Ignoring letter

G

groundedforlife

Guest
i got a letter saying I need to submit the dreaded Cogscreen and full battery. Based on what I have been told by various neuropsychologistists I will not do well enough for the FAA standards.

My question is: in the letter it says something about if no response is received within 60 days we will deny your medical or LEGAL ACTION. I have never held a medical, nor did I lie. What legal action would they take?

I want to just ignore this letter and take up fishing or something else, no use going through everything just to fly on the weekends. Will ignoring this be a problem?
 
did you apply for a medical? do you currently hold any type of aviation certificate...sport, recreatiinal, etc?
 
yours will be a denial, as you apparently do not have a certificate to surrender.
 
Which brings the question why did you apply?

I had applied in 2008 with a seizure disorder ending in 2000. Being young and dumb I diddnt know about the 10 year wait rule and got denied.

So based on that previous denial as a teenager, applying again wouldn’t hurt anything that wasn’t already hurt. I was already denied sport.
 
You can still do gliders, including motor gliders. Not a bad option, all things considered.
 
You can still do gliders, including motor gliders. Not a bad option, all things considered.

Or ultralights, although getting training can be a problem. The options are to find a now-illegal fat ultralight and instructor and go rogue, to get some dual in the most similar LSA you can find, or to throw caution to the wind and just wing it (quite literally).

Rich
 
Is this true, or is this not true?

I thought to do Gliders, a denied medical shut that down, as well.

I thought this was the case as well. How can you self certify under 61.53 since a doctor has told you about a disqualifying condition. “Knows Or has reason to know of a condition”
 
I thought this was the case as well. How can you self certify under 61.53 since a doctor has told you about a disqualifying condition. “Knows Or has reason to know of a condition”
Disqualifying for a medical certificate. Perhaps not affecting the ability to safely fly. Different standard.

Now whether the denial itself shuts down self-certification for gliders, I'm not certain; depends on the exact wording of the reg.
 
Is this true, or is this not true?

I thought to do Gliders, a denied medical shut that down, as well.

I don't think so. Refer to
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...aam/ame/guide/app_process/general/operations/

Glider and Free Balloon Pilots are not required to hold a medical certificate of any class. To be issued Glider or Free Balloon Airman Certificates, applicants must certify that they do not know, or have reason to know, of any medical condition that would make them unable to operate a glider or free balloon in a safe manner. This certification is made at the local FAA FSDO.

Nothing said here about a denied medical. That's different from Sport Pilot:

To exercise sport pilot privileges using a current and valid U.S. driver’s license as evidence of qualification sport pilots must:
  • not have been denied the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate (if they have applied for an airman medical certificate)

As far as I can tell, a denial does not prevent you from flying gliders. You're not even required to hold a driver's license in lieu of a medical, like for Sport. A glider pilot can add on "self-launched" gliders, aka motor gliders, which are essentially SEL airplanes with really good glide ratios.
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell, a denial does not prevent you from flying gliders. You're not even required to hold a driver's license in lieu of a medical, like for Sport. A glider pilot can add on "self-launched" gliders, aka motor gliders, which are essentially SEL airplanes with really good glide rations.
Thanks for quoting the reg. That was my recollection as well, but I wasn't sure and I was too lazy to look it up at the time.

On the other hand, I vaguely recall Bruce saying that the FAA considers a denial disqualifying for gliders, same as for sport pilot privileges. But that was a while ago, I didn't press him for a source, and it's possible that I misunderstood. Perhaps he will weigh in and clarify.
 
The standards are slightly different for not being eligible for a medical certificate and not operating under a medical deficiency.

The situation one is in likely depends on the exact wording in the denial letter.

The question of flying a glider after a denial letter is again not a situation that is cut and dried and is probably legal terra incognito.
 
Why not? Regs seem clear enough. Do you have a cite for being banned from flying a glider as a result of a medical denial?

I do not know of a case stating that.

However 61.53(b) provides that “(b)Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For operations provided for in § 61.23(b) of this part, 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.”

So I believe the question which arises is - does a denial letter for a specific condition provide “knows or has reason to know” under this reg. And in particular, if the letter states that the denial occurred because the FAA found that the person is not safe to fly any aircraft.
 
