Exercising Sport privileges and disqualifying medical conditions?

D

DMD3.

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
592
Display Name
DMD3.
Home Airfield
KABY
You must self-certify that you’re medically fit to fly but must not fly if you have any known medical conditions that you know would disqualify you. Epilepsy, fainting spells, type 1 diabetes, sky-high blood pressure, etc. would be among them. But what if you doubt whether you could pass an FAA physical but are still legal to drive? For example, what if your blood pressure is slightly over the limits (but not ‘walking heart-attack’ high)? Or if you doubt your vision is good enough to pass an FAA physical (but still good enough to legally drive)? Essentially you’re relatively healthy with no major medical issues, but you doubt if you could pass a physical.
 
Avoiding strict FAA medical policies, some of which people see as downright Draconian, some of which involve huge expense to satisfy for a Special Issuance, and some of which even physicians who specialize in those fields think are ridiculous, was the major impetus for pilots to clamor for and adopt both BasicMed and Sport. The standard for operating unders a medical deficiency are different under 61.53.

In the case of operations that require an FAA medical certificate, the prohibition is on knowing or having reason to know of a medical condition what would make you "unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation."

In the case of BasicMed and sport privileges, it is more liberal. The pilot cannot know or have reason to know of a medical condition that would make the pilot "unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Avoiding strict FAA medical policies, some of which people see as downright Draconian, some of which involve huge expense to satisfy for a Special Issuance, and some of which even physicians who specialize in those fields think are ridiculous, was the major impetus for pilots to clamor for and adopt both BasicMed and Sport. The standard for operating unders a medical deficiency are different under 61.53.

In the case of operations that require an FAA medical certificate, the prohibition is on knowing or having reason to know of a medical condition what would make you "unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation."

In the case of BasicMed and sport privileges, it is more liberal. The pilot cannot know or have reason to know of a medical condition that would make the pilot "unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."
Click to expand...
Alzheimer's disease causes progressive memory loss that disrupts daily life, typically starting with difficulty recalling recent events or information and low risk for violating that regulation.
 
Last edited:
DMD3. said:
You must self-certify that you’re medically fit to fly but must not fly if you have any known medical conditions that you know would disqualify you. Epilepsy, fainting spells, type 1 diabetes, sky-high blood pressure, etc. would be among them. But what if you doubt whether you could pass an FAA physical but are still legal to drive? For example, what if your blood pressure is slightly over the limits (but not ‘walking heart-attack’ high)? Or if you doubt your vision is good enough to pass an FAA physical (but still good enough to legally drive)? Essentially you’re relatively healthy with no major medical issues, but you doubt if you could pass a physical.
Click to expand...
Note that for third class medical, and my state (Ohio) driver's license, the vision standard is 20/40.
Which I no longer meet with my left eye.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Avoiding strict FAA medical policies, some of which people see as downright Draconian, some of which involve huge expense to satisfy for a Special Issuance, and some of which even physicians who specialize in those fields think are ridiculous, was the major impetus for pilots to clamor for and adopt both BasicMed and Sport. The standard for operating unders a medical deficiency are different under 61.53.

In the case of operations that require an FAA medical certificate, the prohibition is on knowing or having reason to know of a medical condition what would make you "unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation."

In the case of BasicMed and sport privileges, it is more liberal. The pilot cannot know or have reason to know of a medical condition that would make the pilot "unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner."
Click to expand...
I suppose simply put; if you’re healthy enough to drive an automobile you’re healthy enough to fly Sport.
 
You have at least three options. First, you and your doctor or doctors decide whether you are or are not in good enough shape to fly. You should already know, or know where to find, a list of medications that are not allowed for flying, since you'd need to know that no matter what kind of medical certificate you do or do not have.

Second, if it's just too confusing for you to figure out whether you're able to safely operate an aircraft, you could apply for a third class medical. If you get denied then you're done flying... unless you take up ultralights, gliders, or hot air balloons I suppose.

Or third, just don't fly. That's always an option.
 
DMD3. said:
You must self-certify that you’re medically fit to fly but must not fly if you have any known medical conditions that you know would disqualify you. Epilepsy, fainting spells, type 1 diabetes, sky-high blood pressure, etc. would be among them. But what if you doubt whether you could pass an FAA physical but are still legal to drive? For example, what if your blood pressure is slightly over the limits (but not ‘walking heart-attack’ high)? Or if you doubt your vision is good enough to pass an FAA physical (but still good enough to legally drive)? Essentially you’re relatively healthy with no major medical issues, but you doubt if you could pass a physical.
Click to expand...

Except "known medical conditions that would disqualify you" is NOT what the regulation says.

