Sport pilot and disqualifying conditions/medications

B

bdoss2006

Pre-Flight
Joined
Mar 1, 2025
Messages
72
Display Name
bdoss2006
This has been a random curiosity of mine and I wondered if anyone knew a true answer. Can a sport pilot legally fly if they have a prohibited condition, or are taking a medication on the do not issue, not the do not fly list? I know obviously you can probably get by with it, but is it technically legal? If someone were to report that you were taking a medication on the do not issue list would that get you in trouble?
 
The list for prohibited medical conditions (AI version below) and the prohibited drug list pertain to all pilots.
There are more for FAA medicals. Quite a few more.
So the list of physical stuff below, and the drugs in the FAA prohibited list, plus anything you know that makes you unsafe to fly, makes flying under SP not legal.
Nobody's gonna check you, probably, except in the autopsy after your crash.

Extra stuff:
For me, glaucoma is not on the general list, which mostly has to do with sudden incapacitation, but is on the FAA medical list, so I had to get a special issuance.
Same for cataract surgery (simple paperwork) and prostate cancer (more simple paperwork, and PSA tests) which I also dealt with.
So I would have (and was) flying under MOSAIC rules ('cuz 172) until I applied for the 3rd class.
I can let my medical expire and do the same. Or fly under BasicMed.

FAA Disqualifying Medical Conditions​

The FAA lists certain conditions as specifically disqualifying for any class of medical certificate, including Sport Pilot. These include Federal Aviation Administration+1:

  • Angina pectoris (chest pain due to heart disease)
  • Bipolar disorder (severe enough to cause repeated overt acts)
  • Cardiac valve replacement
  • Coronary heart disease that has been treated or is symptomatic/clinically significant
  • Diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medications (including insulin)
  • Disturbance of consciousness without a satisfactory explanation
  • Epilepsy
  • Heart replacement
  • Myocardial infarction (heart attack)
  • Permanent cardiac pacemaker
  • Personality disorder severe enough to cause repeated overt acts
  • Psychosis
  • Substance abuse or substance dependence
  • Transient loss of control of nervous system function without a satisfactory explanation
 
Kenny Phillips said:
The FAA lists certain conditions as specifically disqualifying for any class of medical certificate
Click to expand...
Sport pilots do not require any class of a medical certificate.

Kenny Phillips said:
including Sport Pilot.
Click to expand...
Where did you find a regulation or publication from the FAA that says that? Or, is that just some AI horse ****?

If you follow your link, you will find:
"however, in many cases when the condition is adequately controlled, the FAA will issue medical certification contingent on periodic reports."
So the list of disqualifying conditions are not absolutely disqualifying. You can get special issues except for Sport Pilot where you do not need a medical certificate so there is no way to get a special issue medical certificate.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Sport pilots do not require any class of a medical certificate.


Where did you find a regulation or publication from the FAA that says that? Or, is that just some AI horse ****?

If you follow your link, you will find:
"however, in many cases when the condition is adequately controlled, the FAA will issue medical certification contingent on periodic reports."
So the list of disqualifying conditions are not absolutely disqualifying. You can get special issues except for Sport Pilot where you do not need a medical certificate so there is no way to get a special issue medical certificate.
Click to expand...
Correct. I have a disqualifying condition.
From the FAA: "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."
And the FAA has a list of stuff making you unsafe to fly.
Tell me how that doesn't apply.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Correct. I have a disqualifying condition.
From the FAA: "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."
And the FAA has a list of stuff making you unsafe to fly.
Tell me how that doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
Read the regulation.

Yes, 61.53 applies to operations which do not require a medical certificate as well as those who do, but the standards are different.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
The FAA lists certain conditions as specifically disqualifying for any class of medical certificate, including Sport Pilot.
Click to expand...
But sport pilot is not a "class of medical certificate", so this sentence is nonsense.
Kenny Phillips said:
And the FAA has a list of stuff making you unsafe to fly.
Tell me how that doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
Tell me where your italicized text in the first quote appears in the regulations.

