Pazan

About 3 months ago I applied for a Second Class medical to begin flight training. I was denied due to self disclosure. I was given the option to testify asking for a reevaluation of my medical. I am currently waiting to hear back from the FAA. I am currently enrolled in ground school. No one that I know or anyone at the school has heard of a similar case. Just looking if anyone knows anyone or them selfs have been in my situation. Also wondering what my future may hold.

WesternSkies

Medical condition or Drugs?

PerfInit

To the OP, sorry to hear that. You did not give enough detail in your post for someone to be able to help you. I would assume your medical was denied due to how you answered question #18, pertaining to your medical history. Get with AOPA or your AME to see what can be done for special issuance. Some medical conditions (Per 14 CFR) are automatically disqualifying. Other conditions can be mitigated. You really need to seek expert medical advice here.

atpwannabe

To the original poster:

Make sure that the reason you were denied is not a permanent disqualifier. If it is, you will not be medically certified even if you persue the SI route.

If you do get your medical, let me know IMMEDIATELY!

Thanks.


atp

JohnBurke

You've provided no information.

Your medical was not denied due to "self disclosure." Your medical, i a "denial" has occurred, is deferred due to a condition you disclosed. If you have this condition and this condition is disqualifying, you are required to disclose it. There is no penalty for disclosure; it's required, and failure to disclose a condition means that you've made a false statement on your application, which is grounds for revocation of your medical.

No one has ever heard of a medical being deferred or denied when someone had a condition that was disqualifying? Happens all the time.

There are medical examiners who specialize in assisting airmen with special medical issues, and these may be your best bet.

What your future holds depends on the specifics of your situation, which you have withheld.

Pazan

It was for using marijuana. I was denied under faa 67.107 (b) (3)
I do not have a dependency. I am just a stupid teenager. It was in good faith seeing as I knew what I did was wrong. I did provide dates on which I last used that was within the 2 year window. Thank you all!

atpwannabe

Pazan:

As far as the FAA is concerned, you have a dependency...irrespective of how long ago it was. Sorry to hear that my friend. If you are going to pursue certification, Special Issuance is the route you will take.

Good luck to you. All the best. Blue skies!


Marcus
(atp)

JohnBurke

Dependency is irrelevant. The denial was not for dependance; it was for "misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgement relating to the substance involved."

There is a two-year window. Stop using, reapply. A bigger problem is that now the medical has been (apparently) denied. That question will come up again.

Why would you suggest that a special issuance is required? The medical has been reported by the original poster as "denied." Get a special issuance as a waiver for someone using an illegal substance? No.

Dependency is not an issue. The use of the substance is the issue.

14 CR 61.107(b) relates to "Substance abuse within the preceding two years."

Abuse is not the same as dependency.

SonicFlyer

The government is allowed to lie to you, but you're not allowed to lie to the government... funny how that works

JohnBurke

Meaning what, exactly. Where has the FAA lied to the original poster, and where is the FAA authorized to lie to the original poster about his substance abuse?

Are you trying to muddy the water, or simply steer the conversation to a dead end, and either way, how do you hope to contribute?

The original poster used illegal drugs. The regulation is explicit. There is no surprise, there are no lies, and there is no falsehood here.

Law enforcement has been permitted to use a lie to elicit a confession from a criminal suspect; this has no bearing on the original poster making a correct statement of his drug abuse, or the action of the Administrator relating to that statement.