This is frequently non-spoken and violated here. For whatever reason - people just stick their head in the sand about it. But if you know you have a disqualifying condition (and essentially you do here) for flying - then sport even with a drivers license (and without a valid medical certificate) is still off limits. It doesnt matter if you havent been rejected for a medical and are flying sport, or if you have a rejected medical. But for whatever reason - we choose to ignore this regulation here. . .
SODA bipolar
- Thread starter waldronpilot
- Start date
Jon Wilder
Pre-takeoff checklist
14 CFR 61.53(b) would apply in the case of Sport Pilot -
"A person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."
Key word being "would", not "could".
"A person shall not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."
Key word being "would", not "could".
Exactly. And yet people keep telling others to exercise sport privileges when they have a known condition that disqualifies them…. I mean I get it / it’s an option out. But technically it’s pretty clear but if you aren’t going to follow the regs…..
The FAA could have written that having a condition that would disqualify you for a medical certificate also disqualifies you for sport pilot.
But they didn't.
One might assume that the FAA's judgment is infallible with regard to every individual's ability to operate an aircraft safely. Whether that would be a valid assumption or not is not necessarily obvious.
There is a difference between a “disqualifying condition” and knowing “of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."
Many people have disqualifying conditions (alcoholism, for example) but are able to fly safely, having addressed the condition. Whether bipolar might be such a condition is another question entirely.
Doubtful. The FAA has written a letter stating that any medical condition that is disqualifying for a medical certificate is also disqualifying under sport. Which is why when you fail a medical - you are not eligible for flying sport either. There is no fourth class of medical. So it’s not a flying safely standard that you can now fly sport. It’s just that they are not administering anyone who hasn’t done a medical and is flying sport with a drivers license. But if you take the medical and fail - you are not eligible for sport as well. So using your logic - even if you failed the medical - as long as you are able to “fly safely” you can fly sport - which isn’t the case.
Please post a link to the letter.
There are many MANY people flying under Sport rules because they have a condition that would require a difficult or expensive SI.
Baked Potato
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2022
- Messages
- 1,119
- Display Name
Display name:
Baked Potato
Yeah - I think for most they're using the distinction between "has" and "had", or at least I hope so.
Many sport pilots are exercising those privileges because they had a disqualifying medical condition, but proving to the FAA that it's no longer a has is the difficult and expensive part.
And thats not a valid reason. Thats what they want to use and legally interpret - but I believe the consensus (from a legal perspective) is that anything that fails for a class 3, is also disqualifying for sport as in 61.53. Here is the original 2004 LSA sport letter.
Dr Chien wrote many years ago about it as well I believe saying the only difference is the "standard" of which its applied - one is the FAA, and in the case of the other it would be your local physician (sounds like Basic Med, but it isnt). But I think most postulate that anything that usually disqualifies for medical, their physician probably wont sign off either.
Now, as for the people flying under Sport - guess what ? They are not going to ground themselves over said disqualifying condition because its their avenue to fly. Just because they are flying under sport - doesnt technically mean they are legal to do so. The difficult or expensive SI notwithstanding.
The FAA 15 disqualifying conditions are for all - they dont exclude light sport. The only flexibility is the determination of "safe" standard. But as others have pointed out - that also usually involves a physician - which Im sure the Sport people are also choosing to ignore.
Earlier POA discussion of LS
what is disqualifying for light sport?
I hear many times that if one knows they can't get a medical, they shouldn't bother and instead should go Light Sport. I also know that Light sport has some requirements. If someone knows they can't get a medical, isn't that supposed to be a self ground for LSA too?
Look - you can read between all the lines you want. But the reality is its pretty clear - just many are choosing to ignore it because its convenient to them. And again - the intent wasnt there - they wouldnt disqualify you from LSA for a faileed medical if you could pass Basic Med or self determine you to be safe. The only thing they have left open is the determination of that condition and the medical standard - it isnt that "oh anyone can fly LSA if you never failed a medical, have a drivers license, are BPD with psychosis, severe depression with Suicidal ideation, stage 4 cancer, 7 heart attacks with 95% blocked arteries, etc - but self certify they are safe to fly.. doesnt work that way. The reg still applies.
Brad Smith
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 3,058
- Display Name
Display name:
Brad Smith
Flying Sport with a disqualifying condition is not always wise. Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. I read advice all the time that advocates, “You can always fly Light Sport”….even to those with Bipolar or other serious conditions. You’re not doing anyone a favor by encouraging them to seek Sport pilot privileges with serious health issues.
