Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not legally.
I'm confused
- Thread starter Ken Ballenger
- Start date
Ignorance of the law is not a defense. I used to hate business trips to the DC area because CO allows right turn on red after a full stop unless there is a sign prohibiting it. In DC one state allowed this, another state prohibited it at all times, and the district or one of the other states only allowed if a sign said you could. At some intersections the law varied by which side of the intersection you were! Some of my fellow workers contributed a fair amount to several states in the form of traffic fines.
The point is know and understand the law BEFORE you act. The OP unfortunately screwed up and has now painted himself into a corner. I feel for him as I remember a time, before Basic Med, when I decided to let my medical lapse so could not fly as PIC. Fortunately now I can. He needs to person up and either pursue a 3rd class (allowing himself to legally opt for Basic Med later), be content to fly with someone else as PIC, or pursue the LEGAL alternatives.
Why has no one questioned why the OP flew illegally for 14 years? Did he kept lying on his medical applications? Did he report taking SSRI medication but the AME or FAA didn't catch it (shame on them if so). I am amazed at the self serving comments to the effect of I'm not a doctor so how could I be expected to know if a condition is grounding or my doctor said I'm ok so why is the FAA hassling me?
To the first point consider a person who has had a heart transplant. Can this person self certify as medically fit? No they can't. Or how about someone with a serious psychiatric condition do we really want to depend upon their own evaluation? To go to the extreme how about someone who is drunk or stoned, do we trust their assessment?
To the second point MD'd are not trained to understand how medications effects vary with the impact of being in flight effect us. AMEs are and the FAA has studied accidents and other data to decide what are reasonable and prudent medical standards for aircrew. Unfortunately this sometimes turns into a problem and, as is normal for any bureaucratic system, decisions that are not what we want or make sense.
It all goes back to the holy trinity: Is it legal, safe, and make sense. The law only cares the law.
The point is know and understand the law BEFORE you act. The OP unfortunately screwed up and has now painted himself into a corner. I feel for him as I remember a time, before Basic Med, when I decided to let my medical lapse so could not fly as PIC. Fortunately now I can. He needs to person up and either pursue a 3rd class (allowing himself to legally opt for Basic Med later), be content to fly with someone else as PIC, or pursue the LEGAL alternatives.
Why has no one questioned why the OP flew illegally for 14 years? Did he kept lying on his medical applications? Did he report taking SSRI medication but the AME or FAA didn't catch it (shame on them if so). I am amazed at the self serving comments to the effect of I'm not a doctor so how could I be expected to know if a condition is grounding or my doctor said I'm ok so why is the FAA hassling me?
To the first point consider a person who has had a heart transplant. Can this person self certify as medically fit? No they can't. Or how about someone with a serious psychiatric condition do we really want to depend upon their own evaluation? To go to the extreme how about someone who is drunk or stoned, do we trust their assessment?
To the second point MD'd are not trained to understand how medications effects vary with the impact of being in flight effect us. AMEs are and the FAA has studied accidents and other data to decide what are reasonable and prudent medical standards for aircrew. Unfortunately this sometimes turns into a problem and, as is normal for any bureaucratic system, decisions that are not what we want or make sense.
It all goes back to the holy trinity: Is it legal, safe, and make sense. The law only cares the law.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Because you're the only one assuming that. RIF
Ed-Assuming what? RIF?
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
I didn't question it because he said he got his certificate in 1969 then decided to fly again "a couple of years ago" but only under LSA, so he wouldn't need to see an AME or report his SSRI use and wouldn't be flying illegally as long as he had a flight review. It wasn't until he wanted to expand his flying that he applied for a class 3 medical and got denied. He obviously didn't lie on this recent application because the FAA immediately responded to his admission of SSRI usage.
With respect to your last sentence, I think we as pilots (and especially as instructors) need to be more active in advising potential applicants for any medical exam about the pitfalls in doing so. In this case I would place some of the blame on the instructor (presuming there was one) that "got him certified" a couple of years ago. Presumably he went through a flight review, which is a good time for an instructor to review the regulations, including those surrounding Light Sport, which didn't exist when the OP learned to fly in 1969. CFR Part 61.53 has been very substantially revised since then to include both Light Sport and now Basic Med.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
But why should applying for a new certificate lock you out of the privileges you were already legally enjoying? This guy is as safe to fly an LSA today as he was one minute before the FAA decided to deny him a class 3.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
People at the FAA get off on denying/revoking medicals/keeping people out of the sky.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, there's no downside to the FAA for a denial, but if they allow someone to fly and there's an incident the FAA is in the hot seat.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Yeah, but after my latest go round with them, I'm 100% positive it's not just about CYA.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
There are bad apples in any large organization. I prefer to believe that the majority are well meaning unless and until proven otherwise.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I have yet to hear any word about helpful well-meaning people employed by the FAA in the aeromedical division. I have however experienced, and heard the opposite.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Bruce's posts have given me the impression that the former are not uncommon. I have also seen posts saying that people have gotten help from regional flight surgeon offices.