You can be "denied a medical" for failing to provide documentation that the FAA demands. You are also "unable to meet the requirements" for the medical in that situation. Neither of those necessarily means that you are unable to operate the aircraft safely. For example, the FAA requires a yearly brain MRI for Special Issuance follow-up for malignant melanoma. Oncologists agree that there is no medical necessity for that test, and as a consequence insurance will typically not authorize the $5000 cost for one. So the airman that doesn't want to fork out $5k out of pocket for a "medical condition" that in and of itself is not disqualifying may still be perfectly safe to operate the aircraft without the MRI or similar requirement for the Special Issuance.
 
You can be "denied a medical" for failing to provide documentation that the FAA demands. You are also "unable to meet the requirements" for the medical in that situation. Neither of those necessarily means that you are unable to operate the aircraft safely. For example, the FAA requires a yearly brain MRI for Special Issuance follow-up for malignant melanoma. Oncologists agree that there is no medical necessity for that test, and as a consequence insurance will typically not authorize the $5000 cost for one. So the airman that doesn't want to fork out $5k out of pocket for a "medical condition" that in and of itself is not disqualifying may still be perfectly safe to operate the aircraft without the MRI or similar requirement for the Special Issuance.
Good example!

One very small nit: as I understand it, if you fail to provide documentation demanded by the FAA, you are automatically denied, whether they send you a followup letter saying so or not.
 
So I believe the question which arises is - does a denial letter for a specific condition provide “knows or has reason to know” under this reg. And in particular, if the letter states that the denial occurred because the FAA found that the person is not safe to fly any aircraft.


Speaking broadly, no it doesn't. @dbahn gave a good example above.

Similarly, I have an autoimmune liver condition that required an SI on my first 3rd class and I now use Basic Med. Had I not submitted to the FAA all the paperwork and test results they required (thank you, Dr. Bruce!) my 3rd class application would have been denied. That would not make me unfit to fly; it would simply mean I was unwilling to go through the necessary expense and hassle.

MANY people are in similar situations. The denial letter itself does not necessarily constitute "reason to know" a pilot isn't fit to fly.
 
MANY people are in similar situations. The denial letter itself does not necessarily constitute "reason to know" a pilot isn't fit to fly.

In general true, but there is a rumor that the FAA has started sending out some letters which state that the application is denied because the FAA has determined the applicant is not fit to fly any aircraft. (Not just airplane). If such language is included, the argument is that that language might constitute “reason to know”, even regarding gliders.

But I have not seen such a letter or know of a case where this was at issue.
 
There will always be those who argue -- forever -- that not being able to obtain an FAA medical certificate for whatever reason means you "know or have reason to know" of a medical condition that would prevent you from safely operate an aircraft. According to their logic, most Private Pilot certificate holders flying with Sport Pilot privileges are illegal, I guess. Fortunately, those people aren't the ones who matter.

I really like the motor glider option. Some of them look like fairly fast, efficient cross-country machines, if limited in space and baggage capacity. Some (Xenos, for example) are even reasonably priced.
 
Last edited:
Good example!

One very small nit: as I understand it, if you fail to provide documentation demanded by the FAA, you are automatically denied, whether they send you a followup letter saying so or not.

Correct. But the letter will invariably inform you that you have a deadline to submit (e.g. 30 days) after which your application is denied. It's a scary letter but usually fixed with documentation.
 
It's a scary letter...
Reminds me of my first letter from FAA Medical that started with language saying that under a particular FAR, it was not possible for a medical to be issued.

My heart sank to the floor because after all the hard work I had put in to "own my medical" and provide all of the right information to the AME on the first throw.

Then I read the next paragraph that discussed special issuance and that I had met that standard and my medical was enclosed.

An angry look was sent in the general direction of OKC for making me go on that emotional roller coaster.
 
Reminds me of my first letter from FAA Medical that started with language saying that under a particular FAR, it was not possible for a medical to be issued.

My heart sank to the floor because after all the hard work I had put in to "own my medical" and provide all of the right information to the AME on the first throw.

