Interesting Development

[Tools]

How about questioning the person or process that makes that determination, only to be snubbed for YEARS?

Eventually a “reconsideration”, then a NTSB appeal, then a hearing (well, they said no more hearings, just briefs and summary judgements coming as slow or slower than a hearing) then MAYBE a real due process hearing.

Five years, hundreds of thousands…

All to dispute a, dunno, just opining out loud… an inexperienced radiation oncologist who has never met you or possibly even read your file, says you have a drinking problem? And your job depends on it….

Probably passes for technically legal administrative due process, but it ain’t right.

 

[Jon Wilder]

Problem is, the pilots bill of rights was never proposed or ratified as an an amendment to the consitution. Calling it "the bill of rights" doesn't instantly ratify it as the 28th amendment...

There's this thing called the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This essentially safeguards rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Congress recognized these unenumerated rights, then codified them into law.

And, my nonlawyer interpretation of this congressional act is that it doesn't really provide pilots with sweeping new inalienable rights...but your interpretation may vary.

It provides pilots with greater due process and evidentiary protections.

AOPA posted an article in January about a guy who successfully argued a PBoR case. - https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...a-just-got-a-refresher-course-on-pilot-rights

"An FAA inspector, armed with flight tracking data and having already identified an individual as the likely pilot in command of a flight that the FAA believed violated regulations, called (and texted) the pilot and started asking questions. The critical mistake? The inspector never bothered to inform the pilot of his rights under the PBR—rights that include being informed the FAA is investigating you and why, you don’t have to respond, and anything you say can be used against you.

The FAA's defense of this omission was flimsy, claiming the call to the pilot wasn't really an "investigation" yet—just looking into a "complaint"—but the agency used information the pilot shared in the call to prosecute him. The NTSB administrative law judge saw right through this bureaucratic hair-splitting, calling it "disingenuous and misleading." When you've got tracking data, aircraft information, and a suspect lined up, that's an investigation, plain and simple. The NTSB judge found "that the violation of the PBR was intentional and egregious and violated Respondent's rights" and, as a result, dismissed the case.

The judge's decision to throw out the entire case sends a powerful message. The PBR isn't just window dressing—it's a vital shield protecting pilots from overzealous enforcement."

 

[Pugs]

Just because something is a privilege doesn't mean they don't have to play fair. All laws, regulations, procedures, etc have to be fair and just. That's one of the core principles of the rule of law.

Exactly. There was just an NPR Planet Money podcast on this. The government has an obligation to be transparent in its processes and fair and equitable in making decisions. Countries that don’t have that end up with underground economies because it’s impossible to follow the rules.

I bet the number of folks flying sans medical off grass strips and small airports in the countryside would be interesting.

 

[Lindberg]

The Pilot's Bill of Rights enhances due process protections for pilots during FAA investigations and enforcement actions. It ensures pilots have access to information relevant to their case, including air traffic control recordings and NOTAMs, and extends the right to appeal FAA decisions to federal court.

Before the Pilot’s Bill of Rights, pilots would struggle to understand enforcement actions and couldn’t access information that would help their defense. As a result, pilots and FAA certificate holders often got the short end of the stick if they find themselves in trouble with the FAA.

It doesn't need to be part of the Constitution. Congress drafted the law and passed it.

Just because something is a privilege doesn't mean they don't have to play fair. All laws, regulations, procedures, etc have to be fair and just. That's one of the core principles of the rule of law.

What does the PBoR say about SIs in this situation?

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

What does the PBoR say about SIs in this situation?

FAA certificate proceedings under 14 CFR Part 821 must, to the extent practicable, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence.

What evidence did the FAA use to justify this pilot for alcoholism?

The FAA is becoming just like those police officers that pull over drivers for no reason, then make up some reason, give you a ticket, and then you’re forced to spend money, time and general livelihood to get it dismissed when it never should’ve happened in the first place.

If the FAA really cared about safety, they would just make pilots take a breathalyzer test before getting on the airplane.

They only care about the appearance of safety.

 

[Llewtrah381]

What evidence did the FAA use to justify this pilot for alcoholism?