And thats not a valid reason. Thats what they want to use and legally interpret - but I believe the consensus (from a legal perspective) is that anything that fails for a class 3, is also disqualifying for sport as in 61.53. Here is the original 2004 LSA sport letter.
Dr Chien wrote many years ago about it as well I believe saying the only difference is the "standard" of which its applied - one is the FAA, and in the case of the other it would be your local physician (sounds like Basic Med, but it isnt). But I think most postulate that anything that usually disqualifies for medical, their physician probably wont sign off either.
Now, as for the people flying under Sport - guess what ? They are not going to ground themselves over said disqualifying condition because its their avenue to fly. Just because they are flying under sport - doesnt technically mean they are legal to do so. The difficult or expensive SI notwithstanding.
The FAA 15 disqualifying conditions are for all - they dont exclude light sport. The only flexibility is the determination of "safe" standard. But as others have pointed out - that also usually involves a physician - which Im sure the Sport people are also choosing to ignore.
Earlier POA discussion of LS
what is disqualifying for light sport?
I hear many times that if one knows they can't get a medical, they shouldn't bother and instead should go Light Sport. I also know that Light sport has some requirements. If someone knows they can't get a medical, isn't that supposed to be a self ground for LSA too?www.pilotsofamerica.com
Look - you can read between all the lines you want. But the reality is its pretty clear - just many are choosing to ignore it because its convenient to them. And again - the intent wasnt there - they wouldnt disqualify you from LSA for a faileed medical if you could pass Basic Med or self determine you to be safe. The only thing they have left open is the determination of that condition and the medical standard - it isnt that "oh anyone can fly LSA if you never failed a medical, have a drivers license, are BPD with psychosis, severe depression with Suicidal ideation, stage 4 cancer, 7 heart attacks with 95% blocked arteries, etc - but self certify they are safe to fly.. doesnt work that way. The reg still applies.
That letter does not say what you are saying.
Sport Pilot rules do not prohibit you from flying if you are safe to do so. But if, for example, you had a childhood ADHD diagnosis, you won’t qualify for an FAA medical. It would have to be a Special Issuance. Or any number of other conditions. And some of those conditions might be medically controlled satisfactorily. That does not mean you are, right now, today, medically unfit to fly. Whether it’s wise to do so is between the airman and his physician.
I have an autoimmune condition that required an SI. Before getting an SI class 3, though, I flew as a Sport Pilot. There was nothing about my condition that made me unsafe to fly. And in fact, the FAA did not require that I change anything in my medication. The SI is merely about proving to the FAA that I’m safe to fly.
In fact, the FAA’s SI process is itself a means to approve pilots with disqualifying conditions. In those cases, the pilot is just as healthy with or without an SI and just as safe to fly. If some disqualifying conditions aren’t acceptable for flight, the pilot won’t be able to get an SI. Such pilots probably should not fly under Sport, but that’s between them and their physician.
Many pilots are perfectly healthy enough to fly despite having a disqualifying condition and they do so legally under Sport rules. They simply don’t want to jump through the hoops to prove their health to OKC to get an SI medical.
You can read it and interpret it however you want. And that is what people are doing. If you want me to clarify "disqualifying condition" - I can or use my interpretation of it (which is what everyone is doing here). If you can get your SI for a medical condition - then that is no longer a disqualifying condition in my opinion that prevents you from flying safely. However, if you have BPD with Psychosis - just because you feel that you are "safe" does NOT mean that you qualify as the FAA pretty much disqualifies all in that category. And if you went through the process, your ability to get an SI is near nil. But if you never get the FAA denial - that doesnt mean you are qualified to fly under LSA. Same with if you were taking whatever mood stabilizing drugs, or ANY of the other FAA banned drugs. So if you want the definition to be disqualifying without the ability to prove to the FAA that you are fit - then fine - and I can get onboard with that (though my opinion is obviously just mine). But we all know that there are many people who intentionally fly under LSA - not because of the burden/cost but because they dont have a chance in hell of getting the SI proving that they are. And in those cases - whether for mental diagnosis, heart related, or any of the other 15 disqualifying conditions - they werent getting it and are far from "safe" to fly in the FAA's eyes.
And as for a childhood ADHD diagnosis ? Totally get it. But someone who has ADHD and is taking stimulants (which are ALL banned substances for pilots) - that doesnt give you free reign to fly LSA just because you chose not to pursue a medical. And people on here (like Brad mentioned above as well) recommending people to just fly under sport as they wont be able to get an SI from the FAA - that doesnt fall under "safe" to fly under LSA.
