Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs, and conditions, legal??

I agree: it is certainly open to interpretation. 61.53 is almost
deliberately vague, which makes it harder to interpret. Remember well:
"deliberately vague" means that the FAA/NTSB gets to decide AFTER an
incident what 61.53 means, if the issue of medical status of glider pilots
ever arises.

Picture a scenario in which a glider has a mid-air with an airliner, and it
comes out later that the glider pilot (probably deceased) had a diagnosis
which certainly would have rendered him DQ, had he only asked the question.
Who wins when the FAA and NTSB sort out the cause of the accident? The
glider pilot's heirs won't get very far waving 61.53. And in these days of
CNN/MSNBC/Faux News, the court of public opinion will convict the glider
guy, and the FAA will go along with it.

Good luck to you on this issue. I choose to place a relatively conservative
interpretation on 61.53, for my own protection, and with the best interests
of the overall sport in mind.

Bullwinkle

On 6/12/04 8:23 PM, in article ,
"DL152279546231" wrote:

No. And now that I've told you that, you "have reason to know" (per 61.53)
that you shouldn't be flying. It's also the answer the FAA would give you,
if you asked.


I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot
certificate??

I have read 61.53 several times though and it seems as long as you and your
doctor feel you are safe, it does not matter if you can't get a medical
certificate because none is required. And if the new Sport Pilot liscense goes
through all that will be required medically is a driver's liscense(?)