If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Soaring on unapproved prescription drugs, and conditions, legal??
Is it legal in the US to fly gliders while taking drugs such as Prozac,
Effexor, or Lithium for depression given that a medical certificate is not required?? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. For more details, see my two responses in the other thread on bipolar/schizoaffective. Sorry. I know this isn't the answer you want, but it's the truth. Bullwinkle. On 6/12/04 3:20 PM, in article , "DL152279546231" wrote: Is it legal in the US to fly gliders while taking drugs such as Prozac, Effexor, or Lithium for depression given that a medical certificate is not required?? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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(?) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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(?) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Bullwinkle" wrote in message ... 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 Agreed. Conservatism on this issue is good council. Bill Daniels |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder if this 61.53 applies to ultralights and the upcoming Sport Pilot certificate?? It appears that 61.53 does not apply to ultralights. It looks like this was something of an oversight. 61.53 is in 2 parts. The first part says that if you have a current medical certificate then you can't use it for any flight operation where it's required if you know or have reason to know that your medical condition and/or treatment would make you unable to meet the requirements for the medical. The second part, which is supposed to cover all flight operations where a medical is not required, instead specifies that you cannot act as pilot in command of any aircraft operations listed in 61.23(b) if you know or have reason to know your medical condition makes you unable to operate the aircraft in a safe manner. 61.23(b) refers to - exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate with a glider category rating - exercising the privileges of a pilot certificate with a balloon class rating - exercising the privileges of a student pilot certificate while seeking a pilot certificate with a glider category or balloon class rating - exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a glider category rating - exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate when not serving as pilot in command or as a flight crewmember - when exercising the privileges of a ground instructor certificate - when serving as an examiner or check airman - when taking a test or check for a certificate, rating or authorization Since ultralights don't require a medical, the first part doesn't apply. Since ultralights aren't listed in 61.23(b), the second part doesn't apply. Common sense would have to apply instead, I guess. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bullwinkle wrote:
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. I can understand your response, especially given our our society's current climate of "sue anybody you think you can should anything go wrong even though you know it wasn't their fault". CYA is the smart way to go. I know *nothing* of this bipolar condition, so perhaps the correct answer is indeed "if you have it, regardless of degree or intensity and regardless of type and ammount of medication then you should not fly gliders". I *do* know quite a bit about headaches. Not by choice I can assure you. 61.53 does seem to read as DL152279546231 has indicated below: 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. Let's apply the above and its interpretation to headaches. I can tell you that there are headaches and there are *headaches* and everything in between. There is also a seemingly endless list of prescription medications that are in use to combat chronic headaches along with either very small dosages of medication or relatively large dosages of medication. If I decide that my level of headache, and the effects of my type and level of medication are such that I am "fit to fly", then what am I *required* to do per the FAA regulations? Must I seek out some sort of opinion from an MD and/or the FAA? If so, what then is the meaning of "self certification"? I would appreciate a non-CYA response. Regards, -Doug |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Btw, I thought it has already been established that there *is* no FAA list
of unapproved medications. Ergo the title of this thread is misleading. Right? Regards, -Doug |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
FAA has a section on their site called
"ask FAA" so I sent them an E-Mail I don't know if they can answer such a question, except with a conservative "no" but I asked |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
You are required to do nothing. If you decide you are fit to fly, you are fit to fly. You need not consult any doctor or any so-called medication list. The CYA naysayers here attempt to persuade others that they have the only true interpretation of the FARs. They aren't even close. Ignore them. Don't fly if you don't feel well for any reason, otherwise fly and enjoy it. Allan "Doug Hoffman" wrote in message ... Bullwinkle wrote: If I decide that my level of headache, and the effects of my type and level of medication are such that I am "fit to fly", then what am I *required* to do per the FAA regulations? Must I seek out some sort of opinion from an MD and/or the FAA? If so, what then is the meaning of "self certification"? I would appreciate a non-CYA response. Regards, -Doug |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|