BasicMed doc needed--Monterey/Santa Cruz CA area

Since this thread has morphed into something different...

Can the FAA revoke (or otherwise nullify) an expired medical certificate?

The scenario: a pilot experiences a medical issue and, on application, his certificate is deferred. He eventually gets a special issuance making him eligible for BasicMed. While on BM his special issuance certificate expires. Can the FAA later say that in retrospect the special issuance should never have been given and nullify it, making the pilot ineligible for BasicMed?

Tim
 
timrb said:
Since this thread has morphed into something different...

Can the FAA revoke (or otherwise nullify) an expired medical certificate?

The scenario: a pilot experiences a medical issue and, on application, his certificate is deferred. He eventually gets a special issuance making him eligible for BasicMed. While on BM his special issuance certificate expires. Can the FAA later say that in retrospect the special issuance should never have been given and nullify it, making the pilot ineligible for BasicMed?

Tim
Click to expand...
I don't think there's a basis for revoking something that no longer exists. The closest related FAA statement I'm aware of is this 2018 memorandum where the Chief Counsel's office talks about CAMI not be authorized to request addition medical information after expiration. Snip:

As explained further in this memorandum, when an airman's special issuance medical certificate has expired and the airman is not in the process of seeking a new special issuance medical certificate, additional medical information is not reasonably needed for certification under§ 67.401. Consequently, the Federal Air Surgeon may not withdraw the Authorization based on the airman's failure to provide information "not reasonably neededby the Federal Air Surgeon for certification under this section[§ 67.401(f)(4)]."​

I suppose if the reason were egregious enough - like providing false information - they'd find a way. But in that case, it would be easier to just revoke your pilot certificate under existing policies.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
Go back to the Nantucket current and read the very first article in July 2019. I will post a response tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I'm on tenterhooks. Sounds like there's some crazy stuff going on up there. I'm more than willing to believe that a couple of small-town airport lackeys would gang up on you, but getting the courts to go along with it is wild.

Nevertheless, I don't see how you could legally fly off the FAA revoked your last medical.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The closest related FAA statement I'm aware of is this 2018 memorandum where the Chief Counsel's office talks about CAMI not be authorized to request addition medical information after expiration.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for posting that memo and your insights! Here is my takeaway:

There are two aspects to a special issuance--the authorization for the issuance, and the medical certificate itself. These both have expiration dates, and those dates are not necessarily the same; the period for the authorization is typically longer than for the certificate.

If the certificate expires, the authorization will remain in force and the pilot may be given another special issuance certificate if he jumps through any required hoops. The authorization does not itself convey any flying privileges.

A pilot with a special issuance may operate under BasicMed if his medical certificate is not revoked AND if the authorization is not withdrawn. If the authorization merely expires, the pilot may still operate under BM.

Tim
 
Lindberg said:
Nevertheless, I don't see how you could legally fly off the FAA revoked your last medical.
Click to expand...

In case anyone is interested ingoing beyond the news story and @captainbobwalsh's descriptions, here is the 35-page Massachusetts Superior Court decision. The first thing I noticed is that Walsh did not testify.
"The plaintiff, Robert T. Walsh, chose not to testify, stating that he was exercising his right not to testify."​

That was a mistake. No, you can't be forced to testify, but this was not a criminal trial where, the fact finder is not permitted to treat that negatively. In a civil case such as this, the failure to testify or put on evidence on your own behalf allows the judge or jury (this was a trial to the Court, not a jury) to draw what is referred to as a "negative inference," namely, that if the party testifies, the testimony would have been harmful to his own case.

@Lindberg, there is a hint in the case to the answer to your question.
"While Walsh claimed at trial that he had a "basic medical," he produced no evidence of a medical certificate..."​

It might well be that the pilot was utilizing BasicMed. But when you choose not to testify or present evidence, you leave the record as it is. The decision there was evidence that the pilot had a pending SI application, failed to provide the usual "additional information" to the Flight Surgeon, with the result that the application was withdrawn (which equals denial).

No, as far as I can tell, there has been no appeal. I can see why.
 
Why the FAA didn’t revoke his pilot certificates is baffling, assuming they haven’t.
 
timrb said:
Since this thread has morphed into something different...

Can the FAA revoke (or otherwise nullify) an expired medical certificate?

