Interpretation on FAR Part 61.53, "Has reason to know"?

[N918KT]

In Part 61.53 when flight ops require a medical or not, it mentioned that a person can't be PIC if that person "knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation."

I think I know what that language means, but what are some examples of that language "has reason to know" when a pilot is deciding whether or not he is medically safe to fly?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Just another- you are always guilty if called on it regs. Don't bother trying to comply.

 

[dtuuri]

My humble opinion is if it's spelled out in a regulation or Advisory Circular, then you have reason to know, like diabetes. If it's something that requires the Federal Air Surgeon to render an opinion on a case by case basis, I don't see how it's possible "know" although you might "suspect" based on similar situations you might know about. But I bet Dr. Bruce would disagree with that.

dtuuri

 

[BillTIZ]

If you feel like crap, that is probably reason to know that you should not be PIC.

 

[Tom-D]

you have a valid medical, but you are on drugs for a temporary illness.

 

[JeffDG]

Basically, it prevents what is called "willful blindness".

So, let's say you had a kidney stone before. And you feel it again. It's not a defense that you don't go to the doc and get diagnosed with a kidney stone again. You had "reason to know" that you had a condition that would DQ you.

Or....you take a bunch of Benadryl, and go flying. Now, you've never looked up in the FAA database and seen that it's disqualifying, but the fact that you were very drowsy gave you "reason to know" that it was a bad idea to go flying.

 

[TMetzinger]

I believe that most folks are held to the standards of knowing if they reasonably expect to meet the standards set out in the FAR we all read.

CFIs are supposed to know "more" because apparently we are supposed to find and read additional information.

At least that's the impression I've gotten from Dr. Bruce in the past. I'm sorry that I'm not exactly clear on what the additional info is.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

You have to be careful to read the actual regulations.

61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.

(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or
(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.
(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.
(c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S. driver's license. For operations provided for in §61.23(c), a person must meet the provisions of—
(1) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter and does not hold a U.S. driver's license.
(2) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a U.S. driver's license.

If you need a medical, you have to meet the standards of the medical (A). But, you do not have to be able to operate the aircraft in a safe manner ( B ). I suspect that a "special issue" implies that you do not meet the standards for a medical but the FAA has granted you an exception for your particular case. So, if you, say, have a heart issue you are done until you get the SI. Once you have the SI, you need to meet the standards of that SI.

If you do not need a medical (e.g. gliders ) you have to be able to operate the aircraft in a safe manner ( B ) but you do not have to meet the standards of a medical (A).

If you can use either a medical or drivers license (e.g. light sport) it depends on which you are using - drivers license ( B ) or medical in lieu of a drivers license (A). You also need to meet any restrictions on the drivers license (unless you have a medical) and not have had things blow up in your face with your last medical if you had one (61.23)

Then, the question becomes - who has to meet the higher standard? Someone who just has to be able to skate through the physical, or someone who has to actually be able to operate the aircraft in a safe manner?

 

[poadeleted20]

There are a number of cases in the NTSB Orders file which cover the issue of when a pilot "has reason to know" that s/he does not meet the FAA medical certification standards. AOPA has a good summary of this issue here. The bottom line is that a self-serving, disingenuous defense of "I had no idea epilepsy was grounding" or something like that isn't going to work -- not even for a Student Pilot.

 

[Neil Rubin]

There are a number of cases in the NTSB Orders file which cover the issue of when a pilot "has reason to know" that s/he does not meet the FAA medical certification standards. AOPA has a good summary of this issue here. The bottom line is that a self-serving, disingenuous defense of "I had no idea epilepsy was grounding" or something like that isn't going to work -- not even for a Student Pilot.

I think it is pretty clear that the "has reason to know" refers to the pilot having reason to know that they have the medical condition, not to the pilot having reason to know that condition is grounding.

If you are having symptoms of a disease that a reasonable person would recognize or that would prompt a reasonable person to seek medical diagnosis or treatment, then you probably have "reason to know," even if you've never technically been diagnosed or treated.

Whether the pilot knows (or has reason to know) that the medical condition in question is grounding is irrelevant under 61.53. In general, "ignorance of the law is no defense." Once you know the relevant facts about your medical condition, the duty is on you to figure out what the law requires as a consequence of that condition. (Now, where the FAA doesn't publish standards or handles things on a case-by-case basis, this obviously makes it a little tricky to follow the law, unless you want to take the risk of asking the FAA what it thinks about your particular situation.)

Now, the fact that you plausibly were unaware that a particular condition or drug is grounding, e.g., you didn't know that the FAA didn't like a particular antihistamine, is very likely to be relevant to what sort of punishment, if any, the FAA chooses to apply. But it won't change the fact that you are in violation of 61.51.

 

[EdFred]

"I'm not a doctor, I am not qualified to self diagnose. If I'm not going to be called as an expert witness in a trial, my opinion means zero."

It's also why I don't go to the doctor unless I am un-ambulatory.

