Medical for PP Training -- Odd Question

[Anonymous]

This is more a rule-interpretation question than a medical one, per se.

Suppose a person is flying as an SP, with the blessings of his personal physician, because of a medical issue that is expected to resolve; at which time the airman will be able to obtain a medical certificate.

Until that resolution occurs, can the individual pursue PPL training and earn a PPL, provided all of his training occurs in an LSA? I understand the pilot would not be able to exercise his PPL privileges until he received a medical. I am asking simply if he can earn the PPL, not exercise PPL privileges without a medical.

My take: I am not aware of any requirement for PPL that could not be completed in a properly equipped LSA; nor am I aware of any PPL requirement that could not be completed, even without a medical, by a person already certificated as a SP (assuming the training were conducted in an LSA). The night flight requirement can be dual.

Am I missing something?

 

[poadeleted20]

Suppose a person is flying as an SP, with the blessings of his personal physician, because of a medical issue that is expected to resolve; at which time the airman will be able to obtain a medical certificate.

Until that resolution occurs, can the individual pursue PPL training and earn a PPL, provided all of his training occurs in an LSA?

The person can do the training, but must have a Third Class or better medical certificate to take a PP-Airplane practical test. See 61.39 and FAA Order 8900.1.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

But, don't you have to have a valid medical for solo flight to meet the PP requirements? or does solo flight of an LSA count as PIC time that can be used for the Private Pilot?

 

[poadeleted20]

But, don't you have to have a valid medical for solo flight to meet the PP requirements?

Not if you have a Student or Sport Pilot certificate and fly a LSA.

or does solo flight of an LSA count as PIC time that can be used for the Private Pilot?

Yes.

 

[Areeda]

Not if you have a Student or Sport Pilot certificate and fly a LSA.

I haven't done anything with LSA, so please excuse the stupid question.

Is there a LSA student certificate that doesn't include a medical? How does one go about getting one?

Joe

 

[bbchien]

The problem is if the aircraft is only certificated for DAY VFR. Then you can't do the night 61.109(a)2 stuff.

You can do the entire PVT ASEL in the LSA, if the Aircraft will do everything in the requirements.

 

[RJM62]

I haven't done anything with LSA, so please excuse the stupid question.

Is there a LSA student certificate that doesn't include a medical? How does one go about getting one?

Joe

Yes, there is. You fill out an 8710-11. The actual certificate can be issued by your local FSDO or by any DPE or SPE. (I suppose an AME may be able to issue one, as well, but I don't know for sure.)

-Rich

 

[Areeda]

Thanks Rich!

 

[poadeleted20]

The problem is if the aircraft is only certificated for DAY VFR. Then you can't do the night 61.109(a)2 stuff.

You can do the entire PVT ASEL in the LSA, if the Aircraft will do everything in the requirements.

Many LSA's are certified for night VFR even if Sport Pilots aren't. In fact, some LSA-legal aircraft are even certified for IFR.

 

[gismo]

This is more a rule-interpretation question than a medical one, per se.

Suppose a person is flying as an SP, with the blessings of his personal physician, because of a medical issue that is expected to resolve; at which time the airman will be able to obtain a medical certificate.

I'm curious about the medical issue aspect of this. I was under the impression that you're not allowed to self certify medically if you know you have a disqualifying condition and I'm not sure what advantage if any there is in having a personal physician's "blessing". I am aware that the FAA has stated that if you have failed to pass a medical certification you aren't eligible for SP flying but I thought there was more to it than that.

For instance if your BP is too high to pass the Class III limits can you still fly SP? What if you had a recent MCI or are taking medications on the "banned" list?

 

[TMetzinger]

There has been conjecture from some folks that the medical standards for the third class apply to sport pilots, based on the logic that if you've ever failed a third class you can't fly SP.

But a read of the actual reg says (to me) that if you have a valid drivers license, have never failed an FAA medical, and in your opinion and the opinion of your physician you are capable of flying an LSA safely, then you may fly an LSA.

