I still don't see that first section as relevant to the "Do not fly" section. As written, it is clearly states under the "do not fly" section:
"Do Not Fly. Airmen should not fly while using any of the medications in the Do Not Issue section above OR using any of the medications or classes/groups of medications listed below."
I can see why a pilot would rationalize a different interpretation when they're taking a prohibited medication because they're an SP and don't hold a medical. However, this paragraph doesn't have any bearing on the issuance of a medical certificate. It unambiguously states that "Airmen," should not fly while taking medications listed in either section. I think the guidance here literally means exactly what it says. The first bullet applies to an AME's issuance of a medical, while the second bullet, applies to everyone.
Taking the other position would be implying the inverse, that someone not holding a medical certificate is OK to fly while taking anti-seizure medications, psychotropic medications, opiates, benzos, barbiturates, amphetamines, etc. or anything else on the prohibited list. Anyone taking medication(s) on the "do not issue" can't realistically self-certify their fitness to fly, nor does the lack of medical certificate mean that there are no medical standards that apply to the SP. If you're a "Airman," the list of prohibited medications still applies, whether the pilot follows that advice or not.
Big Lou maybe flies SP because he thinks it OK to do that while taking Oxycontin and Lyrica for his chronic back pain. In fact, Lou shouldn't be flying at all. Not because when he crashes he'll make all GA pilots look bad for flying while taking controlled substances, but because he's making it more dangerous for all of us sharing the airspace with him.
Scott,
Let me clarify something: I never said any of this made sense. I'm simply telling you what FAA's policy is and has been, and what the Light Sport Aviation Branch will tell an airman if they were to call and ask about it. The answer will be, "Talk to your doctor about it."
Our disagreement is the result of your trying to make sense of it. Stop trying to make sense of it, and it will make sense.
If you simply can't stop trying to make sense of it, then start with this mantra:
The FAA does not want to know.
Repeat that a few times, because it's central to making sense of all this. And no, I'm not even being sarcastic. I'm serious.
Now understand that in the United States, the specific regs related to SP and LSA were the result of abuses of Part 103, particularly the EAA and USUA training exemptions. Part 103 itself came about because FAA very desperately wanted nothing to do with hang gliders and other tiny flying machines that evolved from hang gliders. They so emphatically wanted nothing to do with them that they created an entire world beyond their own purview, called it Part 103, and stayed as far the hell away from it as they possibly could.
FAA so categorically wanted to distance themselves from anything having to do with tiny flying machines, in fact, that they further created the EAA and USUA training exemptions -- exemptions from exemptions, because all of Part 103 is an exemption when you get right down to it. That's how badly FAA wanted to stay away from that world: They created exemptions to an exemption to allow people with no FAA certifications whatsoever to provide paid flight training -- all intentionally outside of FAA's own purview.
Are you getting a sense for how strongly FAA wanted nothing to do with Part 103 operations? Okay, good.
The problem that came about was that some EAA and USUA instructors started blatantly abusing their respective exemptions by offering what were essentially paid sightseeing rides to the general public by calling them "flight training." These operators could be found all over rural America during tourist seasons, usually setting up shop on airstrips both real and improvised along roads that were heavily traveled by tourists.
The problem with this was
not that the instructors were breaking the law. Rather, the problem was that in most cases, it wasn't clear whether or not they were breaking the law. As long as the receipt said the money was paid for an "introductory flying lesson," the instructors were within at least the letter of the exemptions. How could the instructor know in advance that the "student" would not want to continue "training" after the "introductory lesson?"
Nonetheless, no one complained much about these abuses until some of the flights augured, at which time FAA had to hold their noses and get involved. The public, it was decided, had a reasonable expectation that someone holding himself out as a flight instructor would have some sort of FAA certification, and that the aircraft used for such instruction should have to meet some sort of minimal airworthiness standards besides being too lightweight for the FAA to care about.