Beats me. But it's not anyone else's fault that this happened to him.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Why does it have to be anyone's "fault" in order for it to be worth discussing ways of improving the situation? Most of the pilots I know do not spend time on Internet forums. Judging by the many threads on the subject, it's not an uncommon occurrence for people to be unpleasantly surprised by FAA medical rules and procedures.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Why should the FAA want to surprise anyone?
Maybe, just maybe....
The kind-hearted and helpful souls at the FAA could print on the medical form, "WARNING FOR FIRST-TIME APPLICANTS: A denied medical will eliminate Sport Pilot privileges. Consultation with an aeronautical medical examiner prior to submission is recommended."
It is easy to pick on feds. They have a difficult job and fortunately most of them do it well. Unfortunately some do not. How many of us remember when some of them decided that plastic laminating the old paper certificates was deemed as an illegal alteration/modification?
Know your rights and be professional whether they are or not.
Know your rights and be professional whether they are or not.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,057
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
Perhaps you missed this in the OP.
I got light sport certified but then decided that I wanted to get back into general aviation. I went in for my third class medical not knowing that my 14-year history of taking an SSRI was going to be a problem.
He wants a medical so he can fly outside the LSA restrictions. That loudly implies the OP wants to be able to do things he cannot in a LSA, perhaps flying faster than 120 knots, carrying a useful load more than 500 lbs, flying at night, carrying more than one passenger, or obtaining an instrument rating.
As for your suggestion of using a motor glider for cross country travel, it's plainly silly.
Being realistic, a motor glider doesn't have much more capability to travel cross country than does an LSA, and the logistics of finding fuel and a hangar are certainly more complicated. The 75' wingspan of a Stemme S10 limits the places where one could land.
A 100' wide runway would be the minimum requirement, but the 12½' margin on either side would be a challenge. Landing on paved runways is possible with the wingtip rollers, but taxiways and airfield lighting present an obvious restriction on movement through the airport environment. Hopping out of the aircraft while in the movement boundary area to fold the wings is likely to be frowned upon.
Overnight accomodations in a hangar would require folding the wings. The possibility of damage because FBO crews are unfamiliar with such aircraft is always a danger.
In short, traveling cross country in a motor glider would be ridiculously complex because of the logistics. Can it be done? Absolutely. But it makes little sense.
What about local usage? I suspect the rental fleet of those aircraft is miniscule, and the purchase price is significant. The least expensive Stemme motor glider listed on Controller is $170,000, and it's 21 years old.
I have to believe those that posted above who are content with using flying just to be in the air make up a small minority of pilots. I don't think the OP is in that group, simply because his efforts to obtain a PPL rather than continuing to operate LSA, illustrates a desire to expand the utility of flying. It's unfortunate his SSRI usage has erected a barrier to that desire.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,057
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
First of all, the OP didn't "[fly] illegally for fourteen years". He stated he began flying under Basic Med "a couple of years ago" and was "certified" at the time to fly LSA aircraft, whatever that means. It appears he followed the regulations as he understood them, and made no effort to conceal his SSRI use. His problems began when he applied for a third class medical so he could renew his PPL certificate.
The OP said nothing at all resembling the words you put in his mouth. The tone of his post was respectful and attached no blame or aimed any controversy toward the FAA. His post contained bewilderment, not vitriol.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
Just to be technically clear, he resumed flying under Light Sport, not Basic Med. I suspect that's what you meant. Basic Med would not be an option 14 years after his last medical.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Might have been close. Basic Med requires you to have held a valid class 3 after July 14, 2006. That's over 13 years ago. If his last medical exam was 14 years ago it was likely still valid in mid 2006 and he would have been eligible for Basic. The denial kills that, though.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
No, that wouldn’t have worked. His medical 14 years ago would not have been valid for 14 years. He would need to have had one five years or less from the 2006 cut-off date, and since he was nearing retirement it's more likely that figure is two years. The medical has to be valid after 2006.
The 2006 year is now rolling on forever since all medicals issued after that date can't still be valid.
***********************************************************************************************************
EDIT: I see now that the above statement is incorrect. The medical has to have been valid at any time after that date. (AC 68-1A)
Last edited:
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
If his exam was done 14 years ago, that’s 2005, so the medical would have been valid two years later in 2007. That’s after the July 2006 cutoff so it would have been good for Basic Med.
dbahn
Pattern Altitude
You're right. It's possible. If that's actually the case it's even more ironic that he's locked out of either LSA or Basic Med.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Amazing how the feds sometimes miss the forest because the trees are blocking their view.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,057
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
I did. Thanks for the correction.
Salty
Touchdown! Greaser!
It’s not any more silly than doing cross country in an Lsa. And that was my point. Both bring with them unique challenges that must be overcome. You can if you are willing, but honestly the same is true for flying any GA cross country. There are logistics that you must account for. A twin won’t fit in just any hangar either, and sucks a huge amount of fuel, but I doubt you’d say a twin is a silly choice because of those things.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
Good point. A 737 has even fewer airport and hangar options than a motor glider, but that doesn’t mean a 737 isn’t a fairly decent XC aircraft.
Bottom line, though, is this guy’s options are limited by the medical situation. Of the remaining options, a motor glider isn’t terrible, and looking at the LSA limitations @3393RP mentioned, the glider stacks up better in some areas. Speeds over 120kt are okay, flying at night could be possible,....