You're implying that a prospective Sport Pilot must know a priori whether or not the FAA might or might not issue an SI for his particular condition and circumstance were he to apply, and if he concludes that the FAA will not, then he must decide he's ineligible to fly under SP rules. That's ridiculous.
No, we don't all know that, and when it comes down to it, neither do you. There probably are some, but it's anyone's guess as to the number, so I don't think you can say "many" are doing so with any credibility. (For that matter, there are pilots flying under Class 1, 2, and 3 who have conditions and are using drugs that they haven't disclosed, so there's nothing unique about SP in that regard.) And not having a "chance in hell of getting the SI proving that they are" does NOT in and of itself mean they are not safe to fly.
And this might be a good place to point out that, despite your assertion about all these medically hazardous SPs who shouldn't be flying, the sky isn't exactly raining impaired SPs. The track record has been pretty good.
I've never recommended that (and if you've read my posts you've seen me frequently refer to the pilot's personal physician), but there are certainly people who are perfectly safe to fly yet would be unable to get an SI. The SP rule requires you to self-ground if you have a condition that makes it unsafe to operate an aircraft; the rule is NOT that you must be able to get a class 3 if only you were to try.
And keep in mind that SP is not an open gate to everyone who's unfit. The whole reason for the driver's license requirement is to be a stopgap to keep certain very dangerous conditions out of the cockpit. If you have seizures, if your eyesight is terrible, etc., you won't be driving and you won't be flying (at least not legally).
Don't try to make SP somehow subject to the same rules as class 3; it simply isn't the case.
It isn’t. They have published their disqualifying conditions. Just because you aren’t getting a medical doesn’t excuse you from those by being a pilot. Whether you choose to ignore that when you are “knowing” aware of a medical reason / that’s on you. And you saying knowing in advance - that’s you picking at hairs. Because we all know we are responsible for following the FAA regs. If you choose to be ignorant of them - again - that doesn’t make it ok legal.
You are arguing over “many”. The term used wasn’t majority or anything else. Many could be 50, could be hundreds. Could be thousands. Just from the assertion of people who pursue sport because they can’t get a medical tells you that there are “quite a few”. If you want to argue “quite a few” or “many” you are just being argumentative for argumentative sake and not adding an iota of relevance. We do know people who ar perusing the “loophole” because they aren’t legal to fly.
This has zero relavence. While I agree with you that there are pilots (probably more in the 1,2,3 space) who are hiding conditions than in the LSA space - again - zero relevance. Just because one is true doesn’t justify that it’s “ok” to do something on the other. I am and I’m sure many others are against what is happening on that front - and just as many think the FAA is too archaic and need to change as well.
Again - goes back to disqualifying conditions. They are there. If you want to interpret them differently - it’s between you and your doc, but my guess is many of these docs would refuse the liability of signing off on many of these.
And let’s be real - if you fail a FAA physical - you are eliminated from sport pilot. That tells you what the FAA thinks where the line should be drawn.
Again - didn’t matter and irrelevant. That’s like arguing basic med is good for a 4th class of medical. Not relevant to this discussion.
The rule is also that there are disqualifying conditions and disqualifying drugs as well. And if you know that you are unfit to fly - you can’t fly under sport as well.
If you believe a drivers license is ok regardless of medical condition and not failing a previous medical and that’s the threshold - fine. More power to you. But then why is it when you fail a medical but you can drive - they have banned you from sport. Because they have deemed you unfit to fly - regardless of whether you can drive or not. If you are prone to seizures(epilepsy) - I guarantee you many of them who want to fly - will themselves safe to fly under sport when it’s a stated disqualifying condition. Does that make them safe to fly ? No.
I agree it isn’t the same rules as class 3. I also will state as many others will also agree that there are people who are using the sport to fly even though they cannot get a valid medical and probably not safe to fly using any moderate threshold of common sense.
As for SP/LSA - don’t make it as an excuse to fly without any oversight or restrictions just because you have never gone for a medical. People who do “know” they can’t fly under the FAA standards of medically fit to fly are using it to fly. You know it and I know it.
Last edited:
In your opinion, why did the FAA word the criterion in 61.53(a) differently from the criterion in 61.53(b)?
"unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate"
vs
"unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner"
terminology because they cant write medical certificate if one isnt required. but then why did they take sport off the table with a failed/withdrawn/revoked medical certificate of any kind ? Because if it is meant to just be your own determination of "operate in a safe manner" than a failed medical certificate shouldnt nullify that.