So my read is that if you have high blood pressure, but you haven't been denied a drivers license, and your doctor isn't telling you you shouldn't be operating a car or airplane, then you're good for an LSA.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm curious about the medical issue aspect of this. I was under the impression that you're not allowed to self certify medically if you know you have a disqualifying condition and I'm not sure what advantage if any there is in having a personal physician's "blessing".

Here are the Federal Air Surgeon's exact words on the subject:

Long-standing FAA regulation, § 61.53, prohibits all pilots--those who are required to hold airman medical certificates and those who are not--from exercising privileges during periods of medical deficiency. The FAA revised § 61.53 to include under this prohibition sport pilots who use a current and valid U.S. driver’s license as medical qualification. The prohibition is also added under §§ 61.23 (c) (2) (iv) and 61.303 (b) (2) (4) for sport pilot operations.

You should consult your private physician to determine whether you have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties. Certain medical information that may be helpful for pilots can be found in our Pilot Safety Brochures.

For instance if your BP is too high to pass the Class III limits can you still fly SP? What if you had a recent MCI or are taking medications on the "banned" list?

See above. Basically, this puts your "private physician" on the hot seat -- will your s/he will be willing to go on record that you do not " have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties"? My guess is that few with any understanding of the legal ramifications of such advice will do so, but it's hard to say how many will have that understanding. We shall see as this issue evolves.

 

[poadeleted20]

So my read is that if you have high blood pressure, but you haven't been denied a drivers license, and your doctor isn't telling you you shouldn't be operating a car or airplane, then you're good for an LSA.

I think there's a big difference between not being told that you shouldn't be operating an airplane, and being told that you do not "have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties." The Federal Air Surgeon's guidance seems to require a positive finding of safety, not just an absence of advice not to fly. However, this issue has yet to be tested legally.

 

[bbchien]

Many LSA's are certified for night VFR even if Sport Pilots aren't. In fact, some LSA-legal aircraft are even certified for IFR.

Yes, the one of interest is of course, the Alarus.

The Federal Air Surgeon's guidance seems to require a positive finding of safety, not just an absence of advice not to fly. However, this issue has yet to be tested legally.

And I agree with this interpretation.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think there's a big difference between not being told that you shouldn't be operating an airplane, and being told that you do not "have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties." The Federal Air Surgeon's guidance seems to require a positive finding of safety, not just an absence of advice not to fly. However, this issue has yet to be tested legally.

I agree with this - your doctor should be telling you that you can safely operate cars/boats/LSA's. I didn't mean to imply there was a "don't ask, don't tell" thing happening. I meant that you should tell him you're going to be flying and he should tell you that's ok, or tell you if you shouldn't.

But he does NOT have to be an AME or be looking at the third class standards to make this determination, to my knowledge.

 

[bbchien]

But he does NOT have to be an AME or be looking at the third class standards to make this determination, to my knowledge.

...which is also true for LSA operations.

You just cannot have a denial from OKC as your last interaction.

 

[poadeleted20]

Has anybody heard of a private, non-AME physician who's been willing to say for the record that someone who has a condition which would be disqualifying under Part 67 does not "have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties" (to use the Federal Air Surgeon's words)?

 

[TMetzinger]

Ron, that's gonna depend on how you define "for the record", isn't it?

I have no doubt that her family practitioner would likely tell my mom (who has high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes both well controlled with oral meds) to be careful and enjoy if she said "I'm going to learn to fly a little airplane, am I safe to do that"? He already told he she's safe to drive, safe to go rock climbing, and safe to operate the heavy power equipment she's using for landscaping.

That same doctor, if given a form to sign saying "This person does not have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties" would probably not do it.

It's really all about the risk of medical incapacitation, and that the FAA has someone ELSE to point to (the pilot for not complying with the rule and being honest, or the physician for telling the pilot the wrong answer) if medical incapacitation results in an accident.