Are we conflating threads? This one is about a ruling re antidepressant usage. There was another one recently about a guy with a head injury from a fall but that one didn’t directly involve the FAA - just the airline, I believe.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

Are we conflating threads? This one is about a ruling re antidepressant usage. There was another one recently about a guy with a head injury from a fall but that one didn’t directly involve the FAA - just the airline, I believe.

yes, sorry. had the other one on my mind and was reviewing/responding from phone.

Carry on!

 

[bbchien]

Before the Pilot’s Bill of Rights, pilots would struggle to understand enforcement actions and couldn’t access information that would help their defense. As a result, pilots and FAA certificate holders often got the short end of the stick if they find themselves in trouble with the FAA.

They still do. And also for medical denial.
The standard, "that I should be able to understand".....that's many many miles ago. I learned just before midlife, to get an expert on my team. Always. It's so much less painful.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FAA certificate proceedings under 14 CFR Part 821 must, to the extent practicable, follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence.

What evidence did the FAA use to justify this pilot for alcoholism?

Two small technicalities:

1. There is no 14 C.F.R. Part 821. It's 49 C.F.R. Part 821.​

2. The denial (or for that matter suspension or revocation) of an FAA certificate at the FAA level is not an certificate proceedings under Part 821. Part 821 is part of the NTSB rules, not the FAA's. Part 821 contains the procedural rules that apply to the appeal of those FAA actions to the NTSB for a trial before an ALJ and ultimately to the full NTSB.​

was reviewing/responding from phone.

That probably explains it.

 

[Lindberg]

Are we conflating threads? This one is about a ruling re antidepressant usage. There was another one recently about a guy with a head injury from a fall but that one didn’t directly involve the FAA - just the airline, I believe.

When your only tool is a hammer.....

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

When your only tool is a hammer.....

The question was about the pilots Bill of rights. My response still addressed that, did it not?

 

[Jon Wilder]

What does the PBoR say about SIs in this situation?

PBoR is applicable to ALL pilots regardless of certificate held, Special Issuance or otherwise.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

Two small technicalities:

1. There is no 14 C.F.R. Part 821. It's 49 C.F.R. Part 821.​

2. The denial (or for that matter suspension or revocation) of an FAA certificate at the FAA level is not an certificate proceedings under Part 821. Part 821 is part of the NTSB rules, not the FAA's. Part 821 contains the procedural rules that apply to the appeal of those FAA actions to the NTSB for a trial before an ALJ and ultimately to the full NTSB.​

That probably explains it.

There is 14 CFR, but my understanding is if the FAA suspends your medical or pilot certificate, you’d appeal under Part 821 to the NTSB. The process would follow the rules laid out in this part, including your right to a hearing, to present evidence, and to appeal adverse decisions.

It’s basically saying the FAA can’t just operate under its own evidential and procedural rules, they must operate more inline with the federal and civil rules. Or that’s at least how I understand it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There is 14 CFR, but my understanding is if the FAA suspends your medical or pilot certificate, you’d appeal under Part 821 to the NTSB. The process would follow the rules laid out in this part, including your right to a hearing, to present evidence, and to appeal adverse decisions.

Yes, the appeal will be to the NTSB under Title 49, Part 821. That's why I said they were technicalities.

Interesting this came up. I'm working on a presentation and was going to go a bit into the regulatory structure and enforcement process. This reminds me to talk about the different Titles ohat come up in the aviation world and that "CFR" does ot me "aviation regulations."

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled, "Aeronautics and Space" contains the FAA regulations we are most familiar with, but others as well, including NASA regulations.

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled, "Transportation" includes most of the DOT regulations as well as well as Chapter VIII, the NTSB regulations (Title 49, Parts 800-999), which includes the rules of practice in appeals.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

Yes, the appeal will be to the NTSB under Title 49, Part 821. That's why I said they were technicalities.

Interesting this came up. I'm working on a presentation and was going to go a bit into the regulatory structure and enforcement process. This reminds me to talk about the different Titles ohat come up in the aviation world and that "CFR" does ot me "aviation regulations."

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled, "Aeronautics and Space" contains the FAA regulations we are most familiar with, but others as well, including NASA regulations.