Then I read the next paragraph that discussed special issuance and that I had met that standard and my medical was enclosed.

An angry look was sent in the general direction of OKC for making me go on that emotional roller coaster.

After your third or fourth one you learn to relax . . .
 
After your third or fourth one you learn to relax . . .
Yup.... no more panic attacks when I see Aerospace Medical Certification Division, AAM-300 in the upper left of the envelope
 
Ahhh, the stress-free flying life of Basic Med. Sigh. No more worries about losing my medical if I fill a prescription or have a medical test or see a specialist. Basic Med - more relaxing than a cup of chamomile tea in front of the fire with a kitten on my lap and a puppy curled at my feet.

Ahhhhhhhh.......
 
In general true, but there is a rumor that the FAA has started sending out some letters which state that the application is denied because the FAA has determined the applicant is not fit to fly any aircraft. (Not just airplane). If such language is included, the argument is that that language might constitute “reason to know”, even regarding gliders.
The FAA believing you have a condition that makes you unable to safety operate any aircraft and you having a condition that makes you unable to safely operate an aircraft are two different things.
 
Ahhh, the stress-free flying life of Basic Med. Sigh. No more worries about losing my medical if I fill a prescription or have a medical test or see a specialist. Basic Med - more relaxing than a cup of chamomile tea in front of the fire with a kitten on my lap and a puppy curled at my feet.

Ahhhhhhhh.......
The above sounds better when you replay it in the voices of either Garrison Keillor or Tom Bodett
 
The FAA believing you have a condition that makes you unable to safety operate any aircraft and you having a condition that makes you unable to safely operate an aircraft are two different things.

Good point. Unfortunately even if you don’t have such a condition and the FAA thinks you do, you would have to prove it through a very lengthy administrative and legal process.
 
Good point. Unfortunately even if you don’t have such a condition and the FAA thinks you do, you would have to prove it through a very lengthy administrative and legal process.


Not if you don't need a medical, such as glider or sport pilots. There wouldn't be any such process involved in the first place.

The FAA might investigate medical conditions if you had a crash, but of course you'd only care if you survived, and if there were no requirement for an FAA medical to begin with they wouldn't have any grounds for action. You might lose your pilot's certificate, but beyond that any legal action would have very shaky grounds and seems unlikely.
 
Thanks for quoting the reg. That was my recollection as well, but I wasn't sure and I was too lazy to look it up at the time.

On the other hand, I vaguely recall Bruce saying that the FAA considers a denial disqualifying for gliders, same as for sport pilot privileges. But that was a while ago, I didn't press him for a source, and it's possible that I misunderstood. Perhaps he will weigh in and clarify.
So this is super ambiguous. The denial letter says that you do not meet the standard for XYZ class and are denied, operation of an aircraft at any time is a violation.....and came by certified mail so they know you got it.

However there is no requirement for a medical for self launching gliders. And that is why there are nearly a dozen Stemme S10s on the field at Watsonville. So how do you use 61.53 in that situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemme_S10
 
Last edited:
It's no longer self-certification anymore, just a self-assessment. They removed the requirement to self-certify decades ago.
 
So this is super ambiguous. The denial letter says that you do not meet the standard for XYZ class and are denied, operation of an aircraft at any time is a violation.....and came by certified mail so they know you got it.

However there is no requirement for a medical for self launching gliders. And that is why there are nearly a dozen Stemme S10s on the field at Watsonville. So how do you use 61.53 in that situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemme_S10
I'm sure the FAA is well aware of the fact that there are a number of people flying gliders, including motor gliders, after getting denied. One would expect that if they had a problem with it, they'd pick one and make an example. You'd think, anyway.

The Stemmes look really nice. As you may recall, I was looking at self-launching motor gliders a few years ago. A much less expensive route would include a Xenos... a guy could build a VW-powered Xenos for well under $50K, everything brand new. Two seats, 100 KTAS cruise, cheap fuel... Not a bad alternative to not flying.
 
The FAA could have written that you can't fly a glider, balloon, or LSA if you have reason to know that you couldn't qualify for a medical certificate. They didn't.
 
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