The scenario: a pilot experiences a medical issue and, on application, his certificate is deferred. He eventually gets a special issuance making him eligible for BasicMed. While on BM his special issuance certificate expires. Can the FAA later say that in retrospect the special issuance should never have been given and nullify it, making the pilot ineligible for BasicMed?

Tim
Click to expand...
They can withdraw the special issuance authorization which is still in effect, and that nullifies Basic Med. I've just had one of those.
Clip4 said:
Why the FAA didn’t revoke his pilot certificates is baffling, assuming they haven’t.
Click to expand...
That's because his misbehavior apparently did not rise yet to the level of personality disorder, MULTIPLE acts.
 
bbchien said:
They can withdraw the special issuance authorization which is still in effect, and that nullifies Basic Med. I've just had one of those
Click to expand...
Without disclosing any confidences, what led to the withdrawal? Was the medical certificate still in effect or had it expired?
 
Clip4 said:
So if I act like an ass at restaurant and get banned, is the restaurant trying to deny me my right to eat or denying me service?

No one conspired against you. They made you accountable for your bad behavior and let you know you are not welcome back as a pilot. Judges do not take lightly life time bans from public facilities like libraries, parks and airports. This is why you may still fly to and from the airport as a paying passenger.

You should really be embarrassed of this. Instead you refuse to accept accountability, play victim and make unsubstantiated claims of illegal acts.
Click to expand...
Airport Rules and Regulations Nantucket Memorial Airport Nantucket, MA
PG- 25 - SECTION XII VIOLATION PENALTIES AND FINES

Violation of these Airport Rules and Regulations will result in warnings, fines, penalties, and/or violators being prohibited from using the Airport.
1. Enforcement Authority Any police officer with arrest powers at the Airport, the Airport Manager, or any other individual so designated by the Airport Commission, shall have the right and power to enforce any and all rules and regulations contained herein. Such persons may have the power to issue citations for such violations.
2. Violators Prohibited Use of Airport Sometimes a violation of these Rules and Regulations will be so severe that in the opinion of the person with enforcement authority, that the violator/s should be prohibited from the use of the Airport. In this instance, the act will be immediately reported to the Airport Commission, who will be the final decision authority, as to the severity of the punishment. However, the person with enforcement authority has the power to immediately restrict an individual from the Airport until such time as the Airport Commission rules on the issue.

To clarify the original 4 allegations that they never gave me a hearing on, but they lied to 3 Judges, saying that they did give me a hearing on, are as follows:

1. On August 5, 2018, I was at my assigned parking space SO1, on the South ramp, planning to go to Boston, drop off my friends, and continue to our home in Vermont. I had three passengers, my fiancé and two friends. With clearance from ground, I taxied 2500ft to RW 15 and did my run-up. Receiving clearance for takeoff and rolling onto the runway, my right tire went flat. I aborted the takeoff and told the tower I had a flat. They said that they would send somebody out. Ten minutes later, when the Bus came out, my friends and I went to a friend's hangar to get his airplane. As she was not going to Vermont, my fiancé stayed with the airplane. She and Blane, the FBO PIC, returned my plane to the tie-down. I flew my two friends to Boston, and they made their connecting flight to Europe. I returned to KACK, went to my car, put my SIDA badge in the sunglasses holder as usual, and drove home. The story changed from “Abandoned after landing” to failure to attend to disabled aircraft”.

2. On March 23+24, 2018, my mechanic was on KACK working for the Airport Manager in removing a derelict airplane while I was in Vermont. I let him use my car. Airport personnel escorted him at all times. As he had removed the aircraft from the airport on the 23rd, there was nothing left for him to access at the airport. He denies using my badge to access the airport. The story changed from him using my badge to “he could have used the badge that was in my locked car.”

3. On April 26, 2019. On this dark, rainy Friday night, upon arriving at KACK from KBOS, I was approached by 3 FAA Agents who said they were conducting routine ramp inspections and that I was next. I responded, “Oh really”, I'll be with you when I finish securing my family off the SIDA. One Agent followed them into the terminal, and two stayed at the right door side of the A/C.After helping my family exit the aircraft, I attended to the bags, loaded them onto the baggage cart, and then a ramp agent escorted my family to the terminal. After cleaning the cabin, I proceeded to the cockpit to clean and secure it. I took the trash in my urine bottle out of the cockpit and exited the aircraft. I told the agents I had to go, then went to the baggage compartment on the pilot side of the airplane. I did my duty, put the empty urine bottle in the baggage compartment, and closed the door. Upon returning to the right side of the aircraft, I said I was ready for the inspection. The agent asked for my license, medical, and registration. I showed all of those to him. I asked him if that was all, and he said yes. I said I would go to the terminal, pick up my family, and enjoy my new grandson, then left.