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, entitled, "Transportation" includes most of the DOT regulations as well as well as Chapter VIII, the NTSB regulations (Title 49, Parts 800-999), which includes the rules of practice in appeals.

No one should have to have a law degree to understand basic rights, privileges and the enforcement thereof. Hell, the majority of people enforcing laws and rules don’t even understand them. That’s why so many cases end up dismissed in civil cases. Never should have been brought or “enforced” in the first case.

People arguing that due process is being given shouldn’t applaud the FAA (or any gov entity) when the individual should have never been put in the process in the first place.

 

[midlifeflyer]

No one should have to have a law degree to understand basic rights, privileges and the enforcement thereof.

If you think those who are charged with crimes, even multiple offenders, have any idea of the details of criminal process or procedure, I have a surprise for you .

But you point is well-taken.

 

[Lindberg]

If you think those who are charged with crimes, even multiple offenders, have any idea of the details of criminal process or procedure, I have a surprise for you .

But you point is well-taken.

I think you might be missing a "don't" somewhere.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think you might be missing a "don't" somewhere.

I “don’t” think so.

 

[bbchien]

I think you might be missing a "don't" somewhere.

No one should have to have a law degree to understand basic rights, privileges and the enforcement thereof.

We are soooo very far long gone ago with that.

And this is the problem. Everyone's a lawyer. Everyone's a doctor. Everyone's a mechanic. Everyone's an accountant.
Yeah, that's NOT the ticket. I read everything Mark writes on this site. There is wisdom and some experience there. But if I needed one I'd hire a full time aviation attorney.

Like I say, the man who does his own taxes, is a fool. Good and specific advise is not cheap. But not having good specific advise is much more expensive.

 

[mryan75]

The issue with the FAA, in my opinion, is they have a one size fits all approach. Different people respond to medications differently, that's why they list all possible side effects

As someone who has been involved with clinical trials for almost 23 years, that’s not even remotely why they list all possible side effects. In fact, they don’t even list all possible side effects, but that’s a different story.

What we have here per usual is layman thinking they understand medicine and the law better than doctors and lawyers.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

As someone who has been involved with clinical trials for almost 23 years, that’s not even remotely why they list all possible side effects. In fact, they don’t even list all possible side effects, but that’s a different story.

What we have here per usual is layman thinking they understand medicine and the law better than doctors and lawyers.

Point missed entirely.

But thanks for the clarification.

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

Can you show me where we’re entitled to due process for administrative actions related to a privilege (to have a pilot’s license) and not a right? Just curious.

I don’t disagree that would be nice - but it’s not actually a part of the Bill of Rights, in my non-lawyer reading of them.

Just playing devils advocate.

Can you show me where we’re entitled to walk across the land by foot? Where does it say so in the Bill of Rights?

Our rights do not emanate from the constitution. Enumerated government powers do.

 

[mryan75]

Point missed entirely.

But thanks for the clarification.

Point missed by you, yes. Which was also expected. Just like the entire thread to begin with.

 

[mryan75]

Our rights do not emanate from the constitution.

They don’t? Well then hand over your firearms, please.

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

By your logic, turn over all of your cargo shorts - or point to the part of the constitution that enumerates your right to own them.

Now, you may point to the 4th which protects your property (which a firearm is as well).

And the 9th which assures us that the prior 8 are not an exhaustive list.

And the 10th which assures us that only those powers specifically enumerated are the powers of the government.

In the end - not looking for an argument- but our rights as a free people are too precious to misunderstand.

For the record, flying is a privilege. We empowered our elected officials to regulate the airspace because we believe it is in the common good. Rightly so.

