all over again to get back into the air?

Somehow that doesn't sound right...

It sure doesn't, but have you ever dealt with the FAA? Read the whole Bob Hoover story to get some idea of how ruthless the FAA can be. Not to say that they necessarily will be, but you really don't want to take that chance.

But keep in mind that some of this position is based on the presumption that a reasonable person would not take an SSRI for 14 years even though he "never had the condition to begin with". I just don't see how they will be satisfied with your explanation that you were just fine, unless you prove it to them using their own standards.

 

[Shuswap BC]

Try going to another country, get a medical and license there, which will allow you to fly legally as a licensed pilot then once back in the USA.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Strikes me it is worth a consult with one of the experts here, Dr. Chien or Dr. Fowler. Find out what the situation is in your particular case and then make a decision. The consult will not be to expensive and then you will know.

 

[dbahn]

Strikes me it is worth a consult with one of the experts here, Dr. Chien or Dr. Fowler. Find out what the situation is in your particular case and then make a decision. The consult will not be to expensive and then you will know.

Good advice, but always better to have explored options before applying for the recent medical. This is a common problem, as many pilots aren't even aware of some of the serious pitfalls in medical certification. I say "serious" because in many cases these mistakes result in loss of the option for Light Sport privileges, as they have for the OP here.

 

[azure]

It sure doesn't, but have you ever dealt with the FAA? Read the whole Bob Hoover story to get some idea of how ruthless the FAA can be. Not to say that they necessarily will be, but you really don't want to take that chance.

But keep in mind that some of this position is based on the presumption that a reasonable person would not take an SSRI for 14 years even though he "never had the condition to begin with". I just don't see how they will be satisfied with your explanation that you were just fine, unless you prove it to them using their own standards.

I was talking about the general case, NOT the OP's case which I agree, it would be very difficult to argue that you didn't have the condition to begin with. My point was that in a hypothetical case where you actually could satisfy the FAA that you were dx'd in error, I think it unlikely that they would sustain the revocation. Then again, one never knows for sure with the FAA.

And yeah, I know about the Hoover case. A more recent one that shows how ruthless they can be is that of John King. But even there, they allowed a remedy in that he's allowed to be a required crew member in a plane requiring two pilots, just not sole PIC. It seems they aren't TOTALLY unreasonable in most cases, just... somewhat so.

 

[Lindberg]

Yes, IMHO. The reason it matters is that if you go through the hoops and comply with their request, you keep your certificates and can fly by proving that you meet their standards. If you get busted for for "being wrong" they can revoke your certificates. Then even if you can get medically certified you have go through a long court process or take the check rides all over again just to get your certificate back.

So it's one thing to fly without a valid medical or without complying with medical requirements, but it's a whole different risk to fly without a pilot certificate.

How does the fact that he was denied a medical affect this analysis?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Good advice, but always better to have explored options before applying for the recent medical.

Yes, best to get a consult first. Neither of these Drs. will submit an application unless they are very certain it will be issued.

 

[dbahn]

How does the fact that he was denied a medical affect this analysis?

It only affects the speculation related to his option to fly gliders. For Basic Med he would have needed a new medical, since his expired more than 10 years ago. For Light Sport the denial has already killed that option. But for gliders there is no specific regulation that applies, so we speculate how the FAA might interpret "know or has reason to know" of "any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner." I think we're all better off if that doesn't get interpreted by them, but an event or a complaint might force them to do just that, and I'm just doubtful that they would go against their own standards in doing so.

An FAA inspector once reminded me that, "You don't want to wave a red flag in front of a bull." He was referring to a pilot who was trying to game the system but forgot that the FAA has tremendous power to take drastic action (like revocation) and force the pilot to appeal to a judge to have it rescinded - a costly and time-consuming process that punishes the offender regardless of how it turns out. You can avoid that by realizing that the FAA can be the bull and all you have is a red flag.

 

[3393RP]

It seems that every time a situation like this appears, multiple people chime in with "You can fly gliders (or ultralights or balloons)".

That's great advice if the person is only interested in being in the air for a few hours in an aircraft that provides zero utility or the ability to travel. I believe everyone that aspires to becoming a pilot is much more interested in being able to fly himself and a couple of passengers a few hundred miles rather than being confined to the limitations of the aircraft mentioned above.

I'm sure someone will answer with comments about the lovely solitude of gliding and the personal satisfaction of flying hundreds of miles on a cloud street, but that probably doesn't sound attractive to someone with a SSRI problem that wanted to fly his family to visit relatives.

I know respondents are trying to be helpful, but repeated comments about the ability to get a glider rating aren't interesting to the OP. He had a PPL, and now he wants to renew it or resume light sport pilot privileges, not fly around looking for lift.

 

[Palmpilot]

The fact that applying for a medical certificate ended the OP's ability to exercise sport pilot privileges reinforces my belief that the words "FAA" and "due process" just don't go together.