Sport Pilot rules were completely within the FAA's discretion. It wasn't rammed down their throats legislatively like Basic Med was. Had the FAA wanted to, they could have required a class 3 for Sport, and if they wanted class 3 conditions applied to Sport without requiring a medical certificate they could have done that.
They didn't.
The wrote the rule the way they did on purpose and it means just what it says and no more. "Unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner" is the rule criteria. That's it. There is nothing in the rules that applies class 3 criteria to SP.
Now whether it's wise for someone to fly under SP limits with certain medical conditions is a separate question.
there is no doubt that there is some leeway there. Im not equating the two but I /AM/ saying that this reads a lot more strict than you sticking your head in the sand - that you didnt know or because you had a disqualifying condition but you decided not to get a cert - that you are now ok to fly.
Their words : "Critics may be quick to express the opinion that this limitation on the use of a driver’s license is unfair because persons who applied for an FAA medical certificate and were not issued a certificate may be disadvantaged in comparison to persons who never applied. What must be recognized, however, is that it is a violation of FAA regulations for any person to act as a required flight crewmember if that person knows, or has reason to know, that he or she has a medical condition that would be unsafe for flight. This applies to individuals who exercise Sport Pilot privileges, whether using a driver’s license or an FAA airman medical certificate to qualify. "
So the FAA medical "standards" apply for sport pilot just like other classes. Its just up to some interpretation and whether thats the FAA docs or their own docs. Or as some choose - themselves. But the same thing that will disqualify someone on a medical cert - applies to sport pilots. "unsafe for flight" does not mean you get to determine that disqualifying conditions no longer exist. 61.53 applies to all pilots.
But the key point here is that once the FAA has information that they deem you medically unfit - this applies to sport as well. Just becauser they dont require an AME to get involved - doesnt mean you are flying wtihin the reg. Do people do it ? absolutely. Are they being flexible with the reg ? yes again.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2021
- Messages
- 3,888
- Display Name
Display name:
Albany Tom
Changing directions a bit.
I know somebody who, right now, has ZERO chance of getting his PPL today. Yet he is happily learning to fly, and flying, with a CFI beside him, quite a bit. Does he have a medical condition? Abuse problem? No. He's 14. He can't get his PPL for a few years. Meanwhile, he's learning how to fly and having a blast.
To me, flying and learning to fly don't necessarily mean having the cert. Sure, solo flight is fun, but the beauty of flying to me is flying, not having a bit of plastic that says someone else told me I was at least marginally OK at it.
I don't know the regs of it, but I don't see that continued flight training with a CFI until such time as the student is able to obtain a medical is a problem. Or same thing as sport pilot.
Not commenting in this post on sport vs PPL. Only that "learning to fly" isn't exactly the same as "obtaining a pilot certificate".
I know somebody who, right now, has ZERO chance of getting his PPL today. Yet he is happily learning to fly, and flying, with a CFI beside him, quite a bit. Does he have a medical condition? Abuse problem? No. He's 14. He can't get his PPL for a few years. Meanwhile, he's learning how to fly and having a blast.
To me, flying and learning to fly don't necessarily mean having the cert. Sure, solo flight is fun, but the beauty of flying to me is flying, not having a bit of plastic that says someone else told me I was at least marginally OK at it.
I don't know the regs of it, but I don't see that continued flight training with a CFI until such time as the student is able to obtain a medical is a problem. Or same thing as sport pilot.
Not commenting in this post on sport vs PPL. Only that "learning to fly" isn't exactly the same as "obtaining a pilot certificate".
Their words.
They could just have easily have said "a medical condition that would preclude holding an FAA medical certificate." But they didn't.
No, they don't. If they did, the FAA would have said so explicity instead of making "unsafe for flight" the criteria. But they didn't.
And by the way, which set of standards do you think should apply? 3rd? 2nd? 1st? The correct answer is "they don't; the criteria is 'unsafe for flight.'"
That's correct. Until the FAA deems you unfit, though, it's left to the judgment of the individual and whatever physicians he consults, and the criteria for that determination is "unsafe for flight," not some list of other criteria for a medical certificate.
Why is it like this? Why does the FAA ground you for SP if you once flunked an FAA medical exam? Because that's all they have to go by and they act conservatively. Unlike the pilot's physician(s), the OKC docs do not have the luxury of examining the patient and making a judgment call. They do not have any other criteria by which to make a determination. So if the last medical record they had said the individual wasn't fit, per the only criteria they have, they keep him grounded until an exam by an AME says otherwise.