§ 61.53(b) says:
(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.
Click to expand...
If the FAA intended the specific list of disqualifying conditions to apply to SP, they would have explicitly said so in the regulations... but they didn't. Instead, they left it up to the judgement of the pilot.

I have one of those disqualifying medical conditions. I also know, having discussed it with my doctors and based on my knowledge of the special issuance requirements, that I'm safe to fly and would be eligible for an SI medical certificate if I choose to spend a largish account of money proving it to the FAA. My unwillingness to spend that money doesn't automatically make me unsafe or illegal to fly.

But this has been discussed and argued many times here, and I'll sure it will be again.
 
Dana said:
I have one of those disqualifying medical conditions. I also know, having discussed it with my doctors and based on my knowledge of the special issuance requirements, that I'm safe to fly and would be eligible for an SI medical certificate if I choose to spend a largish account of money proving it to the FAA. My unwillingness to spend that money doesn't automatically make me unsafe or illegal to fly.
Click to expand...
This is the difference in a nutshell. CAMI is ultra-conservative. We can argue about whether that is a good or bad thing (I think it's somewhat understandable), but that's the way it is. I had an SI for 5 years which required me to have an MRI every year. My specialists thought it was ridiculous. I've known pilots who flew sport pilot for three years just to avoid having to put a medical visit on the application where a condition was ruled out. It would have been a legitimate "no" on question 18 but they were concerned the fact that there was a test would raise questions with CAMI. I keep thinking of that guy who made the mistake of disclosing a test that showed a genetic marker for a condition; the FAA required them to prove the condition did not exist.

Ever since the first time the reduction/removal of FAA medical requirements was no more than an idea, I think some people kept thinking in terms of pilots who are legally blind thinking it was perfectly OK to solo in Class B airspace during push time. Your and my experience is more like the reality.
 
I appreciate all the replies. What about taking a do not issue medication for a non prohibited condition?
 
bdoss2006 said:
I appreciate all the replies. What about taking a do not issue medication for a non prohibited condition?
Click to expand...

NOTHING for Sport Pilot goes through FAA aeromed. It's between you and your physician. There's no such thing as a "do not issue" medication because no one is issuing you a medical. You are required to self-ground if you're aware of a condition that will prevent you from operating your aircraft safely. FAA medical rules, prohibitions, approvals, etc., have nothing to do with it.
 
bdoss2006 said:
I appreciate all the replies. What about taking a do not issue medication for a non prohibited condition?
Click to expand...
There's a certain amount of pilot judgment involved when the decision is left in our hands. And I think part of the expectation is that you at least care about you and your family if you don't are about anyone else.

If you cause a problem, they'll definitely look at that. That's pretty much a definition of a grey area here. Some people are more bothered by grey than others.

Personally, I would be looking at the medication, it's side effects, my personal history taking it, and maybe even speaking with my doctor, even if there was no regulation specifically saying so.
If I'm post joint replacement and am taking oxy for pain, no, I'm not hopping into an airplane and flying.​
The FAA's OTC Reference cautions against flying after taking diphenhydramine (the sleep aid in many "PM" OTC pain medication brands). No one needed to warn me about that. The few times I've taken it before going to bed left me groggy the next day. I used to joke that I couldn't type (more than usual) the day after taking it.​
 
Last edited:
14 CFR 61.53(b) is all you are bound by. If you can operate the aircraft in a safe manner while receiving treatment for your condition, you're fine. The second your condition and/or treatment crosses the "operating an aircraft in a safe manner" line, you're done until you can get what is prohibiting you from operating the aircraft in a safe manner resolved.

And no...this isn't about "having something to hide from the FAA". It's about meeting a lower standard that comes with its own set of limitations. Period. Full stop.
 
Jon Wilder said:
14 CFR 61.53(b) is all you are bound by. If you can operate the aircraft in a safe manner while receiving treatment for your condition, you're fine. The second your condition and/or treatment crosses the "operating an aircraft in a safe manner" line, you're done until you can get what is prohibiting you from operating the aircraft in a safe manner resolved.