4. On May 3, 2019. One of my students asked if I could take him and two friends to KJFK, as they were going on a hunting trip in South America and his plane was in annual inspection. They had rifles and wanted to be picked up at his hangar rather than at the terminal. Upon my arrival at his hangar, we were approached by a security truck. He spoke to the airport person in the truck, and I loaded his friends and Equipment into the aircraft. As he is a low-time pilot, I let him occupy the left seat, and we departed to KJFK.

Boston FSDO and FAA Airports, along with FAA Washington, D.C., consider these to be as severe as the two Runway incursions in San Francisco in Febuary of 2016.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm on tenterhooks. Sounds like there's some crazy stuff going on up there. I'm more than willing to believe that a couple of small-town airport lackeys would gang up on you, but getting the courts to go along with it is wild.

Nevertheless, I don't see how you could legally fly off the FAA revoked your last medical.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's called conspiracy. FSDO and the airport managers gave false information to the Nashua Flight Surgeon in an attempt to keep off KACK. They claim under oath that my medical was REVOKED in all the Court hearings that I won. I was looking for a "CRIMINAL LAWYER," and I found one; he works for KACK.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In case anyone is interested ingoing beyond the news story and @captainbobwalsh's descriptions, here is the 35-page Massachusetts Superior Court decision. The first thing I noticed is that Walsh did not testify.
"The plaintiff, Robert T. Walsh, chose not to testify, stating that he was exercising his right not to testify."​

That was a mistake. No, you can't be forced to testify, but this was not a criminal trial where, the fact finder is not permitted to treat that negatively. In a civil case such as this, the failure to testify or put on evidence on your own behalf allows the judge or jury (this was a trial to the Court, not a jury) to draw what is referred to as a "negative inference," namely, that if the party testifies, the testimony would have been harmful to his own case.

@Lindberg, there is a hint in the case to the answer to your question.
"While Walsh claimed at trial that he had a "basic medical," he produced no evidence of a medical certificate..."​

It might well be that the pilot was utilizing BasicMed. But when you choose not to testify or present evidence, you leave the record as it is. The decision there was evidence that the pilot had a pending SI application, failed to provide the usual "additional information" to the Flight Surgeon, with the result that the application was withdrawn (which equals denial).

No, as far as I can tell, there has been no appeal. I can see why.
Click to expand...
This was a Trespass trial, and I could not get a lawyer to take the case. The AOPA lawyer really was not qualified and put me in a bad situation. In this trial, I was pro se, and none of my witnesses were present. Opposing Counsel said, "You didn't subpoena them"? Their witness, the airport manager, continued to lie under oath as instructed, and I was out of my league. Drowning in all the lies and paperwork, I made the mistake of giving up. As I had a right to be in the SIDA, I was NOT TRESPASSING! Now that I have this verdict, I will pursue the criminal aspect. Defamation, collusion, if I can find an attorney. Meanwhile, I will have to take the boat, as I cannot be a passenger on a general aviation aircraft into or out of KACK, per this decision.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In case anyone is interested ingoing beyond the news story and @captainbobwalsh's descriptions, here is the 35-page Massachusetts Superior Court decision.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mark. That was an entertaining read, and it clarifies the situation quite a bit.

midlifeflyer said:
The decision there was evidence that the pilot had a pending SI application, failed to provide the usual "additional information" to the Flight Surgeon, with the result that the application was withdrawn (which equals denial).
Click to expand...

If I understood correctly, the flight surgeon asked Walsh to get a psych exam and submit that result along with six months of pharmacy info. When he failed to do so, the flight surgeon directed him to surrender his medical certificate. According to the court decision, Walsh flew after losing the medical.
 
Half Fast said:
Thanks, Mark. That was an entertaining read, and it clarifies the situation quite a bit.