 

[SoloEqs]

So, let's say you had a kidney stone before. And you feel it again. It's not a defense that you don't go to the doc and get diagnosed with a kidney stone again. You had "reason to know" that you had a condition that would DQ you.

Nope.

"Know" is not the same as "suspect."

I dunno what a kidney stone feels like, but while I hear they're painful, they're not the only thing that can cause pain.

Thus, you could say "it feels a lot like a kidney stone" to describe the pain, while still not knowing whether it is a kidney stone.

Someone who is taking a medication (or is just plain doped or drunk) has reason to know, because they are creating the condition.

 

[Neil Rubin]

Nope.

"Know" is not the same as "suspect."

I dunno what a kidney stone feels like, but while I hear they're painful, they're not the only thing that can cause pain.

Thus, you could say "it feels a lot like a kidney stone" to describe the pain, while still not knowing whether it is a kidney stone.

Someone who is taking a medication (or is just plain doped or drunk) has reason to know, because they are creating the condition.

The law generally frowns upon that sort of hair-splitting. If you've had kidney stones before, as in JeffDG's hypothetical, and you are having the same sort of pain again, a reasonable person is going to either conclude that they have kidney stones or seek diagnosis. If you avoid going to the doctor just to avoid "knowing" whether it is a kidney stone, then that is "willful blindness," as JeffDG points out. You're much like the drug mule who didn't "know" that he was carrying drugs because he carefully avoided ever looking at what the nice man paid him wads of cash to carry across the border. (That drug mule is going to jail just as surely as the one that did take a peek at the product.)

Now in practice, the FAA or the courts probably can't know what sort of pain or other symptoms you were actually feeling, unless you have told someone else. In any enforcement proceeding, if it comes out that you've been telling your friends that it feels like you've got another kidney stone, you are probably toast, whether or not you actually "knew" that it was a kidney stone. If you stay quiet about the pain and never go to a doctor, they are going to have a much harder case to make.

 

[EdFred]

And if you've never had kidney stones before?

 

[poadeleted20]

I think it's worth pointing out that 61.53(a) is the FAA's effort to prevent this sort of foolishness:

On November 28, 1995, respondent presented himself at the

office of Dr. David Hudson [an AME] for an FAA physical and issuance of a​

new medical certificate. Respondent’s certificate did not expire​

until May 1. During the physical, Dr. Hudson discovered a

seriously irregular heartbeat, called the paramedics, and​

admitted respondent to the hospital. Dr. Hudson testified that,​

while they were waiting for the ambulance to arrive to take​

respondent to the hospital, he advised respondent that he could​

not fly and that the condition would prevent flying until at​

least it was controlled and then reviewed by the FAA.

...after which the patient/pilot (himself an MD!) went flying anyway claiming his unexpired medical made him legal.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4551.pdf
Note that the FAA's emergency revocation action in this case was upheld by the NTSB.

 

[Tom-D]

I think it's worth pointing out that 61.53(a) is the FAA's effort to prevent this sort of foolishness:
...after which the patient/pilot (himself an MD!) went flying anyway claiming his unexpired medical made him legal.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4551.pdf
Note that the FAA's emergency revocation action in this case was upheld by the NTSB.

The freaking guy had a heart attack, If he didn't have reason to know, who did?

 

[poadeleted20]

The freaking guy had a heart attack, If he didn't have reason to know, who did?

Now you see why, to paraphrase Schiller, "against stupidity, the FAA itself contends in vain".

 

[SoloEqs]

The law generally frowns upon that sort of hair-splitting.

Please show me any court case in which pain (solely) was found to be proof that a person had kidney stones.

Seems to me that the law REQUIRES "that sort of hair-splitting."

 

[frfly172]

If you think you should be seeing a doctor,then I think you have reason to know. If I'm on medication I look it up on the AOPA website ,and act accordingly.

 

[Neil Rubin]

Please show me any court case in which pain (solely) was found to be proof that a person had kidney stones.

Seems to me that the law REQUIRES "that sort of hair-splitting."

I haven't looked for such a court case, but it wouldn't be terribly enlightening anyway. Any case where the question is whether someone "had reason to know" something is going to be rather fact-dependent.

In an enforcement action, the proof that the airman had kidney stones won't be the fact that the airman had pain. The proof the airman had kidney stones will be the CT scan showing the stones or the passed stones. What the FAA will have to prove is not whether the airman had kidney stones, but rather whether the airman had reason to know that he had kidney stones. (Clearly, if there weren't any stones, the airman can't get burned for "having reason to know" he had stones, regardless of whether he was experiencing pain.)

I've never had kidney stones, but from what I understand, the pain is both extremely intense and quite distinctive. If you've had them before, you aren't likely to mistake the pain for something else. If there is evidence that the airman was experiencing that sort of pain, for example because he told someone, then that evidence is probably going to be enough to establish the airman "had reason to know," even if the airman never got a definitive diagnostic test.

