I did my 3rd class medical examination last week and was deferred. As luck would have it, circumstances have arisen that will require me to be out of the U.S. for a few months starting in late September. Given the time it will take to receive the (likely) FAA request for more records, the time it will take to compile requested records and schedule and receive any relevant psychiatric evaluations, and the round trip time to send those records and receive a response, it seems unlikely that the entire process could be completed by late September.
Is it possible to withdraw my application so that I can "restart" it at a later date?
No. It’s thumbs up or thumbs down.
That’s why you need to prepare ahead of the flight physical. the physical “winds the clock”.
The FAA is weird. while Doc is right, taking it “back” ain’t gonna happen, it seems a timely letter of explanation, written by a lawyer ain’t a horrible idea (think simple AOPA legal services), stating a reasonable timeline for submission that works with your schedule, should suffice.
They keep records of EVERYTHING, so that’ll be there. Can’t promise this won’t cause a hitch, but it’s unlikely. This is FAR superior to just not meeting a “deadline”. Although, they don’t seem horrible about those anyway in this context.
The FAA is weird. while Doc is right, taking it “back” ain’t gonna happen, it seems a timely letter of explanation, written by a lawyer ain’t a horrible idea (think simple AOPA legal services), stating a reasonable timeline for submission that works with your schedule, should suffice.
They keep records of EVERYTHING, so that’ll be there. Can’t promise this won’t cause a hitch, but it’s unlikely. This is FAR superior to just not meeting a “deadline”. Although, they don’t seem horrible about those anyway in this context.
Why "written by a lawyer"? Is that the famous lawyer who makes bureaucrats quake in terror when they follow standard procedures?
Not critical, just not a bad idea. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that it’ll likely be handled with a little more care. Like any administrative process, subject to simple screwups. It’s just that in the unlikely case you’re the victim of a simple mistake, they don’t care.
Will you then be required to check the BOX that asks "Have you EVER been denied"?
Can you ever get a Basic Med?
Will you then be required to check the BOX that asks "Have you EVER been denied"?
Can you ever get a Basic Med?
Do you mean Sport Pilot? Don’t you have to get a Class 3 or higher first before going to Basic Med?
This is the issue, if a denial is due only because you failed to provide paperwork because you physically could not provide it because you were say, unexpectedly sent on an undercover CIA mission overseas, should the denial be prohibitive for Sport Pilot in the same way a denial would be because you’d been found unhealthy?
Seems like the FAA should have some kind of procedure for extenuating circumstances like that.
Joined Jun 7, 2008 Messages 15,900 Location DXO124009 Display Name Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
This is the issue, if a denial is due only because you failed to provide paperwork because you physically could not provide it because you were say, unexpectedly sent on an undercover CIA mission overseas, should the denial be prohibitive for Sport Pilot in the same way a denial would be because you’d been found unhealthy?
Should? Dunno. Is? A denial is a denial. "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);" There is no except.
Seems like the FAA should have some kind of procedure for extenuating circumstances like that. It's called going back and getting the third class.
True for powered airplanes, but possibly not for gliders (or other operations not requiring a medical certificate). This depends on whether the OP can still meet the requirement of 61.53 (b) that he/she does not know of or have any reason to know of a condition which would prevent operation in a safe manner.
This is the issue, if a denial is due only because you failed to provide paperwork because you physically could not provide it because you were say, unexpectedly sent on an undercover CIA mission overseas, should the denial be prohibitive for Sport Pilot in the same way a denial would be because you’d been found unhealthy?
The denial is because you have a condition that the FAA finds disqualifying and you failed to convince it otherwise.
I believe that is there is a medical denial, the FAA deems that the pilot should have reason to know they are not qualified.
So what happens if a denial is issued due to lack of correspondence? Some of the comments here suggest a denial means one would be forever ineligible to fly, while other comments suggest simply reapplying at a later date.
So what happens if a denial is issued due to lack of correspondence? Some of the comments here suggest a denial means one would be forever ineligible to fly, while other comments suggest simply reapplying at a later date.
Are those mutually exclusive? If you don’t have a medical certificate, you cannot engage in operations requiring one. Does not matter why you were denied.
At the same time you can reapply for a medical certificate when you and the AME believe that such application will be successful.
