When SI expires does one qualify for LSA use.

[Unregistered]

Hi.
If you let a 1 year term SI expire, do not renew, does one qualify for no medical / LSA use? Thanks.

 

[Brad Z]

Hi.
If you let a 1 year term SI expire, do not renew, does one qualify for no medical / LSA use? Thanks.

Yes. As long as you do not have a denial, you're fine to exercise sport pilot priviledges, provided you still meet the self certification provisions.

 

[Unregistered]

Hi Brad.
Thank you.
Yes, that was my understanding also, but I spoke with a pilot that was told by someone at Ao** that, "..that may not be case always"?

Yes. As long as you do not have a denial, you're fine to exercise sport pilot priviledges, provided you still meet the self certification provisions.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

People like to make up regulations when they think someone is doing something that they don't approve of.

61.303
(b) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must—
(1) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;
(2) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(3) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

 

[LDJones]

People like to make up regulations when they think someone is doing something that they don't approve of.

61.303
(b) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must—
(1) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;
(2) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);
(3) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and
(4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

Wouldn't the need for an SI cause the paragraph (4) exclusion to kick in?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Wouldn't the need for an SI cause the paragraph (4) exclusion to kick in?

Why would it? The Doc that issued the special issuance determined that it wouldn't. Or at least the guidlines that the Doc was given on the issue determined it.

 

[jbarrass]

Wouldn't the need for an SI cause the paragraph (4) exclusion to kick in?

Possible, but If the FAA gave you an SI they feel you are safe to fly. You still need to self certify, and nothing more.

 

[LDJones]

Why would it? The Doc that issued the special issuance determined that it wouldn't. Or at least the guidlines that the Doc was given on the issue determined it.

The Doc gave the SI for a limited time in spite of the condition. Had there been no health issue to begin with, there wouldn't have been a need for the SI. I could see the FAA arguing that once an SI is issued, you're not eligible for the LSA rules until you are issued a "clean" medical without SI and you let that one lapse.

Not saying that's the rule, but it's certainly a rational argument they could make.

 

[poadeleted20]

I could see the FAA arguing that once an SI is issued, you're not eligible for the LSA rules until you are issued a "clean" medical without SI and you let that one lapse.

Not saying that's the rule, but it's certainly a rational argument they could make.

I suppose they might have argued that, but the Federal Air Surgeon has already said otherwise. For official FAA guidance on this, see http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/sportpilots/. What could change this for an airman in that situation would be a significant negative change in that condition, which might (but only "might") cause subparagraph (b)(4) above to kick in. Absent any change in his/her condition, then s/he is free to continue flying as a Sport Pilot as long as s/he holds a US DL.

 

[Brad Z]

Hi Brad.
Thank you.
Yes, that was my understanding also, but I spoke with a pilot that was told by someone at Ao** that, "..that may not be case always"?

Did they advise under what circumstances it wouldn't?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Not saying that's the rule, but it's certainly a rational argument they could make.

Except the regs specifically address that. 61.23(c)

(2) A person using a U.S. driver's license to meet the requirements of this paragraph must—

(i) Comply with each restriction and limitation imposed by that person's U.S. driver's license and any judicial or administrative order applying to the operation of a motor vehicle;

(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate);

(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn; and

(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

The bolded part addresses that.

 

[Unregistered]

Hi Brad.
No, this is a second hand information. I never actually spoke with them. I was comfortable with what the regs say, but I just wanted to know if anyone else may have know, maybe an unusual case exists?

Did they advise under what circumstances it wouldn't?