There is NOTHING in the regs that explicitly requires the SP to evaluate himself against medical certificate criteria, and had that been the FAA's intent they certainly had ample opportunity to write it into the SP rules. But they didn't.
it is absolutely NOT at the same standard as 1, 2nd, 3rd - which I have stated. Im saying that things that ARE medically unsafe to fly (which are in cat 1, 2, 3) doesnt necessarily make them safe to fly for LSA. For instance a diabetic - its a disqualifying factor for class 1, 2, 3 (unless cleared with a SI) - if the pilot and their doc deem it to be under control and safe to fly - then they should be able to make that determination and fly. The question then becomes (in a case like this original BPD) - which the FAA has ruled it out - is where the lines of interpretation are going to get very blurry. They will obviously determine they are fit to fly. You and I know with pretty much certainty - that the FAA would reject that as fit to fly. So if they a) dont go to their doc and determine they are fit to fly - does that make them fit to fly ? B) if they do go to their doc, and doc wont put say with certainty that they will fly but wont stop them - are they fit to fly ? c) if they have suicidal ideation with psychosis - and they still determine that they are fit to fly - does that make them fit to fly ?
We arent applying the SAME standards as the other medical certificate. And obviously the interpretations of "unsafe" or fit to fly are being arbitrarily decided (and not necessarily with a physician). But when someone knows they are "unfit" to fly and still flies under sport - that /is/ a violation of 61.53b. And in many cases they know that but is somewhat determining that they are "fit" to fly.
We arent applying the SAME standards as the other medical certificate. And obviously the interpretations of "unsafe" or fit to fly are being arbitrarily decided (and not necessarily with a physician). But when someone knows they are "unfit" to fly and still flies under sport - that /is/ a violation of 61.53b. And in many cases they know that but is somewhat determining that they are "fit" to fly.
Here are two direct quotes from you, posts 58 and 62:
You seem to be contradicting yourself, no?
Now, then....
That’s exactly the type of thing I’ve been saying. Just because diabetes (for example) is disqualifying does not necessarily mean that a SP would be unsafe to fly. The “unsafe to fly” criteria lies within the discretion of the SP and his physician.
Yes, it’s blurry - not black and white. And if the FAA has ever given one or two SIs for bipolar, the door would seem to be open for the SP and his doctor to exercise their own judgment and discretion.
Again, I’m not saying this would be wise. I’m merely saying that the SP is not beholden to some FAA standard other than the “unsafe for flight” criteria stated in the reg.
You seem to be contradicting yourself, no?
Now, then....
That’s exactly the type of thing I’ve been saying. Just because diabetes (for example) is disqualifying does not necessarily mean that a SP would be unsafe to fly. The “unsafe to fly” criteria lies within the discretion of the SP and his physician.
Yes, it’s blurry - not black and white. And if the FAA has ever given one or two SIs for bipolar, the door would seem to be open for the SP and his doctor to exercise their own judgment and discretion.
Again, I’m not saying this would be wise. I’m merely saying that the SP is not beholden to some FAA standard other than the “unsafe for flight” criteria stated in the reg.
If you were right, wouldn't the accident rate be higher for SP (or basicmed even)?
It's not.
I know there is no objective proof that any part of the FAA medical system works, but if you are right, at least more anecdotal evidence it doesn't.
I think we are arguing over shades of grey. In your instance above - just because they have somehow issued under BPD once or twice (its possible that the initial dx was incorrect or proven to the FAA that it wasnt correct) IMO it does not open the door to a self (or with doctor) recommendation for "safe to fly". But thats my opinion in the matter and its shades of whatever color you want to interpret it under. For something like diabetes (even with insulin control) - then yes.
However, the interpretation issues still exist. As in is this a self determination or a determination with a doc/psych.
But no, I keep saying its an interpretation. But regardless of interpretation - if you know you have a medical unfit situation - it applies to sport pilots just like non-sport pilots. And perhaps our differences are that my shade of grey is more than "not saying it would be wise" whereas I would interpret that to be unsafe to fly. But of course - everyone in that situation pretty much determines themselves "fit to fly". So where is that blurry line ? Because if they "know they are ufnit" and are choosing to fly because its sport - not sure thats where sport comes in to play.
Becausse seriously - how many people who have say depression issues and want to fly - and pursue the sport option because they know they cant pass a regular medical - will deem themselves unfit to fly, fully knowing that if they went the regular route, the faa would deny them making them unfit to fly. If you know that - doesnt that make you "know, or has a reason to know that he or she has a medical condition that would be unsafe for flight" ?