I don’t believe the case of being denied a medical certificate for a medical reason and then flying an operation under 61.53(b) without a certificate, arguing that one does not have a condition which would prevent safe operation, has ever been adjudicated in an administrative or court case.
I suspect in a really egregious case the FAA might try and argue that the airman should have known due to the denial, but I am not aware of any actual case on this.
One of those corner cases where there is not an exact answer under current regs.
This page applies to Sport Pilot, which is one of the aircraft not requiring a medical certification. However never having had a medical and having a denied medical are two different circumstances. I submit the same logic applies to gliders, balloons and ultralights.
We ultimately concluded that, in those cases where the FAA has existing knowledge of medical ineligibility, we need the affected person to address it and, hopefully have it resolved. To meet the intent of the rule, the affected person should apply for reconsideration of their eligibility. In some denial cases, applicants simply may not have provided enough information to the FAA or may not have supplied information that the FAA may have requested.
Notably, the FAA does not differentiate between a medical deficiency and a mere failure to provide sufficient information. If you think about a pilot gaming the system, I think it's easy to understand why. Denied? Just refuse to answer and you're off the hook? Not how it works.
So what happens if a denial is issued due to lack of correspondence? Some of the comments here suggest a denial means one would be forever ineligible to fly, while other comments suggest simply reapplying at a later date.
There's no regulation that prohibits reapplying for a medical certificate at a later date. (I'd cite a regulation if there was one, but there's no way to cite the lack of a regulation.)
For either sport pilot or BasicMed, since your current application is on its way to being denied, you would need to successfully reapply for a medical certificate before you would be eligible for either of those. (Let me know if you want a citation to the regulations that cover that.)
@bflynn Yes, that is the position of the FAA provided on a web page. I don’t believe this is formally stated in a letter of interpretation or has been adjudicated.
The case of a deliberate gaming and just not answering in the face of serious medical disability would likely be a clear one. The unclear ones would be similar to some of the cases we read about here from time to time, e.g.,
Applicant for 3rd class has distant history of ADHD in childhood and was medicated for a while but it did not work and meds discontinued. Has been well otherwise since. Is denied after application submitted. Applicant does not want to spend the money on pursuing that full investigation which would be necessary. After checking with own physician that they have no reason to believe the applicant cannot safely operate an aircraft, eventually the applicant starts flying gliders.
Is the applicant operating in violation of 61.53(b)? I can see a reasonable argument that they are not.
Separate questions are whether such a case would ever be pursued by the FAA and whether the applicant would want to be a test case.
And of course when stating it’s position, a regulatory agency will almost always err on the side of expanding it’s authority. (Also, I don’t think the implications for gliders and balloons receive too much attention from the FAA when thinking through these issues. This type of aircraft is regarded as being less dangerous to others.)
For either sport pilot or BasicMed, since your current application is on its way to being denied, you would need to successfully reapply for a medical certificate before you would be eligible for either of those. (Let me know if you want a citation to the regulations that cover that.)
Can you easily cite the regs which apply this to sport pilot and BasicMed? (There is the reference to an opinion stated by the FAS linked above, but that is not a reg or LOI) Thx.
Notably, the FAA does not differentiate between a medical deficiency and a mere failure to provide sufficient information. If you think about a pilot gaming the system, I think it's easy to understand why. Denied? Just refuse to answer and you're off the hook? Not how it works.
We’re not talking about someone trying to game the system or being uncooperative. There’s a literal difference, if not an official one, between the FAA finding you not fit to fly and the FAA being undecided, hence the request for additional information.
So what you’ve done by applying is screw yourself into a denial, if by happenstance and no fault of your own, you are unable to provide the information requested during the allotted time. What if the letter from the FAA gets lost in the mail? Wait, that never happens.
And of course when stating it’s position, a regulatory agency will almost always err on the side of expanding it’s authority.
So what you’ve done by applying is screw yourself into a denial, if by happenstance and no fault of your own, you are unable to provide the information requested during the allotted time. What if the letter from the FAA gets lost in the mail? Wait, that never happens.
Sadly for the OP he has ended up in a bad place by not researching ahead of time.