If I understood correctly, the flight surgeon asked Walsh to get a psych exam and submit that result along with six months of pharmacy info. When he failed to do so, the flight surgeon directed him to surrender his medical certificate. According to the court decision, Walsh flew after losing the medical.
Click to expand...
FSDO and the Airport Manager gave known false information to the FS and they requested that psyche exam. I asked for an extension to the 60 days but the FS was in on the collusion and denied it. As I had both my 2nd class and my Basic I surrendered the 2nd class. I didn’t want to give them the chance to pull a Bob Hoover on me. I gave the psych exam result to my Primary Care doctor. She gave Me a through examination and now I can fly until 2028. MY LICENSE, MEDICAL OR TSA BADGE HAVE NEVER BEEN REVOKED.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
FSDO and the Airport Manager gave known false information to the FS and they requested that psyche exam. I asked for an extension to the 60 days but the FS was in on the collusion and denied it. As I had both my 2nd class and my Basic I surrendered the 2nd class. I didn’t want to give them the chance to pull a Bob Hoover on me. I gave the psych exam result to my Primary Care doctor. She gave Me a through examination and now I can fly until 2028. MY LICENSE, MEDICAL OR TSA BADGE HAVE NEVER BEEN REVOKED.
Click to expand...

Since aeromed pulled your medical, you are not eligible for Basic Med. Had the medical merely expired, Basic would be valid, but not with a medical revocation.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
Airport Rules and Regulations Nantucket Memorial Airport Nantucket, MA
PG- 25 - SECTION XII VIOLATION PENALTIES AND FINES

Violation of these Airport Rules and Regulations will result in warnings, fines, penalties, and/or violators being prohibited from using the Airport.
1. Enforcement Authority Any police officer with arrest powers at the Airport, the Airport Manager, or any other individual so designated by the Airport Commission, shall have the right and power to enforce any and all rules and regulations contained herein. Such persons may have the power to issue citations for such violations.
2. Violators Prohibited Use of Airport Sometimes a violation of these Rules and Regulations will be so severe that in the opinion of the person with enforcement authority, that the violator/s should be prohibited from the use of the Airport. In this instance, the act will be immediately reported to the Airport Commission, who will be the final decision authority, as to the severity of the punishment. However, the person with enforcement authority has the power to immediately restrict an individual from the Airport until such time as the Airport Commission rules on the issue.

To clarify the original 4 allegations that they never gave me a hearing on, but they lied to 3 Judges, saying that they did give me a hearing on, are as follows:

1. On August 5, 2018, I was at my assigned parking space SO1, on the South ramp, planning to go to Boston, drop off my friends, and continue to our home in Vermont. I had three passengers, my fiancé and two friends. With clearance from ground, I taxied 2500ft to RW 15 and did my run-up. Receiving clearance for takeoff and rolling onto the runway, my right tire went flat. I aborted the takeoff and told the tower I had a flat. They said that they would send somebody out. Ten minutes later, when the Bus came out, my friends and I went to a friend's hangar to get his airplane. As she was not going to Vermont, my fiancé stayed with the airplane. She and Blane, the FBO PIC, returned my plane to the tie-down. I flew my two friends to Boston, and they made their connecting flight to Europe. I returned to KACK, went to my car, put my SIDA badge in the sunglasses holder as usual, and drove home. The story changed from “Abandoned after landing” to failure to attend to disabled aircraft”.

2. On March 23+24, 2018, my mechanic was on KACK working for the Airport Manager in removing a derelict airplane while I was in Vermont. I let him use my car. Airport personnel escorted him at all times. As he had removed the aircraft from the airport on the 23rd, there was nothing left for him to access at the airport. He denies using my badge to access the airport. The story changed from him using my badge to “he could have used the badge that was in my locked car.”

3. On April 26, 2019. On this dark, rainy Friday night, upon arriving at KACK from KBOS, I was approached by 3 FAA Agents who said they were conducting routine ramp inspections and that I was next. I responded, “Oh really”, I'll be with you when I finish securing my family off the SIDA. One Agent followed them into the terminal, and two stayed at the right door side of the A/C.After helping my family exit the aircraft, I attended to the bags, loaded them onto the baggage cart, and then a ramp agent escorted my family to the terminal. After cleaning the cabin, I proceeded to the cockpit to clean and secure it. I took the trash in my urine bottle out of the cockpit and exited the aircraft. I told the agents I had to go, then went to the baggage compartment on the pilot side of the airplane. I did my duty, put the empty urine bottle in the baggage compartment, and closed the door. Upon returning to the right side of the aircraft, I said I was ready for the inspection. The agent asked for my license, medical, and registration. I showed all of those to him. I asked him if that was all, and he said yes. I said I would go to the terminal, pick up my family, and enjoy my new grandson, then left.