The point is that you can't just put your head in the sand to avoid an adverse diagnosis and then claim that you didn't know you had a disqualifying condition. If there was some sort of red flag (e.g., intense and distinctive pain that the airman would have been familiar with from a past episode of the condition) and a reasonable person in that situation would have sought diagnosis or treatment, then the FAA, NTSB, and courts are likely to find that the airman "had reason to know."

 

[EdFred]

I haven't looked for such a court case, but it wouldn't be terribly enlightening anyway. Any case where the question is whether someone "had reason to know" something is going to be rather fact-dependent.

In an enforcement action, the proof that the airman had kidney stones won't be the fact that the airman had pain. The proof the airman had kidney stones will be the CT scan showing the stones or the passed stones. What the FAA will have to prove is not whether the airman had kidney stones, but rather whether the airman had reason to know that he had kidney stones. (Clearly, if there weren't any stones, the airman can't get burned for "having reason to know" he had stones, regardless of whether he was experiencing pain.)

I've never had kidney stones, but from what I understand, the pain is both extremely intense and quite distinctive. If you've had them before, you aren't likely to mistake the pain for something else. If there is evidence that the airman was experiencing that sort of pain, for example because he told someone, then that evidence is probably going to be enough to establish the airman "had reason to know," even if the airman never got a definitive diagnostic test.

The point is that you can't just put your head in the sand to avoid an adverse diagnosis and then claim that you didn't know you had a disqualifying condition. If there was some sort of red flag (e.g., intense and distinctive pain that the airman would have been familiar with from a past episode of the condition) and a reasonable person in that situation would have sought diagnosis or treatment, then the FAA, NTSB, and courts are likely to find that the airman "had reason to know."

Only if he opens his yap.

 

[poadeleted20]

Only if he opens his yap.

There are other ways to come to the FAA's attention in this regard.

 

[EdFred]

There are other ways to come to the FAA's attention in this regard.

Are they going to pump my septic tank to inspect for kidney stones?

 

[Palmpilot]

I think it's worth pointing out that 61.53(a) is the FAA's effort to prevent this sort of foolishness:
...after which the patient/pilot (himself an MD!) went flying anyway claiming his unexpired medical made him legal.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/4551.pdf
Note that the FAA's emergency revocation action in this case was upheld by the NTSB.

When Dr. Bruce posted that on the red board, I missed the fact that the pilot was an MD. Very puzzling.

People who are in a situation that obvious, and just can't stand to self-ground, really ought to do their flying with an instructor, or at least with someone else acting as PIC, until the situation gets provably resolved, IMO.

 

[Palmpilot]

Or....you take a bunch of Benadryl, and go flying. Now, you've never looked up in the FAA database and seen that it's disqualifying, but the fact that you were very drowsy gave you "reason to know" that it was a bad idea to go flying.

Where can I find that FAA database? The only medication database I know of is the one on the AOPA Web site, which is not an FAA database.

 

[poadeleted20]

When Dr. Bruce posted that on the red board, I missed the fact that the pilot was an MD. Very puzzling.

People who are in a situation that obvious, and just can't stand to self-ground, really ought to do their flying with an instructor, or at least with someone else acting as PIC, until the situation gets provably resolved, IMO.

I'm sure you're familiar with the FAA's Five Hazardous Attitudes presentation, and after as much time as you have in aviation, how prevalent the anti-authority and invulnerable attitudes are, especially among those who own their own planes. Put that together with the "God complex" long associated with medical doctors and you have a hypergolic mixture leading to accidents, not to asking for help.

 

[SoloEqs]

Are they going to pump my septic tank to inspect for kidney stones?

They don't need to -- the NSA already knows.

 

[Ghery]

And if you've never had kidney stones before?

Please show me any court case in which pain (solely) was found to be proof that a person had kidney stones.

Seems to me that the law REQUIRES "that sort of hair-splitting."

Well, when I had one a while back I didn't know that was what the problem was, but when the doctor in the ER told me it wasn't particularly surprising. BTW, I would not have wanted to be in the left seat. I wound up in a fetal position on the waiting room floor while waiting in the ER. That sucker HURT! If it ever happens again I won't have any doubt about what it is. But, my urologist has me for a KUB every 6 months and I'm on a 1 year SI for this. My hope is that the KUB will catch it before it hurts and it can be dealt with at that time.

 

[EdFred]

Well, when I had one a while back I didn't know that was what the problem was, but when the doctor in the ER told me it wasn't particularly surprising. BTW, I would not have wanted to be in the left seat. I wound up in a fetal position on the waiting room floor while waiting in the ER. That sucker HURT! If it ever happens again I won't have any doubt about what it is. But, my urologist has me for a KUB every 6 months and I'm on a 1 year SI for this. My hope is that the KUB will catch it before it hurts and it can be dealt with at that time.

Yes, so in your case if you experience that again, you would most definitely fall under the "has reason to know" umbrella. I have never had one, so I have no personal point of reference to know that I do or don't have kidney stones. It may just be my muscles binding up on me again - like they did a couple weeks ago.