 

[SidArlington]

What other profession do you equate as a privilege ? To what degree is IT regulated for the common good ? By which elected officials ? Not an argument, please share your insight

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

What other profession do you equate as a privilege ? To what degree is IT regulated for the common good ? By which elected officials ? Not an argument, please share your insight

Rightly or wrongly - it would probably be tough to list many profession that are not regulated and/or licensed at a federal, state, or local level. Off the top of my head, Dr’s and nurses, lawyers, taxi and limo drivers, truckers, ship captains, plumbers, electricians, bankers, executives/officers of public co’s or private that have raised debt or equity, barbers, accountants, teachers…

None that I listed above have an absolute right to their profession.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

Rightly or wrongly - it would probably be tough to list many profession that are not regulated and/or licensed at a federal, state, or local level. Off the top of my head, Dr’s and nurses, lawyers, taxi and limo drivers, truckers, ship captains, plumbers, electricians, bankers, executives/officers of public co’s or private that have raised debt or equity, barbers, accountants, teachers…

None that I listed above have an absolute right to their profession.

Land of the free!

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

Land of the free!

Being free and living in a free for all are not the same thing.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

Being free and living in a free for all are not the same thing.

Well said, but over regulation is just as bad, in my opinion. You can’t save everyone from every potential scenario. Every attempt to do so takes away individual freedoms.

 

[Jon Wilder]

They don’t? Well then hand over your firearms, please.

No, they don't. The Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate rights. It prohibits the government from infringing upon our natural rights.

"The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - Supreme Court of the United States, DC v. Heller

As was also stated in DC v. Heller, "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).

Look at the First Amendment, where the first five words state "Congress shall make no law"...anyone with a basic reading comprehension can tell from this that it is telling Congress that they cannot make a law.

In a country that abides by the rule of law, we don't need laws to tell us what we can do. Laws only prohibit. If there is no law prohibiting a thing, then it's a thing we can do.

As President Ronald Reagan stated…” The Constitution does NOT say “The government shall decree the right to keep and bear Arms.” The Constitution says “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.””

So yes...the Bill of Rights does not enumerate rights. It prohibits the government from infringing upon our natural rights.

 

[bbchien]

Another reason your GP should be used for SI medicals vs. some faceless, unknown bureaucrat in DC that's completely unfamiliar with your medical history.

I disagree. My GP doesn't know SQUAT about aviation tasks, fatigue and performance at 660 bar pressure altitude after three hours of stress.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

I disagree. My GP doesn't know SQUAT about aviation tasks, fatigue and performance at 660 bar pressure altitude after three hours of stress.

You have that same stance for a class three non-instrument rated pilot limited to flying under flight level 180?

For all SI considerations? Seems like overkill to me.

So we’re OK with deferrals taking over a year otherwise?

 

[bbchien]

You have that same stance for a class three non-instrument rated pilot limited to flying under flight level 180?

For all SI considerations? Seems like overkill to me.

So we’re OK with deferrals taking over a year otherwise?

Don't be rhetorical. That's so lame. And so is your comment about 18,000 feet (uneducated!). 660 Bar is ~8,000 feet....you could look that up but didn't bother. NOBODY is talking about operaitons at 400 BAR (=18,000). But funny thing....all the airports are under 10,000 feet. Never thought of that? That's why ALPA has always maintained One Airspace One Standard.

FAA knows who have "capable" records, it's called Quality Assurance
They could just leave 3rd class to those persons and do QA on the outcomes.

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

Don't be rhetorical. That's so lame. And so is your comment about 18,000 feet (uneducated!). 660 Bar is ~8,000 feet....you could look that up but didn't bother. NOBODY is talking about operaitons at 400 BAR (=18,000). But funny thing....all the airports are under 10,000 feet. Never thought of that? That's why ALPA has always maintained One Airspace One Standard.

FAA knows who have "capable" records, it's called Quality Assurance
They could just leave 3rd class to those persons and do QA on the outcomes.

Appreciate the passion, but let’s dial down the tone a bit. There’s no need for name-calling or assumptions about what I do or don’t understand.

My point wasn’t rhetorical—it was a practical one. The FAA already applies different standards across the board based on type of operation, risk profile, and medical history. First, second, and third class exist because different operational contexts carry different levels of risk. So the idea that SI criteria could also reflect that stratification isn’t “lame”—it’s aligned with the structure of the current system.

As for the barometric reference, fair point on the 660 vs. 400 BAR—but the altitude analogy was illustrative, not literal. We both know that mental fitness and physiology aren’t the same thing, but they do get evaluated differently depending on flight profiles and certification levels.