4. On May 3, 2019. One of my students asked if I could take him and two friends to KJFK, as they were going on a hunting trip in South America and his plane was in annual inspection. They had rifles and wanted to be picked up at his hangar rather than at the terminal. Upon my arrival at his hangar, we were approached by a security truck. He spoke to the airport person in the truck, and I loaded his friends and Equipment into the aircraft. As he is a low-time pilot, I let him occupy the left seat, and we departed to KJFK.

Boston FSDO and FAA Airports, along with FAA Washington, D.C., consider these to be as severe as the two Runway incursions in San Francisco in Febuary of 2016.
Click to expand...
When reading the court record on your case, the one thing very evident was the airport was advised on how to handle your case by very competent legal council and the airport fully followed that legal advice. The court record is clear they gave you a hearing on the airport infractions, you were represented by council and did not testify. Later the airport Board invited you to an hearing appeal the first hearing. They didn’t have to hold an appeal hearing because you never specifically requested one and you failed to attend the appeal hearing they provided you. Then your case was heard in court and again you lost. Checkmate, game over. Enjoy flying as a ticketed passenger to that airport.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
I'm sure there are more, but off the top of my head, I can really only think of two reasons why a person wouldn't be able to find any lawyer willing to take on their defense.
Click to expand...

I think I counted four lawyers in reading the court decision, but I might have missed one or two.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
This was a Trespass trial, and I could not get a lawyer to take the case. The AOPA lawyer really was not qualified and put me in a bad situation. In this trial, I was pro se, and none of my witnesses were present. Opposing Counsel said, "You didn't subpoena them"? Their witness, the airport manager, continued to lie under oath as instructed, and I was out of my league. Drowning in all the lies and paperwork, I made the mistake of giving up. As I had a right to be in the SIDA, I was NOT TRESPASSING! Now that I have this verdict, I will pursue the criminal aspect. Defamation, collusion, if I can find an attorney. Meanwhile, I will have to take the boat, as I cannot be a passenger on a general aviation aircraft into or out of KACK, per this decision.
Click to expand...
Yea right. Like a misdemeanor trespass case is beyond the legal ability of any lawyer green out of the bar exam.
 
bbchien said:
They can withdraw the special issuance authorization which is still in effect, and that nullifies Basic Med. I've just had one of those.
That's because his misbehavior apparently did not rise yet to the level of personality disorder, MULTIPLE acts.
Click to expand...
He was accused of several FAR violations in connection with a 135 certificate and if he is flying under Basic med after suspension of his medical certificate, he is in violation there too.
 