And no...this isn't about "having something to hide from the FAA". It's about meeting a lower standard that comes with its own set of limitations. Period. Full stop.
Click to expand...
I would be a little more cautious than this and talk to your doctor. Since you can't really "lose" your medical by talking to your doctor, you might want to ask for their opinion. You might think you're safe. And that's fine if nothing happens. But if there is an accident and you have opiates, benzodiazepines, tricyclics, sedating antihistamines, gabapentin in your system, just to list a few, then you may find yourself in deep trouble.

Medicines are on the do not fly list are there because, by and large, they affect mentation. If you are taking one regularly and are involved in an accident, the onus will likely be on you to prove you were safe.

To put it another way, you may think you're safe to fly with some alcohol on board...how's that going to work for you?

Saying "I'm fine when I take Benadryl when I fly" because, well, I said so, may not hold up in an accident.
 
And, if I as your treating doc, get dragged into court, I will likely say that I told you that this medicine commonly affects mentation and you shouldn't fly within a certain interval of taking it, and the pharmacist told you this as well. And stuck a sticker on your bottle, yada, yada...Yes, I will leave you flapping in the wind. So use a great deal of caution when considering a DNF medication...
 
Mark K said:
I would be a little more cautious than this and talk to your doctor. Since you can't really "lose" your medical by talking to your doctor, you might want to ask for their opinion. You might think you're safe. And that's fine if nothing happens. But if there is an accident and you have opiates, benzodiazepines, tricyclics, sedating antihistamines, gabapentin in your system, just to list a few, then you may find yourself in deep trouble.

Medicines are on the do not fly list are there because, by and large, they affect mentation. If you are taking one regularly and are involved in an accident, the onus will likely be on you to prove you were safe.

To put it another way, you may think you're safe to fly with some alcohol on board...how's that going to work for you?

Saying "I'm fine when I take Benadryl when I fly" because, well, I said so, may not hold up in an accident.
Click to expand...
From a safety perspective, you are correct. "Legal" and "Safe/Smart" are not always congruent. As the regulation's plain text reads, however, "operate the aircraft in a safe manner" is the only legal requirement you are bound by when operating on a Sport Pilot Certificate.
 
bdoss2006 said:
I appreciate all the replies. What about taking a do not issue medication for a non prohibited condition?
Click to expand...

Mark K said:
And, if I as your treating doc, get dragged into court, I will likely say that I told you that this medicine commonly affects mentation and you shouldn't fly within a certain interval of taking it, and the pharmacist told you this as well. And stuck a sticker on your bottle, yada, yada...Yes, I will leave you flapping in the wind. So use a great deal of caution when considering a DNF medication...
Click to expand...
DNI medications aren't the same thing as DNF medications.

It would seem to me that the Do Not Fly list applies to all pilots equally, regardless of medical cert type (or lack thereof).

DNI meds would seem to be a different matter. While the intent is clear for a medical certificate, it wouls also seem clear that any of those which allow a SI would leave room for the pilot and thier doctor to exercise judgement.

That said, I don't think that the intent was for pilots to be able to fly to a marijuana-friendly location and toke up right before flying back.
 
Jon Wilder said:
From a safety perspective, you are correct. "Legal" and "Safe/Smart" are not always congruent. As the regulation's plain text reads, however, "operate the aircraft in a safe manner" is the only legal requirement you are bound by when operating on a Sport Pilot Certificate.
Click to expand...
I disagree when thinking of the Do Not Fly medications list. Isn't that list very clear that it is a disqualifier regardless of cert type?
 
StraightnLevel said:
I disagree when thinking of the Do Not Fly medications list. Isn't that list very clear that it is a disqualifier regardless of cert type?
Click to expand...
Read the language. 14 CFR 61.53 is divided up into three paragraphs: (a) Operations that require a medical certificate, (b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate, and (c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S. Driver License.