“Quality Assurance” is a valid mechanism, but it’s reactive, not proactive. SI policies are intended to prevent failures—not just monitor them after the fact. That said, I agree in principle: the system should evolve to better match individual risk and capability, not apply blanket policies that ignore context.

We can disagree on the specifics, but let’s keep it grounded in substance—not snark.

 

[Jon Wilder]

Don't be rhetorical. That's so lame. And so is your comment about 18,000 feet (uneducated!). 660 Bar is ~8,000 feet....you could look that up but didn't bother. NOBODY is talking about operaitons at 400 BAR (=18,000). But funny thing....all the airports are under 10,000 feet. Never thought of that? That's why ALPA has always maintained One Airspace One Standard.

FAA knows who have "capable" records, it's called Quality Assurance
They could just leave 3rd class to those persons and do QA on the outcomes.

People live and drive in mountainous environments at 8,000 ft. You don't see DMV requiring medical certificates.

 

[bbchien]

Appreciate the passion, but let’s dial down the tone a bit. There’s no need for name-calling or assumptions about what I do or don’t understand.

My point wasn’t rhetorical—it was a practical one. The FAA already applies different standards across the board based on type of operation, risk profile, and medical history. First, second, and third class exist because different operational contexts carry different levels of risk. So the idea that SI criteria could also reflect that stratification isn’t “lame”—it’s aligned with the structure of the current system.

As for the barometric reference, fair point on the 660 vs. 400 BAR—but the altitude analogy was illustrative, not literal. We both know that mental fitness and physiology aren’t the same thing, but they do get evaluated differently depending on flight profiles and certification levels.

“Quality Assurance” is a valid mechanism, but it’s reactive, not proactive. SI policies are intended to prevent failures—not just monitor them after the fact. That said, I agree in principle: the system should evolve to better match individual risk and capability, not apply blanket policies that ignore context.

We can disagree on the specifics, but let’s keep it grounded in substance—not snark.

You’re the one that elevated it…..remember you were going to change everything… congressmen, senators, on the crusade…..all sounds a bit ridiculous now….do I need to quote the posts….!? Do you have ANYTHING USEFUL to suggest at all?! “Lotta substance there….yeah……”

And as for Jon W, there sure were a lot of accidents on US6 (11,400 Ft) B4 the Eisenhower tunnel….

 

[UTLonghorn_1979]

You’re the one that elevated it…..remember you were going to change everything… congressmen, senators, on the crusade…..all sounds a bit ridiculous now….do I need to quote the posts….!? Do you have ANYTHING USEFUL to suggest at all?! “Lotta substance there….yeah……”

And as for Jon W, there sure were a lot of accidents on US6 (11,400 Ft) B4 the Eisenhower tunnel….

You’re right—I’ve been vocal about pushing for change, and I stand by that. The system is slow, opaque, and often inconsistent, and I know I’m not the only one frustrated by it. Calling attention to those issues, even loudly, isn’t ridiculous—it’s how change starts.

But this isn’t about me. If you disagree with the approach, fine—but sarcasm and deflection aren’t moving the conversation forward either.

If you’re asking for something useful, here it is: differentiated SI pathways based on condition, history, and type of operation—just like the FAA already does with BasicMed, First/Second/Third class, and so on. Add objective outcome data from Quality Assurance and you’ve got a risk-based framework that’s actually workable, not just punitive.

As for your US6 reference—it’s a colorful analogy, but it doesn’t really map to the FAA’s approach to aeromedical certification. Let’s stick to the actual policy discussion, not roadside metaphors.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And as for Jon W, there sure were a lot of accidents on US6 (11,400 Ft) B4 the Eisenhower tunnel….

Have you driven US6? This discussion aside, based on having driven it in both summer and winter (when it's not closed because of avalanches or rock slides) I'm going to bet the vast majority of those accidents were not related to medical deficiency.

 

[bbchien]

Have you driven US6? This discussion aside, based on having driven it in both summer and winter (when it's not closed because of avalanches or rock slides) I'm going to bet the vast majority of those accidents were not related to medical deficiency.

Many many times. And the poor judgement show by drivers sure in't assisted by theiry PaO2s of 75.