Clip4 said:
A civil trespass case I suppose, why the airport never charged him criminally was probably based on advice of legal council who handled him like a boss.
Click to expand...
I can think of a few possible reasons offhand. (1) Given the history, the airport was probably much more interested in the permanent injunction prohibiting him "from piloting aircraft to or from the Airport or accessing the Aircraft Operations Area or any other non-public area of the Airport except as a passenger enplaning or deplaning a commercial aircraft," which, if violated, is punishable by contempt of court, than the slap on the wrist that generally accompanies a fairly minor criminal trespass charge. (2) I don't see local DAs giving it the attention private counsel would give it in a civil suit. (2) On the more cynical side, charged with criminal trespass, he would have had a lawyer, even if it were a public defender. Perhaps they realized he'd end up unrepresented if they went civilly.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It wasn’t a misdemeanor trespass case.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
I can think of a few possible reasons offhand. (1) Given the history, the airport was probably much more interested in the permanent injunction prohibiting him "from piloting aircraft to or from the Airport or accessing the Aircraft Operations Area or any other non-public area of the Airport except as a passenger enplaning or deplaning a commercial aircraft," which, if violated, is punishable by contempt of court, than the slap on the wrist that generally accompanies a fairly minor criminal trespass charge. (2) I don't see local DAs giving it the attention private counsel would give it in a civil suit. (2) On the more cynical side, charged with criminal trespass, he would have had a lawyer, even if it were a public defender. Perhaps they realized he'd end up unrepresented if they went civilly.
Click to expand...
My criminal attorney got the case dismissed in criminal court as they determined I was not trespassing. I was in the SIDA exercising my right / responsibility to bring my passengers in and out of the terminal.
Clip4 said:
He was accused of several FAR violations in connection with a 135 certificate and if he is flying under Basic med after suspension of his medical certificate, he is in violation there too.
Click to expand...
Accused not convicted.
midlifeflyer said:
I can think of a few possible reasons offhand. (1) Given the history, the airport was probably much more interested in the permanent injunction prohibiting him "from piloting aircraft to or from the Airport or accessing the Aircraft Operations Area or any other non-public area of the Airport except as a passenger enplaning or deplaning a commercial aircraft," which, if violated, is punishable by contempt of court, than the slap on the wrist that generally accompanies a fairly minor criminal trespass charge. (2) I don't see local DAs giving it the attention private counsel would give it in a civil suit. (2) On the more cynical side, charged with criminal trespass, he would have had a lawyer, even if it were a public defender. Perhaps they realized he'd end up unrepresented if they went civilly.
Click to expand...
Answered above.
Clip4 said:
A civil trespass case I suppose, why the airport never charged him criminally was probably based on advice of legal council who handled him like a boss.
Click to expand...
Answered above.
 
Clip4 said:
When reading the court record on your case, the one thing very evident was the airport was advised on how to handle your case by very competent legal council and the airport fully followed that legal advice. The court record is clear they gave you a hearing on the airport infractions, you were represented by council and did not testify. Later the airport Board invited you to an hearing appeal the first hearing. They didn’t have to hold an appeal hearing because you never specifically requested one and you failed to attend the appeal hearing they provided you. Then your case was heard in court and again you lost. Checkmate, game over. Enjoy flying as a ticketed passenger to that airport.
Click to expand...
The first Judge denied dismissal because I did not get a hearing and there was no administrative record. My AOPA Lawyer did a good job presenting my case about those four allegations. She required that they produce an administrative record within 90 days. The administrative record they produced intentionally omitted two very important lines, NMAC 041 and 042. Omitting them amounts to falsifying the AR.
The second judge was lied to, as they said I received a hearing at the July 12, 2019 meeting. At that meeting, they clearly stated this is not a hearing. We will not take any witnesses or statements. Mt first attorney submitted a letter on July 11, 2019 requesting a HEARING; it was denied. They voted to ban me from the Airport.

I filed a Part 13 complaint, and the Judge decided in my favor, holding that the airport cannot restrict the Complainant from operating at the airport because the Commission has no jurisdiction over the Complainant's pilot certificate. The Complainant is a licensed pilot with a current medical and ownership of an aircraft. Grant Assurance 22(a) stipulates that the airport Sponsor must make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. The FAA has taken away (revoked) the Complainant's charter certificate; however, the FAA has not taken away (revoked) the Complainant's pilot's license nor the aircraft that they fly. As such, the Complainant is operating as a transient pilot flying to and from ACK. This preliminary determination is not a final agency decision subject to judicial review. If you believe this office has erred, you may file a formal complaint under 14 CFR § 16, Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings. As neither party disagreed with this Part 16 preliminary determination, it became a final decision 60 days after.
The second judge cited this fact in his decision.” Walsh is asking for the same relief that he obtained from the FAA, rendering this matter moot”. In fact, Mr Walsh is requesting from this court the same relief that he obtained through his Part 13 complaint to the FAA, that is, that the notice of restriction be vacated and that he regain access to the non-public areas of the airport.
 
Half Fast said:
Since aeromed pulled your medical, you are not eligible for Basic Med. Had the medical merely expired, Basic would be valid, but not with a medical revocation.
Click to expand...
They withdrew my Special Issuance due to a Criminal Act by FSDO. Submitting known false information to a Federal Agency.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
The first Judge denied dismissal because I did not get a hearing and there was no administrative record. My AOPA Lawyer did a good job presenting my case about those four allegations. She required that they produce an administrative record within 90 days. The administrative record they produced intentionally omitted two very important lines, NMAC 041 and 042. Omitting them amounts to falsifying the AR.
The second judge was lied to, as they said I received a hearing at the July 12, 2019 meeting. At that meeting, they clearly stated this is not a hearing. We will not take any witnesses or statements. Mt first attorney submitted a letter on July 11, 2019 requesting a HEARING; it was denied. They voted to ban me from the Airport.