(a) 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.

Notice part (a)(2) speaks of "taking medication that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation."

Unlike paragraph (a), paragraph (b) has no medication clause.

(b) 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.

"that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner" is the only restricting language in this part.

If medication restrictions applied to operations that do not require a medical certificate, or operations that require a U.S. Driver License, there would be clear language stating " Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for a medical certificate." But this language does not exist in the plain text of 61.53(b).

Part (a) even has an exception. "Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section." This exception means a person holding a medical certificate issued under Part 67 can fly by the plain text of paragraph (b) of this part for operations provided for in 61.23(b) of this part (Operations not requiring a medical certificate).

While I do agree that the disqualifying medication list, for the purposes of 61.53(b), is an excellent guideline, it is not a disqualifier under 61.53(b).
 
Last edited:
Now we’re getting into “no-fly” medications and even mention of alcohol and legal marijuana. I think if we want to focus only on 61.53, @Jon Wilder is essentially correct. It’s a reg that requires us to use our judgement, although that judgement may be called into question.

But remember that there is often more than one rule that comes into play. In this case, I look at 91.17, Alcohol or drugs. We all know the 8 hour mnemonic (sigh), but the reg also says:

No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—​
While using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety; or​

This requirement is independent of 61.53. 61.53 leaves it to us to determine our own medical fitness (whether FAA medical, BasicMed, sport privileges, or other activity which does not require a medical certificate (glider, balloon). But it does not absolve us from complying with 91.17.
 
So...... what is the General Aviation medical and prescription caused accident rate of those flying Sport with a Driver's License or with Basic Med vs pilots with medicals?

All for being responsible and using common sense before flying. I'm not sure we've established that making non medical pilots responsible for the decision to fly or not isn't working vs pilots with medicals. What problem are we trying to regulate / solve?
 
Well, I think we're just trying to answer the OP's question, although everyone puts their own spin on it.

It does appear that the rules for sport pilot about what is "legal" to fly is different than someone who has a medical certificate. So can someone have a disqualifying condition or do not issue medicine and or DNF medicine and still fly. The answer would appear yes, you're still legal.

Which is a separate question from how much risk are you willing to take? Which is why I said as a sport pilot on a DNI or DNF medication, you should talk to your doctor. You may think you are fine on 300mg of gabapentin nightly. And, I think that strictly speaking, this may not appear to be disqualifying or illegal if "in the pilot's judgement, they deem themselves safe to fly."

The problem is, that pilot is taking a risk. Just like night flight, over water, in the clouds, gusty crosswinds, taking a DNI or DNF medication is risky, even if legal.

In the unlikely event you blow a cylinder at 500 AGL you might take 5-6 seconds instead of 2-3 before pitching the nose. If you mess up and stall, and your passenger dies, well, when the opposing counsel finds out you've been taking gabapentin, he's going to make that akin to your taking "shrooms" before you got in the plane.

You self certified you were legal. And, simultaneously wrong.

How often does this come up? Granted, the scenario is very uncommon. But it just takes one impaired sport pilot accident that kills an "innocent photogenic 12 year old with so much potential," to get the general public up in arms and your senator grandstanding down the neck of the FAA. If we don't do a really good job policing ourselves we'll lose that right. So yea, think twice about flying under sport pilot if you're on a DNF/DNI medication. Or at least, talk to your doctor.

You know, make an effort to be responsible instead of skirting the rules...GA's got enough problems to deal with.

PS I'm just using gabapentin as an example as this was pushed out as a "safe" nonnarcotic medication for pain. Turns out it has some risk and issues.
PPS Being on gabapentin was why Dirty Harry couldn't remember if it was 5 shots or 6. Do you feel lucky?
 
WDD said:
So...... what is the General Aviation medical and prescription caused accident rate of those flying Sport with a Driver's License or with Basic Med vs pilots with medicals?

