Medical Certificate Question

[WarriorPilot]

Hello, anyone know what is the meaning of this?

Medical Class: Third, Medical Date: 1/2011
NOT VALID FOR ANY CLASS AFTER.

A friend of mine, found this at the FAA website, when he was looking for his license. He will call Oklahoma City next Monday and find out.

 

[AggieMike88]

The line in question is the expiration line.

Your friend is missing a date to go with the NOT VALID line.

A look at mine also has the same words, but "10/31/13" to go with it.


What prompted the search on the FAA site? Is your friend not in possession of his paper certificate and needs a new one?

 

[flyingron]

These 1 year restrictions are common when the pilot has a special issuance.

It's one of those reasons I wish the FAA would obey the law and not illegally disseminate that information. It shouldn't be anybody else's business but the you, your AME, and the FAA if you have a SI.

 

[bbchien]

These 1 year restrictions are common when the pilot has a special issuance.

It's one of those reasons I wish the FAA would obey the law and not illegally disseminate that information. It shouldn't be anybody else's business but the you, your AME, and the FAA if you have a SI.

So then how do you propose they enforce the annual requirement for the additional information? That's where the sticky wicket lies.

The public database is used to determine if, for example, the guy you're flying with, is legal and/or insurable. It wouldn't be of much use if you couldn't determine that. This is the balance between the public's so called "need to know" and privacy. I have no good answer to this.

 

[flyingron]

They do not need to publish the medical restriction information to the general public to enforce SI restrictions. It's actual in violation of Federal Law to do this. The FAA's exemption to the privacy act does not authorize this NOR does the mandated opt-out remove this information.

Your interest in prying into your buddies info is NOT a justification for the privacy act violation. If you want to be sure he's safe, demand he show you his certificates. Same thing for some nosy insurance company.

The air carriers have their own interface into the database if they need to check for official reasons. I'm only talking about the stuff on the publicly accessible site.

 

[bbchien]

They do not need to publish the medical restriction information to the general public to enforce SI restrictions. It's actual in violation of Federal Law to do this. The FAA's exemption to the privacy act does not authorize this NOR does the mandated opt-out remove this information.

Your interest in prying into your buddies info is NOT a justification for the privacy act violation. If you want to be sure he's safe, demand he show you his certificates. Same thing for some nosy insurance company.

The air carriers have their own interface into the database if they need to check for official reasons. I'm only talking about the stuff on the publicly accessible site.

There was some commentary from then Aviation Subcommittee (36 years) Oberstar on this, if I can find it.... that speaks to the "congressional intent" of the exemption and has been used to support "things as they are".

I'll see if I can find it.....I may fail. It was two computers ago.

And lastly, it is not "my interest in prying". I already know with whom I am going to fly. That trust gets earned, not stickered. If you have a personal grudge in this (like an SI certificate) I can't help you.

 

[flyingron]

My personal grudge is that the FAA will not comply with the Federal privacy laws. Even if there were justification for this (which I do not believe there is), the FAA would need to get their exception to the privacy act extended to allow this.

I have heard this "intent" stuff before. But in fact, but I have reviewed the transcripts on the AIR-21 act where the exemption was inserted, and there is no mention of anything about the exception other than it's insertion into the an amendment on the reauth bill.

There certainly was a lot of discussion in congress and other places about pilot qualifications for air carriers. It was for this reason that a more stringent database was put in to place that air carriers could check both the FAA certificates and airman history of pilots that they were to employ.

The only point of the public exposure was because various people on the industry side, to include John and Martha King, cried that aviation safety would be jeopardized if they weren't allowed free access to the certificate database. The feds said fine, we'll let the FAA have the public database if we give the airman the opportunity to opt out. Unfortunately the FAA refuses to implement the opt-out properly.

(All my medical info says is CORRECTIVE LENSES REQUIRED by the way, which you'd know if you were talking to me anyway, I can't tolerate contacts so I'm aways wearing my glasses).

 

[RJM62]

As far as I'm concerned...

Firstly, I think the public's need to electronically access this information is hogwash. The fact that some fact about a person is "public information" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be made available over the Internet. There were pilot certificates and medical certificates long before the Web existed. A prospective passenger who is interested in knowing whether an airman possesses a valid medical (or even a pilot certificate, for that matter) can simply ask to see the certificate before boarding the aircraft.

Entities who have to do these kinds of checks frequently -- FBOs who rent aircraft, insurers, etc. -- may have a justifiable need to be able to do it electronically, but that doesn't mean the information needs to be searchable to the entire world. Access could be limited to those with a genuine need. If the FAA were a private organization, the government would be coming down on them like gangbusters for making all this information publicly available.

Secondly, even if FAA wants to argue that the survival of Western civilization depends on public' electronic access to pilots' medical certificate information, that could be accomplished by publishing the certificate class and expiration date -- and nothing more. Whether the airman does or does not possess a valid medical satisfies any possible need to know as far as the general public is concerned.

I also have serious doubts whether the question of whether the airman has an SI should be any of an FBO's or insurer's business. Unless they can show actuarial evidence proving increased risk, then it seems discriminatory, and probably illegal, for private businesses to overrule the FAA with regard to a person's fitness to fly.

Personally, I think all the information is made publicly accessible solely for marketing purposes. That's the only purpose I can think of that wouldn't be better served by a more limited approach to dissemination.

-Rich

 

[flyingron]

FBO rental offices have NO need to access this info. If they really want to know, they can ask the pilot to show his certificates. I've had to on more than a couple of occasions. It doesn't need to be open to the public. As I said, the air carriers have an alternate way of accessing this data through a non-public database.

But NO MATTER how great the need, it doesn't justify breaking federal law. If it's that darned important, get the congress to pass a broader exception to the law. One that goes through the Constitutional process. You just can't have a federal agency making up their own rules in direct violation of enacted law.

 

[bbchien]

FBO rental offices have NO need to access this info. If they really want to know, they can ask the pilot to show his certificates. I've had to on more than a couple of occasions. It doesn't need to be open to the public. As I said, the air carriers have an alternate way of accessing this data through a non-public database.

That works and also doesn't work. They have gone entirely to computer printed certificates; look at yours- they're nothing but a PDF file. Very easy to create.

But NO MATTER how great the need, it doesn't justify breaking federal law. If it's that darned important, get the congress to pass a broader exception to the law. One that goes through the Constitutional process. You just can't have a federal agency making up their own rules in direct violation of enacted law.

AMEN. Just ask the EAA about ATC.

 

[steingar]

I am not a criminal and see no reason why information about my medical history and my damn ADDRESS should be available to anyone just because I own and fly an aircraft. It is just so wrong on so many levels.

Indeed I bet criminals are entitled to more privacy than I am.

 

[flyingron]

Your address is blockable. That is the ONLY thing the FAA will remove when you ask to be removed from the public view.

On the other hand, aircraft are not people. The privacy act only applies to personal records. If you wish to obfuscate your airplane ownership records, you'll need to use a corporate entity. It's still pursuable, but it will slow the nosy down to the point that most give up.