But frankly, if you ask ANY person to assume responsibility for your risk, they're generally going to look for a reason to decline.

With the standard medical process, that risk is transferred from the AME right back to the FAS - The AME can say "this guy met the standards YOU set, Doctor Federal Air Surgeon, don't blame me that he keeled over".

Time will tell if the risk of sport pilot incapacitation is really as small as everyone thought it was when the rule was passed.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, that's gonna depend on how you define "for the record", isn't it?

Yes, it does. I'd say that either in writing, or verbally to a third party (thus verifiable in a legal proceeding) would do.

I have no doubt that her family practitioner would likely tell my mom (who has high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes both well controlled with oral meds) to be careful and enjoy if she said "I'm going to learn to fly a little airplane, am I safe to do that"?

Your personal guess of what a doctor would/would not do isn't what I had in mind, only whether the doctor uses the magic words stated by the FAS.

He already told he she's safe to drive, safe to go rock climbing, and safe to operate the heavy power equipment she's using for landscaping.

Not good enough without the FAS's magic words, in a verifiable manner.

That same doctor, if given a form to sign saying "This person does not have a medical deficiency that would interfere with the safe performance of sport piloting duties" would probably not do it.

Well, then, I think that says it all. After all, if the doctor won't sign that, the doctor isn't likely to testify under oath that s/he ever said it verbally, either.

It's really all about the risk of medical incapacitation, and that the FAA has someone ELSE to point to (the pilot for not complying with the rule and being honest, or the physician for telling the pilot the wrong answer) if medical incapacitation results in an accident.

Bingo. Nobody with a disqualifying condition gets to self-certify for LSA without medical advice that they're safe to fly without a competent medical opinion.

But frankly, if you ask ANY person to assume responsibility for your risk, they're generally going to look for a reason to decline.

I think the FAA is counting on that.

With the standard medical process, that risk is transferred from the AME right back to the FAS - The AME can say "this guy met the standards YOU set, Doctor Federal Air Surgeon, don't blame me that he keeled over".

You got it.

Time will tell if the risk of sport pilot incapacitation is really as small as everyone thought it was when the rule was passed.

We shall see. We shall also see if anyone involved in such a situation gets investigated to determine if they had an existing condition which would be disqualifying, and if so, whether they got a physician to make the statement the FAS wants.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yes, it does. I'd say that either in writing, or verbally to a third party (thus verifiable in a legal proceeding) would do.

Not good enough without the FAS's magic words, in a verifiable manner.

In your opinion... I don't think that it's explicit in the regulation.

In MY opinion, if an LSA pilot makes it clear to his doctor that he's going to be piloting a light aircraft, and his doctor doesn't counsel him against it, the LSA pilot has done his due diligence as required by the regs.

Until we have either an actual situation where medical incapacitation results in a violation or lawsuit, or we have new rulemaking, I don't things are going to be any clearer.

I think it's a pretty good sign that we haven't had a "landmark" accident in the LSA world yet - clearly the folks flying LSAs are not dropping dead in the cockpit.

 

[poadeleted20]

In your opinion... I don't think that it's explicit in the regulation.

In MY opinion, if an LSA pilot makes it clear to his doctor that he's going to be piloting a light aircraft, and his doctor doesn't counsel him against it, the LSA pilot has done his due diligence as required by the regs.

You are entitled to your own personal opinion, but the FAS's guidance, though not legally binding, seems to me to say otherwise. That said, until a case comes up for enforcement action or someone asks the Chief Counsel for a legal interpretation, we won't know for sure.

However, until that happens, I would recommend that anyone who knows (or has reason to know) they have a condition which would disqualify them under Part 67 should obtain a postive statement IAW the FAS's guidance before acting as PIC of a LSA. The potential for both FAA enforcement action and civil liability is just too great otherwise.