All for being responsible and using common sense before flying. I'm not sure we've established that making non medical pilots responsible for the decision to fly or not isn't working vs pilots with medicals. What problem are we trying to regulate / solve?
Click to expand...
Here is the study done by the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute which concluded there is no statistically significant difference in accident rates or fatality rates between pilots with medicals and those with BasicMed.

All the handwringing is unwarranted.
 
jbarrass said:
Here is the study done by the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute which concluded there is no statistically significant difference in accident rates or fatality rates between pilots with medicals and those with BasicMed.

All the handwringing is unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Yep. Which kinda makes one question the need for Class 3, doesn’t it?
 
dmspilot said:
The DNF list is part of a guide for AMEs. It's not a regulation. The relevant rules pilots have to follow have been posted above.
Click to expand...

The FAA seems to think otherwise:

You may not fly if you are taking any of these types of medications. If you aren't sure whether your medication falls into one of these categories, you should check with your AME:
Click to expand...

This is not a "guide" nor is it limited to a specific type of medical certificate.
 
StraightnLevel said:
This is not a "guide" nor is it limited to a specific type of medical certificate
Click to expand...

This has been discussed before, and it is poorly-worded guidance that only applies to class 1, 2, or 3. The reference to an AME shows that it’s not applicable for operations not requiring a medical where there is no AME involvement.
 
StraightnLevel said:

The FAA seems to think otherwise:



This is not a "guide" nor is it limited to a specific type of medical certificate.
Click to expand...
You specifically called out the Do Not Fly list by name. I am not a lawyer and will not comment on the legal authority of a random web page on the FAA website. But I am pretty sure they can't make regulations by webpage.
 
dmspilot said:
You specifically called out the Do Not Fly list by name. I am not a lawyer and will not comment on the legal authority of a random web page on the FAA website. But I am pretty sure they can't make regulations by webpage.
Click to expand...
They do seem to have a reputation of publishing one rule while enforcing another.

Case in point..14 CFR 67.307(a)(4) states that Substance Dependence is a disqualifying condition, "except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years."

At a public speaking at this year's AirVenture, the Federal Air Surgeon was asked the following by an aviation attorney -

"Under the regulation, a pilot cannot get an unrestricted medical with a substance dependence diagnosis unless they provide evidence satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon of recovery. When I talked...maybe two years ago...to Dr Duvall, he was not aware of anyone being able to meet that burden in the prior five years, and I suspect that's still the case. I get concerned about my clients coming to me and wanting to establish that clinical evidence, and I say it's a waste of time. Once you have a substance dependence diagnosis, you are not going to get an unrestricted medical, and at least as of two years ago, that hasn't happened in the prior five years. And that's because of the NTSB decision guidance that substance dependence is forever. So I would encourage the FAA to consider rulemaking so that pilots do not continue to waste their money trying to establish recovery to your satisfaction, when there is no amount of evidence that will ever do that."

She mentions that she has three rulemaking amendments on her desk, that is not one of them, but that is on the list.

He then asks "But my assessment is correct, right, you cannot, as it exists today, you cannot ever submit significant enough evidence to show recovery, to your satisfaction, to get an unrestricted once you have a substance diagnosis, right?"

FAS: "That...is where we are at the moment, but we are looking at it."

Not an allegation from an angry pilot. Not speculation by an advocacy organization. Not a misunderstanding of HIMS. The FAA’s highest aeromedical official was asked whether, under the system as it exists today, a pilot can ever submit enough evidence of recovery to obtain an unrestricted medical certificate after a substance-dependence diagnosis.


A federal agency is not free to publish one rule and enforce another. It is bound by statutes enacted by Congress and by the valid regulations it has formally adopted.

This principle is commonly associated with the Accardi doctrine: federal agencies generally must follow their own governing regulations. The Administrative Procedure Act also authorizes reviewing courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, beyond the agency’s lawful authority, or undertaken without observing procedures required by law.