I filed a Part 13 complaint, and the Judge decided in my favor, holding that the airport cannot restrict the Complainant from operating at the airport because the Commission has no jurisdiction over the Complainant's pilot certificate. The Complainant is a licensed pilot with a current medical and ownership of an aircraft. Grant Assurance 22(a) stipulates that the airport Sponsor must make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. The FAA has taken away (revoked) the Complainant's charter certificate; however, the FAA has not taken away (revoked) the Complainant's pilot's license nor the aircraft that they fly. As such, the Complainant is operating as a transient pilot flying to and from ACK. This preliminary determination is not a final agency decision subject to judicial review. If you believe this office has erred, you may file a formal complaint under 14 CFR § 16, Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings. As neither party disagreed with this Part 16 preliminary determination, it became a final decision 60 days after.
The second judge cited this fact in his decision.” Walsh is asking for the same relief that he obtained from the FAA, rendering this matter moot”. In fact, Mr Walsh is requesting from this court the same relief that he obtained through his Part 13 complaint to the FAA, that is, that the notice of restriction be vacated and that he regain access to the non-public areas of the airport.
Click to expand...
Are still banned at that airport? If you are, hopefully the next step is physical arrest and criminal charges.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
They withdrew my Special Issuance due to a Criminal Act by FSDO. Submitting known false information to a Federal Agency
Click to expand...
So much crime, a FSDO committing criminal acts, an airport manager conspiring against you, lies every where and Mr. Innocent is banned. Way past time for you to take responsibility of your decisions and actions Dude and realize you reaped what you sowed.
 
Last edited:
captainbobwalsh said:
They withdrew my Special Issuance due to a Criminal Act by FSDO. Submitting known false information to a Federal Agency.
Click to expand...

Just making the allegation does not make it so. Unless and until you prove that and get your medical back, you cannot use Basic Med. Any flights you made after the FAA pulled your medical were made illegally.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
They withdrew my Special Issuance due to a Criminal Act by FSDO. Submitting known false information to a Federal Agency.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Why would they withdraw your SI because the FSDO committed a criminal act. They must have withdrawn your SI because of something you did (or allegedly did).
 
Lindberg said:
I don't understand. Why would they withdraw your SI because the FSDO committed a criminal act. They must have withdrawn your SI because of something you did (or allegedly did).
Click to expand...

I think the "criminal act" he's alleging is that the FSDO provided false information to aeromed by citing "erratic behavior, inability to comprehend simple regulations, and delusion." I don't see anything in the court's decision that would cast any doubt on those concerns about Walsh's behavior.


Excerpts from the court decision:

1782857488560.png
.
.
.
1782857586301.png
1782857825020.png
 

Attachments

  • 1782857716550.png
    1782857716550.png
    211.2 KB · Views: 32
Lindberg said:
And yet, as I surmised, it wasn't the allegedly false report that got the SI and medical yanked, it was the failure to timely submit the information requested by the RFS. Had the information been submitted, you might still have an SI, irrespective of the allegedly false report.
Click to expand...

Yep. And after the medical was yanked, he flew illegally anyway.
 
Lindberg said:
And yet, as I surmised, it wasn't the allegedly false report that got the SI and medical yanked, it was the failure to timely submit the information requested by the RFS. Had the information been submitted, you might still have an SI, irrespective of the allegedly false report.
Click to expand...
My basic med was not affected by the illegal removal of the SI. My medical was not yanked. I reported the finding of the psych exam to my primary care physician in a timely manner. She evaluated it and gave me my basic med. It is good until 2028.
 
captainbobwalsh said:
My basic med was not affected by the illegal removal of the SI. My medical was not yanked. I reported the finding of the psych exam to my primary care physician in a timely manner. She evaluated it and gave me my basic med. It is good until 2028.
Click to expand...
And you consider BasicMed to be a “medical certificate”?
 
Back
Top