They will mail him the denial by normal USPS and by certified mail. And even if he never receives those, that is considered sufficient service from a regulatory and legal perspective.
Last edited: Aug 14, 2021Can you easily cite the regs which apply this to sport pilot and BasicMed? (There is the reference to an opinion stated by the FAS linked above, but that is not a reg or LOI) Thx.
AC68-1 4.3.1. In accordance with § 61.23(c)(3)(i)(B), persons operating under BasicMed must hold or have held a valid medical certificate issued under part 67 at any point after July 14, 2006. This medical may have been a first, second, or third-class medical certificate, including any FAA medical certificate issued under an authorization for special issuance (“special issuance medical certificate”).
Does this answer your question re: Basicmed or have I misunderstood it?
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I am wondering which specific regulation says that a person whose medical certificate has been denied cannot subsequently operate an aircraft under 61.53(b), those operations which do not normally require a medical certificate. I think Basic Med is a different case and I should not have mentioned it.
Can you easily cite the regs which apply this to sport pilot and BasicMed? (There is the reference to an opinion stated by the FAS linked above, but that is not a reg or LOI) Thx.
For sport pilot privileges, it's covered in 61.303(b):
(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.
For BasicMed, in addition to the reg that TCABM cited, 61.23(c)(3)(ii) applies:
(ii) The most recently issued medical certificate—
(A) May include an authorization for special issuance;
(B) May be expired; and
(C) Cannot have been suspended or revoked.
(iii) The most recently issued Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate cannot have been withdrawn; and
(iv) The most recent application for an airman medical certificate submitted to the FAA cannot have been completed and denied.
This page applies to Sport Pilot, which is one of the aircraft not requiring a medical certification. However never having had a medical and having a denied medical are two different circumstances. I submit the same logic applies to gliders, balloons and ultralights.
You might think the same logic applies, but this is a question about why the FAA wrote the regulation that applies to Sport Pilot a certain way. The regulations that apply to gliders, balloons, and ultralights are written differently and, therefore, must be interpreted differently. If the FAA wanted to same logic to apply, the regulations would be the same.
Notably, the FAA does not differentiate between a medical deficiency and a mere failure to provide sufficient information.
The regulation concerning Sport Pilot privileges does not differentiate, but the answer you quoted does. So the FAA clearly does recognize the difference. The FAA also recognizes the difference between the Sport Pilot regs and the others. Having a denial because you failed to submit paperwork proving you no longer have, or never had, a disqualifying condition, is not the same as having a denial because you actually have a disqualifying condition. You do not need to have, have ever had, or be eligible for, a medical certificate in order to fly gliders or balloons.
Last edited: Aug 14, 2021Applicant for 3rd class has distant history of ADHD in childhood and was medicated for a while but it did not work and meds discontinued. Has been well otherwise since. Is denied after application submitted. Applicant does not want to spend the money on pursuing that full investigation which would be necessary. After checking with own physician that they have no reason to believe the applicant cannot safely operate an aircraft, eventually the applicant starts flying gliders.
Is the applicant operating in violation of 61.53(b)? I can see a reasonable argument that they are not.
No, he isn't. Moreover, he would not be in violation of 61.53(b) even if he actually has ADHD as long as it does not make him unable to operate a glider in a safe manner. There is a difference between a "medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner," and a medical condition that makes one unable to pass an FAA medical exam. IANYL, YMMV.
Thank you for a very precise set of answers which clarify the issue nicely, as noted by @Lindberg as well.
I may integrate these as well into a new FAQ item.
Thank you for a very precise set of answers which clarify the issue nicely, as noted by @Lindberg as well.
I may integrate these as well into a new FAQ item.
Since I operated under sport pilot rules for two years, and have been operating under BasicMed rules since then, I have considered myself obligated to know those rules.
No, he isn't. Moreover, he would not be in violation of 61.53(b) even if he actually has ADHD as long as it does not make him unable to operate a glider in a safe manner. There is a difference between a "medical condition that would make the person unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner," and a medical condition that makes one unable to pass an FAA medical exam. IANYL, YMMV.
Yeah, in 61.53(b), the FAA could have written ". knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for a medical certificate," but they didn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I would have to assume that there was a reason for that.
§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.
.