The FAA may evaluate whether a particular pilot has provided satisfactory evidence of recovery. It may determine that a particular evaluation is incomplete, unreliable, outdated, or medically insufficient. That is individualized medical judgment.

What the FAA cannot lawfully do is decide in advance that no pilot can ever establish recovery while continuing to maintain a published regulation expressly stating that recovery may be established.

Discretion to evaluate evidence is not authority to erase the regulatory exception. “Satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon” cannot reasonably be transformed into “no evidence will ever be satisfactory.”

If the FAA believes a substance-dependence diagnosis should permanently prohibit unrestricted certification, it must say so publicly. It must propose a new rule, identify its legal and scientific basis, provide notice, permit public comment, consider the evidence submitted by affected parties, and lawfully amend the regulation.

It cannot leave recovery in the Code of Federal Regulations while administering an undisclosed categorical policy that makes recovery legally impossible in practice.
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
They do seem to have a reputation of publishing one rule while enforcing another.

Case in point..14 CFR 67.307(a)(4) states that Substance Dependence is a disqualifying condition, "except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years."
[...]

He then asks "But my assessment is correct, right, you cannot, as it exists today, you cannot ever submit significant enough evidence to show recovery, to your satisfaction, to get an unrestricted once you have a substance diagnosis, right?"

FAS: "That...is where we are at the moment, but we are looking at it."
Click to expand...


Then you say this:
Jon Wilder said:
A federal agency is not free to publish one rule and enforce another. It is bound by statutes enacted by Congress and by the valid regulations it has formally adopted.
Click to expand...
Clearly FAA does this on a regular basis.

Jon Wilder said:
If the FAA believes a substance-dependence diagnosis should permanently prohibit unrestricted certification, it must say so publicly.
Click to expand...
That's a solid opinion. How are you going to enforce it?

For that matter, how are you going to enforce this with ANY federal agency?
 
StraightnLevel said:
Then you say this:

Clearly FAA does this on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Lots of agencies do what they’re not allowed to do…until it gets challenged and someone with authority tells them they can’t.

StraightnLevel said:
That's a solid opinion. How are you going to enforce it?

For that matter, how are you going to enforce this with ANY federal agency?
Click to expand...
Just like we do with anything else. Take it up with the courts.
 
dmspilot said:
The DNF list is part of a guide for AMEs. It's not a regulation. The relevant rules pilots have to follow have been posted above.
Click to expand...
Yes, and . . .
midlifeflyer said:
But remember that there is often more than one rule that comes into play. In this case, I look at 91.17, Alcohol or drugs. We all know the 8 hour mnemonic (sigh), but the reg also says:

No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—While using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
Click to expand...
The FAA has put out a list of drugs that it believes affects a person's facilities in a way contrary to safety.

It doesn't really matter that they didn't address the list to you personally, it exists.

If you want to knowingly fly while using one of those drugs based on your semantic defense, then good luck to you. But people really should stop claiming that the DNF list is irrelevant if you don't have a medical.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes, and . . .

The FAA has put out a list of drugs that it believes affects a person's facilities in a way contrary to safety.

It doesn't really matter that they didn't address the list to you personally, it exists.

If you want to knowingly fly while using one of those drugs based on your semantic defense, then good luck to you. But people really should stop claiming that the DNF list is irrelevant if you don't have a medical.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
 
Lindberg said:
But people really should stop claiming that the DNF list is irrelevant if you don't have a medical.
Click to expand...

I've been pondering how to respond to this thread.

Without rehashing details, I have two of the "DNF" conditions the FAA lists. On the one hand, one might conclude these don't apply to Sport Pilot privileges. On the other hand, one might also assume that the FAA has some good and expert reasons they consider these conditions not to be safe for flight without further Special Issuance following rigorous medical tests.

There is something called "motivated reasoning". In short, shaping one's reasoning to arrive at a desired conclusion. We all do it, and need to be aware of that fact. I'd love to interpret the regs to allow me to self certify I'm in a condition for safe flight. But I think Mark K put it well: "So can someone have a disqualifying condition or do not issue medicine and or DNF medicine and still fly. The answer would appear yes, you're still legal. Which is a separate question from how much risk are you willing to take?"