14 CFR 61.23(c)(2)(iv) reads:
Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate an aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements of § 61.316 in a safe manner.​

You can have a condition that would disqualify you from an FAA medical yet still be able to operate an airplane in a safe manner. The regulation means exactly what it says. Don't try to impose non-existing constraints on it.
 
DMD3. said:
I suppose simply put; if you’re healthy enough to drive an automobile you’re healthy enough to fly Sport.
Click to expand...
Actually not. Take one element - vision. Georgia allows a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/60 in at least one eye. . It means you see at 20 feet what a person with normal 20/20 vision sees at 60 feet.
 
Clip4 said:
Actually not. Take one element - vision. Georgia allows a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/60 in at least one eye. . It means you see at 20 feet what a person with normal 20/20 vision sees at 60 feet.
Click to expand...
But according to the FAA, if your vision is good enough for a drivers license, it's good enough to fly as SP.
 
Dana said:
But according to the FAA, if your vision is good enough for a drivers license, it's good enough to fly as SP.
Click to expand...
And when that guy flys past you so close you can see the rivets, blame the FAA for caving to AOPA and EAA.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
But according to the FAA, if your vision is good enough for a drivers license, it's good enough to fly as SP.
Click to expand...
That’s not really accurate. More like, according to the FAA , once you meet the qualifications for a drivers license, they are relying on your judgment that you do “Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate an aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements of § 61.316 in a safe manner.”
 
midlifeflyer said:
That’s not really accurate. More like, according to the FAA , once you meet the qualifications for a drivers license, they are relying on your judgment that you do “Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate an aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements of § 61.316 in a safe manner.”
Click to expand...
Right. So if the pilot's judgement is that his 20/60 vision (allowed by his DL) doesn't make him unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner, he's legal to fly. However, if later he has an accident or incident caused by his poor vision, then they can get him for a violation of 61.23(c)(2)(iv).

The same is true of any other medical condition, whether it's one that would prevent getting a medical certificate or not.
 
Dana said:
The same is true of any other medical condition, whether it's one that would prevent getting a medical certificate or not.
Click to expand...
Right. Judgment is not a 100% subjective standard. If something happens attributable to a medical condition, the pilot's judgment is going to be reviewed for reasonableness. That's not even limited to aviation.
 
Last edited:
And "any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate an aircraft . . .," is an objective standard.
 
The standard of self certification doesn’t change based on what Part of the CFRs you’re flying under. It’s not to the standard of a flight medical. In some ways it’s stricter, in some less strict.

Oh, I have a cold. I shouldn’t fly.

I don’t know I have hypertension above the medical standard because I don’t take my blood pressure. Nor should I know because we don’t do blood pressure monitoring as part of daily life.
 
Lindberg said:
And "any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate an aircraft . . .," is an objective standard.
Click to expand...
If you look at the things that CAMI gives pilots trouble with that specialists say is not warranted, I’m not so sure of that. There are things we can probably agree on but others where “it depends.” If it was truly objective, there would never be a policy change in medical standards.
 
bflynn said:
The standard of self certification doesn’t change based on what Part of the CFRs you’re flying under. It’s not to the standard of a flight medical. In some ways it’s stricter, in some less strict.

Oh, I have a cold. I shouldn’t fly.

I don’t know I have hypertension above the medical standard because I don’t take my blood pressure. Nor should I know because we don’t do blood pressure monitoring as part of daily life.
Click to expand...
Certainly you'd know about the hypertension (which is rarely acute) within a year at your wellness check, right?
(Said the guy who's now in deferral hell for glaucoma and visual field deficits.)
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Certainly you'd know about the hypertension (which is rarely acute) within a year at your wellness check, right?
(Said the guy who's now in deferral hell for glaucoma and visual field deficits.)
Click to expand...
You might know it's high and being treated. You would not know that it's "too high".
 
DMD3. said:
Essentially you’re relatively healthy with no major medical issues, but you doubt if you could pass a physical.
Click to expand...
Which level of a physical? If you can't meet the vision requirements for class 1?
With or without a special issue? How do you get a "special issue" as a sport pilot?

The FAA created different standards for different levels of responsibility/ risk to the public.
That was not an accident.

You could argue that you personally do not believe that any particular requirement (or lack of requirement) is or isn't appropriate for some level of "medical", but the FAA wrote the regulations that the FAA wrote (except basic med - that was Congress, not the FAA). And the reality is that the rules for part 121 airline pilots are the rules for part 121 airline pilots, the rules for operating under basic med are the rules for operating under basic med, and the rules for operating as a sport pilot are the rules for operating as a sport pilot.
 
Back
Top