 

[Salty]

It seems that every time a situation like this appears, multiple people chime in with "You can fly gliders (or ultralights or balloons)".

That's great advice if the person is only interested in being in the air for a few hours in an aircraft that provides zero utility or the ability to travel. I believe everyone that aspires to becoming a pilot is much more interested in being able to fly himself and a couple of passengers a few hundred miles rather than being confined to the limitations of the aircraft mentioned above.

I'm sure someone will answer with comments about the lovely solitude of gliding and the personal satisfaction of flying hundreds of miles on a cloud street, but that probably doesn't sound attractive to someone with a SSRI problem that wanted to fly his family to visit relatives.

I know respondents are trying to be helpful, but repeated comments about the ability to get a glider rating aren't interesting to the OP. He had a PPL, and now he wants to renew it or resume light sport pilot privileges, not fly around looking for lift.

An LSA is a poor choice to take your family cross country to visit family. They are two seat only, and not fun to fly in any sort of rough weather at all.

There are motor gliders out there such as the Stemme and Pipistrel that are every bit as capable of cross country as an LSA.

 

[Dana]

It seems that every time a situation like this appears, multiple people chime in with "You can fly gliders (or ultralights or balloons)".

That's great advice if the person is only interested in being in the air for a few hours in an aircraft that provides zero utility or the ability to travel. I believe everyone that aspires to becoming a pilot is much more interested in being able to fly himself and a couple of passengers a few hundred miles rather than being confined to the limitations of the aircraft mentioned above.

"Everyone"? Not at all. Flying was never about traveling for me, the biplane I'm flying today is exactly the kind of flying I aspired to when I learned to fly years ago. Along the way, I've owned production aircraft, experimentals (mostly light-sport compliant), ultralights, paramotors, etc. Sure the biplane is slow, but the journey is as important to me as the destination. The idea of leveling off at altitude, switching on the autopilot, and waiting for the next call to ATC just bores me.

A Stemme, as an example, is a great plane, and practical and efficient for two person cross country. The downside is the cost and wingspan... I have a friend who owns one, the cost doesn't bother him but the wingspan limits the airports he can land at. At his home field he has to stop, get out, and fold the wings before taxiing all the way to his hangar.

 

[skier]

I believe everyone that aspires to becoming a pilot is much more interested in being able to fly himself and a couple of passengers a few hundred miles rather than being confined to the limitations of the aircraft mentioned above.

I know respondents are trying to be helpful, but repeated comments about the ability to get a glider rating aren't interesting to the OP. He had a PPL, and now he wants to renew it or resume light sport pilot privileges, not fly around looking for lift.

That's very presumptuous. I personally didn't become a pilot to be, "able to fly (myself) and a couple of passengers a few hundred miles", so your argument already fell apart, not even 7 hours after you posted it. I personally fly for enjoyment, not going anywhere. With that goal gliders, balloons, or ultralights are a great option. Not everyone flys for the same reason.

Further, it may be that the OP never thought of other types of flight and they may be attractive to him. We don't know any it is a viable option for some missions.

EDIT: looks like Dana beat me to it a few seconds before I posted.

 

[skier]

A Stemme, as an example, is a great plane, and practical and efficient for two person cross country. The downside is the cost and wingspan... I have a friend who owns one, the cost doesn't bother him but the wingspan limits the airports he can land at. At his home field he has to stop, get out, and fold the wings before taxiing all the way to his hangar.

Going the experimental route, Sonex also produces the Xenos motorglider which can fit 2 people and be an efficient two person cross country machine.

 

[dbahn]

It seems that every time a situation like this appears, multiple people chime in with "You can fly gliders (or ultralights or balloons)".

I look at this from the other side. A person in the OP's situation would have benefited from knowing that denial of a class 3 would void the option of flying LSA, particularly if he knew that he would not go through the SSRI approval hoops in any case. As it is, LSA no longer exists without first getting re-issuance of a class 3 medical, which you can expect will be very expensive after 14 years of SSRI usage.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to talk him into flying gliders as much as they are trying to clarify the options between an AME issued certification, Basic Med, LSA, and "other" such as gliders. Different requirements and privileges apply to each of those, and while it may be too late for the OP it may be very useful information for some of the rest of us.

Most of us will gradually step down our flying intensity with age, as we should. But it's nice to at least KNOW how the system works for pilots who want to preserve their ability to fly in some capacity.

 

[dbahn]

The fact that applying for a medical certificate ended the OP's ability to exercise sport pilot privileges reinforces my belief that the words "FAA" and "due process" just don't go together.

Now there's a post that is not likely to generate much controversy.

 

[mryan75]

What a stupid rule.
The guy was flying, legally.
Nothing about his health has changed.
Now, it is illegal for him to fly.
Seems like the FAA has laid a trap for the innocent.

Nope, just different standards for different certificates.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Going the experimental route, Sonex also produces the Xenos motorglider which can fit 2 people and be an efficient two person cross country machine.

I suppose you could call an experimental turbine Lancair a motorglider.