FAA had to make those assumptions true: and so the SP rule was born. It defined certain standards for pilots, instructors, and light sport aircraft, with the specific objective of eliminating the EAA and USUA exemptions and the abuses thereof.
To sweeten the package, it did come with some bennies for the former 103 guys: Pilots would be able to carry a passenger, pilots and instructors would get "real" pieces of plastic from FAA saying that they were "real" pilots and instructors, and they'd all be able to fly bigger machines (and machines with N-numbers, at that!) that didn't look so much like winged lawn chairs.
The problem (or at least one of the problems) with the idea was that many (or possibly most) of the EAA / USUA instructors and pilots were not eligible for medicals. There had to be
some medical requirement. The question was how to come up with one that allowed ineligible pilots to magically become eligible, while allowing FAA to remain ignorant and unaccountable.
The idea of a Fourth Class medical was briefly discussed, and was as rapidly dropped as a hot rock. The possession of
any sort of FAA medical paper whatsoever could mean that the FAA knew about deficiencies in the airmen's health, which could possibly mean they might theoretically be held accountable if the airman (or more importantly, their passenger / student) died due to some in-flight medical problem. Obviously that was a no-go. Accountability was a deal-killer.
The idea of a self-signed medical cert countersigned by an airman's own doctor was also discussed and scrapped because no non-AME in his right mind would sign off of someone's fitness to fly. AME's are protected in various ways, most notably the fact that no AME in history has ever signed off on someone's fitness to fly. They only certify that the airman doesn't appear to suffer from any of the bazillion things that would be disqualifying. That is all the AME certifies to, not that the airman is actually fit to fly. It's an objective judgement, not a subjective one; and it helps insulate the AME from liability.
The problem was that many -- possibly most -- of the EAA / USUA guys did, in fact, suffer from one or more of the bazillion disqualifying afflictions. Some were even rumored to have hangnails! So an AME could not sign them off; and a non-AME would have to be insane to do so.
What ultimately was decided was that in addition to having to possess state drivers' licenses (which at least suggested that they weren't totally blind the last time they renewed), SPs and SP instructors would be "advised" to discuss their health with their personal doctors. But no record of these discussions would ever be reportable to FAA, nor would FAA ever get involved in answering questions about the medical eligibility of pilots using their drivers' licenses as medicals.
The FAA explicitly, emphatically, and categorically did not want to know: and they still don't.
Indeed, FAA carefully crafted the rules and interpret them in such a way as to make sure that they never know. They intentionally distance themselves as far as possible from any SP-related medical questions. They merely "advise" -- not even "require," which might suggest urgency -- that SPs consult with their own doctors about questionable medical fitness issues which can include literally every conceivable medical problem for which the FAA might ever issue an SI -- or not.
The FAA categorically washed their hands of everything medically-related where SPs are concerned, and they have no intention of ever dirtying them.
As cynical as my explanation may seem, I basically agree with the FAA's approach. In fact, I'd like to see it applied to domestic RP and PP operations, as well, possibly with weight and number of pax restrictions. The one change I would make would be a requirement that people using the "DL Medical" see a doctor once a year for a
non-reportable physical exam. The combination of the DL and the receipt for the exam would constitute the medical.
The physical exam would have to be non-reportable because, remember, the FAA does not want to know. But at least SPs and others whose medical condition might be less-than-perfect would have to darken a doctor's doorstep once a year in order to keep flying. I think that's reasonable. Also, in most states doctors are required to notify the DMV if a patient becomes unfit to drive; so the mandatory annual doctor visit would at least suggest that the SP hasn't become too blind, senile, or sickly to drive themselves to a doctor's office once a year, much less fly light aircraft. The loss of the DL would effectively ground the pilot, making the physical an indirect safety check even thought it would be non-reportable.
(Oh, by the way, the only medication I take is metformin, not any antipsychotics or the like. That's not to say that I wouldn't benefit from them, but I don't take any.)
Rich