However, the interpretation issues still exist. As in is this a self determination or a determination with a doc/psych.
But no, I keep saying its an interpretation. But regardless of interpretation - if you know you have a medical unfit situation - it applies to sport pilots just like non-sport pilots. And perhaps our differences are that my shade of grey is more than "not saying it would be wise" whereas I would interpret that to be unsafe to fly. But of course - everyone in that situation pretty much determines themselves "fit to fly". So where is that blurry line ? Because if they "know they are ufnit" and are choosing to fly because its sport - not sure thats where sport comes in to play.
Becausse seriously - how many people who have say depression issues and want to fly - and pursue the sport option because they know they cant pass a regular medical - will deem themselves unfit to fly, fully knowing that if they went the regular route, the faa would deny them making them unfit to fly. If you know that - doesnt that make you "know, or has a reason to know that he or she has a medical condition that would be unsafe for flight" ?
The sport-pilot certificate has been in existence since 2004. It would be interesting to compare the rate of medically-related accidents between pilots who are and are not required to hold medical certificates. That would give us a relative indication of how pilots who are not required to hold medical certificates are doing at assessing their fitness to fly, but I haven't been able to find such data.
Numbers are too small. Unless you count the entire LSA space as non-medical and say the regular non-LSA GA fleet as medical. Which ignores the LSA fleet with medical (and accidents are not medically related). Also the determination of medically related accidents vs non - medic related. Because the overall numbers for LSA sport are worse than GA (much or great or whatever would be inaccurate since the numbers just arent large enough) - but again - that could just be related to the possibility that LSA planes are just riskier than certificated GA planes.
Aviation consumer had an article on it. But I wouldnt read too much in to regarding medical related or not. I think its more just LSA vs non-LSA.
LSA Accident Review: Nothing to Celebrate - Aviation Consumer
Two decades ago, when the light sport aircraft idea was being hatched, skeptics worried that lighter, cheaper airplanes flown by pilots without medical certs would lead to a spike in the accident rate. After all, without FAA oversight of design, manufacturing and pilot health, how could it not...
www.aviationconsumer.com
The numbers for SP are higher - but there is no correlation to medical related or not. So even with day VFR restrictions, the SP group has a higher accident rate than the regular non-LSA group that also flies IFR, Night, etc. So yes - the accident rate is higher. But that doesnt differentiate medical related vs non-medical, nor type of flying (which even with night and ifr is still lower than sport), nor whether the LSA pilot had a medical or was flying on a DL. But in answer to the accident rate of SP - it is higher.
And there is this tidbit "A 2016 study by the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute found a light sport accident rate of an alarming 29.8/100,000 and a fatal rate of 5.2. These are much higher than our findings, possibly because they include E-LSAs and used personal flying hours rather than total hours. If the CAMI study overstates the case, the directionality confirms our research."
Which is from the aeronautical division of the FAA> But again - it doesnt break the cause by medical eventhough this is from CAMI but it does confirm that the accident rate for SP is higher (or significantly higher) than non-LSA)
Last edited:
With the SP rule, the FAA pushed the "fit to fly" decision-- and the responsibility-- back onto the pilot, where it should be, for those kinds of operations.
If an accident happens that was caused by the pilot's medical condition that the pilot was aware of, you can bet that the FAA will come down on him... but we're not hearing of a flurry of such cases. Do Sport Pilots have more medical incapacition accidents then pilots with medicals? Perhaps Ron @wanttaja has data?
If an accident happens that was caused by the pilot's medical condition that the pilot was aware of, you can bet that the FAA will come down on him... but we're not hearing of a flurry of such cases. Do Sport Pilots have more medical incapacition accidents then pilots with medicals? Perhaps Ron @wanttaja has data?
One confounding factor is that pilots with private and higher certificates typically have more training that sport pilots, and possibly more experience. However, the effect of this on the statistics would be offset somewhat by the number of such pilots exercising sport-pilot privileges.
wanttaja
En-Route
I last looked at this several years ago, but here's the summary:
The data is for all types of aircraft involved in accidents, not just homebuilts. There was a rise in cases of incapacitation events after Sport Pilot was implemented, but the majority of the increase is for those who had Class 3+ or Basic Med. And as one can see for the Sport Pilot cases, we're looking at just one or two per year. Not bad, out of 1500-1800 accidents.
Ron Wanttaja