Right now I'm still trying to reason through how much risk I'd be taking flying with my known conditions. And weighing how bad I'd feel if something did disable me in flight, especially with friends or family on board. I've long been an advocate of "The Most Conservative Action" philosophy when faced with hard decisions. It's kind of obvious to me what that "Most Conservative Action" might be in my particular case.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes, and . . .

The FAA has put out a list of drugs that it believes affects a person's facilities in a way contrary to safety.

It doesn't really matter that they didn't address the list to you personally, it exists.

If you want to knowingly fly while using one of those drugs based on your semantic defense, then good luck to you. But people really should stop claiming that the DNF list is irrelevant if you don't have a medical.
Click to expand...
My SI (for glaucoma with a damaged visual field) specifically prohibits flying within eight hours of taking sildenafil (Viagra), which I thought was interesting.
 
FastEddieB said:
I've been pondering how to respond to this thread.

Without rehashing details, I have two of the "DNF" conditions the FAA lists. On the one hand, one might conclude these don't apply to Sport Pilot privileges. On the other hand, one might also assume that the FAA has some good and expert reasons they consider these conditions not to be safe for flight without further Special Issuance following rigorous medical tests.

There is something called "motivated reasoning". In short, shaping one's reasoning to arrive at a desired conclusion. We all do it, and need to be aware of that fact. I'd love to interpret the regs to allow me to self certify I'm in a condition for safe flight. But I think Mark K put it well: "So can someone have a disqualifying condition or do not issue medicine and or DNF medicine and still fly. The answer would appear yes, you're still legal. Which is a separate question from how much risk are you willing to take?"

Right now I'm still trying to reason through how much risk I'd be taking flying with my known conditions. And weighing how bad I'd feel if something did disable me in flight, especially with friends or family on board. I've long been an advocate of "The Most Conservative Action" philosophy when faced with hard decisions. It's kind of obvious to me what that "Most Conservative Action" might be in my particular case.
Click to expand...
I agree with Mark K's statement as well as yours.

At it's most basic, the discussion raises the usual difference between currency and proficiency. Yes, after 10 years of only flying during the day, you can go to the airport you have flown out of for the past 20 years, fly the pattern three times, load up the partner and kids and depart at 10pm for a 3 hour cross country flight to a vacation spot you've never flown to before and be perfectly legal.

We're really talking about the same thing here. 61.53 authorizes us to make out own decision, although, in the case of DNF medications, we also have the 91.17 prohibition on flying while taking a medication that "affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety." I don't doubt the FAA could make a good legal argument that the medications on the DNF list are there precisely because their common side effects do that. But let's leave that aside.

It gets messy because CAMI tends to be overly conservative. We all have heard (or experienced) the horror stories. SIs with repeated expensive testing, treating specialists think unnecessary. Pilots being asked to prove they don't have conditions, their doctors have already excluded. We understandably don't trust the FAA's judgment. For BasicMed and sport pilots, the rules allow us to use our own or our physician's). That doesn't make it carte blanche; the reasonableness of our judgement is always subject to review. And, I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is suggesting it's OK under the rules to fly under the influence of a (prescribed) narcotic or with a temporary medical condition which causes blindness.
 
FastEddieB said:
Without rehashing details, I have two of the "DNF" conditions the FAA lists. On the one hand, one might conclude these don't apply to Sport Pilot privileges. On the other hand, one might also assume that the FAA has some good and expert reasons they consider these conditions not to be safe for flight.... I'd love to interpret the regs to allow me to self certify I'm in a condition for safe flight.
Click to expand...
In my case, I've looked at the requirements for an SI, and concluded I would be able to get one, and my doctor agrees that I'm safe to fly. I'm just not willing to spend the money for the unnecessary testing the FAA would require, and SP is all I need.
 
Back
Top